Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION,
and AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION OF MASSACHUSETTS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, and DRUG
ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

C.A. No. _____________________

COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1.

This is an action for the production of public records pursuant to the Freedom of

Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552.
2.

In January 2019, the American Civil Liberties Union and the American Civil

Liberties Union of Massachusetts (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) submitted a FOIA request (the
“Request”) to the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Drug
Enforcement Administration (collectively, the “Defendants”). The Request sought policies,
contracts, and other records relating to the Defendants’ use of face recognition programs and
other biometric identification and tracking technology.
3.

To date, none of the Defendants has released any record responsive to the Request.

4.

Production of these records is important to assist the public in understanding the

government’s use of highly invasive biometric identification and tracking technologies. These
1

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 7

technologies have the potential to enable undetectable, persistent, and suspicionless surveillance
on an unprecedented scale. Such surveillance would permit the government to pervasively track
people’s movements and associations in ways that threaten core constitutional values.
5.

Further, there are serious questions about the reliability of biometric identification

technologies (including and particularly with respect to accurately identifying people of color).
These technologies therefore elevate the risk that an innocent person will falsely be associated
with criminal activity.
6.

Through the Request, the Plaintiffs seek to understand and inform the public about,

among other things, how face recognition and other biometric identification technologies are
currently being used by the government, and what, if any, safeguards are currently in place to
prevent their abuse and protect core constitutional rights.
7.

The public’s interest in the release of the requested information is particularly high in

light of the public’s need to understand and participate in ongoing legislative activity. In the last
few months, lawmakers at the local, state, and federal level have discussed and in some cases
implemented prohibitions on the government’s use of remote biometric identification
technologies.
8.

At the municipal level, multiple cities and towns have recently “pressed pause” on the

implementation of face and other biometric identification technologies. In May 2019, San
Francisco, California became the first city in the world to ban municipal government from using
face recognition systems. Oakland and Berkeley soon followed, as did the city of Somerville in
Massachusetts. Elsewhere in Massachusetts, the municipalities of Brookline, Springfield, and
Cambridge are considering similar prohibitions.

2

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 3 of 7

9.

At the state level, California's governor in October signed the nation's first state law

placing a moratorium on government use of face recognition, prohibiting the technology from
being used in conjunction with police body cameras. In Massachusetts, the state legislature’s
Joint Committee on the Judiciary is also considering a statewide moratorium on government use
of remote biometric identification technologies until regulations are established to protect the
public's interest. The Committee heard testimony from technical experts and civil rights
advocates concerning that proposal just last week.
10.

At the federal level, the U.S. Congress has held multiple hearings in recent

months to gather information about how government agencies across the United States are using
face recognition systems. Massachusetts Representative Ayanna Pressley has co-sponsored
federal legislation that would prohibit the use of face recognition technology in federally funded
public housing, and Michigan Representative Rashida Tlaib has introduced a bill that would
prohibit the use of federal funds for its purchase or use.
11.

The Plaintiffs now ask the Court to issue an injunction requiring the Defendants to

process the Request immediately and to produce the requested records. The Plaintiffs also seek
an order enjoining Defendants from assessing fees for the processing of the Request.
PARTIES
12. The American Civil Liberties Union (the “ACLU”) is a non-profit corporation with
its principal place of business in New York, New York. The ACLU’s mission is to maintain and
advance civil liberties, including, without limitation, the freedoms of association, press, religion
and speech, and the rights to the franchise, to due process of law, and to equal protection of the
laws for all people throughout the United States and its jurisdictions. The ACLU also works to
extend rights to segments of the population that have traditionally been denied their rights. The

3

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 4 of 7

ACLU regularly publishes information and analysis concerning government activities derived
from FOIA requests and other sources.
13. The American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, Inc. (the “ACLUM”) is a
Massachusetts non-profit corporation with its principal place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts. The ACLUM’s mission is to protect, and to educate the public about, civil rights
and civil liberties. ACLUM is committed to principles of transparency and accountability in
government. Obtaining information about government activity, analyzing that information, and
widely publishing and disseminating it to the press and the public is a critical and substantial
component of the ACLUM’s work and one of its primary activities.
14. The U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) is a department of the government of the
United States of America (the “U.S.” or “United States”).
15. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) is an organization within DOJ.
16. The Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) is an organization within DOJ.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
17. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
18. Venue lies in the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B),
including because it is the district in which ACLUM has its principal place of business.
FACTS
19. Since at least 2015, the FBI has operated a Facial Analysis, Comparison, and
Evaluation (“FACE”) Services Unit.
20. The FACE Services Unit provides investigative lead support to FBI field offices and
operational divisions, among others.

