STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT

. At a Special Term of the Supreme
Court, State of New York, at the
courthouse in Buffalo, New York on
the 17 day of /f/llfcr/('
,2015
COUNTY OF ERiE

In the Matter of
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
Petition~r,

I
DECISION and JUDGMENT

v.
INDEX NO. 2014/000206
ERIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OF'FICE,
Respondent,
For a Judgment Pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules.

APPEARANCES:

JOHN NED LIPSITZ, ESQ., MARIKO HIROSE, ESQ., and
ROBERT HODGS0r-.J, ESQ., for Petitioner
.ANDREA SCHILLACI, ESQ., for Respondent

PAPERS CONSIDERED:

the NOTICE OF PETIT[ON, the VERIFIED PETITION, the
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT.OF VERIFIED
PETITION, and the AFFIRMATION OF MARIKO HIROSE[.
ESQ.,] IN SUPPORT OF VERIFIED PETITION, with annexed
exhibits; .
the VERIFIED ANSWER TO PETITION;
the AFFIRMATION [of Andrea Schillaci, Esq.] IN OPPOSITION
TO PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR ARTICLE 78 RELlEF,_
with annexed exhibits, including the untitled affidavit of Bradley S.
Morrison and the untitled affidavit of John W. Greenan;
the MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO
PETITIONER'S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF PURSUANT TO
ARTICLE 78 OF THE CIVIL PRACTICE LAW AND RULES;
the reply AFFIRMATION OF NATHAN WHISTLER[.
annexed exhibits;
the reply,AFFIRMATION
exhibits;

ESQ.], with

OF Mariko Hirose[. Esq.], with annexed

the REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF

 VERIFIED PETITION; and
.1

the unredacted documents submitted for the Court's in camera
review under cover letters of February 19 and March 13, 2015.

THE PARTIES AND THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING:
Petitioner is the New York Civil Liberties Union. Respondent is the Erie County's
Sheriff's Office. By this proceeding, which was brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 in
November 2014, petitioner nominally challenges respondent's initial complete denial in July
2014 of petitioner's FOIL request for documents relating to respondent's acquisition and use of
a "Stingray" device. As recent circumstances have overtaken the pleadings, however, the
proceeding actually seeks judicial review of respondent's subsequent qualified or limited

,

granting of such request in January 2015) .
THE BACKGROUND:
The Stingray, which is manufactured by Harris Corporation, a Florida-headquartered
electronics firm, is an electronic surveillance device originally developed for military uses but
now increasingly in the arsenal of civilian law enforcement agencies.

Indeed, the Court is led to

believe that use of the device maY' be an important tool of law enforcement agencies in a wide
range of missions that include investigating crimes, apprehending suspects and fugitives,
rescuing crime victims, locating missing persons, ~nd assisting citizens in distress.
The Stingray device is a cell site simulator.

It and like devices are designed to mimic a

cell phone tower in a way that enables the device's user to target and locate cell phones ..
Typically, before resorting to use of the device, the law enforcement agents will have obtained
information that a particular person's cell phone has a particular connection to a certain criminal
investigation or public safety issue, and will have inferred that ascertaining the precise location
of that cell phone might likewise reveal the location of the subject criminal suspect, victim,

2

 missing person, or person in distress.

From the wireless carrier that provides service to that

cell phone, the law enforcement officials then typically obtain the phone number and the
electronic serial number or identifier that are uniquely assigned to that cell phone and by or
through which the wireless carrier typically communicates with that phone, specifically with
respect to geo-Iocation.

The law enforcement agents might typically also obtain from the

wireless carrier the location of the permanent cellular tower or towers with which that phone
usually communicates or perhaps most recently has communicated,

and they might also learn

within what general radius and from which direction that cell phone usually communicates

or

recently has communicated with such cell phone tower or towers: Where usual or recent.
communication has been with multiple towers near one another, the likely origination area can
be more closely delineated by triangulation.
Then, such information is inputted into the device, which can be transported in an
aircraft or vehicle or hand-carried by the law enforcement officer to the area where the cell
phone usually is or most recently was used or located. When the device is brought within some
. range of the cell phone, the device simulates the cell phone tower in such a way that the geolocation signals and other communications. that otherwise would have passed between the cell
phone and that tower are now diverted to or through the device, i.e., the ersatz tower. By
means of range and directionality information displayed on the device's map overlay in real
time, the user can approximate the current location of the cell phone and move toward it. As
the device is moved closer to the cell phone being tracked, that phone's disclosed location
becomes less and less approximate until, eventually, the phone's whereabouts

may be

relatively pinpointed in a particular public place or behind a particular door.
As the Court understands the wor1<ingsof the device, the cell phone must be "on,"with
some battery life remaining, in order to be located and tracked by the device, but a call need

3

 not be in progress.

However, as the Court understands things, besides displaying the

existence and location of the targeted cell phone in an area, the device simultaneously collects
and displays information concerning the existence and location of other cell phones being used
nearby on at least that wireless network. Apparently such tracking information can be stored
with the help of the device for future review and analysis.

Evidently, cell site simulators also

can be used to ascertain telephone calling information, such as the time of, the location from
which, and the number of the call, and the device apparently allows for storage of that kind of
information also for future review and analysis.

(The record is not definitive concerning whether

cell site simulators in general, and the Stingray or other like products of the Harris Corporation
in particular, can be used to monitor the content of cell phone conversations

or texts.)

