1. The border zone is defined as up to 100 miles from any land or coastal boundary, is that right? Border security does not end at a line. CBP, including the U.S. Border Patrol, needs the authority to go beyond the immediate border as part of a layered defense against nefarious actors and illicit goods and threats. This authority is necessary to facilitate legitimate trade and travel and meet CBP’s counter-narcotics mission. The authority for this is based on the Immigration and Nationality Act 287(a)(3) and copied in 8 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 287 (a)(3), which states that Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States...board and search for aliens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle. By regulation at 8 CFR 287.1, this “reasonable distance” is generally considered to be 100 air miles, but the regulation permits variances from that distance. Further, the 100mile rule relates solely to boarding and searching conveyances pursuant to subsection 1357(a)(3) and does not constitute a geographic limitation upon the exercise of other Border Patrol enforcement authorities such as the authority to question individuals or to make arrests for violations of federal law. 2. Nearly two-thirds of the US population, or some 200 million people, live within this border zone, is that right? Off the record, please refer to the U.S. Census Bureau. This question presents an issue which is a continual red herring. The US Border Patrol focuses the vast majority of its operations on the immediate border, supported by checkpoint and transportation check operations on major routes of egress away from the border. The Border Patrol does not have significant operations or personnel in major cities along the mid-Atlantic, on the West Coast between Los Angeles and Seattle, not to mention most major metropolitan areas of the Midwest or Southeast, where most of the American population lives. Accordingly, major cities will not be subject to patrol operations within the border zone as defined in the CRF. We are a border security agency not an interior enforcement agency. 3. CBP divides the US into 20 sectors, and each sector chief has the authority to set up checkpoints anywhere in the country's interior up to the 100-mile limit, is that right? Yes, there are 20 sectors for the U.S. Border Patrol. Permanent checkpoints are generally utilized on routes of egress away from areas where illegal entry between ports of entry is common, predominantly in Texas, Arizona, and California. Temporary checkpoints can also be established as a tactic to identify and interdict illegal cross border activity. While there is no explicit statutory authority to conduct immigration checkpoints, their use has been upheld in court rulings and is subject to Constitutional requirements. The authority to conduct immigration checkpoints has evolved from a series of court decisions interpreting INA 287 (a)(3) within the context of the Fourth Amendment. The Border Patrol does not conduct immigration checkpoints under the authority contained within a “Border Search”, nor are Border Patrol checkpoints considered “The Border” or the “Functional Equivalent of The Border”. Section 287 (a)(3) states that Immigration Officers, without a warrant, may: “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States, to board and search for aliens in any vessel within the territorial waters of the United States and any railcar, aircraft, conveyance, or vehicle…”. 8 CFR 287 (a) (1) defines reasonable distance as 100 air miles from the border. In 1976, the United States Supreme court balanced the governmental interest in stopping illegal immigration against the Fourth Amendment’s protections against unreasonable search and seizure in US v. Martinez-Fuerte. The Supreme Court found that only minimal intrusion existed to motorists at reasonably located checkpoints even in the absence of reasonable or individualized suspicion. Essentially, the Supreme Court found that the very brief detention of motorists at a wellmarked and identified immigration checkpoint did not constitute an unreasonable search or seizure. In US v. Gordo-Marin, the United States Supreme Court also found no substantive difference between a “permanent” or “temporary” checkpoint. Likewise, the Border Patrol makes no distinction between the authorities exercised at permanent or “tactical” checkpoints. 4. The chiefs don't publicly reveal where they deploy resources, is that right? Due to reasons of operational security, we do not publicize specifics of our asset deployment, such as the number of agents assigned to a particular station, the location of a ground sensor used to detect illegal entry to the U.S., etc. 5. New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego and San Jose all fall within the 100-mile border zone, is that right? As does the entirety or almost the entirety of Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont, is that right? Off the record, please refer to another source for information to confirm which cities and areas of the U.S. lie within 100 miles of the border. This question presents an issue which is a continual red herring. The US Border Patrol focuses the vast majority of its operations on the immediate border, supported by checkpoint and transportation check operations on major routes of egress away from the border. The Border Patrol does not have significant operations or personnel in half the states mentioned above, or in major cities along the mid-Atlantic, on the West Coast between Los Angeles and Seattle, not to mention most major metropolitan areas of the Midwest or Southeast, where most of the American population lives. Accordingly, major cities will not be subject to patrol operations within the border zone as defined in the CRF. We are a border security agency not an interior enforcement agency. 6. CBP agents have the authority to search and detain people without a warrant, as long as they have a "reasonable suspicion" that they are smuggling contraband or are in the country illegally, is that right? This question appears to conflate CBP’s different operational environments. At ports of entry, CBP has broad authority to question travelers and search conveyances and personal effects to ensure compliance with applicable U.S. laws with or without reasonable suspicion. Different types of searches require different levels of suspicion based on law, court decision and policy. In the border environment between ports of entry, CBP also has unique authorities to secure the border. In the interior, however, probable cause is general required for searches of conveyances or effects. For more details on CBP’s authorities, at ports of entry, the legal border crossings into the U.S., CBP’s border search authority is presented here: https://www.cbp.gov/travel/cbp-search-authority. In addition, the authority to conduct immigration checkpoints by U.S. Border Patrol agents is discussed above. U.S. Customs and Border Protection is the unified border agency within the Department of Homeland Security charged with the management, control and protection of our nation's borders at and between official ports of entry. CBP is charged with keeping terrorists and terrorist weapons out of the country while enforcing hundreds of U.S. laws. On a daily basis, CBP personnel throughout the nation, on average: • Make 851 apprehensions between U.S. ports of entry • Make 21 arrests of wanted criminals at U.S. ports of entry • Make 592 refusals of inadmissible persons at U.S. ports of entry • Seize 5,863 pounds of narcotics • Seize $265,205 in undeclared or illicit currency • Identify 1607 individuals with suspected national security concerns And more: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/typical-day-fy2017 Checkpoint operations uncover illegal immigration activity and human smuggling, narcotics smuggling attempts and more. Here are only a few select examples from the past week: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/nogales-border-patrol-k9-teamhelps-seize-marijuana-bundles https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/despite-dangers-illegal-bordercrossers-continue-risk-their-lives https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/agents-arrest-3-illegal-alienseluding-immigration-checkpoint https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/2-women-arrested-smugglingdangerous-drugs-0 