Case Detail
| Case Title | Asian Law Caucus et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| District | Northern District of California | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| City | Oakland | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Number | 4:2008cv00842 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Filed | 2008-02-07 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Date Closed | 2008-11-24 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Judge | Hon. Claudia Wilken | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Asian Law Caucus | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Plaintiff | Electronic Frontier Foundation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Case Description | The Asian Law Caucus submitted a FOIA request to U.S. Customs and Border Protection for records concerning policies for questioning and searching travelers. The agency acknowledged receipt of the request, but after hearing nothing further from the agency, the Asian Law Caucus filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit, Litigation - Attorney's fees | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Defendant | United States Department of Homeland Security | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Documents | Docket Complaint Opinion/Order [13] Opinion/Order [16] Opinion/Order [18] Opinion/Order [24] Opinion/Order [26] Opinion/Order [30] FOIA Project Annotation: A federal court in California has ruled that the Department of Homeland Security properly claimed Exemption 2 (internal practices and procedures) and Exemption 7(E) (investigative methods and techniques) to protect information concerning questioning and inspection of travelers entering or returning to the United States. While acknowledging that the records were created for law enforcement purposes, the Asian Law Caucus and the Electronic Frontier Foundation challenged the interpretation of 7(E). The original exemption covered "techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigation or prosecutions," but in 1986 Congress added a connecting "or" and followed it with "guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law." The plaintiffs argued that the "risk of circumvention" clause applied to the entire exemption, while the agency contended it applied only to "guidelines." While Judge Claudia Wilken indicated the issue had not yet been decided by the Ninth Circuit, she decided that under either interpretation the agency had shown that the information was properly withheld. The Caucus and EFF first argued that use of watchlists was a commonly known technique and could not be protected. Wilken disagreed, noting that while watchlists might be a known technique, the procedures for further use of watchlists were not. She pointed out that "the public does not already have routine and general knowledge about any investigative techniques relating to watchlists. The public merely knows about the existence of watchlists. Knowing about the general existence of government watchlists does not make further detailed information about the watchlists routine and generally known." The plaintiffs then argued that the Privacy Act required that names and locations of systems of records containing personally-identifiable information be published in the Federal Register. This meant that either the systems were publicly known because their existence had been published or that the agency had violated the Privacy Act by failing to publish. Again, Wilken disagreed, observing that "although in some circumstances, simply withholding the names of databases would be improper, in this case, the names of the databases, reports, modules and information about the operation of watchlists appear within a context in the withheld documents such that disclosure 'could lead to circumvention of [Customs and Border Patrol] law enforcement efforts or facilitate improper access to the database for the purpose of frustrating CBP law enforcement functions.'" The Caucus and EFF challenged the withholding of topics for questioning travelers. Showing some sympathy for their argument, Wilken said "releasing the subset of topics for questioning would not permit persons to devise strategies to circumvent the law in the same way that releasing the questions themselves would." But she then added that "however, after in camera review of the documents, the Court concludes that, in this instance, releasing the specific topics for questioning could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law." The plaintiffs also argued that an interim policy had been superseded by a publicly disclosed document and that disclosure of the interim policy would no longer risk circumvention of law or regulation. Siding with the agency, Wilken pointed out that "the information in the interim policy documents reveals the scope and focus of certain law enforcement techniques, disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law."
Issues: Exemption 2 - Risk of circumvention, Exemption 7(E) - Investigative methods or techniques | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| User-contributed Documents | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Docket Events (Hide) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