Clearly, even apart from any concerns about the "dragnet" or general search capabilities
of the device, its employment by law enforcement officers to acquire information of the
foregoing type, even if not especially within the context of a targeted criminal investigation, has
implications under the Fourth Amendment and its New York analog, .and also under federal or
state statutes, such as those set forth in CPL articles 700 and 705, governing the issuance of
electronic surveillance warrants and pen register and trap and trace orders, respectively.

The

United States Justice Department is apparently of the view, as are some other law enforcement
agencies, civil liberties advocates, and courts, that at the very least a pen register or trap and
trace order must be obtained before a cell site simulator may be used to "ping" and thereby
approximate the location of a particular cell phone and certainly before ascertaining any calling
information (I.e., apart from the content of communications,
an eavesdrop warrant).

the capture of which would require

Further, it may be the case that, depending on the circumstances

(such as the existence or non-existence of exigent circumstances),

the probable cause and the

warrant requirements of the Fourth Amendment may have to be satisfied before law

4

 enforcement agencies may lawfully engage in real-time mobile tracking of a particular cell
phone to an extent that pinpoints the phone's location within a home or other private place.
THE FOIL REQUEST AND THE RESPONSE(S) THERETO:
All of the foregoing is background explaining petitioner's interest in the particular
information that it seeks from respondent.

That request for documents or public "records" was

made pursuant to article 6 of the Public Officers law, known as the Freedom of Information
law (or FOil).

That request was dated June 16, 2014 and sought eight categories of records,

as follows:
"1. Records regarding the Sheriffs Office's acquisition of cell site simulators,
including invoices, purchase orders, contracts, loan agreements, solicitation
letters, correspondence with companies providing the devices, and similar
documents. In response to this request, please include records of all contracts,
agreements, and communications with Harris Corporation.
2. All requests by the Harris Corporation or any other corporation, or any state
or federal agencies, to the Sheriff's Office to keep confidential any aspect of the
Sheriff's Office's possession and use of cell site simulators, including any
non-disclosure agreements between the Sheriff's Office and the Harris
Corporation or any other corporation, or any state or federal agencies, regarding
the Sheriff's Office's possession and use of cell site simulators.
3. Policies and guidelines of the Sheriff's Office governing use of cell site
simulators, including restrictions on when, where; how, and against whom they
may be used, limitations on retention and use of collected data, guidance on
when a warrant or other legal process must be obtained, and rules governing
when the existence and use of cell site simulators may be revealed to the public,
criminal defendants, or judges.
4. Any communications or agreements between-the Sheriff's Office and wireless
service providers (including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint Nextel, and U.S.
Cellular) concerning use of cell site simulators.
5. Any communications, licenses, or agreements between the Sheriff's Office
and the Federal Communications Commission or the New York State Public
Service Commission concerning use of cell site simulators ..
6. Records reflecting the number of investigations in which cell site simulators
were used by the Sheriff's Office or in which cell site simulators owned by the
Sheriff's Office were used, and the number of those investigations that have
resulted in prosecutions.

5

 7. Records reflecting a list of all caSes, with docket numbers if available, in
which cell site simulators were used by the Sheriff's Office as part of the
underlying investigation or in which cell site -simulators owned by the Sheriff's
Office were used as part of the underlying investigation.
8. All applications submitted to state or federal' courts for search warrants or
orders authorizing use of cell site simulators by the Sheriff's Office in criminal
investigations or authorizing use of cell site simulators owned by the Sheriffs'
Office, as well as any warrants or orders, denials of warrants or orders, and
returns of warrants associated with those applications. If any responsive records
are sealed, please provide documents sufficient to identify the «ourt, date, and docket number for e,
'By letter'dated July 6,2014, respondent denied the FOIL request in its entirety for the
following reasonS:
"1. If disclosed it would result in an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
2. Are trade secrets or are submitted to an agency by a commercial enterprise
and if disclosed would cause substantial injury to the competitive position of the
subject enterprise.
3. Identify a confidential source or disclose confidential information relative to a
criminal investigation.,
4. Reveal criminal investigativ~ techniques.
5. Could if disclosed endanger the life and safety of a person.
6. Are inter-agency or infra-agency communications.
7. If disclosed would jeopardize the agency's capacity to guarantee the security
of information technology assets.
8. The agency is not is possession of item that you requested."
The agency's letter did not correlate any particular reason or reasons for the denial with any
particular one among the eight distinct requests for records made by petitioner.

Upon the _

return of the petition, the Court was told that all eight reasons for denial pertained to each of the
eight requests, which of course could never have made any sense, and certainly makes no
sense in light of subsequent disclosures.

The letter advised petitioner. of its right to appeal, a

right that petitioner exercised by letter dated July 22, 2014. Respondent admits receiving the

6

 , letter of appeal and failing to respond to it.
Petitioner commenced this proceeding by the filing of the verified petition on November
18,2014, challenging the denial of its Fall

request. In particular, petitioner complains about

respondent's failure to search for records (or certify that it had conducted s,uch a search), to
produce responsive records, and to respond to requests for records with particularized reasons
for 'any denials. The petition requests a judgment directing Tespo'ndent to comply with its duties
under Fall

by searching for and disclosing the records sought, and awarding petitioner

reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs pursuant to FOIL
By its verified answer dated January 19, 2015, respondent generally denies any violation
of its duties under Fall

and seeks the denial/dismissal of the petition.

On the same day it

drafted its answer, however, respondent belatedly made some disclosures to petitioner and the
Court, attaching 21 pages, comprising four documents or groupings of documents, to an e-mail'
sent by respondent's counsel to petitioner's counsel. Respondent simultaneously

appended

those pages to the affidavit of respondent's counsel submitted in response to the petition and in
support of a request for its dismissal.