https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/rio-grande-valley-border-patrolcontinues-encounter-dangerous-smuggling https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/yuma-border-patrol-agents-seize301k-hard-narcotics-and-cash https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/rio-grande-valley-border-patrolstop-smuggling-attempt-rescue The Border Patrol conducts operations at checkpoints within the confines outlined in the Supreme Court decisions. Border Patrol checkpoint case law has provided the basis for numerous other checkpoints beneficial to the public, such as DUI checkpoints, driver’s license/proof of registration checkpoints, etc. Border Patrol immigration checkpoints do not give Border Patrol Agents carte blanche to automatically search persons and their vehicles. In order to conduct a legal search under the Fourth Amendment, the agents must develop articulable probable cause to conduct a lawful search. Probable cause can be developed from agent observations, records checks, non-intrusive canine sniffs, and other established means. Motorists may also consent to a search, but are not required to do so. At immigration checkpoints, Border Patrol Agents may question the occupants about their citizenship, place of birth, and request document proof of immigration status, how legal status was obtained and makes quick observations of what is in plain view in the interior of the vehicle. 7. Within 25 miles of the border, CBP agents can enter private property (though not residences) without a warrant or the owners' permission, is that right? The ability of Border Patrol agents to enter private property allows them to perform their national security mission by giving them the ability to pursue and apprehend potential terrorists, narcotics traffickers and illegal aliens on private land. This is particularly beneficial in states like Texas where an overwhelming percentage of land along the border is private. The fact that agents can enter private property serves to protect the very owners of that property as well —particularly in remote areas where local law enforcement agencies have limited manpower and resources. Border Patrol agents often act as first responders in these areas providing law enforcement assistance and first-aid to those in need. In addition, CBP has a robust Border Community Liaison program in which outreach is conducted with landowners and other local stakeholders to ensure any concerns are addressed and that agents are acting as good stewards of the private property on which they operate. Many landowners appreciate the added law enforcement presence and security provided by Border Patrol agents. Subsection 1357(a)(3), as interpreted by the courts, permits, in the course of the patrol function, access to private lands within 25 miles of the border, and the boarding and searching of conveyances, including the operation of immigration checkpoints, “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” 8. CBP has 35 fixed immigration checkpoints and dozens of temporary checkpoints in the interior, is that right? The locations of these checkpoints are not public, is that right? Yes, there are 35 stationary checkpoints. In addition, U.S. Border Patrol uses tactical checkpoints, which can be set up and taken down, depending on operational factors, such as shifts in smuggling activity, and weather or traffic conditions. The timing, locations and frequency of our tactical immigration checkpoints are law enforcement sensitive, and obviously due to operational security, checkpoint details are not something that we would publicly disclose. Many factors are considered when selecting a location for a checkpoint. Factors include: • the roadway or highway as a primary travel route away from the border; • evidence that smugglers exploit that route for criminal purposes; • terrain surrounding the checkpoint; and • the impact of safety and convenience on the traveling public. 9. Agents at the checkpoints interact with more than 27 million people annually, is that right? (Does this include interactions at ports of entry or just in the interior?) The vast majority of these people are US citizens or legal residents, is that right? And CBP conducts thousands of searches and seizures a year, is that right? The 27 million figure that is cited comes from a GAO report which cites its source for the data as being based on available CBP Border Patrol License Plate Reader. CBP does not typically release this statistic. CBP personnel do not interact with all vehicles that travel through checkpoints. Border Patrol immigration checkpoints are in fact within the constraints of the Constitution of the United States of America. The Supreme Court, the body who decides what is and what is not constitutional, has affirmed the right of the Border Patrol to conduct checkpoint operations while still honoring the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The Border Patrol carefully selects checkpoint locations to maximize border enforcement while minimizing effects on legitimate traffic. The checkpoints have proven to be highly effective tools in halting the flow of illegal aliens and contraband attempting further transit into the United States. It is not unusual for Border Patrol Agents manning these checkpoints to engage in conversations with the public regarding their travels. Agents are trained to observe activities around them to include traffic patterns consistent with local traffic and legitimate travelers. Agents do take notice of vehicles that display driving behaviors absent of the norm. Vehicles noted under these circumstances may cause agents to have heightened concern that the vehicle may be transporting illegal aliens or be involved in illicit activity. Brief questions to dispel that concern are intended to resolve the issue with minimum disruption to lawful traffic. 10. In the past decade, the number of complaints about harassment and abuse at these checkpoints has been rising, is that right? In the timeframe provided to respond to this request, statistics are not readily available regarding complaints specifically about “harassment and abuse” at checkpoints over the past ten years. However, it would not be surprising if the number of complaints on any topic had increased, in part because CBP has made a concerted effort over the past decade to improve how we can receive feedback about our operations, to include complaints. Additional information is provided below (Q29 answer) about the many ways that persons who interact with anyone at CBP can file a complaint about their interaction, with an emphasis on making the process easier, even while people can remain anonymous. CBP takes all allegations of misconduct, including allegations of abuse and harassment, seriously and investigates all formal complaints. Please also note that the number of complaints received does not reflect the number of allegations which are ultimately found to be substantiated. 11. Melissa mentions that there have been allegations of roving CBP patrols 200 miles from the border, is that right? Do you have a response to this? There seems to be a misconception that Border Patrol Agents may perform their duties only within 100 miles of the border. This is not accurate. Although most Border Patrol work is performed in the immediate border area, Section 1357 of Title 8 of the United States Code, together with the implementing regulations, provides Border Patrol Agents with broad law enforcement authorities, many of which – including authority to question individuals, make arrests, administer oaths, and take and consider evidence – are not geographically restricted by law. Subsection 1357(a)(3), as interpreted by the courts, permits, in the course of the patrol function, access to private lands within 25 miles of the border, and the boarding and searching of conveyances, including the operation of immigration checkpoints, “within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States.” By regulation at 8 CFR 287.1, this “reasonable distance” is generally considered to be 100 air miles, but the regulation permits variances from that distance. Further, the 100-mile rule relates solely to boarding and searching conveyances pursuant to subsection 1357(a)(3) and does not constitute a geographic limitation upon the exercise of other Border Patrol enforcement authorities such as the authority to question individuals or to make arrests for violations of federal law. Additionally, Section 287(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA): authorizes agents to interrogate any alien (or person believed to be an alien) about his right to be or remain in the United States. This statute authorizes question of aliens and suspected aliens anywhere in the United States. Section 235(d)(3) of the INA authorizes agents to consider evidence concerning the privilege of any alien (or person the agent suspects to be an alien) to enter, re-enter, transit through via any conveyance, or reside in the United States. The U.S. Border Patrol continues to emphasize targeted operations. Enforcement actions away from the border are within the jurisdiction of DHS, CBP, and the Border Patrol and performed in direct support of immediate border enforcement efforts and as a means of preventing smuggling and criminal organizations. For example, this can include intelligence driven operations and efforts to keep criminal organizations from exploiting existing transportation hubs to travel to the interior of the United States. 