Justice Department OEO 1994 guidance re: legal process for cell phone tracking

Shawn Musgrave filed this request with the Department of Justice, Criminal Division of the United States of America.

It is a clone of this request.

Tracking # CRM-300488696
Est. Completion None
Status
No Responsive Documents

Communications

From: Shawn Musgrave

To Whom It May Concern:

This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act. I hereby request the following records:

All bulletins, slide decks, training manuals or other documents produced or distributed by the Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) in 1994 regarding the legal requirements for deploying cell phone tracking devices.

Per the 2005 revision of the "ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE MANUAL: PROCEDURES and CASE LAW FORMS" (see http://www.justice.gov/criminal/foia/docs/elec-sur-manual.pdf, p46): "In 1994, the Office of Enforcement Operations opined that investigators did not need to obtain any legal process in order to use cell phone tracking devices so long as they did not capture the numbers dialed or other information "traditionally" collected using a pen/trap device. This analysis concluded that
the "signaling information" automatically transmitted between a cell phone and the provider's tower does not implicate either the Fourth Amendment or the wiretap statute because it does not
constitute the "contents" of a communication. Moreover, the analysis reasoned - prior to the 2001 amendments - that the pen/trap statute did not apply to the collection of such information because of the narrow definitions of "pen register" and "trap and trace device." Therefore, the guidance concluded, since neither the constitution nor any statute regulated their use, such devices did not require any legal authorization to operate."

Given that this FOIA is submitted in my capacity as a journalist who has covered the Justice Department extensively, I request that I be categorized as a media requester for the purpose of fees. Here is a selection of my published articles on MuckRock:

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/jan/12/how-843-lbs-seized-pot-lead-customs-and-border-pro/

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/mar/03/us-marshals-service-conceal-key-details-millions-s/

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/feb/27/while-dodging-direct-question-fbi-commits-obama-st/

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/feb/27/while-dodging-direct-question-fbi-commits-obama-st/

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/feb/12/fbi-and-justice-department-cant-find-drone-privacy/

https://www.muckrock.com/news/archives/2015/jan/22/air-force-knows-how-many-mq-9-drones-it-wants-cant/

I have also been published in a number of national media outlets on topics pertaining to national security, law enforcement and technology:

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-us-spent-360-million-on-border-drones-thanks-to-this-flimsy-report

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-air-force-says-it-needs-precisely-52-new-reaper-drones-cant-explain-why

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/do-the-fbis-drones-invade-your-privacy-sorry-thats-private

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/08/big-brother-better-police-work-new-technology-automatically-runs-license-plates-everyone/1qoAoFfgp31UnXZT2CsFSK/story.html

www.betaboston.com/news/2014/03/05/a-vast-hidden-surveillance-network-runs-across-america-powered-by-the-repo-industry/

https://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/05/nypd-social-media-policy-allows-catfishing-with-the-proper-paperwork.html

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/03/the-pentagon-finally-details-its-weapons-for-cops-giveaway

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/do-the-fbis-drones-invade-your-privacy-sorry-thats-private

https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-agent-who-killed-boston-bombing-suspects-friend-was-twice-accused-of-police-brutality

As the requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com and pertains to a matter of considerable public interest, I further request a full waiver of all fees.

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 20 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Shawn Musgrave

From: CRM FOIA

Please see the attached, which is this Office’s acknowledgement of your request. If you have any questions, please contact the FOIA/PA Unit at 202-616-0307 for further assistance.

Thank you,
FOIA/PA Unit
Criminal Division
U.S. Department of Justice

From: MuckRock.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 27, 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 #CRM-300488696.

Thank you for your help.

From: MuckRock.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 27, 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 #CRM-300488696.

Thank you for your help.

From: Sprung, Peter

Shawn,
This is to confirm today’s phone conversation regarding the following outstanding FOIA requests:
1. 300487006 – I stated that we withheld records similar to those sought in this request in ACLU-No. Cal. V. DOJ, 13-cv-3127 (N.D. Cal.). You agreed that we could close this request on the basis of that representation.
2. 300488696 – I stated that, in view of the age of the document you identified (1994) and the fact that it is no longer in use and has been superseded, it would be extremely difficult for us to locate responsive documents without an unreasonable burden. You agreed that we could close this request on the basis of that representation.
3. 300490831 – I stated that we would check whether there was a previous version of the publication identified in your request and get back to you.
Sincerely,
Peter

Peter C. Sprung
Trial Attorney
Office of Enforcement Operations
Criminal Division
1301 New York Avenue NW, 11th floor
Washington, D.C. 20007
202-305-4042 (office)
202-262-7639 (mob.)

From: Sprung, Peter

Shawn,
This is to confirm today’s phone conversation regarding the following outstanding FOIA requests:
1. 300487006 – I stated that we withheld records similar to those sought in this request in ACLU-No. Cal. V. DOJ, 13-cv-3127 (N.D. Cal.). You agreed that we could close this request on the basis of that representation.
2. 300488696 – I stated that, in view of the age of the document you identified (1994) and the fact that it is no longer in use and has been superseded, it would be extremely difficult for us to locate responsive documents without an unreasonable burden. You agreed that we could close this request on the basis of that representation.
3. 300490831 – I stated that we would check whether there was a previous version of the publication identified in your request and get back to you.
Sincerely,
Peter

Peter C. Sprung
Trial Attorney
Office of Enforcement Operations
Criminal Division
1301 New York Avenue NW, 11th floor
Washington, D.C. 20007
202-305-4042 (office)
202-262-7639 (mob.)

Files

pages

Close