4

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 5 of 7

21. The FBI also operates the Next Generation Identification-Interstate Photo System,
which is a face recognition service that allows law enforcement agencies to search a database of
over 30 million photos.
22. The FBI is currently in the process of purchasing and/or developing additional
biometric identification technologies that include not only face recognition, but also voice prints,
gait prints, and other forms of biometric identification.
23. On January 18, 2019, the Plaintiffs submitted the Request to DOJ, the FBI, and the
DEA. A true and accurate copy of the Request is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
24. Among other things, the Request sought:
a. Policy directives, guidance documents, legal memoranda, policy memoranda, and
training materials concerning the use of face recognition, gait recognition, or
voice recognition technology;
b. Agreements, memoranda of agreement, and memoranda of understanding
pertaining to any face recognition, gait recognition, or voice recognition program,
including such records concerning the sharing, searching of, or granting access to
face or voice recognition systems maintained by state or local agencies;
c. Records relating to inquiries to companies, solicitations from companies, or
meetings with companies about the purchase, piloting, or testing of face
recognition, gait recognition, or voice recognition technology and related software
and services, including purchase orders, RFPs, licensing agreements,
documentation of selection, and contracts;
d. Records related to any audits of face, voice, and gait recognition system, and
records reflecting the system requirements for the accuracy of such systems; and
e. Records relating to the number of face, voice, and gait recognition searches
conducted by the relevant agency, and records reflecting how many times the use
of such technology has contributed to any arrests.
25. DOJ has not responded to the Request.
26. On February 5, 2019, the FBI sent Plaintiffs correspondence that acknowledged
receipt of the Request, determined that Plaintiffs are entitled to a waiver of search fees as a

5

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 6 of 7

“representative of the news media,” deferred decision on a “public interest” waiver of search and
duplication fees, denied expedited processing, and “administratively closed” three of the twenty
categories of documents sought by the Request. True and accurate copies of this correspondence
are attached hereto as Exhibit B. Plaintiffs have not received from the FBI any further
correspondence or documents concerning or responsive to the Request.
27. On February 14, 2019, the DEA sent Plaintiffs correspondence that acknowledged
receipt of the Request, granted itself a 10-day extension to respond due to “unusual
circumstances,” determined that Plaintiffs are entitled to a waiver of search fees as a
“representative of the news media,” and denied expedited processing. On April 12, 2019, the
DEA sent Plaintiffs further correspondence advising that “your request has been assigned and is
being handled as expeditiously as possible.” True and accurate copies of this correspondence are
attached hereto as Exhibit C. Plaintiffs have not received from the DEA any further
correspondence or documents concerning or responsive to the Request.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violation of FOIA 5 U.S.C. § 552
28. The foregoing allegations are re-alleged and incorporated herein.
29. Defendants have failed to make reasonable efforts to search for records sought by the
Request.
30. Defendants have failed to produce records responsive to the Request.
31. Plaintiffs are entitled to a waiver of all search, review, processing, and duplication
fees in connection with the Request.

6

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 7 of 7

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Wherefore, Plaintiffs ask this Court to GRANT the following relief:
1.

Order that Defendants shall produce the requested records forthwith, or alternatively
on an expedited schedule established by the Court;

2.

Enjoin Defendants from charging Plaintiffs search, review, processing, and
duplication fees in connection with responding to the Request;

3.

Award Plaintiffs costs and reasonable attorney fees in the action; and

4.

Grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

October 31, 2019

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Daniel L. McFadden
David Glod (BBO# 676859)
Nathaniel C. Donohue (BBO# 694274)
Rich May, P.C.
176 Federal Street, 6th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 556-3800
dglod@richmaylaw.com
ndonoghue@richmaylaw.com
Matthew R. Segal (BBO #654489)
Daniel L. McFadden (BBO #676612)
American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation of Massachusetts, Inc.
211 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02110
(617) 482-3170
msegal@aclum.org
dmcfadden@aclum.org
Brett Max Kaufman *
Nathan Freed Wessler * (BBO #680281)
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
(212) 549-2500
bkaufman@aclu.org
nwessler@aclu.org
* Pro hac vice application forthcoming
7

 Case Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 14

EXHIBIT A

Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 14

January 18, 2019
VIA Electronic Submission
FOIA/PA Mail Referral Unit
Department of Justice
Room 115
LOC Building
Washington, DC 20530-0001

LEGAL DEPARTMENT
National Office
125 Broad Street,
18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 549-2644
Fax: (212) 549-2644
aclu.org
Susan N. Herman
President
Anthony D. Romero
Executive Director
Richard Zacks
Treasurer

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Attn: FOI/PA Request
Record/Information Dissemination Section
170 Marcel Drive
Winchester, VA 22602-4843
Drug Enforcement Administration
Attn: FOI/PA Unit (SARF)
8701 Morrissette Drive
Springfield, Virginia 22152
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request/
Expedited Processing Requested
To whom it may concern:
This letter constitutes a request pursuant to the Freedom of
Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, seeking records about the use of facial
recognition and other biometric systems from the Department of Justice
(DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA). The Request is submitted on behalf of the
American Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union
Foundation (jointly known as “ACLU”), and the American Civil
Liberties Union of Massachusetts and its educational arm, the American
Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Massachusetts (jointly known as
“ACLUM”) (collectively, “Requesters”).
I. Background
Since at least 2015, the FBI has operated a Facial Analysis,
Comparison, and Evaluation (FACE) Services Unit. According to a 2015
Privacy Impact Assessment available on the FBI’s website, the FACE
Services Unit “provides investigative lead support to FBI field offices,
operational divisions, and legal attachés” and “may offer face