12. Trump pledged to add 5,000 CBP agents, is that right? What's the status with this hiring? CBP has faced challenges in the past in meeting our hiring goals. However, we have taken decisive action, while recognizing that much work remains to be done to ensure we have enough officers and agents to meet our needs well into the future. Over the last two years, more than 40 individual improvements to CBP’s hiring process have resulted in significant recruitment and hiring gains, despite record low unemployment around the United States and intense competition for highly-qualified, mission-inspired people. We are focusing our efforts to attract qualified candidates and expedite their progress through the CBP hiring process. CBP has embraced the use of social media, and is working to more effectively identify the best return on investment in digital media. CBP has introduced a mobile app for applicants in our hiring pipeline to keep them engaged during the process. CBP will also introduce an “applicant care” component whereby a dedicated employee is assigned to an applicant to help them navigate the process. CBP is leveraging private sector expertise and experience in recruiting and human resources to provide additional capacity. CBP’s streamlined frontline hiring process has led to significant reductions in the average time-to-hire. This streamlined process has helped us to grow our workforce by reducing the number of qualified candidates who drop out due to either process fatigue or accepting timelier job offers elsewhere. CBP’s background investigation time is approximately 90 days for a Tier 5 level investigation, which is required for all of CBP’s law enforcement officer applicants, and 90 percent of CBP applicants overall. This is considerably faster than the government average for the same level of investigation. CBP is also recognized as having a best practice quality assurance program, which other agencies regularly draw upon. 13. CBP policy on body cavity searches requires agents to obtain a warrant from a judge or a person's consent before directing hospital personnel to perform x-rays and invasive searches, is that right? It is not the intent of CBP to subject travelers to unwarranted scrutiny. Especially with intensive, intrusive searches, CBP has protocols and procedures in place. Per the CBP National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS) Policy (p. 11): “Officers/Agents are prohibited from conducting physically intrusive body cavity searches. This type of body cavity search should be conducted only under the most exceptional circumstances, and only by medical practitioners at a medical facility.” “Body cavity searches will be conducted only after being approved by a supervisor authorized by the operational office’s policies and procedures and after obtaining consent or a search warrant. If a qualified medical practitioner determines that immediate action must be taken to protect the health of the detainee, such action is authorized. (Telephonic approval is permitted).” 14. Depositions of University Medical Center (El Paso) staff by ACLU attorneys found that doctors and nurses often felt compelled to conduct invasive searches on behalf of CBP. Do you have a response to this? U.S. Customs and Border Protection can confirm their settlement with a plaintiff in the Western District of Texas court. The settlement should not be taken as an admission of liability or fault and is not indicative of frequent occurrences. The settlement was entered into by both parties in order to compromise on disputed claims and avoid the expenses of further litigation. CBP has policies, procedures and training in place to ensure officers and agents treat travelers and those in custody with professionalism and courtesy, while protecting the civil rights, civil liberties, and well-being of every individual with whom we interact, and maintaining the focus of our mission to protect all citizens and visitors to the United States. 15. The annual number of cavity searches conducted by CBP has increased from 98 in 2008 to 229 in 2016, is that right? The number of cavity searches reported by Office of Field Operations in FY 2008 was 11. That number went up to 21 in FY 2016 for an increase of 10. (The Office of Field Operations is responsible for activity at the legal ports of entry into the United States. https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry) It is important to note: CBP has policies, procedures and training in place to ensure officers and agents treat travelers and those in custody with professionalism and courtesy, while protecting the civil rights, civil liberties, and well-being of every individual with whom we interact, and maintaining the focus of our mission to protect all citizens and visitors to the United States. Body Cavity searches are not performed at CBP facilities. If CBP determines that a body cavity search is necessary, it must be carried out in a medical facility by authorized medical personnel. The data you have represents body cavity searches by concealment type for OFO in those years, and not necessarily the more invasive internal searches conducted by a medical practitioner. Your numbers, for example, include incidents when a person we encounter is able to remove a concealed item themselves without any assistance. It’s also important to put these numbers into context and note that they are exceedingly rare. In fiscal year 2016, CBP officers processed more than 390 million people. And that number represents an increase in travel of 15 percent overall and 26 percent at airports compared to fiscal year 2011, and an even larger increase compared to the numbers for fiscal year 2008. So the overall number of people processed for entry to the U.S. has grown by the millions when comparing 2008 to 2016. It’s also important to note that unfortunately, CBP officers encounter persons attempting to smuggle narcotics into the United States internally, a very dangerous smuggling method that comes with the risk of great personal harm. A few select news releases from the past two years: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/nogales-cbp-officers-seize-111kmeth https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/cbp-arrests-female-meth-hiddeninside-her-body https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/cbp-officers-seize-25-million-drugsover-weekend https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/eagle-pass-cbp-officers-seize-16kheroin-port https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/eagle-pass-cbp-officers-seize-over20k-worth-meth-port https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/cbp-officers-presidio-port-stopinternal-drug-carrier 16. CBP's policy manual notes that only medical personnel can conduct body cavity searches, so we're assuming that all of these searches occurred in medical facilities, is that right? Per the CBP National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS) Policy (p. 11): “Officers/Agents are prohibited from conducting physically intrusive body cavity searches. This type of body cavity search should be conducted only under the most exceptional circumstances, and only by medical practitioners at a medical facility.” 