The first three pages turned over <;Itthat juncture are

three single-page "Purchase Order[s]" by which respondent requisitioned the purchase of a
Kingfish system, a Stingray system, and the proprietary software for each, as well as training
classes, from the Harris Corporation on three different dates in 2008 and 2012 for a total price
of about $350,000.

On the 12/12/2008 purchase order, two evidently descriptive words or

phrases are redacted from respondent's disclosure; on the 06/08/2012 purchase order (which
later was "cancelled"), one descriptive phrase, one historical phrase, and three figures (i.e.,
price data) are redacted; and on the 12/~8/2012 purchase order, one historical phrase is
redacted. The Court has been furnished with unredacted copies of ,the 2012 purchase orders,

'The Court has not seen that cover email.

7

 but not of the 2008 purchase order (ihe original unredacted version of that having been
routinely discarded pursuant to the County's records retention policy, according to respondents'

.

.

counsel).
The fourth page turned over to petitioner on January 19th is a June 5, 2012 letter by a
representative of Harris Corporation to the Erie County Sheriff, which letter basically advertised
the sale of certain of the equipment and software in question.

That document was somewhat

heavily redacted. The Court has been provided with an unredacted version, which shows that
the redactions are of product trade names and cursory references to the devices' purpose,
features, and capabilities, as well as of the identity and phone number of the letter writer.
The next item disclosed by respondent at that time is an eleven-page document entitled
"Harris Government Communication

System Division Terms and Conditions of Sale for

Wireless Equipment, Software and Services, Effective date: June 25,2012."

That document

was disclosed in unred~cted form, and thus the Court will not further address it.
Finally, the last document belatedly turned over or disclosed on January 19, 2015 is the
June 29, 2012 letter from a certain FBI agent to various officers of respondent.
letter constitutes a "non-disclosure

The six-page

agreement" extracted from the Sheriff's Office by the FBI as

a condition of the former's acquiring and using the cell site simulator.

The letter turned over to

petitioner is redacted of all but its heading, preamble, first paragraph, and signature page. The
Court has been provided with an unredacted copy of that document, the gist of which is more.
fully addressed infra ..
On January 22, 2015, counsel for petitioner wrote counsel for respondent, seeking
clarification of respondent's position with regard to the aforementioned

redactions from the

documents turned over to petitioner on January 19th. Opposing counsel responded by letter of
J~nuary 26, 2015, basically setting forth respondent's eventual and ostensibly current position

8

 with regard to the particular disclosures and redactions from disclosure previously made by
respondent on January 19th in response to each specific item of the FOIL request, as well as
with regard to the complete withholding of certain documents responsive to that request.
Obviously, the new position differs notably from the position set forth in respondent's answer
and other formal legal papers, by which respondent initially purported to defend the complete
denial of the FOIL request.

Given the January 26th letter's sharpening effect upon the issues

raised in this proceeding, the Court sets forth that letter in its virtual entirety, as follows:
"1. Records regarding the Sheriff's Office acquisition of cell site simulators,
including invoices, purchase orders, contracts, loan agreements, solicitation
letters, correspondence with companies providing the devices and similar
documents. In response to this request, please include records of all contracts,
agreements and communications with Harris Corporation.
RESPONSE: Respondent has identified Purchase Orders no. 4600005905, 4500028732,
4500031273; correspondence from Harris Corporation to the Erie County Sheriff dated June 5,
2012: and Harris Government Communications Systems Division Terms and Conditions of Sale
for Wireless Equipment, Software and Services with an effective date of June 25, 2012 as
documents responsive to this request. These documents were originally requested by and
produced to The Buffalo News in redacted form. Copies of these documents were also
provided to Petitioner under cover of correspondence dated January 19, 2015. Redactions
were warranted as portions of these documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public
Officers Law ~87(2)(e )(i, iii and iv), Public Officers Law ~87(2)(g), 22 C.F.R. ~ 121.1, 22 C.F.R.
Parts 120-130, 22 U.S.C. ~ 2778, and Executive Order 1363.
2. All requests by the Harris Corporation or any other corporation or any state or
federal agencies, to the Sheriff's Office to keep confidential any aspect of the
Sheriff's Office's [possession and use of cell site simulators, including any
non-disclosure agreements] between the Sheriff's Office and the Harris
Corporation or any other corporation, or any state or federal agencies, regarding
the Sheriff's Office possession and use of cell site simulators.
RESPONSE: Respondent has identified Harris Government Communications Systems Division
Terms and Conditions of Sale for Wireless Equipment, Software and Services with an effective
date of June 25,2012 and the Confidentiality Agreement between the ECSO and the FBI as
documents responsive to this request. These documents were provided to Petitioner, without
and with redaction respectively, under cover of correspondence dated January 19, 2015.
Redactions were warranted as portions of these documents are exempt from disclosure
pursuant to Public Officers Law ~87(2)(e )(i, iii, and iv), Public Officers Law ~87(2)(g), 22 C.F.R.
~ 121.1, 22 C.F.R. Parts 120-130, 22 U.S.C. ~ 2778, and Executive Order 1363.
3. Policies and guidelines of the Sheriff's Office governing use of cell site