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 3 of 14

recognition support to federal partners.” 1 The FBI also operates the Next Generation
Identification-Interstate Photo System, which a 2016 Government Accountability Office
report described as “a face recognition service that allows law enforcement agencies to
search a database of over 30 million photos to support criminal investigations.” 2
According to these documents, the FBI has entered into memoranda of agreement with
external agencies pertaining to the FBI’s face recognition and analysis programs. As of
2016, per the GAO report, the FBI had entered into at least 16 agreements with state
governments to access drivers’ license images, booking photos, corrections photos, or all
three, for face recognition search purposes. The Next Generation Identification (NGI)
system, according to the FBI’s website, aims to include not just face images but also
“future biometric technologies” like voice prints, gait prints, and other forms of biometric
identification. 3 The FBI’s website calls NGI “the world’s largest and most efficient
electronic repository of biometric and criminal history information.” 4
Amazon Web Services (AWS) provides cloud services for all 17 United States
intelligence agencies, including the DOJ and its component agencies the FBI and DEA. 5
According to recent media reporting, the FBI is testing Amazon’s Rekognition face
recognition product, which is part of the suite of software products available on AWS, in
a pilot program. 6 In May 2018, the intelligence community awarded Microsoft a contract
enabling all 17 agencies to use Azure Government, Microsoft’s cloud service for public
entities. 7 Microsoft, like Amazon, offers its customers a face surveillance product that
runs on its own cloud service; Microsoft’s face surveillance product is called Face API. 8
Additionally, as of 2015, the FBI has utilized NEC Corporation of America’s “Integra ID

1

Ernest J. Babcock, FBI, Privacy Impact Assessment for the Facial Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation
(FACE) Services Unit, approved May 1, 2015, https://www.fbi.gov/services/informationmanagement/foipa/privacy-impact-assessments/facial-analysis-comparison-and-evaluation-face-servicesunit.
2

Gov’t Accountability Office, Face Recognition Technology: FBI Should Better Ensure Privacy and
Accuracy, June 15, 2016, https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-267.

3

FBI, Beyond Fingerprints: Our New Identification System, Jan. 26, 2009,
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2009/january/ngi_012609.
4

FBI, Next Generation Identification (NGI), https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/fingerprints-and-otherbiometrics/ngi.
5

Frank Konkel, The FBI is the Latest Intelligence Agency to Partner with Amazon Web Services, Nextgov,
Nov. 29, 2018, https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2018/11/fbis-counterterrorism-investigationsnow-run-amazon/153133/.
6

Frank Konkel, FBI is Trying Amazon’s Facial Recognition Software, Nextgov, Jan. 3, 2019,
https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/01/fbi-trying-amazons-facial-recognition-software/153888/.

7

Naomi Nix & Ben Brody, Microsoft Wins Lucrative Cloud Deal with Intelligence Community, Bloomberg
News, May 16, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-16/microsoft-wins-lucrativecloud-deal-with-intelligence-community.

8

See Face, Microsoft Azure, https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/services/cognitive-services/face/.

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 4 of 14

5 biometric solution software,” which provides facial recognition capabilities, in
conjunction with the agency’s NGI system. 9
The ACLU is concerned about the civil rights and civil liberties implications of
the federal government’s use of face recognition and other biometrics to track, identify,
and monitor people. If implemented, these capabilities would threaten to grant the
government an unprecedented power to pervasively track people’s movements and
associations in ways that threaten core constitutional values. We therefore request the
following records.
II. Definitions
For purposes of this Request, please apply the following definitions to these listed
terms:
“Facial recognition” and “face recognition” mean the automated or semiautomated process of comparing two or more images of faces to determine whether they
represent the same individual, and/or the automated or semi-automated process by which
the characteristics of an individual’s face are analyzed to determine the individual’s
sentiment, state of mind, and/or other propensities including but not limited to level of
dangerousness.
“Gait recognition” means the automated or semi-automated process of comparing
two or more images or recordings of individuals’ gaits to determine whether they
represent the same individual.
“Voice recognition” means the automated or semi-automated process of
comparing two or more recordings of human voices to determine whether they represent
the same individual.
“Face template” means data corresponding to an image or images of an
individual’s face that is unique to that face, for use in a face recognition system.
“Face recognition search” means an automated or semi-automated process
whereby an image of a face or a face template (the “probe image”) is compared against a
database of face images or face templates in order to attempt to identify the person
depicted in the probe image.
“Affect recognition search” means an automated or semi-automated process
whereby an image of a face or a face template is analyzed to determine the individual’s
sentiment, state of mind, and/or other propensities including but not limited to level of
dangerousness.
9
NEC Biometric Solution Becomes First to Provide FBI Rap Back Functionality, BusinessWire, Aug. 20,
2015, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20150820005061/en/NEC-Biometric-Solution-ProvideFBI-Rap-Functionality.

