Federal Judge Says The FBI Needs To Stop Playing Keepaway With Requested FOIA Processing Documents
from the the-first-rule-of-FOIA-processing-is... dept
Score one for the American public. A federal judge has reached the same conclusion many FOIA requesters have: the FBI simply doesn't play well with public records laws.
The FBI unlawfully and systematically obscured and refused to answer legitimate requests for information about how well it was complying with the Freedom of Information Act (Foia), a Washington, DC court found last week.The 63-page opinion dives deep into the FOIA exemption weeds. Moss does grant the FBI a few of its motions for summary judgment, but on the whole, he finds the FBI's responses (or lack thereof) to several disputed FOIA requests to be unjustified.
US district judge Randolph D Moss ruled in favor of MIT PhD student Ryan Shapiro, finding that the government was flouting Foia, a law intended to guarantee the public access to government records unless they fall into a protected category. Moss found that the FBI’s present policy is “fundamentally at odds with the statute”.
The documents sought by Shapiro and his co-plaintiffs (Jeffrey Stein, Truthout, National Security Counselors) deal with the FBI's FOIA response procedures. These include "search slips," which detail the FBI's efforts to locate requested documents, case evaluations (which can give FOIA requesters some insight on the application of exemptions and search efforts made by individual staffers) and other processing notes. The FBI refused to part with any of these background documents if they pertained to other denied FOIA requests.
The FBI argued that most of what it withheld fell under "law enforcement techniques and procedures," which it feels are categorically excluded from disclosure, thanks to FOIA exemption 7(e). Of course, it all depends on which court it's making this assertion in, as the clause pertaining to this exception is punctuated badly.
would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the lawIn some districts, the courts have interpreted the wording to mean these records are exempt. In other districts, the courts have read the FOIA exemption clause as meaning these documents are only exempt if the FBI can offer evidence that releasing them might compromise national security or ongoing investigations.
Judge Moss' opinion agrees with the first interpretation. In doing so, he meets the FBI halfway, which is far further than the FBI has been willing to meet the suing FOIA requesters. Even with the additional slack, the FBI still isn't living up to FOIA standards.
Moss agreed that even if individual documents were protected by that Foia exemption, the entire categories of document the FBI withholds were emphatically not. “[The FBI] concedes that the vast majority of [the records in question] are not protected at all,” he wrote. “It is only arguing that by withholding all search slips, even those not protected by Foia, it can amass a haystack in which to hide the search slips that are protected [emphasis his].”Moss is not the first DC District judge to order the FBI to explain its overuse of FOIA exemptions. In another FOIA lawsuit filed by Ryan Shapiro, Judge Rosemary Collyer found the FBI's lack of responsiveness and explanations to be problematic.
“[T]he FBI’s exercise of its statutory authority to exclude documents from Foia’s reach is not the kind of ‘technique’ or ‘procedure’” to which the necessary exemption refers, wrote Moss.
"(Shapiro) argues that FBI has not established that it actually conducted an investigation into criminal acts, specified the particular individual or incident that was the object of its investigation, adequately described the documents it is withholding under Exemption 7, or sufficiently connected the withheld documents to a specific statute that permits FBI to collect information and investigate crimes.I'm sure the FBI will challenge Judge Moss' order. It has no interest in providing additional documents to Ryan Shapiro as it's convinced the prolific FOIA filer will "trick" it into revealing stuff it doesn't want to with multiple, overlapping FOIA requests. The FBI's "mosaic theory" is being tested in court. With the claims it's made here, it clearly wants the court to reinterpret the letter of the law in its favor -- something that would move the agency even further away from the spirit of the law, which is exactly where it wants to be.
Mr. Shapiro further alleges that FBI has failed to state a rational basis for its investigation or connection to the withheld documents, which he describes as overly-generalized and not particular. On the latter point, the Court agrees."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, fbi, foia, ryan shapiro
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No punishment = No incentive to comply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
In cases of corporate malfeasance, it's been shown over and over, that most fines are simply considered as the cost of doing business. Putting managers in jail, on the other hand, DOES get their attention.
I'm quite confident that when FBI agents and their bosses start spending a month or two in jail (especially without pay) for disobeying a court order, their cavalier attitude will change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
Just have the judge hand down an order to the local law enforcement community to have them
1. start rounding up any feds that are out and about and impounding their paperwork and computers
2. secure the feds' offices and start rummaging through their records and computers, and
3. (for extra points) start prosecuting and jailing the feds for any violations of local law that might turn up in the course of those search.
How many times will that happen before the feds get the idea they have to comply, I leave as an open question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
So you see. If the crime doesn't fit the punishment, then as citizens we are responsible to overthrow a corrupt government through force exercising our 4th Amendment.