17. CBP only documents searches that turn up drugs or other contraband, not searches that find nothing, is that right? While there is latitude for each operational office to determine search documentation requirements, the CBP National Standards on Transport, Escort, Detention, and Search (TEDS) policy requires that for certain kinds of invasive searches, including body cavity searches, they must be record in the appropriate electronic system of record. Further, the TEDS policy requires that the report must contain the reason for the search, results of the search, a description of any contraband recovered, who conducted the search, and who authorized the search. Per the TEDS Policy (p. 9): “Each operational office determines search documentation requirements. However, all strip searches, X-ray searches, body cavity searches, and monitored bowel movements (MBM) must be recorded in the appropriate electronic system(s) of record. The report must contain the reason for the search, results of the search, a description of any contraband recovered, who conducted the search, and who authorized the search.” 18. CBP has more than 43,000 agents, making it the largest federal law enforcement agency in the US, is that right? Please see below. 19. There are more than 23,000 customs officers, stationed at ports of entry, and nearly 20,000 Border Patrol agents, who travel throughout the country, is that right? Your statement that BP agents ‘travel throughout the country’ is not correct. Agents are assigned to Sectors and Stations and their main responsibility is patrolling and securing our border between our ports of entry. This can include immigration checkpoints as previously described. CBP officers are based at 328 fixed ports of entry, air, land and seaports, where they secure and facilitate almost 400 million travelers and $4Trillion in Trade annually. CBP’s offices of Field Operations, Border Patrol, and Air and Marine Operations represent the largest federal law enforcement agency. In FY17, CB employed 59,178 men and women including law enforcement and trade personnel. Of those 58,178 employees, CBP had 23,079 CBP officers and 19,437 U.S. Border Patrol agents in fiscal year2017. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2018-Mar/cbp-snapshot20180320.pdf 20. As CBP has expanded since 9/11, thousands of CBP agents have been moved to the interior, is that right? No that is not correct. CBP has not moved thousands of agents to the interior. CBP is a border security agency. Agents are assigned to Sectors and Stations and their main responsibility is patrolling and securing our border between our ports of entry. This can include immigration checkpoints as previously described. CBP officers are based at 328 fixed ports of entry, air, land and seaports, where they secure and facilitate almost 400 million travelers and $4Trillion in Trade annually. Some of these ports, like Chicago O’Hare International Airport, or Denver International Airport are in the interior of the country where flights land for foreign last points of departure. CBP also operates training facilities in Georgia and Oklahoma for agents and officers. NB. CBP did not exist until March 1, 2003. See: https://www.cbp.gov/about/history 21. She notes that CBP data suggests interior checkpoints mainly catch US citizens on minor drug charges, more so than unauthorized entrants, is that right? While CBP does not release all statistics below the Sector level to allow for a comparison of checkpoint operations to other operations, CBP provides information on cbp.gov that highlights the enforcement actions at our checkpoints: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/usbp-drug-seizuressector 22. From 2013 to 2016, interior checkpoints accounted for only 2 percent of CBP apprehensions of undocumented immigrants, is that right? We typically don’t release statistics below the Sector level, so confirming statistics comparing the number of apprehensions at checkpoint compared to other areas would not be possible in the timeframe provided to respond. 23. CBP agents often accompany local police officers during routine traffic stops and serve as back-up or as interpreters, is that right? Melissa notes that CBP officers do not receive much training in de-escalation techniques and that their involvement in domestic policing has sometimes had lethal consequences, is that right? CBP officers and Border Patrol agents do not perform domestic policing duties. There are times we are called in for back up or to perform interpretation for local law enforcement, or to support Federal, State, and local task forces. CBP takes our commitment to having a work force of professionally trained law enforcement personnel very seriously. Our robust Less Lethal training program is implemented nationwide, and is delivered on a quarterly basis to all CBP law enforcement personnel, by certified CBP instructors. The instructors for this training go through a comprehensive three week use of force certification course, and must be recertified every three years. The training our officers and agents receive on a quarterly basis includes the tactile applications of force, constitutional law, tactical decision making, and scenario-based training. The training they receive is geared towards providing CBP personnel with the instruction they need to respond quickly and professionally in any number of different environments and circumstances, to include times when they might be providing back up assistance to other law enforcement partners, whether federal, state, or local. Specifically, CBP provides our personnel with training in tactical decision making and de-escalation techniques. For example, CBP in recent years has made virtual training available to our personnel throughout the agency. These virtual training platforms (which number more than 30 at locations around the U.S.) include a number of different scenarios to allow officers and agents to practice tactical decision-making and situational awareness to develop effective law enforcement responses to real world situations while operating in a monitored and evaluated training environment. Included in these are scenarios that specifically emphasize tactical decision making and deescalation techniques during domestic situations (away from our typical border environment.) In addition, the techniques emphasized by CBP include teaching officers and agents how to gain and maintain a tactical advantage in advance of a situation to avoid the unnecessary escalation of confrontations entirely, as well as training in enhancing situational awareness by recognizing pre-assault indicators, how to adjust actions when faced with someone who may be under the influence, emotionally disturbed, and countless other areas of focus that are critical to having both those who our officers and agents encounter, as well as the CBP personnel themselves, come home safe at night. CBP has taken a series of steps to increase transparency and accountability and enhance our Agent’s and Officer’s Use of Force training. Some of these steps include the following: • Release of the PERF Report and the Public Release of CBP’s Use of Force Handbook - In 2012, CBP commissioned the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to conduct a review of the use of force by CBP officers and agents. PERF reviewed CBP’s Use of Force Policies and specific cases of deadly force. The PERF review raised concerns about shots fired at vehicles and shots fired at subjects throwing rocks and other objects at agents. PERF also recommended improvements in initial reporting, investigations, incident review, weapons, personal protective equipment, and training. • Based on the observations and recommendations made in the PERF’s report, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection Use of Force Review: Cases and Policies,” and following its own review, CBP revised its Use of Force Policy Handbook and its training processes for agents and officers (U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Use of Force Review: Cases and Policies, February 2013, conducted by PERF, p. 2). • In May 2014, to further accountability and transparency in use of force situations, then-CBP Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske ordered the public release of the agency’s Use of Force Policy Handbook and the PERF report. This was the first time the Handbook had been made public. At the time of its release, Commissioner