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 5 of 14

“Gait recognition search” means an automated or semi-automated process
whereby an image or recording of a person’s gait (the “probe image”) is compared
against a database of gait images or recordings in order to attempt to identify the person
depicted in the probe image.
“Voice recognition search” means an automated or semi-automated process
whereby a recording of a voice (the “probe recording”) is compared against a database of
voice recordings in order to attempt to identify the person depicted in the probe
recording.
III. Records Sought
Please provide the following records created or received after January 1, 2015:
1. Any policy directives, guidance documents, legal memoranda, policy memoranda,
training materials, or similar records concerning the use of face recognition, gait
recognition, or voice recognition technology, including but not limited to those
records referencing the use of face or voice recognition technology to identify or
monitor people engaged in First Amendment protected activity such as protesters
and demonstrators.
2. Any face recognition policies, guidelines for running searches, and training
manuals pertaining to the FBI’s FACE Services.
3. Any face recognition policies, guidelines for running searches, and training
manuals pertaining to the FBI’s Next Generation Identification database.
4. All agreements, memoranda of agreement, memoranda of understanding, or
similar records pertaining to any face recognition, gait recognition, or voice
recognition program, including any records that concern the sharing of or granting
of access to any face images or prints, gait images or prints, or voice recordings or
prints, or that concern the sharing, searching of, or granting access to face or
voice recognition systems maintained by state or local agencies.
5. All agreements, memoranda of understanding, or similar records pertaining to use
of or access to FACE Services or the Next Generation Identification-Interstate
Photo System by other federal agencies.
6. A record, broken down by federal agency component, of the number of times
other federal agencies have requested access to or assistance from FACE Services
or NGI.
7. Records relating to inquiries to companies, solicitations from companies, or
meetings with companies about the purchase, piloting, or testing of face
recognition, gait recognition, or voice recognition technology and related software
and services, including but not limited to communications with vendors, purchase

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 6 of 14

orders, invoices, RFPs, licensing agreements, documentation of selection, sole
source or limited source justification and approval documentation, contracts
(including non-disclosure agreements), and other memoranda and documentation.
This should include any communications or inquiries about potential use, pilot or
purchase of Rekognition, Face API, or other face recognition technology and
services from Amazon and Microsoft, as well as any communications or inquiries
about potential use, pilot or purchase of facial, gait, or voice recognition
technology or services from other companies.
8. Templates or forms for use in submitting images to any face recognition system
(which may be known as “submission templates” or by another term).
9. Records related to any audits conducted by the agency or any third party of any
face recognition system, voice recognition system, or gait recognition system,
including records that reference its accuracy, performance for persons of different
race or gender, and/or reliability.
10. Any record reflecting system requirements for accuracy rates or false acceptance
rates for any face recognition system, as well as any record reflecting the results
of any accuracy testing.
11. Any record reflecting how many photos or face templates your agency can access
for purposes of face recognition searches, including if available a list identifying
each database, the state or entity that controls that database, and the number of
photos per database.
12. Any record reflecting how many of each of the following your agency has
conducted (please provide data broken down on a month-to-month basis, if
available):
a.
b.
c.
d.

Face recognition searches
Affect recognition searches
Voice recognition searches
Gait recognition searches

13. Any record reflecting how many times your agency has made or contributed to an
arrest of an individual identified through use of each of the following (please
provide data broken down on a month-to-month basis, if available):
a. Face recognition technology
b. Voice recognition technology
c. Gait recognition technology
14. Any record reflecting how many times your agency has identified or attempted to
identify a person in the custody of your or another law enforcement agency

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 7 of 14

following that person’s arrest using each of the following (please provide data
broken down on a month-to-month basis, if available):
a. Face recognition technology
b. Voice recognition technology
15. Any record reflecting how many voice recordings or prints your agency can
access for purposes of voice recognition searches, including if available a list
identifying each database and the number of voice prints per database.
16. Any record reflecting how many gait images, recordings, or prints your agency
can access for purposes of gait recognition searches, including if available a list
identifying each database and the number of gait prints per database.
17. All communications, including emails, pertaining to the use or potential use of
face recognition at protests, demonstrations, or religious locations.
18. All communications, including emails, pertaining to the ACLU’s public
comments or advocacy related to face recognition, Amazon’s Rekognition, or
biometric privacy more generally.
19. All communications and documents related to the GAO report 17-489T, “Face
Recognition Technology: DOJ and FBI Need to Take Additional Actions to
Ensure Privacy and Accuracy,” including communications and documents related
to the decision to adopt or not adopt the GAO recommendations in this report.
20. All communications, including emails, pertaining to the use of face, voice, or gait
recognition to identify people communicating with or suspected of
communicating with journalists.
IV. Application for Waiver or Limitation of Fees
The Requesters request a waiver of document search, review, and duplication fees
on the grounds that disclosure of the requested records is “in the public interest because it
is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities
of the government and is not primarily in the commercial interest of the requester.” 28
C.F.R. § 16.10(k)(1); see also 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(iii). The Requesters also request a
waiver of search fees on the grounds that they qualify as a “representative of the news
media” and the records are not sought for commercial use. 5 U.S.C. §
552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
A. The Request is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the
operations or activities of the government and is not primarily in the commercial
interest of the Requesters.

