Nondisclosure agreements with Harris Corp and FBI (Charlotte City Attorney)

To Whom It May Concern:

In [an October 18, 2014, article titled "Charlotte police investigators secretly track cellphones,"][1] reporter Fred Clasen-Kelly of Charlotte Observer reported that Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD) have for eight years owned and operated an IMSI catcher (also known as a cell site simulator) manufactured by Harris Corporation. Regarding a 2012 upgrade to that equipment, he reported that "[Judith] Emken, the city attorney, said nondisclosure agreements with the vendor and FBI prevent her from releasing the information."

[1]: <http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/18/4245744/charlotte-police-investigators.html>

Pursuant to North Carolina Public Records Law (G.S. §§ 132-1 through 132-10), I hereby request the following records:

* all nondisclosure agreements between CMPD and Harris Corporation
* all nondisclosure agreements between CMPD and FBI

This should include but not be limited to the nondisclosure agreements to which Ms. Emken referred.

I also request that, if appropriate, fees be waived as I believe this request is in the public interest. The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, processed by a representative of the news media/press and is made in the process of news gathering and not for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I would request your response within ten (10) business days.

Sincerely,

Phil Mocek

Dear Ms. Emken:

I received your e-mail of October 29, 2014, in which you denied in full my October 20 request for nondisclosure agreements between Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and FBI or Harris Corporation.

I request that you reconsider your decision. If your agency provides a means for administrative appeal of the outcome of a request for public records, then please consider this as my request for such.

In the aforementioned notice of denial, you claimed that "[a]ny such agreement is protected from disclosure and are not able to be released per the FBI." You cited no general or specific exemption to the North Carolina Public Records Law. FBI staff do not write law and are not authorized to exempt public records from public access. I read [North Carolina General Statute Chapter 132][1] and found no exemption that applies to the records I requested of you. I also read Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press' [North Carolina Open Government Guide][2], and found no exemption described that applies to the records I requested of you.

[1]: <http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_132.html>
[2]: <http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/ogg/NC.pdf>

I remind you that under North Carolina law (G.S. § 132-6(c)), no request for public records may be denied on the grounds that confidential information is commingled with the requested non-confidential information. All public agencies must bear the expense of separating confidential from non-confidential information.

That a private business and various law enforcement agencies collude to prevent the public from knowing about your agency's use of this invasive technology is unacceptable. That the public are prevented not only from learning about that technology but also from reading an agreement that purports to constrain the public agency from disclosing information about the technology is absurd.

To be clear: I did not on October 20 request and do not at this time requests access to records you may have agreed to refrain from disclosing by way of one or more non-disclosure agreements with FBI and/or with Harris Corporation, but rather access to the non-disclosure agreement(s) itself or themselves.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

Hello Ms. Emken,

Please accept the following request for reconsideration of the attached public records request. This message has also been sent to your office via mail.

Thank you very much for your time.

_______________

Dear Ms. Emken:

I received your e-mail of October 29, 2014, in which you denied in full my October 20 request for nondisclosure agreements between Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department and FBI or Harris Corporation.

I request that you reconsider your decision. If your agency provides a means for administrative appeal of the outcome of a request for public records, then please consider this as my request for such.

In the aforementioned notice of denial, you claimed that "[a]ny such agreement is protected from disclosure and are not able to be released per the FBI." You cited no general or specific exemption to the North Carolina Public Records Law. FBI staff do not write law and are not authorized to exempt public records from public access. I read [North Carolina General Statute Chapter 132][1] and found no exemption that applies to the records I requested of you. I also read Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press' [North Carolina Open Government Guide][2], and found no exemption described that applies to the records I requested of you.

[1]: <http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_132.html>
[2]: <http://www.rcfp.org/rcfp/orders/docs/ogg/NC.pdf>

I remind you that under North Carolina law (G.S. § 132-6(c)), no request for public records may be denied on the grounds that confidential information is commingled with the requested non-confidential information. All public agencies must bear the expense of separating confidential from non-confidential information.

That a private business and various law enforcement agencies collude to prevent the public from knowing about your agency's use of this invasive technology is unacceptable. That the public are prevented not only from learning about that technology but also from reading an agreement that purports to constrain the public agency from disclosing information about the technology is absurd.

To be clear: I did not on October 20 request and do not at this time requests access to records you may have agreed to refrain from disclosing by way of one or more non-disclosure agreements with FBI and/or with Harris Corporation, but rather access to the non-disclosure agreement(s) itself or themselves.

Cordially,
Phil Mocek

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Oct. 20, 2014. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.