Kerlikowske said, “We initiated both internal and external use of force reviews to improve ourselves and our responsibility to the public and to use force only when necessary . . . the policy and training changes they represent are the beginning of a continuous review of our responsibility to only use force when it is necessary to protect people” (CBP Press Release, CBP Releases Use of Force Policy Handbook and Police Executive Research Forum Report, May 30, 2014). The Handbook went into full effect on October 1, 2014. • The creation for the Law Enforcement Officers Safety and Compliance Directorate (LESC) to Manage CBP’s Use of Force Program - On March 2014, CBP established what is now the LESC to manage the agency’s use of force program. The LESC is responsible for the development and articulation of CBP’s use of force policy and oversees a comprehensive and fully operational program that conducts training standardization audits, incident reviews to identify enhancements to existing training, data analysis, use of force instructional delivery, and weapon accountability and procurement to ensure use of force training, equipment, and policies meet CBP’s operational requirements. • Joint Integrity Case Management System and the Assaults and Use of Force Reporting System - In January 2014, CBP, in conjunction with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), enhanced the data collection and reporting capabilities of the Joint Integrity Case Management System (JICMS). JICMS is the system that tracks allegations of excessive force. That same year, in October 2014, CBP integrated JICMS with the data systems that captures information on assaults against officers and agents to create the new Assaults and Use of Force Reporting System (AUFRS) which is integrated with the Use of Reporting System (UFRS). This new system allows CBP to conduct comparative analyses of how officers and agents respond to assaults. This analysis will help the agency identify “best practice” responses to threats and better inform enhancements to policies, training, tactics, and equipment. It also has the capacity to track use of force investigations from start to finish. • Use of Force Incident Tracking System - In February 2015, the Use of Force Incident Tracking System (UFITS) was implemented to track the investigations of use of force incidents involving CBP employees. • Media Engagement in Response to Use of Force Incidents – “Maximum Disclosure, Minimum Delay” - OPA updated its Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) in June 2015 to enhance CBP’s release of information following a significant use of force incident. The SOP requires the respective OPA public affairs specialist – in coordination with the respective field commander and OPR special agent in charge – to issue a statement detailing the basic facts of the incident within one hour of headquarters notification. After subsequent information has been confirmed, the field leadership, in coordination with OPA and OPR, will issue a more detailed statement and/or hold a press briefing within 12 hours of the initial statement. This new posture has improved the timeliness and substance of public engagement in response to fatal use of force incidents. • Reporting Protocols for Use of Force Allegations: In August 2014, CBP initiated new reporting protocols to ensure all complainants who allege excessive force are interviewed prior to being processed for removal. All CBP components have been directed to immediately notify the Office of Professional Responsibility upon receipt of a complaint of alleged excessive force and to not remove individuals until OPR has had the opportunity to conduct an investigative interview of the complainant. • Public Transparency and Accountability: CBP has posted guidance on its website to allow the public to easily file a complaint or provide feedback https://help.cbp.gov/app/home. The agency uses the feedback to improve performance across the enterprise. The CBP Information Center also has increased its Spanish-language capacity to provide improved service, accountability and transparency to those who speak Spanish via the fully-integrated Spanish-language service at https://helpspanish.cbp.gov/. In addition, to improve the public’s access to information, CBP has posted policies, reports and statistics, including: 1. Use of Force Policy, Guidelines and Procedures Handbook, https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/UseofForcePolicyHandbook.pdf [cbp.gov] 2. Use of Force Review, Cases and Policy from the Police Executive Research Forum, https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PERFReport.pdf [cbp.gov] 3. Use of Force Case Summaries, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-useforce/case-summaries [cbp.gov] 4. Use of Force Statistics, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-use-force [cbp.gov] 5. CBP Discipline Overview FY 2015, https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-May/FY15-disciplinereport-5-4-17.pdf [cbp.gov] 6. Standards to Prevent, Detect and Respond to Sexual Abuse and Assault in Confinement Facilities, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-03-07/pdf/201404675.pdf [gpo.gov] 7. CBP Policy on Zero Tolerance of Sexual Abuse and Assault, https://www.cbp.gov/employees/eeo/ztp/cbp-policy-zero-tolerance-sexual-abuse-andassault [cbp.gov] 8. CBP Enforcement Statistics, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcementstatistics [cbp.gov] 9. Southwest Border Migration Statistics, https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-0307/pdf/2014-04675.pdf [gpo.gov] 10. Arrests of criminal aliens by U.S. Border Patrol, https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-alien-statistics [cbp.gov] There is additional information in our FY16 Border Security Report. Pages 4-6 highlight some of the programs that came to fruition during FY 16 (October 2015-September 2016). The report is available here: https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2016-Dec/CBP-fy2016-bordersecurity-report.pdf [cbp.gov] 24. She mentions a case in 2012 in a San Diego suburb where a group of CBP agents approached Valeria Munique Tachiquin Alvarado — when she tried to leave her car, an agent who had a documented history of violence fatally shot her, is that right? We strongly disagree with this description of the incident and refer you to the Chula Vista Police Department and the San Diego District Attorney’s Office to provide more complete and accurate details. With the authority to Investigate Criminal Misconduct and Review of Use of Force Cases, CBP has at its disposal a variety of tools review and investigate use of force incidents. Some of those tools include: • Use of Force Incident Teams (UFIT) - To better respond to CBP use of force incidents, UFITs were created to provide an administrative review process that uses proven investigative protocols and evidence gathering standards to objectively, impartially and thoroughly examine use of force incidents in a timely and transparent manner. The UFIT, comprised of Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) personnel and CBP officers and agents from three uniformed components, is responsible for responding to and investigating use of force incidents which result in death or serious bodily injury or other incidents. UFIT is a CBP-wide, multi-office investigative unit, operating under the leadership of an OPR incident commander, whose purpose is to conduct a thorough, factual, and objective investigation into a use of force incident involving death or serious injury; prepare a comprehensive report appropriate for the type of incident involved; and promptly report and subsequently track observations, recommendations, and instructions, including any suggested policy changes or the need for referral for further administrative or disciplinary review. • Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) - The National UFRB (NUFRB) is a CBP committee established to review all significant use of force incidents resulting in serious physical injury or death, or any incident involving the discharge of a firearm in a non-training setting. All findings and recommendations are provided to CBP Senior Leadership. Local UFRBs will address lesser use of force incidents that do not result in serious physical injury or death or the discharge of a firearm. The UFRBs review use of force