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 8 of 14

As discussed above, this Request concerns the agency’s use of face recognition
technology. Little information is publicly available regarding the uses of face recognition
technology by federal law enforcement agencies, so the records sought are certain to
contribute significantly to the public’s understanding of this topic. For example, the
public does not know whether the FBI, DEA, and other federal law enforcement agencies
have purchased face recognition technology from private companies and if so, which
ones or on what terms. Nor does the public have current information about agreements
between federal law enforcement agencies and state and local agencies to share or request
access to their respective face recognition systems. The public also lacks information
about federal law enforcement agencies’ current policies governing the use of face
recognition technology, limitations on how and when it can be used, and accuracy rates
of the face recognition systems in use or development.
There is broad public interest in this and other information about the purchase and
use of face recognition technology by federal law enforcement agencies, as evidenced by
the many press reports on the subject in recent months. 10 Moreover, federal oversight
bodies, lawmakers, and others have expressed concern about deficiencies in privacy and
accuracy safeguards in FBI and DOJ face recognition systems. 11 The information sought
10

See, e.g., Eugene Kim, Shareholders are Pressuring Amazon to Stop Selling Facial Recognition Tech to
the Government, CNBC, Jan. 17, 2019, https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/17/amazon-shareholders-pressureagainst-selling-rekognition-to-government.html; Jake Kanter, Amazon Investors are Cranking Up the
Pressure on Jeff Bezos to Stop Selling Facial Recognition Tech to Government Agencies, Business Insider,
Jan. 17, 2019, https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-shareholders-submit-resolution-on-haltingrekognition-sales-2019-1; Danielle Abril, Coalition Pressures Amazon, Microsoft, and Google to Keep
Facial Recognition Surveillance Away from Government, Fortune, Jan. 16, 2019,
http://fortune.com/2019/01/15/coalition-pressures-amazon-microsoft-google-facial-recognitionsurveillance-government/; Frank Konkel, FBI is Trying Amazon’s Facial Recognition Software, Nextgov,
Jan. 3, 2019, https://www.nextgov.com/emerging-tech/2019/01/fbi-trying-amazons-facial-recognitionsoftware/153888/; David Owen, Should We Be Worried About Computerized Facial Recognition?, New
Yorker, Dec. 17, 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/12/17/should-we-be-worried-aboutcomputerized-facial-recognition; Jay Stanley, Secret Service Announces Test of Face Recognition System
Around White House, ACLU Free Future, Dec. 4, 2018, https://www.aclu.org/blog/privacytechnology/surveillance-technologies/secret-service-announces-test-face-recognition; Adam Mazmanian,
Secret Service Tests Facial Recognition System at the White House, FCW, Nov. 28, 2018,
https://fcw.com/articles/2018/11/28/white-house-facial-recog.aspx; Jake Laperruque & Andrea Peterson,
Amazon Pushes ICE to Buy Its Face Recognition Surveillance Tech, Daily Beast, Oct. 23, 2018,
https://www.thedailybeast.com/amazon-pushes-ice-to-buy-its-face-recognition-surveillance-tech;, Drew
Harwell, Amazon Met with ICE Officials Over Facial-Recognition Systems That Could Identify Immigrants,
Wash. Post, Oct. 23, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/10/23/amazon-met-with-iceofficials-over-facial-recognition-system-that-could-identify-immigrants; Jon Schuppe, Facial Recognition
Gives Police a Powerful New Tracking Tool. It’s Also Raising Alarms, NBC News, July 30, 2018,
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/facial-recognition-gives-police-powerful-new-tracking-tool-it-sn894936.
11

See, e.g., Gov’t Accountability Office, Face Recognition Technology: DOJ and FBI Need to Take
Additional Actions to Ensure Privacy and Accuracy, Mar. 22, 2017,
https://www.gao.gov/assets/690/683549.pdf; Hearing of House Comm. On Oversight & Gov’t Reform,
Law Enforcement’s Use of Facial Recognition Technology, Mar. 22, 2017; Olivia Solon, Facial
Recognition Database Used by FBI is Out of Control, House Committee Hears, Guardian, Mar. 27, 2017,
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/27/us-facial-recognition-database-fbi-drivers-licensespassports.