9

 simulators, including restrictions on when, where, how, and against whom they
may be used, limitations on retention and use of collected data, guidance on
when a warrant or other legal process must be obtained, and rules governing
when the existence and use of cell site simulators may be revealed to the public,
criminal defendants, or judges.
RESPONSE: Respondent has conducted a good faith search and responsive documents were
identified. These documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law
~87(2)(e )(i, iii and iv), Public Officers Law ~87(2)(g), 22 C.F.R. ~ 121.1, 22 C.F.R. Parts
120-130,22 U.S.C. ~ 2778, and Executive Order 1363.
4. Any communications or agreements between the Sheriff's Office and wireless
service providers including AT&T, IT-Mobile,) Verizon, Sprint Nextel, and U.S.
Cellular governing the cell site simulators.
RESPONSE: Respondent has conducted a good faith search and no responsive documents
were identified.
5. Any communications, licenses, or agreements between the Sheriff's Office
and the Federal Communications Commission or the New York State Public
Service Commission concerning use of cell site simulators.
RESPONSE: Respondent has conducted a good faith search and no responsive documents
were identified.
6. Records reflecting the number of investigations in which cell site simulators
were used by the Sheriff's Office, or in which cell site simulators owned by the
Sheriff's Office were used, and the number of those investigations that have
resulted in prosecutions.
RESPONSE: Respondent has conducted a good faith search and responsive documents were
identified. These documents are exempt from disclosure pursuant to Public Officers Law
~87(2)(e )(i, iii and iv), Public Officers Law ~87(2)(g), 22 C.F.R. ~ 121.1,22 C.F.R. Parts 120130,22 U.S.C. ~ 2778, and Executive Order 1363.
7. Records reflecting a list of all cases, with docket numbers if available, in which
cell site simulators were used by the Sheriff's Office as part of the underlying
investigation or in which cell site simulators owned by the Sheriff's Office were
used as part of the underlying investigation.
RESPONSE: Respondent has conducted a good faith search and no responsive documents
were identified.
8. All applications submitted to state or federal courts for search warrants or
orders authorizing use of the cell site simulators by the Sheriff's Office in criminal
investigations or authorizing use of cell site simulators by the Sheriff's Office, as
well as any warrants or orders, denials of warrants or orders, and returns of
warrants associated with those applications. If any responsive records are

10

 sealed, please provide documents sufficient to identify the court, date, and
docket number for each sealed document.
RESPONSE: Respondent has conducted a good faith search and no responsive documents
were identified."
:
. .
.
To recapitulate, in response to the first two of the eight requests, respondent has now
disclosed to petitioner the existence of four documents, an~ has disclosed those documents,
albeit with redaction of portions of three of the four. With respect to requests nos. 3 and 6,
respondent has acknowledged the existence of responsive documents, but has neither
described not otherwise identified those documents nor turned over any part of them to
petitioner, instead merely submitting the documents to this Court for its in camera review.
Otherwise, respondent has denied the existence of any documents responsive to FOI l
requests nos. 4, 5, 7,.and 8. It must be noted that in citing the various federal sources of law as
justifications for withholding or redacting certain documents, the reformulated position of
respondent, as set forth in the January 26th letter, effectively sets forth the FOil exemption
codified at Public Officers law

S 89

(2) (a), which exemption was not invoked by respondent in

its July 6th letter (the Court nevertheless will address that FOil exemption).
Submitted to the Court in camera, as mentioned supra, are unredacted versions of the
two 2012 purchase orders, the June 5, 2012 letter of Harris Corporation, and the' June 29, 2012 ,
letter/non-disclosure

agreement between the FBI and respondent.

Also included in the in-

camera submission but not previously mentioned, except by implication ih the January 26th
response to request no. 3 (seeking records of respondent's policies and guidelines), is aJune
11, 2014 e-mail from one higher-up of respondent to three underlings, to which e-mail is
attached a June 11, 2014 two-page "Memorandum" setting forth respondent's "Cellular
Tracking Procedures."

The nature and con!ents of that email and policy Memorandum are

addressed infra.

11

~.

 Also submitted in camera and not previously mentioned, except implicitly in the January
26th response to petitioner's sixth request (for records of investigations involving use of the cell
site simulator), is a 47-page set of documents.

Each such page constitutes a "Complaint

Summary Report" or "Complaint Information" report recording an instance between May 1, 2010
and October 3, 2014 in which the Sheriff's Office's cell site simulator was used to track a
cellular phone. Most of those reports set forth or suggest that the cellular tracking was carried
out for the purpose of criminal investigation, i.e., to locate a suspect or fugitive or even a crime
victim. At least four of the reports, however, recite that the reason for the cellular .tracking was
to locate a'missing person or a potentially suicidal person. A number of the documents do not
reveal the precise purpose of the cell phone tracking.

Most of the documents recite or suggest

that, in conducting the cell phone tracking, respondent was assisting another law enforcement
agency at the latter's request.

Some but by no means all of the documents recite the name

and/or phone number of the person being tracked. Just one of the reports - the most recent
one, in fact - mentions the obtaining of a pen register or other judicial order as a predicate for
engaging in the cellular tracking.
THE LAW:
"The Legislature enacted FOIL to provide the public with a means of access to
governmental records in order to encourage public awareness and understanding

of and

,
participation in government and to discourage official. secrecy" (Matter of Alderson v New York
State Call. of Agric, & Life Sciences at Cornell Univ" 4 NY3d 225, 230 [2005] [internal quote'
marks and citation omitted]; see Perez v City Univ. of New York, 5 NY3d 522, 528 [2005]
[holding that FOIL guarantees "[t]he people's right to know the process of governmental
decision-making and to review the documents ...
Officers Law ~ 84 ["(G)overnment

leading to determinations"];

see also Public

is the public:s business and ... the public ...

12

should have

 access to the records of government in accordance with the provisions of (FOIL)"]).

