Justice Department StingRay review memo

To Whom It May Concern:

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

The memo, directive, or other document(s) that order a review of Justice Department and component policies regarding the use of cell site simulator devices, also called IMSI catchers or StingRays.

An article published in the Wall Street Journal (see http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-will-change-stance-on-secret-phone-tracking-1430696796) quoted a number of Justice Department officials, including a spokesman: 'A Justice spokesman said the department is “examining its policies to ensure they reflect the Department’s continuing commitment to conducting its vital missions while according appropriate respect for privacy and civil liberties.”'

Given that this FOIA is submitted in my capacity as a journalist who has covered the Justice Department and StingRays 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

Hello -

I do not believe that this FOIA request should be referred to the FBI. Per all reporting and Justice Department statements on the matter, this order to review deployment of StingRays came from Justice Department policy officials and/or the Attorney General's office. The review is presented as having a cross-component scope. As such, please confirm that referring this FOIA to the FBI is an appropriate step in processing this request.

Respectfully,
Shawn Musgrave
MuckRock

Hello -

Please advise as to the status of this request. Earlier this month, I expressed concern that this request was referred to inappropriate offices.

Best,
Shawn Musgrave
Investigative reporter, MuckRock

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 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 #1328989-000.

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 May 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 #1328989-000.

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 May 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 #1328989-000.

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

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on May 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 #1328989-000.

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

Hello -

Respectfully, please read this email in its entirety to avoid going around in circles. As I have articulated in previous communications (see below, emails dated 5/7/2015 and 5/28/2015), I believe that this FOIA has been inappropriately referred to the FBI. The policy in question covers all law enforcement components of the Justice Department, and not solely the FBI.

Please respond to this inquiry regarding whether this FOIA was appropriately referred to the FBI. If I do not receive a substantive reply, I will appeal your constructive denial of this request to the Office of Information Policy.

Respectfully,
Shawn Musgrave
MuckRock

Hello -

Please advise as to the subject of FOIA EMRUFOIA102815-2, which was referred to the US Marshals. Your communication did not indicate the subject matter.

Best,
Shawn Musgrave

Hello -

I once again question whether it was appropriate to refer FOIA #EMRUFOIA102815-2 to components, given that the memo regarding StingRay policies — and the resulting change in policy — covered all Justice Department components.

Please advise as to this point specifically, rather than repeating once again that the FOIA has been referred to the FBI and USMS. I will appeal for constructive denial should your office fail to advise substantively on this matter.

Respectfully,
Shawn Musgrave

Hello -

Please read the following email in its entirety. Should I continue to receive boilerplate responses to the effect that this request has been referred to the FBI, I shall appeal for constructive denial.

As I've done before, I question whether it was appropriate to refer FOIA #EMRUFOIA102815-2 to components, given that the memo regarding StingRay policies — and the resulting change in policy — covered all Justice Department components.

Please advise as to this point specifically, rather than repeating once again that the FOIA has been referred to the FBI and/or USMS. I will appeal for constructive denial should your office fail to advise substantively on this matter by end-of-week.

Respectfully,
Shawn Musgrave

To Whom It May Concern:

This is an appeal for the partial denial of FOIA 1328989-000. I submitted a request in May 2015 seeking:

"The memo, directive, or other document(s) that order a review of Justice Department and component policies regarding the use of cell site simulator devices, also called IMSI catchers or StingRays."

In a release dated April 29, 2016, the FBI released a seven-page memo which was already available to the public, and withheld in full thirteen additional pages. In typical fashion, the FBi cited exemptions in its denial without explaining with specificity how any of the invoked exemptions was sufficient to justify withholding these additional pages. Statute and case law require the FBI to justify with specificity the invocation of exemptions to disclosure, as well as to construe such exemptions narrowly. The FBI has done neither.

In light of the FBI's failure to provide the requested documents in good faith, I request that you remand this search back to the FBI for search and disclosure of documents the release of which is squarely in the public interest.

Respectfully,
Shawn Musgrave