Not only is the FBI guilty of official oppression and obstruction of justice, but so is the DOJ for turning a blind eye. Including our very own commander and chief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
I agree, there may be some instances of the 'thin blue line'. But, local judges will (hopefully) not be willing to put up with too much of that kind of nonsense - it would be an offense against the dignity of the court, and 'we mustn't have that, no sir'.
This is one of those EXTREMELY rare instances where 'power corrupts' works in our favor, instead of against us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No punishment = No incentive to comply
No prosecution necessary. A judge can use contempt of court to lock anyone away forever. Problem solved. Beg for forgiveness, promise acts of contrition, and maybe we'll let you out. Let's hope knuckle-dragger didn't make you his SO before we get back to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Police Corruption
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple solution
Because that's what would happen if WE played these kinds of games with the court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or were you just spewing and not caring what anyone did with it? Thought so. No thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corruption in general
^ Remember That? So how accountable is our commander in chief? Not accountable at all because he never stepped down, he laughed the petition to impeach him off. He didn't even take it seriously. Add to all the charges stacked up against the FBI, DOJ, NSA. All appointed political officials tied to the scandal are guilty of violating our most trusted constitutional rights. And with this conclusion, it is obvious that we now have a tyrannous government. It has been for way too long (2 terms) that this BS has been going on. And somebody's got to hold the govt accountable, so if not the FBI, DOJ and our own president. Nobody's going to do anything about it unless it's us the citizens. And that basically means we have to take up the 2nd amendment and force our government to end and elect new officials with better practices on how to run this country without oppressing us. I honestly don't believe our government will ever be honest with us. And that's why we cannot trust our government or officials. So if you can't trust them. Why do we have them in office? Why do we even need them in office? Why do these agencies even exist if for the past however many decades all of them have been lying to us? We don't need them. I have made my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corruption in general
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corruption in general
No, Eisenhower's exit speech warned us it was still alive and well. That was in '61, when I was seven years old.
I'd argue it goes a lot further back than even that. We're just seeing the modern effects of it. Imperial Rome, ancient Greece, Persians, Babylon, and the Egyptian Pharaohs, and even Ethiopians and Sudanese helped with the design. That's just the west, of course. Comparable stuff was going on all over in Asia too in parallel. It's called the human condition I think.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No winners here
The FBI is playing tight, tight, tight with the rules and trying everything under the sun to keep documents from seeing the light of day in any form that means anything. Shapiro is playing loose, loose, loose with the FOIA concept and perhaps making a bigger mess than he can imagine.
What scares me about Shapiro is that his use of the FOIA borders on the ABUSE of the act, so much so that its the type of case where the law may have to change to keep him from overwhelming the government and it's agencies with what amount to nonsense requests and fishing expeditions. He's bordering on harassment, IMHO, and could potentially make it harder to get information in the future. He's basically making the FBI's case for them.
The FBI certainly are being dicks here. There is no doubt that there is plenty of material they don't want in the public eye, either it's too revealing about their methods, or perhaps will expose some dirty secrets or less than savory ways they have investigated people. Their constant attempts to hide things seems pretty much an admission of guilt.
So on one side, an agency with a guilty conscious. On the other side, a professional process abuser. No matter who wins, the potential is that we will all lose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No winners here
You appear to believe that gov't is an actual living being with rights. Weird! It's a machine we created and own and use because we hope to benefit from leveraging that power to the betterment of *our* ends. Why should anyone want to care what it thinks about it? It's just a machine!
Who created the process that Shapiro's "abusing"? Who has the power to fix that if it's being abused?
We have a right, and the duty, to ensure this Frankenstein monster we've created is working for the benefit of all, and we have the duty to ensure it's not running out of control. That's what Shapiro's trying to do. Do you believe he gains some perverse pleasure from having to do this?
You feel for that monster's sensitivities and pains? Why?!? That's pretty strange from my point of view. Check your premises. Your target acquisition software is buggy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Minimum compliance strategy
An idea I had was this: Congress sets a minimum compliance level, perhaps 90% of requests completed in 30 days, with , perhaps, responsive documents in 70% of cases.
Fail that for three successive months and the department budget is automatically reduced by 10% until compliance is achieved. With ratchet; if the department remains out of compliance for a complete budget cycle then the 10% becomes permanent and they become subject to another 10% on top of the first 10%.
When lack of compliance is kicking them in their power structure, they'll give in. And if not, well, at least our taxes will go down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I were a lawyer employed by the FBI, I'd be getting a bit nervous at this point. It sounds to me like their bosses don't think they're getting their money's worth out of them.
Yo, FBI, hire better people and train them better. High priced doesn't necessarily mean good or better, as any Grisham novel could teach you. Oversight's a good thing too. If they're getting your money, you deserve to know what they're doing and whether they're any good at it. I suspect some, at least, are slacking. All that gets you is bad PR.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
punishment = ...
But on the bright side it will be fun to see their reaction when they realize that they no longer have any right, They been demolished by the F.B.I. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]