To those

ends, FOIL imposes a broad duty on government to make its records available to the public
(see Public Officers Law!l 84 [legislative declaration]; see also Matter of Gould v New York City
Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 274-275 [1996]). It is thus well settled that all records of a public
agency are presumptively available for public inspection under FOIL, unless the documents in
question fall squarely within one of the eight narrow exemptions to disclosure set forth in Public
Officers Law !l 87 (2) (see Matter of Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v Burns, 67 NY2d .
562, 566 [1986]; Matter of M. Farbman & Sons v New York City Health & Hasps. Corp., 62
NY2d 75, 79-80 [1984]; Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d 567, 571 [1979]),

Moreover, in

order that open government and public accountability be promoted, "FOIL is to be liberally
construed and its exemptions narrowly interpreted so that the public is granted maximum
. access to the records of government" (Matter of Capital Newspapers v Whalen, 69 NY2d 246,
252; see Buffalo News, Inc. v Buffalo Enterprise Dev. Corp. (84 NY2d 488, 492 [1994]; Matter
of Russo v Nassau County Community Call., 81 NY2d 690, 697 [1993]). An agency that seeks
to withhold documents or portions thereof pursuant to one or more of the statutory exemptions
must articulate a "particularized and specific justification" for not disclosing requested
documents and moreover must "make a particularized showing that a statutory exemption
applies to justify nondisclosure" (Gould, 89 NY2d at 273, 275). "[T]he burden rest[s] on the
agency to demonstrate that the requested material indeed qualifies for exemption.
where the material requested falls squarely within ...

. .. [O]nly

one of these statutory exemptions may

disclosure be withheld" (Gould, 89 NY2d at 274-275 [internal quotation marks and citations
ornitted]). A conclusory contention that .an entire category of documents is exempt will not
suffice; evidentiary support for that position is required (see Matter of Washington Post Co. v
New York State Ins. Dept., 61 NY2d 557, 567 [1984]).

13

In other words, "blanket exemptions for

  

particular types of documents are inimical to FOIL's policy of open government? (Gould, 89

at 274,'citing Capitaf Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp., 67iNY2d at 569)?. Moreover, ?just
as promises of confidentiality by the [agency] do not affect the status of documents as records,
neither do they affect the applicability of any exemption? (Washington Post 61 at



567). ?If the court is unable to determine whether withheld documents fall entirely within the

scope of the asserted exemption, it should conduct an in camera inspection of [the] documents

and order disclosure of all nonexempt, appropriately redacted material (see, Matter of Xerox 
Corp. Town of Webster; 65 131 133; Matter of Farbrnan Sons New York City
.Health 8. Hosps. Corp, supra, 62 at 83)? (Gould, 89 at 274).

Rights under FOIL are not determined by?the identity or status of the records seeker

(see Matter of Daily Gazette Co. City of Schenectady, 93 145, 156 [1999]). indeed,

?entitlement to the requested [records] is not contingent upon the showing of some cognizable 

interest other than that inhering in being a member of the public"_ (Matter of Scott, Sardano 
Pomeranz Records Access Of?cers of City of Syracuse, 65 294, 297 [1985]).
Moreover, ?access to government records does not depend on the purpose for which the
records are sought" (Gould, at 274; see also.Beechwo_od Restorative Care Ctr. 
Signor, 5 436, 440 [2005]), 

Applying the foregoing legislative purposes and juridical principles, the Court addresses

those issues that remain in dispute between the parties, as follows:

WHETHER RESPONDENT SUFFICIENTLY CERTIFIED THE DILIGENCE OF ITS SEARCH:

The Court must reject petitioner's contention that respondent has not furnished a
sufficient certi?cation that a diligent search was made for those records that have been claimed
nOt to exist (see. Public Officers Law 89 cf. Oddone?v Suffolk County Police Dept, 96

758, 761 [2d Dept 2012]; Matter of De Fabrith McMahon, 301 892, 893-894 [3d

?i 14

Dept 2003]; see generally' Beechwood Restorative Gare Gtr., 5 NY3d at 440-441"[2005]

[held:

"When faced with a FOil request, an agency must either disclose the record sought, deny the
request and claim a specific exemption to disclosure, or certify that it does not possess the
requested document and that it could not be located after a diligent search"]).

Certainly,

respondent's July 6, 2014 letter denying the FOil request, by which letter the agency
represented that it was "not in possession of item that you requested," cannot suffice as the
requisite certification.

For one thing, the statement has been proven untrue by the subsequent

disclosures and in-camera submissions made by respondent.

More important, though, is the

fact that the 'statement expresses nothing about the diligence of the search for the items.
Nevertheless, as this Court reads the Court of Appeals' decision in Rattley v New York
Gity Police Dept., (96 NY2d 873,875

[2001]), respondent's counsel's assertion in her January

26, 2015 letter suffices as the essential certification.

That letter states in four separate places

that respondent had "conducted a good faith search and no responsive documents were
identified." As reasoned in Rattley:
"The statute does not specify the manner in which an agency must certify that
documents cannot be located. Neither a detailed description of the search nor a
personal statement from the person who actually conducted the search is
required: Here, the Department satisfied the certification requirement by
averring that all responsive documents had been disclosed and that it had
conducted
diligent search for the documents it could not locate (Matter of
Gould v New York Gity Police Dept., 89 NY2d 267, 279). To the extent that
some courts have held to the contrary, those decisions are not to be followed
(see, e.g., Matter of Key v Hynes, 205 AD2d 779; Matter of Bellamy v New York
Gity Police Dept., 272 AD2d 120; Matter of Sanders v Bratton, 278 AD2d 10).
(Rattley, 96 NY2d at 875).

a

THE PROPRIETY OF THE REDACTIONS FROM THE DISCL0SED

DOCUMENTS:

The Purchase Orders:
The purchase orders should have been disclosed in their entirety, without redaction of

15

 I

2

the various words, phrases, and figures thus far withheld.

