US. Department of Justice Of?ce of Legislative Affairs Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D. C. 20530 MAY 0 8 2017 The Honorable Katherine M. Clark US. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515 Dear Congresswoman Clark: This supplements the Department of Justice?s (the Department) response to your letter to the Attorney General dated September 13, 2016, requesting specific data regarding investigations and prosecutions of cyberstalking, cyberharassment, and harassment using interstate methods of communication. The Department remains committed to sustaining and improving its vigorous enforcement in this area. In our January 6, 2017 response, the Department provided the data requested in your letter. Enclosed with this letter is additional data subsequently requested by your staff. There are four categories of data: 1) 2) 3) 4) ?Matters Received Count?: this number includes matters on which an Assistant United States Attorney dedicates one hour or more, including criminal referrals from investigative agencies and misdemeanor matters. The category typically does not include requests for arrest warrants, search warrants, petty offenses or infractions, or other matters that require less than an hour of attorney time. ?Cases Filed?: this number includes cases filed for criminal prosecution in the designated time frame. ?Defendants in Cases Filed?: this number re?ects the number of people charged in the designated time frame. This number may be larger than the number of cases filed because multiple defendants can be charged in a single case. Our prior response provided the number of defendants in cases filed. ?Guilty Defendants?: this number includes individuals adjudicated guilty by plea or trial in the designated time frame. Because the data is only a ?snapshot? of activity in a particular year, the number of guilty adjudications in this column may include cases which were ?led in an earlier year. The Honorable Katherine M. Clark Page Two As we have discussed with your staff previously, many federal statutes criminalize stalking and harassing behavior instigated through the interstate telecommunications system. Prosecutors evaluate speci?c and unique evidence in a particular case and determine the most appropriate charges to pursue. For example, when the victim of the stalking or harassing behavior is a child, prosecutors will typically charge violations of 18 U.S.C. 2422(b) (Coercion and Enticement), which carries a ten?year mandatory minimum and a life maximum sentence, or 18 U.S.C. 2251 (Production of Child Pornography), which carries a ?fteen?year mandatory minimum, and thirty?year maximum sentence. However, at your request, we have provided data only about the two statutes that you requested: 18 U.S.C. 875 and 2261A. You have further narrowed your request for data to subsections of those two statutes, that is, subsection of 18 U.S.C. 875 and subsection (2) of 18 U.S.C. 2261A. We remain concerned that focusing exclusively on these two subsections of these two statutes may underrepresent the Department?s enforcement efforts, because additional cases are prosecuted under different subsections. For example, while subsection of Section 875 criminalizes interstate communications involving threats to kidnap or injure a victim, other subsections of 18 U.S.C. 875 address cyberstalking or cyberharassment. Subsection 875(a) criminalizes communications involving ransom or reward for the release of any kidnapped person; 875(b) criminalizes interstate communications with the ?intent to extort,? related to a communication containing a threat to kidnap or injure; and 875(d) criminalizes threats to extort related to a threat to injure the prOperty or reputation of a victim. We also note that subsection (2) of Section 2261A criminalizes not only stalking behavior via interactive computer services, but also includes stalking that occurs via use of mail, telephone, or other means of interstate or foreign commerce. Therefore, not every case prosecuted under subsection (2) involved threats or harassment communicated by ?cyber? means. While we are glad to assist your office by providing available information, we do not believe the numbers generated by our case database in response to your request will be a meaningful measure of the Department?s prosecutions of cyberstalking and cyberharassment. As we have discussed with your staff, the Executive Of?ce for United States Attorneys data collection system is a management tool primarily intended to assess the volume and distribution of caseloads among employees. For the reasons described above, and in our previous correspondence and discussions with you and your staff, these numbers likely undercount the number of cases involving cyberstalking and cyberharassment. We are happy to have further discussions with your staff to clarify these limitations. The Honorable Katherine M. Clark Page Three We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to contact this of?ce if we may provide additional assistance regarding this or any other matter. Sincerely, uel R. Ramer Acting Assistant Attorney General Enclosures United States Attorneys - Criminal Caseload Statistics? FiscalYears 2012-2017W 18 use. 3750:) Matters Cases Defendants in Guilty Fiscal Year Received Count Filed Cases Filed Defendants FY 2012 123 53 53 41 FY 2013 140 63 63 32 FY 2014 126 53 53 37 FY 2015 165 52 52 30 FY 2016 154 59 61 37 FY 2017 23 15 15 4 Total 731 295 297 181 ?Casel nad data extracted the United States Attomeys' Case Management System. 201? numbers are actual data through the end quovembar 2016. 21-Dec-15 United States Attorneys - Criminal Caseload Statistics? 18 U.S.C. Fiscal Years Matters Cases Defendants in Guilty Fiscal Year Received Count Filed Cases Filed Defendants FY 2011 2 4 4 FY 2012 4 3 3 3 FY 2013 5 5 5 4 FY 2014 7 6 6 2 FY 2015 6 5 5 3 FY 2016 11 7 7 5 Total 33 26 26 1'7 *Caseload data extracted from the United Slates Alwl'neys? Case Management System. ?This chart Includes data on any and all. crimlna] cases/defendants where 18 18 brought as any charge against a defendant 20] 6 numbers are actual data through the end ofSeptember 2016. 3?