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 9 of 14

in this request will contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or
activities of the government.
The Requesters are not filing this Request to further their commercial interest.
The ACLU and ACLUM are non-profit 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations. Any
information disclosed by these organizations as a result of this Request will be available
to the public at no cost. The ACLU and ACLUM regularly make information—including
information obtained via FOIA requests—available to the public via their websites,
electronic newsletters, print publications, and other means. All of these are furnished to
members of the public at no cost. Thus, a fee waiver would fulfill Congress’s legislative
intent providing fee waivers for noncommercial requesters. See Judicial Watch, Inc. v.
Rossotti, 326 F.3d 1309, 1312 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (“Congress amended FOIA to ensure that
it be liberally construed in favor of waivers for noncommercial requesters.” (quotation
marks omitted)).
B. Requesters are representatives of the news media and the records are not sought
for commercial use.
Requesters also request a waiver of search fees on the grounds that the ACLU and
ACLUM qualify as a “representative of the news media” and the records are not sought
for commercial use. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(II); see also 28 C.F.R. § 16.10(c)(1)(i),
(d)(1), (k)(2)(ii)(B). Requesters meets the statutory and regulatory definitions of a
“representative of the news media” because they are each an “entity that gathers
information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn
the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(4)(A)(ii)(III).
The ACLU regularly publishes STAND, a print magazine that reports on and
analyzes civil liberties-related current events. The magazine is disseminated to over
900,000 people. The ACLU also publishes regular updates and alerts via email to over
3.1 million subscribers (both ACLU members and non-members). These updates are
additionally broadcast to over 4 million social media followers. The magazine as well as
the email and social-media alerts often include descriptions and analysis of information
obtained through FOIA requests.
The ACLU and ACLUM also regularly issues press releases to call attention to
documents obtained through FOIA requests, as well as other breaking news, 12 and ACLU
See, e.g., Press Release, ACLU, New Documents Reveal Government Plans to Spy on Keystone XL
Protesters (Sept. 4, 2018), https://www.aclu.org/news/new-documents-reveal-government-plansspy-keystone-xl-protesters; Press Release, ACLU, ACLU Obtains Documents Showing Widespread
Abuse of Child Immigrants in U.S. Custody (May 22, 2018), https://www.aclu.org/news/acluobtains-documents-showing-widespread-abuse-child-immigrants-us-custody; Press Release, ACLU,
ACLU Demands CIA Records on Campaign Supporting Haspel Nomination (May 4, 2018),
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-demands-cia-records-campaign-supporting-haspel-nomination;
Press Release, ACLU, Advocates File FOIA Request For ICE Documents on Detention of Pregnant
Women (May 3, 2018), https://www.aclu.org/news/advocates-file-foia-request-ice-documentsdetention-pregnant-women; Press Release, ACLU, Civil Rights Organizations Demand Police Reform
12

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 10 of 14

and ACLUM attorneys and advocates are interviewed frequently for news stories about
documents released through FOIA requests. 13
Similarly, the ACLU and ACLUM publish reports about government conduct and
civil liberties issues based on its analysis of information derived from various sources,
including information obtained from the government through FOIA requests. This
material is broadly circulated to the public and widely available to everyone for no cost
or, sometimes, for a small fee. 14 The ACLU and ACLUM also regularly publishes books,
Documents from Justice Department (Jan. 4, 2018), https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-rightsorganizations-demand-police-reform-documents-justice-department; Press Release, ACLU, ACLU
Files Lawsuits Demanding Local Documents on Implementation of Muslim Ban (Apr. 12, 2017),
https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-files-lawsuits-demanding-local-documents-implementationtrump-muslim-ban; Press Release, ACLU, U.S. Releases Drone Strike ‘Playbook’ in Response to ACLU
Lawsuit (Aug. 6, 2016), https://www.aclu.org/news/us-releases-drone-strike-playbook-responseaclu-lawsuit; Press Release, ACLU, Secret Documents Describe Graphic Abuse and Admit Mistakes
(June 14, 2016), https://www.aclu.org/news/cia-releases-dozens-torture-documents-response-aclulawsuit; Press Release, ACLU, ACLU Sues for Bureau of Prisons Documents on Approval of CIA
Torture Site (Apr. 14 2016), https://www.aclu.org/news/aclu-sues-bureau-prisons-documentsapproval-cia-torture-site; Press Release, ACLU, U.S. Releases Targeted Killing Memo in Response to
Long-Running ACLU Lawsuit (June 23, 2014), https://www.aclu.org/national-security/us-releasestargeted-killing-memo-response-long-running-aclu-lawsuit.
See, e.g., Cora Currier, TSA’s Own Files Show Doubtful Science Behind Its Behavioral Screen Program,
Intercept, Feb. 8, 2017, https://theintercept.com/2017/02/08/tsas-own-files-show-doubtfulscience-behind-its-behavior-screening-program (quoting ACLU attorney Hugh Handeyside); Larry
Neumeister, Judge Scolds Government over Iraq Detainee Abuse Pictures, Associated Press, Jan. 18,
2017, https://www.apnews.com/865c32eebf4d457499c017eb837b34dc (quoting ACLU project
director Hina Shamsi); Karen DeYoung, Newly Declassified Document Sheds Light on How President
Approves Drone Strikes, Wash. Post, Aug. 6, 2016, http://wapo.st/2jy62cW (quoting former ACLU
deputy legal director Jameel Jaffer); Catherine Thorbecke, What Newly Released CIA Documents
Reveal About ‘Torture’ in Its Former Detention Program, ABC, June 15, 2016, http://abcn.ws/2jy40d3
(quoting ACLU attorney Dror Ladin); Nicky Woolf, US Marshals Spent $10M on Equipment for
Warrantless Stingray Surveillance, Guardian, Mar. 17, 2016,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/17/us-marshals-stingray-surveillance-airborne
(quoting ACLU attorney Nathan Freed Wessler); David Welna, Government Suspected of Wanting CIA
Torture Report to Remain Secret, NPR, Dec. 9, 2015, http://n.pr/2jy2p71 (quoting ACLU project
director Hina Shamsi).
13