The purchase orders (and more

particularly the redacted words, phrases, and prices), were not "compiled for law enforcement
purposes" in the sense meant by the statute but, even if they were, their disclosure would not:
"interfere with law enforcement investigations or judicial proceedings"; "identify a confidential
source or disclose confidential information relating to a criminal investigation,"

meaning a

particular ongoing one; or "reveal [non-'routine'] criminal investigative techniques or procedures,
meaning techniques a knowledge of which would permit a miscreant to evade detection,
frustrate a pending or threatened investigation, or construct a defense to impede a prosecution
(see Public Officers Law ~ 87 [2] tel til, [iii], [iv]; see also Matter of Fink v Lefkowitz, 47 NY2d
567,572 [1979]; Matter of Moore v Santucci, 151 AD2d 677, 679 [2d Dept 1989]) .. Further, the
purchase orders (or, more precisely, the information .redacted therefrom), although clearly
constituting inter-agency materials" (the other agency involved was Erie County and its Office of
the Comptroller), amount entirely to "instructions to staff that affect the public" (Public Officers
Law
~ 87 [g] [ii]). Indeed, the instructions set forth in the purchase
orders -- 'in essence, "Pay.
.
.
this bill of this vendor for this item purchased by the Sheriff's Office at this price" -- was and is
of quintessentially compelling interest to and of undeniable impact upon the taxpaying public.
Finally, the Court finds that the purchase orders, and particularly the matters redacted
therefrom, are not "specifically exempted from disclosure by state or federal statute'" (Public
Officers Law ~ 87 [2] [a]). The Cou,rt rejects respondent's argument that the disclosures sought
here would, if made, violate a particular federal statute, regulatory scheme, and executive order
forbidding (and indeed criminalizing) the export of certain sensitive technology without

2The Court recognizes the apparent loss of an unredacted version of the 2008 purchase
order.
'At the outset, the Court notes its agreement with petitioner's observation that the FBIdrafted non-disclosure agreement is not itself a federal statute specifically exempting anything
from disclosure under FOIL pursuant to Public Officers Law ~ 87 (2) (a).

16

I

I

 government license or the illicit revelation of sensitive information about such sensitive

,.
,

technology to foreign nationals.

The Court instead i~ convinced by petitioner's argument that

the disclosure of public records pursuant to New York's Freedom of Information Law and the
_within judicial directive -- even records concerning respondent's ownership and use of a cell site
- simulator device that itself mayor" may not be Subject to arms/munitions

or defense technology

export restrictions -- does not amount to the actual export of s'uch arms, munitions, or defense
technology.

Further, the Court is satisfied by the showing on this record that petitioner, a New

York not-for-profit corporation, is not a "foreign person," meaning that the disclosures sought by
it pursuant to FOIL would not in fact run afoul of related federal legal restrictions on the
revelation of sensitive technical data about export-restricted
The June 5,2012 letter from Harris Corporation

arms or technology.

to respondent:

Likewise, the Court concludes that this 'document ought to have been disclosed in its
entirety, without redaction.

The letter, and more specifically its redacted verbiage, was not

"compiled for law enforcement purposes" in the sense meant by the statute.

Even if it was, the

Court is certain that its disclosure would not have the prejudicial effect upon a criminal
investigation or prosecution that the statute makes the linchpin of the F=OILexemption (see
Public Officers Law ~ 87 [2] [e] [i]-[iv]). Further, the letter does not qualify as either inter- or
intra-agency materials (see Public Officers Law ~ 87 [2) [g]), as Harris Corporation does not
meet the statutory definition of an "agency" (Public Officers Law ~ 86 [3]). Finally, for the
reasons stated supra, the Court concludes that the disclosures are not specifically precluded by
federal legal restrictions on the actual export of military-grade electronic surveillance equipment
_or the constructive export of technical data about such equipment._
The June 29, 2012,letter/non-disclosure

agreement:

Likewise, the Court concludes that this public record ought to have been disclosed in its

17 '

 entirety. AS.indicated, the agreement was entered into b~tween the FBI and respondent as an
apparent pre-condition of respondent's being allowed to acquire and use the cell site simulator.
The gist of the letter is not a recitation of the technological capabilities of the device or even the
"hows" and "whens" or the advantages of its use for law enforcement purposes, but rather
simply the need for the Sheriff's Office to avoid disclosing the existence, the technological
capabilities, or any use of the device to anyone, lest "individuals who are the subject of
investigation ... employ countermeasures
.
.

to avoid detection," thereby endangering the lives

and safety of law enforcement officers and others and compromising

criminal law enforcement

efforts as well as national security. The Court has no difficulty in concluding that the agreement

,

i
I

(or, more precisely, each redacted-at-Iength

passage of it) was not "compiled for law

enforcement purposes" in the sense meant by the statute (Public Officers Law ~ 87 [2] [e]).
Again, even if it was, the Court would conclude that the disclosure of the non-disclosure
agreement would not thwart or prejudice any particular ongoing law enforcement investigation
or pending prosecution (see Public Officers Law ~ 87 [2] [e] [iI, [ii]). Nor, the Court concludes,
would the disclosure of the non-disclosure agreement "identify a confidential source or disclose
confidential information relating to a criminal investigation," again meaning a specific ongoing
one, or "reveal" other than "routine" "criminal investigative techniques or procedures" (see
Public Officers Law ~ 87 [2] [e][iii], [iv]).
(

Moreover, the Court must conclude that the document constitutes inter-agency material
but nevertheless is not exempt from disclosure pursuant to that exemption inasmuch as it sets
forth almost nothing but "instructions to staff that affect the public."

