2014 Operation Sentry materials re: social media

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law (1977 N.Y. Laws ch. 933), I hereby request the following records:

All presentation slides, handouts and other materials from the 2014 Operation Sentry conference hosted by the NYPD in November 2014 pertaining to social media.

Per the conference description posted on the NYPD News site (see http://www.nypdnews.com/2014/11/8th-annual-operation-sentry-conference.html): "FBI Assistant Director George Venizelos speaks about counterterrorism and the use of social media at today's Operation Sentry Conference at NYPD Headquarters."

Per the Bloomberg writeup published the day after the conference: "Yesterday’s Operation Sentry program featured presentations about the growing sophistication of recruiting efforts by jihadist groups through social media"

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 look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Shawn Musgrave

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 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:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thank you for your help.

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on Feb. 5, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-1511.

Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.

To Whom It May Concern:

This is an appeal of the blanket rejection for 2015-PL-1511. As the NYPD FOIL office has done for dozens of my requests, it has inappropriately invoked a handful of exemptions without sufficiently indicating how any applies to the records in question. Nor does the NYPD FOIL office's rejection letter address why the requested documents must be withheld in full, rather than partially redacted.

On 02/05/2015, I requested the following records: All presentation slides, handouts and other materials from the 2014 Operation Sentry conference hosted by the NYPD in November 2014 pertaining to social media.

An NYPD press released published on the NYPD News site (see http://www.nypdnews.com/2014/11/8th-annual-operation-sentry-conference.html) describes the conference, making specific note the topic and its hosting at NYPD headquarters: "FBI Assistant Director George Venizelos speaks about counterterrorism and the use of social media at today's Operation Sentry Conference at NYPD Headquarters."

In the attached letter dated 10/15/2015, the NYPD FOIL office invokes the standard, template slate of exemptions that Lt. Richard Mantellino cites for virtually all requests that pass through his desk: 87(2)(e)(iv); 87(2)(f); 87(2)(e)(i); 87(2)(g). None holds up for the documents in question, nor to withhold these documents in full.

Foremost, this request encompasses all materials prepared for presentation at the Operation Sentry conference in November 2014. As these materials were presented, the "intra-agency / inter-agency" exemption (87(2)(g)) is entirely inappropriate. This exemption is meant to protect "pre-decisional" documents, whereas these documents were finalized for presentation in a conference that was announced by the NYPD itself in a press release.

The law enforcement exemptions may apply in part to certain presentation documents. However, Lt. Mantellino fails to articulate why his office cannot redact such materials as might reveal non-routine techniques, or else might interfere with law enforcement investigations, in part and release the remainder of materials prepared for the conference.

Finally, Lt. Mantellino persists in invoking one of the most dire exemptions, 87(2)(f), which covers materials the release of which might endanger lives. It is contrary to the intent of this exemption, as well as to common sense itself, for 87(2)(f) to be Lt. Mantellino's pet exemption. Its invocation is absurd in this circumstance, given, again, that the requested materials were presented at a conference. Any materials whose release might endanger lives should not have been presented at such a conference.

In light of the above inappropriate handling of this request, I ask that you remand this FOIL back to the NYPD FOIL office for a good faith search and provision of responsive documents. I further ask that you remind the NYPD FOIL office of its legal obligations to process FOIL requests in light of sensible interpretations of the statute, exemptions and case law, and to cease its pattern and practice of using template rejections in ridiculous fashion. To continue in the NYPD FOIL office's current mode invites litigation, and makes a mockery of the FOIL process itself.

Respectfully,
Shawn Musgrave
MuckRock