incidents for three issues: o Was use of force within policy? o Was misconduct associated with the application of force? o What lessons can be learned from the incident in terms of techniques, tactics, policy, training and equipment? The NUFRB is comprised of representatives from CBP’s three operational components (U.S. Border Patrol, Office of Field Operations, and Air and Marine Operations) as well as external membership from the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Professional Responsibility. As of October 2017, there have been 11 meetings of the board. These meetings have reviewed 36 significant use of force incidents. CBP recently completed a web-based tracking system for recommendations made by the NUFRB. Local Use of Force Review Boards (LUFRBs) were established to conduct an objective review of the use of less-lethal devices not addressed by the NUFRB. The LUFRBs provide CBP senior leadership with an objective assessment of lesslethal force incidents from a regional committee of leadership from components within CBP. CBP recently initiated the development of a web-based tracking system for cases that come before the LUFRB. This system will track the consideration and disposition of cases heard by the LUFRBs. These systems will help us hold one another accountable to the public-and to ourselves. 25. She mentions another case in which a man in Washington called 911 because his son, Alex Martinez, was suffering a psychotic episode. Local police requested that two CBP agents accompany them in case they needed an interpreter, is that right? Martinez stepped out of his home with something in his hand and a CBP agent felt threatened and shot him 13 times, is that right? She notes that the police and CBP says it was a hammer, and that the family says it was a flashlight, is that right? We strongly disagree with this description of the incident and refer you to the Bellingham Police Department and the Whatcom County Prosecutor’s Office to provide more complete and accurate details. With the authority to Investigate Criminal Misconduct and Review of Use of Force Cases, CBP has at its disposal a variety of tools review and investigate use of force incidents. Some of those tools include: • Use of Force Incident Teams (UFIT) - To better respond to CBP use of force incidents, UFITs were created to provide an administrative review process that uses proven investigative protocols and evidence gathering standards to objectively, impartially and thoroughly examine use of force incidents in a timely and transparent manner. The UFIT, comprised of Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) personnel and CBP officers and agents from three uniformed components, is responsible for responding to and investigating use of force incidents which result in death or serious bodily injury or other incidents. UFIT is a CBP-wide, multi-office investigative unit, operating under the leadership of an OPR incident commander, whose purpose is to conduct a thorough, factual, and objective investigation into a use of force incident involving death or serious injury; prepare a comprehensive report appropriate for the type of incident involved; and promptly report and subsequently track observations, recommendations, and instructions, including any suggested policy changes or the need for referral for further administrative or disciplinary review. • Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) - The National UFRB (NUFRB) is a CBP committee established to review all significant use of force incidents resulting in serious physical injury or death, or any incident involving the discharge of a firearm in a non-training setting. All findings and recommendations are provided to CBP Senior Leadership. Local UFRBs will address lesser use of force incidents that do not result in serious physical injury or death or the discharge of a firearm. The UFRBs review use of force incidents for three issues: o Was use of force within policy? o Was misconduct associated with the application of force? o What lessons can be learned from the incident in terms of techniques, tactics, policy, training and equipment? The NUFRB is comprised of representatives from CBP’s three operational components (U.S. Border Patrol, Office of Field Operations, and Air and Marine Operations) as well as external membership from the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Office of Professional Responsibility. As of October 2017, there have been 11 meetings of the board. These meetings have reviewed 36 significant use of force incidents. CBP recently completed a web-based tracking system for recommendations made by the NUFRB. Local Use of Force Review Boards (LUFRBs) were established to conduct an objective review of the use of less-lethal devices not addressed by the NUFRB. The LUFRBs provide CBP senior leadership with an objective assessment of lesslethal force incidents from a regional committee of leadership from components within CBP. CBP recently initiated the development of a web-based tracking system for cases that come before the LUFRB. This system will track the consideration and disposition of cases heard by the LUFRBs. These systems will help us hold one another accountable to the public-and to ourselves. 26. CBP doesn't reveal the names of its agents or details of internal proceedings in fatality or misconduct investigations, is that right? CBP continues to implement significant policy, procedural and programmatic initiatives that ensure the safety of CBP personnel while striving to earn the public trust. For example, to further accountability and transparency in use of force situations, CBP regularly releases statistics on its website regarding use of force (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-use-force) as well as posting use of force case summaries on its website (https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-use-force/casesummaries.) CBP’s policy is to not release the name(s) of the agent involved in a use of force case pending the outcome of the investigation. The summaries posted to cbp.gov follow the review of U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s National Use of Force Review Board (NUFRB). The NUFRB is a committee of senior leaders from CBP, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement assigned to review use of force incidents resulting in serious physical injury or death, or any incident involving the discharge of a firearm in a non-training setting. The board reviews cases that have completed the investigative process and have been declined for prosecution by either a U.S. Attorney, state or local prosecutor. 27. CBP use-of-force policies were only made public in 2014, after a Congressional investigation into a wrongful death resulted in an independent review, is that right? In 2012, CBP commissioned the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) to conduct a review of the use of force by CBP officers and agents. PERF reviewed CBP’s Use of Force Policies and specific cases of deadly force. Based on the observations and recommendations made in the PERF’s report, “U.S. Customs and Border Protection Use of Force Review: Cases and Policies,” and following its own review, CBP revised its Use of Force Policy Handbook and its training processes for agents and officers. In May 2014, to further accountability and transparency in use of force situations, then-CBP Commissioner R. Gil Kerlikowske ordered the public release of the agency’s Use of Force Policy Handbook and the PERF report. This was the first time the Handbook had been made public. At the time of its release, Commissioner Kerlikowske said, “We initiated both internal and external use of force reviews to improve ourselves and our responsibility to the public and to use force only when necessary . . . the policy and training changes they represent are the beginning of a continuous review of our responsibility to only use force when it is necessary to protect people.” Please see CBP news release regarding publication of the Use of Force Policy Handbook: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-releases-use-force-policyhandbook-and-police-executive-research 28. CBP has not adopted dashboard or body cameras, is that right? CBP is currently testing this technology in the operational environment. See: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/cbp-evaluate-incident-drivenvideo-recording-system