In essence, those

instructions are to conceal from the public the existence, technological

capabilities, or'uses of

the device. Indeed, the Sheriff's Office is instructed, upon the request of the FBI, to seek
dismissal of a criminal prosecution (insofar as the Sheriff's Office may retain influence over it) in

18

 lieu of making any possibly compromising public or even case-related revelations of any.
information concerning the cen site simulator or its use. If that is not an instruction that affects
the public, nothing is.
For the reasons summarized supra, the Court has no difficulty in concluding that the

.

disclosure of the non-disclosure agreement would not amount to a federally forbidden export of

.

.

sensitive technology nor a revelation of information about such technology to a foreign person.
THE PROPRIETY OF THE WITHHOLDING
The June 11, 2014 Memorandum

OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS:

concerning

"Cellular

Tracking

Procedures":

That document is a two-page procedural manual for those officers of respondent who
are assigned to use the cell site simulator.

Again, the Court must conclude that the policy or

procedural directive was not "compiled for law enforcement purposes" in the sense meant by
the statute. Even if it was, its disclosure would not interfere with or prejudice a particular law
enforcement investigation or criminal prosecution, nor would it identify a particular confidential
source or disclose particular confidential information, nor would it reveal other,than "routine" which to the Court merely means somewhat regularly resorted to - "criminal investigative
techniques" (Public Officers Law

S 87

[2) [el). Again, the Court concludes that the document

constitutes intra-agency materials, but it clearly constitutes or embodies a "final agency policy
or determination[ ]" (Public Officers Law

S 87 [g) [iiil)

and in any event is comprised in its virtual

entirety of "instructions to staff that affect the public" (Public Officers Law
Supporting those characterizations

S 87

[g) [iiI).

are the Memorandum's rules or instructions that the tracking

equipment is to be used only for official law enforcement purposes; that certain records must be
made and kept (including notations about who requested the cell phone tracking, what its
purpose was, who and which phone were targeted, what legal authority was obta.ined for the
tracking, whether any data was saved); that no data should be saved absent a specific

19

 justification; that any saved data should be handled in certain ways and subject to certain
procedures prior to and for purposes of any analysis or evidentiary use of such data; and that
the foregoing procedures themselves should be kept secret from the public. < Finally, for the
.reasons stated supra, the Court concludes that disclosure of the policy or procedural directive
would not violate federal law governing the export of sensitive electronic surveillance
technology, or the disclosure of information pertaining thereto t6 a foreign person.
The Complaint

Summary

Reports or logs:

The Court concludes that the 47 pages of "Complaint Summary" or "Complaint
Information" reports -- i.e., records or logs of occasions on which sheriff's deputies used the cell
site simulator -- likewise must be disclosed pursuant to petitioner's FOIL request, albeit with the
minimal redactions outlined infra. The Court concludes that such records have not been shown
to be exempt from FOIL pursuant to the first exemption cited by respondent

The Court has no

doubt that the records were compiled for law enforcement purposes, i.e., investigating crimes,
locating suspects or fugitives, or helping citizens in distress (see Public Officers Law

S 87

[2]

[e]). However, the Court concludes that respondent has not met its burden under FOIL of
making the particularized showing necessary to justify withholding any of the 47 reports
pursuant to that FOIL exemption.

Respondent in particular has not shown, either by claim or by

actual evidence, that any of the reports pertain to any specific still-ongoing investigation or
pending criminal prosecution, let alone that any such ongoing investigation or prosecution
would be interfered with as a result of a disclosure of the pertinent report (see Public Officers
Law

S 87

[2] [e] liD. Moreover, respondent claims, but has not shown by means of any

evidence, that disclosure of the reports would identify a confidential source or otherwise

<That last policy rule or instruction is the essence also of the "cover" email dated June
11, 2014, which email also must be turned over to petitioner as intra-agency material that sets
forth instructions to staff that affect the public.

20

 disclose confidential information (see Public Officers law ~ 87 [2] [e) [iii]), or would reveal other
than routine criminal investigation techniques and procedures (see Public Officers law ~ 87 [2)
tel [iv]). Actually, any reading of the quite cursory reports would refute any such showing by
respondent, had such a showing been attempted.
informants (or even non-confidential

The reports do not identify any confidential

witnt;1sses), set forth any confidential information (or even

garden-variety statements of witnesses), or set forth any operational procedures of police (even
routine procedures).
Likewise, the Court concludes that the second exemption asserted by respondent does.
not apply to the reports. Clearly, the records in question all constitute inter-agency andlor intraagency materials (see Public Officers law ~ 87 [2] [g]). In that connection, the Court notes that
each report is in essence a communication between the officer assigned to use the cell site
simulator on a particular occasion and that officer's superiors (see The New York Times Co. v
City of New York Fire Dept., 4 NY3d 477, 487 [2005]). Moreover, a majority of the reports
embody or reflect communications

between respondent and sister law enforcement agencies.

