Stingray usage (Delaware State Police)

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to Delaware's Freedom of Information Act, I hereby request the following records:

1. Records regarding the State Police’s acquisition of cell site simulators, including invoices, purchase orders, contracts, loan agreements, solicitation letters, correspondence with companies providing the devices, and similar documents. In response to this request, please include records of all contracts, agreements, and communications with Harris Corporation.

2. Records regarding any arrangement or agreement between the State Police and other law enforcement agencies in Delaware to share the use of cell site simulators, or any offers by the State Police to share the use of cell site simulators with other law enforcement agencies in Delaware.

3. All requests by the Harris Corporation or any other corporation, or any state or federal agencies, to the State Police to keep confidential any aspect of the State Police’s possession and use of cell site simulators, including any non-disclosure agreements between the State Police and the Harris Corporation or any other corporation, or any state or federal agencies, regarding the State Police’s possession and use of cell site simulators.

4. Policies and guidelines of the State Police governing use of cell site simulators, including restrictions on when, where, how, and against whom they may be used, limitations on retention and use of collected data, guidance on when a warrant or other legal process must be obtained, and rules governing when the existence and use of cell site simulators may be revealed to the public, criminal defendants, or judges.

5. Any communications or agreements between the State Police and wireless service providers (including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint Nextel, and U.S. Cellular) concerning use of cell site simulators.

6. Any communications, licenses, or agreements between the State Police and the Federal Communications Commission or the Delaware Public Service Commission concerning use of cell site simulators.

7. Records reflecting the number of investigations in which cell site simulators were used by the State Police or in which cell site simulators owned by the State Police were used, and the number of those investigations that have resulted in prosecutions.

8. Records reflecting a list of all cases, with docket numbers if available, in which cell site simulators were used as part of the underlying investigation by the State Police or in which cell site simulators owned by the State Police were used as part of the underlying investigation.

9. All applications submitted to state or federal courts for search warrants or orders authorizing use of cell site simulators by the State Police in criminal investigations or authorizing use of cell site simulators owned by the State Police in criminal investigations, as well as any warrants or orders, denials of warrants or orders, and returns of warrants associated with those applications. If any responsive records are sealed, please provide documents sufficient to identify the court, date, and docket number for each sealed document.

Stingrays and other cell site simulators impersonate a wireless service provider’s cell tower, prompting cell phones and other wireless devices to communicate with them. Cell site simulators are commonly used in two ways: to collect information on all phones in a given location, or to track and locate particular phones.

The requested documents will be made available to the general public, and this request is not being made for commercial purposes.

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 look forward to receiving your response to this request within 15 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Rudenberg

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 15, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

This is a petition under the Delaware Freedom of Information Act. I request that you review my request sent to the Department of Safety and Homeland Security Division of State Police on May 15, 2015.

My request was for various records containing information about the department's cell site simulators. In a response dated June 5, 2015 Colonel Nathaniel McQueen, Jr. denied my request citing a nondisclosure agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The letter did not cite any FOIA exemptions. Since no applicable exemptions were provided in the letter and no records were released, I believe a violation of the Freedom of Information Act has occurred.

For additional context, the FBI recently told the Washington Post that the nondisclosure agreement does not prevent police departments from disclosing information about cell site simulators: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-clarifies-rules-on-secretive-cellphone-tracking-devices/2015/05/14/655b4696-f914-11e4-a13c-193b1241d51a_story.html

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response within 20 days as required by the statute.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Rudenberg

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 15, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

Katisha D. Fortune
Department of Justice

Dear Ms. Fortune:

This is a follow-up on my petition about the FOIA request I sent to the Delaware State Police on May 15, 2015.

I received your letter dated July 16, but the attachment containing a copy the July 6 DSP response was missing. Please re-send this attachment along with any other relevant correspondence at your convenience.

I also note that the statutory 20-day response timeline for my petition has elapsed, would you please provide an estimate for when an opinion will be issued?

Thank you,

Jonathan Rudenberg

Katisha D. Fortune
Department of Justice

Dear Ms. Fortune:

This is a follow-up about my petition about the FOIA request I sent to the Delaware State Police on May 15, 2015.

You received the petition on June 22, and it has now been 12 weeks since the 20-day deadline (July 12) for your response to my petition specified in 29 Del. C. § 10005(e). Would you please provide the date that I can expect an opinion?

In addition, the letter you sent to me dated July 16 was missing the attached copy of the July 6 DSP response. Please re-send this attachment along with any subsequent correspondence at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,

Jonathan Rudenberg

Katisha D. Fortune
Department of Justice

Dear Ms. Fortune:

This is a follow-up about my petition about the FOIA request I sent to the Delaware State Police on May 15, 2015.

You received the petition on June 22, and it has now been 12 weeks since the 20-day deadline (July 12) for your response to my petition specified in 29 Del. C. § 10005(e). Would you please provide the date that I can expect an opinion?

In addition, the letter you sent to me dated July 16 was missing the attached copy of the July 6 DSP response. Please re-send this attachment along with any subsequent correspondence at your earliest convenience.

Thank you,

Jonathan Rudenberg

Ms Fortune:

You may reach me at 302-212-0410.

Jonathan

Letter to DOJ.