14

See, e.g., ACLU, Bad Trip: Debunking the TSA’s ‘Behavior Detection’ Program (2017),
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/dem17-tsa_detection_report-v02.pdf; Carl Takei,
ACLU-Obtained Emails Prove that the Federal Bureau of Prisons Covered Up Its Visit to the CIA’s
Torture Site (Nov. 22, 2016), https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/aclu-obtained-emails-prove-federalbureau-prisons-covered-its-visit-cias-torture; Brett Max Kaufman, Details Abound in Drone ‘Playbook’ –
Except for the Ones That Really Matter Most (Aug. 8, 2016), https://www.aclu.org/ blog/speakfreely/details-abound-drone-playbook-except-ones-really-matter-most; ACLU, Leaving Girls Behind: An
Analysis of Washington D.C.’s “Empowering Males of Color” Initiative (2016), https://www.aclu.org/
report/leaving-girls-behind; Nathan Freed Wessler, ACLU-Obtained Documents Reveal Breadth of
Secretive Stingray Use in Florida (Feb. 22, 2015), https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/aclu-obtaineddocuments-reveal-breadth-secretive-stingray-use-florida; Nathan Freed Wessler, FBI Documents Reveal
New Information on Baltimore Surveillance Flights (Oct. 30, 2015), https://www.aclu.org/blog/freefuture/fbi-documents-reveal-new-information-baltimore-surveillance-flights; Ashley Gorski, New NSA
Documents Shine More Light into Black Box of Executive Order 12333 (Oct. 30, 2014),
https://www.aclu.org/blog/new-nsa-documents-shine-more-light-black-box-executive-order-12333.

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 11 of 14

“know your rights” materials, fact sheets, and educational brochures and pamphlets
designed to educate the public about civil liberties issues and government policies that
implicate civil rights and liberties.
The ACLU publishes a widely read blog where original editorial content reporting
on and analyzing civil rights and civil liberties news is posted daily. See
https://www.aclu.org/blog. The ACLU creates and disseminates original editorial and
educational content on civil rights and civil liberties news through multi-media projects,
including
videos,
podcasts,
and
interactive
features.
See
https://www.aclu.org/multimedia. The ACLU and ACLUM also publish, analyze, and
disseminate information through their heavily visited websites, www.aclu.org and
www.aclum.org. The websites address civil rights and civil liberties issues in depth,
provides features on civil rights and civil liberties issues in the news, and contain many
thousands of documents relating to the issues on which the organizations are focused.
The websites also serve as a clearinghouse for news about ACLU cases, including
analysis about case developments and an archive of case-related documents. Through
these pages, and with respect to each specific civil liberties issue, the ACLU and
ACLUM provide the public with educational material, recent news, analyses of relevant
congressional or executive branch action, government documents obtained through FOIA
requests, and further in-depth analytic and educational multi-media features. 15
The ACLU website includes many features on information obtained through the
FOIA. The ACLU maintains an online “Torture Database,” a compilation of over
100,000 pages of FOIA documents that allows researchers and the public to conduct
sophisticated searches of its contents relating to government policies on rendition,
detention, and interrogation. 16 The ACLU has also published a number of charts and

15

See, e.g., ACLU v. DOJ—FOIA Case for Records Relating to Targeted Killing Law, Policy, and
Casualties, ACLU Case Page, https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-doj-foia-case-records-relating-targetedkilling-law-policy-and-casualties; Executive Order 12,333—FOIA Lawsuit, ACLU Case Page,
https://www.aclu.org/cases/executive-order-12333-foia-lawsuit; ACLU Motions Requesting Public Access
to FISA Court Rulings on Government Surveillance, ACLU Case Page, https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclumotions-requesting-public-access-fisa-court-rulings-government-surveillance; ACLU v. DOJ—FOIA
Lawsuit Demanding OLC Opinion “Common Commercial Service Agreements, ACLU Case Page,
https://www.aclu.org/cases/aclu-v-doj-foia-lawsuit-demanding-olc-opinion-common-commercial-serviceagreements; FOIA Request for Justice Department Policy Memos on GPS Location Tracking, ACLU Case
Page, https://www.aclu.org/cases/foia-request-justice-department-policy-memos-gps-location-tracking;
Florida Stingray FOIA, ACLU Case Page, https://www.aclu.org/cases/florida-stingray foia; Nathan Freed
Wessler, ACLU-Obtained Documents Reveal Breadth of Secretive Stingray Use in Florida, (Feb. 22, 2015)
https://www.aclu.org/blog/free-future/aclu-obtained-documents-reveal-breadth-secretive-stingray-useflorida?redirect=blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/aclu-obtained-documents-reveal-breadthsecretive-sting.
16

The Torture Database, ACLU Database, https://www.thetorturedatabase.org; see also Countering Violent
Extremism FOIA Database, ACLU Database, https://www.aclu.org/foia-collection/cve-foia-documents;
TSA Behavior Detection FOIA Database, ACLU Database, https://www.aclu.org/foia-collection/tsabehavior-detection-foia-database; Targeted Killing FOIA Database, ACLU Database,
https://www.aclu.org/foia-collection/targeted-killing-foia-database.