Nonetheless, the reports all clearly fall within the specific exception to that FOil exemption for
"statistical or factual tabulations or data" (see Public Officers law ~ 87 [2] [g) [ill. Indeed, the
Court sees almost nothing ir;1any the reports that could not be regarded as "factual data,"
meaning only "objective information, in contrast to opinions, ideas, or advice exchanged as part
of the consultative or deliberative process of government decision making" (Gould, 89 NY2d at
277). The complaint summaries are (even at their most detailed) just that - very brief synopses
of those complaints or information, or interagency requests, that led to the Sheriff's office's use
of its cellular tracking device, and of what resulted, investigatively speaking, when the complaint
or information was acted upon.
Finally, the Court again rejects the notion that the reports are exempt from disclosure

 "

under FOIL pursuant to other state or federal statute, inclyding federal law prohibiting the
export of or revelations about certain sensitive technology (see Public Officers Law

9 87

[2) [a]).

Although respondent apparently has more recently abandoned the initially raised FOIL
exemption available for disclosures that "would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal
privacy under the provisions of' Public Officers Law

9 89

(2) (Public Officers Law

9 87

[2] [b]),

the Court sees a need to consider and apply that exemption on its own initiative in the context
of two of the complaint summary reports., i.e., those that reflect efforts to find an identified
missing person (an 87-year-old dementia case) and prevent an identified person from
committing suicide.

Public Officers Law

9 89

(2) defines the concept of an "unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy" as including, but not being limited to, six specific kinds of
disclosure, two of which touch upon a person's "l)1edical" history or information (Public Officers
Law

9 89

[2] [b] [i), [ii]), and two of which concern "information of a personal nature" that was

"reported in confidence to an agency" and/or is "not relevant to the ordinary work" of the agency
(Public Officers Law

9 89

[2] [b] [iv), [v]). Even in a case'in which the statutory definition of an

"unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" is not on point, however, the Court nonetheless
must decide whether any invasion of privacy is "unwarranted" by balancing the privacy interests
at stake against the public interest in disclosure oLthe information (see The New, York Times
Co., 4 NY3d at 485). Engaging in that balancing exercise, and considering the two reports that
on their face concern quests to help identified citizens in distress, the Court concludes that ..
disclosure of each report would "constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" of the
missing or suicidal individual - with particular reference to the individual's medical and other.
personal information - unless the identity, address, phone number, and/or vehicle_
ownership/registration
Officers Law

9 87

information of such individual were first redacted from the report (Public

[2] [b); see Public Officers Law

22

9 89

[2]). The Court thus directs the redaction

 of those two records to the foregoing extent prior to the court-ordered disclosure.
WHETHER PETITIONER IS A PREVAILlNG'PARTY

ENTITLED TO ATTORNEYS FEES:

Given that this case at its outset concerned the complete denial of the multi-pronged
FOIL request, the Court sees no plausible alternative to denominating

petitioner the party that

has "substantially prevailed" in the proceeding (Public Officers Law !l89 [4] [c]).'" The Court
further sees no alternative but to conclude that "the agency had no reasonable basis for
denying access" to the material sought by petitioner and either since voluntarily disclosed or
now ordered to be turned over to them (Public Officers Law !l89 [4] [c] [ill.

In C!nyevent, the

Court must conclude that "the agency failed to respond to a request or appeal within the
statutory time" (Public Officers Law

!l 89

[4] [c] [ii]). In the foregoing regards, the Court notes

that petitioner's initial FOIL request was met with a blanket denial not merely of the existence of
documents that were 'Iater conceded to exist, but also of access to some documents that were
later turned over to petitioner, at least in redacted form. The Court further notes that there was
a complete failure by respondent to do or even say anything in response to petitioner's
administrative appeal of the initial denial (see Public Officers Law

!l 89

[4] [a]), a circumstance

that violated respondent's statutory obligation at that stage to "fully explain in writing to the
person requesting the record the reason for further deniaL". The overriding co'nsideration,
however, is that it was only well after the commencement

of this proceeding that respondent

revealed even the existence of any documents responsive to any of petitioner's requests,
identified any (but no means all) of those documents by nature or title or description, and turned
over any of the documents at all, whether in unredacted or redacted form. Clearly, that is not
the way things are supposed to work under the statute. Just as clearly, the statutory
authorization for an award of attorneys' fees is designed to deter such unfounded denials and
inexcusable delays from occurring in violation of the statute (see Matter of New York Civ.

23

 Liberties Union v City of Saratoga Springs, 87 AD3d 336, 338 [3d Dept 2011], citing Senate
,
.
Introducer Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 2006, ch 492 at 5). Thus, the Court exercises its
discretion to award reasonable counsel fees and litigation costs to petitioner (see Public
Officers Law ~ 89 [4] [c]; see generally Beechwood Restorative Care Ctr., 5 NY3d at 441).

,

Accordingly, the petition is GRANTED (except insofar as it seeks to compel a further
certification), the July 6, 2014 determination of respondent is ANNULLED, and respondent is
DIRECTED to disclose to petitioner, in unredacted form, the three purchase orders (or at least
the two that still exist in unredacted form), the June 5, 2012 letter, the June 29, 2012 letter/nondisclosure agreement, and the June 11, 2014 Memorandum (and its cover e'mail).

With regard

to the requested disclosure of the Complaint Summary or Complaint Information reports,
respondent is DIRECTED to disclose to petitioner the two reports rel~ted tp the identified
missing person and the identified would-be suicide, but only following the redaction of
identifying information about those individuals; in all other instances, respondent is DIRECTED
to disclose the reports to petitioner without redaction.
Petitioner is AWARDED reasonable attorneys' fees and other costs incurred in this
proceeding.

Petitioner is to submit a quantum meruit application with 30 days of the issuance

of this Decision/Judgment,

whereupon respondent has 15 days to respond to the application.

SO ORDERED:

HON. PATRICK H. NeMOYER, J.S.C.

GRANrrED_
MAR 17 2015
/

BY~

J. O'CONNOR
OOURTCLERK

24