CBP is the first Federal agency to operationally pilot body worn cameras. As part of CBP’s continued emphasis on transparency and accountability, CBP is also beginning to implement Incident Driven Video Recording Systems (IDVRS). CBP is first conducting a thorough field evaluation and analysis to provide more thorough information concerning the expansion of audio and video recording capabilities through the incorporation of IDVRS. In an effort to maintain a high level of transparency, CBP recently conducted a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA). The goal of the evaluation was to determine the effectiveness of fixed, vehicle, and body-worn camera technology to provide an accurate representation of law enforcement encounters, while allowing CBP officers and agents to safely perform their duties. CBP published the PIA to evaluate the privacy concerns associated with CBP’s use of incident-driven video recording technology at and between POEs and to inform the public of potential privacy concerns associated with the deployment of body worn cameras and other audio/video recording devices, as well as CBP’s planned effortsto mitigate those potential privacy concerns. The PIA is now available on the DHS website. The Incident Driven Video Recording System (IDVRS) provides supplemental evidence in criminal cases that increases the likelihood of obtaining a successful prosecution case for those who violate the law. By simplifying incident review with the swift and immediate review of footage, we also strengthen officer/agent performance and accountability. Using IDVRS will enhance our training capabilities with real-world footage as a learning tool. In essence, this technology will afford insights into law enforcement encounters that have traditionally been unavailable. Agents and officers will evaluate the use of IDVRS in each of CBP’s operational environments along the U.S. border, at and between ports of entry, in the air and at sea. Body-worn cameras alone may not be the proper solution. CBP seeks to determine the most effective and efficient solution to an IDVRS strategy, including a comprehensive incorporation of body-worn, vehicle-mounted, and permanently fixed camera systems, to help CBP further fulfill our commitment to transparency and accountability. We will continue to pursue initiatives that advance our integrity and transparency. 29. She notes that CBP does not have a functioning system for public complaints, is that right? Do you have a response to this? This is completely false. CBP takes all allegations seriously, and we investigate all formal complaints. CBP has posted guidance on its website to allow the public to easily report a complaint or provide anonymous feedback to include in Spanish: https://help.cbp.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/175/kw/misconduct or https://helpspanish.cbp.gov/ Reports of any misconduct or mistreatment can also be immediately reported using one of the following methods: o Call the toll-free Joint Intake Center Hotline at 1-877-2INTAKE or send a fax to (202) 344-3390; o Send an e-mail message to Joint.Intake@dhs.gov; o Write to P.O. Box 14475, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20044; o Call the OIG at 1-800-323-8603; TTY: 1-844-889-4357; or Fax: 202-254-4297 o Access the online DHS OIG Complaint/Allegation Form at http://www.oig.dhs.gov/hotline 30. In 2016, the Homeland Security Advisory Council warned that the CBP has no effective process to root out corruption and that its internal affairs office is understaffed, is that right? Do you have a response to this? In 2016, CBP originally responded to the report in question to say: “U.S. Customs and Border Protection is committed to continually earning the public trust through integrity, accountability and transparency. CBP appreciates the extraordinary investment of the Integrity Advisory Panel in helping the agency identify areas to improve. Created as a subcommittee of the HSAC in March 2015, the IAP has examined law enforcement best practices regarding use of force, identifying and preventing corruption, and transparency within our agency. In today's report, they commended CBP for the many steps taken and underway to achieve these ends. The Panel also commended CBP personnel for their dedication to service and mission. The IAP issued its Interim Report last summer and made 14 recommendations, many of which CBP already has addressed. For example, CBP has begun increasing investigative staffing of CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (formerly the Office of Internal Affairs) and has obtained criminal investigative authority to address corruption, misuse of force, and other serious misconduct. CBP also revised its use of force policy guidelines and implemented new use of force training and incident review procedures. In addition, CBP has established a Spanish language capability at the CBP Information Center to provide public accessibility and transparency in its complaint process for Spanishspeaking individuals. We value the insights of the panel members, and want to thank co-chairs Karen Tandy and Bill Bratton for their leadership in providing CBP valuable and actionable feedback in the final report. We are reviewing each of the report’s recommendations with careful consideration to further the progress made in these critical areas.” In addition to our original response in 2016, we would note that at CBP, we are proud of the fact that our work is defined by the core values of vigilance, service and integrity. Like any organization – large or small – periodically there will be elements in the workforce that succumb to corruption. When that occurs CBP acts appropriately, fairly and decisively. The Office of Professional Responsibility is comprised of more than 550 employees at more than 20 locations across the United States. This includes about 200 Criminal Investigators, Security Specialists (Personnel, Physical, Information, etc.), Analysts, Investigative Specialists, Polygraph Examiners, Management, and Support Personnel. In addition, DHS Office of the Inspector General, ICE Office of Professional Responsibility, and the FBI address possible cases of corruption. This layered approach among federal agencies is critical to the mission of professional integrity. No incident of corruption is tolerated. 31. She mentions that in 2008 Senator Patrick Leahy was stopped at a temporary CBP checkpoint in New York, 125 miles from the border, while driving from Vermont to DC. Agents ordered Leahy to get out of his car and asked him to prove he was a US citizen. When Leahy asked what authority the CBP agent had, he pointed to his gun and said "That's all the authority I need," is that right? Do you have a response to this? While we don’t have the ability to confirm this incident that allegedly occurred 10 years ago, in 2008, we can say that U.S. Border Patrol agents are committed to treating everyone with professionalism, dignity and respect while enforcing the laws of the United States. 32. CBP maintains that its interior enforcement efforts are crucial to US safety, is that right? CBP conducts border security, not interior enforcement operations. As explained above, border security operations include securing routes of egress into the United States. CBP’s strategy to secure our nation’s borders is based on a “defense in depth” philosophy. This includes the use of checkpoints to interdict all threats to border security attempting to egress into the interior portions of our nation. The checkpoints have proven to be highly effective tools in halting the flow of illegal aliens and contraband attempting further transit into the United States. Beyond the bigger picture of national security and securing the border of the U.S., we have multiple examples in recent months how checkpoint operations can be crucial to personal safety, as U.S. Border Patrol agents have rescued illegal aliens locked into tractor trailers. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/rio-grande-valley-border-patrolstop-smuggling-attempt-rescue https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/laredo-sector-border-patrol-agentsfoil-alien-smuggling-attempt-and https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/laredo-sector-border-patrol-agentsintercept-smuggling-case-involving https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/laredo-sector-border-patrol-agentsdiscover-illegal-aliens-hidden https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/national-media-release/border-patrol-agents-rescue-64illegal-aliens-trapped-tractor https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/local-media-release/twelve-discovered-tractor-trailerrio-grande-valley 33. She mentions that in 2016 then CBP chief Mark Morgan told the House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security that checkpoints greatly enhance the agency's mission of securing the nation's borders against terrorists and weapons smugglers, contraband and unauthorized entrants, is that right? Per https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/09/13/written-testimony-cbp-house-homelandsecurity-subcommittee-border-and-maritime: “Immigration checkpoints are also a critical element of USBP’s layered approach to combat illegal cross-border activity and are the primary focus of my testimony. Border Patrol checkpoints are strategically located on routes of egress from the border and thereby additionally deters an attempted illegal entry. The purpose of checkpoint operations is to apprehend recent entrants who are undocumented and smugglers who were not apprehended at the border and are attempting to travel to interior locations. As part of the USBP’s layered security strategy, checkpoints greatly enhance our ability to carry out the mission of securing the Nation’s borders against terrorists and smugglers of weapons, contraband, and unauthorized entrants. Checkpoint operations are critical security measures that ensure that the border is not our only line of defense, but rather one of many.” 34. She mentions a CBP map of its zone of enforcement in Michigan, which shows that the Great Lakes are considered a maritime border and that means the entire state lies within the 100-mile border zone, is that right? Operations in Michigan utilize the functional equivalent of the border as its border with Canada is a 100% water border. 35. The ACLU of Michigan has sued CBP for information related to its authority in the 100mile zone, including citizen complaints, incident reports, and policy materials, is that right? As a matter of policy, CBP does not comment on pending litigation. 36. Around one third of people stopped by CBP in the Detroit Sector whose citizenship was recorded between 2012 and 2014 were American citizens, is that right? And only about five percent of people stopped by CBP in the Detroit Sector between 2012 and 2014 had crossed the border in the last thirty days, is that right? And 82 percent of the foreign citizens apprehended were Latino, is that right? As a matter of policy, CBP does not comment on pending litigation. The Border Patrol carefully selects checkpoint locations to maximize border enforcement while minimizing effects on legitimate traffic. The checkpoints have proven to be highly effective tools in halting the flow of illegal aliens and contraband attempting further transit into the United States. It is not unusual for Border Patrol Agents manning these checkpoints to engage in conversations with the public regarding their travels. Agents are trained to observe activities around them to include traffic patterns consistent with local traffic and legitimate travelers. Agents do take notice of vehicles that display driving behaviors absent of the norm. Vehicles noted under these circumstances may cause agents to have heightened concern that the vehicle may be transporting illegal aliens or be involved in illicit activity. Brief questions to dispel that concern are intended to resolve the issue with minimum disruption to lawful traffic. The Border Patrol’s primary goal is to stop all threats that attempt to gain entry into the United States where they may target and harm American citizens. Smuggling of humans and narcotics is a violent enterprise that puts the safety of our communities and country at risk. Attacking the problem of criminal organizations is a top priority and we will continue to use the resources and expertise at our disposal to disrupt current smuggling activity and to identify and dismantle the criminal organizations behind it. 37. Could you specify the exact boundaries of the Detroit Sector? I want to ensure we're putting this data in the proper context. Per https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/border-patrol-sectors/detroitsector-selfridge-angb-michigan: The Detroit Sector is responsible for 863 miles of international water boundary with Canada covering over 3,802 miles of lakeshores and riverbanks. The sector encompasses the states of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois. Michigan has 83 counties covering approximately 57,000 square miles and is surrounded by four out of the five Great Lakes (Superior, Huron, Michigan, and Erie). Additionally, Detroit Sector is responsible for Lake Saint Clair, and the Detroit, Saint Clair, and Saint Mary's Rivers. 38. She mentions documents obtained through a Families for Freedom FOIA showing that agents at a single CBP station in Rochester had wrongfully arrested nearly 300 US citizens and legal immigrants during a two-year period, is that right? And she said the group found that the only way CBP measured its effectiveness was through apprehension rates, is that right? Do you have a response to this? Please note that interviewing or detaining someone differs from an arrest. Non-citizens are required to carry immigration documents with them for presentation to government officials, while in the United States. Non-citizens who are legally present in the United States, who are not in possession of immigration documents may be detained if encountered by Immigration Officers until identity can be determined. The U.S. Border Patrol uses several indicators to measure its effectiveness; apprehension numbers along with technology deployments, assaults on agents, and recidivism rate are just a few of the factors used to measure effectiveness. 39. She mentions that agents in Buffalo NY were offered cash bonuses, prizes, and extra vacation time if they boosted their arrest numbers, is that right? Awards are used to recognize significant employee accomplishments and/or achievements that are clearly above and beyond what is normally expected. Generally, the granting of performance-based cash awards coincide with the annual evaluation of an employee’s performance at the end of each fiscal year. These awards are granted in recognition of performance excellence over an extended period of time. When completing the annual performance review, supervisors and managers determine whether or not an employee’s performance during the rating cycle merits an award. 40. She mentions a document released to the ACLU of Michigan by CBP that shows a complexion code chart, categorizing skin color on a scale from white to sallow to olive, is that right? As a matter of policy, CBP does not comment on pending litigation. There is a portion of our processing system that allows CBP personnel to add identifying characteristics for the individual, including appearance annotations such as height, weight, complexion, eye color and hair color. 41. CBP has so far refused to turn over geographical data showing where it deploys its resources in Michigan, is that right? As a matter of policy, CBP does not comment on pending litigation. Information about CBP offices is publicly available on our website, cbp.gov. Due to reasons of operational security, we do not publicize specifics of our asset deployment, such as the number of agents assigned to a particular station, the location of a ground sensor used to detect illegal entry to the U.S., etc. In addition, the timing, locations and frequency of our tactical immigration checkpoints are law enforcement sensitive, due to operational security. 42. In 2016 CBP settled the invasive body cavity searches lawsuit for $475,000, and as a condition of the lawsuit CBP agents in El Paso have to receive an additional hour of training on the personal search policy, is that right? Has that training been completed? CBP complied with the settlement agreement’s terms requiring additional training on personal searches to current CBP officers in El Paso, Texas. U.S. Customs and Border Protection takes all its responsibilities with training seriously, and complied with all provisions in the referenced 2016 Jane Doe settlement agreement.