Documents on Ghost Guns and Related Statistics

Date: December 23, 2023

New York Police Department Records Access Unit
One Police Plaza, Room 110-C
New York, NY 10038

Attn: FOIA Officer

Subject: Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – Documents on Ghost Guns and Related Statistics

Dear FOIA Officer,

Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, I hereby assert my legal right to request access to and copies of all records held by the New York Police Department pertaining to the tracking, monitoring, and investigation of ghost guns from January 1, 2019, through the date this request is processed. This request specifically emphasizes activities related to Defense Distributed and thegatalog.

For the purpose of this request, I am seeking the following detailed records:

1. Internal Memos and Communications:
• Any internal memos, emails, or communications discussing the identification, tracking, or handling of ghost guns within the NYPD during the specified period.
• Correspondence related to Defense Distributed and their impact on the proliferation of ghost guns.
• Communication regarding any collaborations or information sharing with federal agencies, such as the ATF or FBI, on ghost gun-related matters.
2. Investigative Reports and Cases:
• All documents related to investigations or cases conducted by the NYPD involving ghost guns from January 1, 2019, through the date this request is processed.
• Specifically, information on cases associated with Defense Distributed and any links to thegatalog.
• Reports detailing the outcomes of investigations, including arrests made, charges filed, and any convictions related to ghost gun activities.
3. Policies and Guidelines:
• Copies of policies, guidelines, or procedures implemented by the NYPD in response to the increased prevalence of ghost guns during the specified period.
• Any directives related to Defense Distributed and efforts to address the challenges posed by ghost guns.
• Information on the training provided to law enforcement officers regarding the identification and handling of ghost guns.
4. Technology and Tools:
• Documentation on any specialized technology or tools employed by the NYPD for the detection and tracking of ghost guns from January 1, 2019, through the date this request is processed.
• Records pertaining to partnerships or collaborations with private entities, including tech companies, for the development or use of tools related to ghost gun prevention.
5. Statistics on Confiscations and Arrests:
• Comprehensive statistics on confiscations of ghost guns by the NYPD during the specified period.
• Data on arrests made by the NYPD in relation to ghost guns, specifying charges filed and outcomes.

To reiterate, the NYPD has a legal obligation under the FOIA to conduct a thorough search for all responsive records. This obligation is supported by case law, including but not limited to:

• National Security Archive v. U.S. Department of Defense (2004):
• This case establishes the principle that agencies must conduct comprehensive searches and cannot rely on overly broad or restrictive interpretations of FOIA exemptions.
• Dow Jones & Co. v. Department of Justice (1986):
• This case underscores the obligation of agencies to make a good-faith effort to search for responsive records and provides guidance on the scope of such searches.

In accordance with these legal precedents, I request that the NYPD take all necessary measures to ensure a thorough and diligent search for the requested records. Any failure to do so would constitute a violation of FOIA obligations.

Should any portion of the requested records be deemed exempt from disclosure, I request the release of any reasonably segregable non-exempt portions in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 552(b). If an entire document is exempt, I request a detailed justification, citing specific FOIA exemptions, and provision of an exemption log as per Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

Please adhere to your obligation under the law not to destroy any records potentially responsive to this request. Any withholding, redaction, or destruction of responsive records without proper justification constitutes a violation of the FOIA and is subject to litigation, as confirmed in Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 150 (1980).

Enclosed is a letter requesting a fee waiver for the processing of this request. As an independent investigative journalist associated with TransparencyReport.pw, I firmly believe that the information I seek is in the public interest, and its disclosure contributes significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government.

If the enclosed waiver is not accepted, and there are any potential charges in excess of $200 associated with fulfilling my request, please inform me in advance.

As stipulated by the FOIA, I look forward to your response within twenty business days (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(i)).

Thank you for your thorough attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
TransparencyReport.pw
Email: Jordan@Lassiter.eu

Enclosure: Fee Waiver Request Letter

Please be aware: All communications related to this request, including incoming and outgoing communications, will be publicly available on MuckRock.com. Additionally, any correspondence in relation to this request will be instantly published on the platform.

**New York Police Department Records Access Unit**
**One Police Plaza, Room 110-C**
**New York, NY 10038**
**Attn: FOIA Officer**

**RE: Formal Appeal of FOIL Request Denial – Documents on Ghost Guns and Related Statistics (FOIL #2024-056-12595 and #2023-056-30666)**

Dear FOIA Officer,

I am writing to formally appeal the denial and handling of my Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request as outlined above. The original request was filed on December 23, 2023, and the subsequent denial was issued on May 13, 2024.

**Basis for Appeal**

This appeal challenges the NYPD’s compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) and established judicial precedents mandating exhaustive and transparent records search and disclosure:

1. **Failure to Conduct Adequate Search**
Per **National Security Archive v. U.S. Department of Defense**, 880 F.2d 1381 (D.C. Cir. 1989), agencies are compelled to perform an adequate search for documents, tailored to uncover all pertinent documents. The administrative closure of my request suggests a procedural deficit, either in the scope or execution of the search, contravening this mandate.

2. **Non-Adherence to Good-Faith Standards**
As determined in **Dow Jones & Co. v. Department of Justice**, 917 F.2d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1990), there is an obligation for agencies to demonstrate good faith in processing FOIA requests. The premature closure of my request, categorized as a duplicate, without substantial examination or justification, reflects a departure from these established good-faith standards.

3. **Presumption in Favor of Disclosure**
According to **Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts**, 492 U.S. 136, 151 (1989), there is a presumption in favor of access to government documents. The NYPD’s denial, absent a compelling, specific justification, appears to contravene this fundamental FOIA principle.

4. **Inadequate Justification for Withholding Documents**
**NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.**, 421 U.S. 132 (1975), asserts that any denial of FOIA requests must be accompanied by a detailed justification, linking specific exemptions to the withheld documents. The response to my request lacks such detailed justification, undermining the statutory requirements.

**Demand for Compliance and Re-evaluation**

In light of these points, I demand a comprehensive re-evaluation of my request, ensuring adherence to FOIA’s rigorous standards. Non-compliance will compel me to initiate further legal action, potentially including litigation, to enforce statutory rights under FOIA and related case law.

**Conclusion and Urgent Call for Action**

Please address this appeal as prescribed by 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(A)(ii), which necessitates a response within twenty business days. Any delay must be substantiated with a credible, detailed explanation.

Thank you for your immediate attention to this critical matter. I expect your prompt and positive resolution to reaffirm the principles of transparency and accountability that are fundamental to our democratic governance.

Yours sincerely,

Jordan Lassiter
Independent Investigative Journalist
TransparencyReport.pw
Email: Jordan@Lassiter.eu