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 12 of 14

explanatory materials that collect, summarize, and analyze information it has obtained
through the FOIA. 17
These means of distributing information to the public qualify Requesters as
representatives of the news media. See Nat’l Sec. Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d
1381, 1387 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (finding that an organization that gathers information,
exercises editorial discretion in selecting and organizing documents, “devises indices and
finding aids,” and “distributes the resulting work to the public” is a “representative of the
news media” for purposes of the FOIA); Cause of Action v. IRS, 125 F. Supp. 3d 145
(D.C. Cir. 2015); Serv. Women’s Action Network v. Dep’t of Defense, 888 F. Supp. 2d
282 (D. Conn. 2012) (requesters, including ACLU, were representatives of the news
media and thus qualified for fee waivers for FOIA requests to the Department of Defense
and Department of Veterans Affairs); ACLU of Wash. v. Dep’t of Justice, No. C09–
0642RSL, 2011 WL 887731, at *10 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 10, 2011) (finding that the ACLU
of Washington is an entity that “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of
the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work,
and distributes that work to an audience”); ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F. Supp. 2d 24,
29 n.5 (D.D.C. 2004) (finding non-profit public interest group to be “primarily engaged
in disseminating information”); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, 133 F. Supp. 2d
52, 53–54 (D.D.C. 2000) (finding Judicial Watch, self-described as a “public interest law
firm,” a news media requester).
V. Application for Expedited Processing
Requesters seek expedited processing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E); 28
C.F.R. § 16.5(e). There is a “compelling need” for these records, as defined in the statute,
because the information requested is “urgen[tly]” needed by an organization primarily
engaged in disseminating information “to inform the public concerning actual or alleged
Federal Government activity.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).
A. The ACLU is an organization primarily engaged in disseminating information
in order to inform the public about actual or alleged government activity.
Requesters are “primarily engaged in disseminating information” within the
meaning of the statute. See id. Obtaining information about government activity,
analyzing that information, and widely publishing and disseminating it to the press and
public are critical and substantial components of the ACLU’s work and are among its
primary activities. See ACLU v. Dep’t of Justice, 321 F. Supp. at 29 n.5 (finding nonprofit public interest group that “gathers information of potential interest to a segment of
the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw material into a distinct work, and
17

Index of Bush-Era OLC Memoranda Relating to Interrogation, Detention, Rendition and/or Surveillance,
ACLU (Mar. 5, 2009), https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/ safefree/ olcmemos_2009_0305.pdf;
Summary of FISA Amendments Act FOIA Documents Released on November 29, 2010, ACLU (Nov. 29,
2010), https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/natsec/faafoia 20101129/20101129Summary.pdf; Statistics on NSL’s
Produced by Department of Defense, ACLU,
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/nsl_stats.pdf.

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 13 of 14

distributes that work to an audience” to be “primarily engaged in disseminating
information”). 18 As explained above in Section III.B of this Request, Requesters
regularly disseminate information to the public via print publications, email newsletters,
the ACLU and ACLUM websites, and releases to media outlets.
Requesters plan to analyze, publish, and disseminate to the public the information
gathered through this Request. The records requested are not sought for commercial use
and the Requesters plan to disseminate the information disclosed as a result of this
Request to the public at no cost.
B. The records sought are urgently needed to inform the public about actual or
alleged government activity.
These records are urgently needed to inform the public about actual or alleged
government activity. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II); 28 C.F.R.§ 16.5(e)(1)(ii).
Specifically, they pertain to the government’s use of highly controversial and invasive
biometric identification and tracking technologies. As discussed in Sections I and III,
supra, biometric identity tracking technologies are the subject of widespread public
controversy and media attention. The records sought relate to a matter of widespread and
exceptional media interest.
Further underscoring the urgency of informing the public about the biometric
identification and tracking technologies at issue in this Request is the strong media
interest in what little has been revealed publicly about that conduct. See supra. Given this
media interest and the lack of public information about the basis and need for biometric
surveillance technologies at issue, there is an urgent need to inform the public about how
the Department of Justice and its component agencies use these tools. Expedited
processing is therefore appropriate under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) and the Department of
Justice implementing regulations.
Conclusion
Pursuant to applicable statutes and regulations, the Requesters expect a
determination regarding expedited processing within 10 days. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(6)(E)(ii).
If the Request is denied in whole or in part, Requesters ask that you justify all
deletions by reference to specific exemptions to FOIA. Requesters expect the release of
all segregable portions of otherwise exempt material. Requesters reserve the right to
appeal a decision to withhold any information or deny a waiver of fees.

Courts have found that the ACLU as well as other organizations with similar missions that engage
in information-dissemination activities similar to the ACLU are “primarily engaged in disseminating
information.” See, e.g., Leadership Conference on Civil Rights v. Gonzales, 404 F. Supp. 2d 246, 260
(D.D.C. 2005); ACLU, 321 F. Supp. 2d at 29 n.5; Elec. Privacy Info. Ctr. v. DOD, 241 F. Supp. 2d 5, 11
(D.D.C. 2003).
18

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-1 Filed 10/31/19 Page 14 of 14

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please furnish the applicable
records to:
Nathan Freed Wessler
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
T: (212) 519-7847
F: (212) 549-2654
nwessler@aclu.org
I affinn that the information provided supporting the request for expedited
processing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. See 5 U.S.C.
§ 552(a)(6)(E)(vi).
Sincerely,

Nathan Freed Wessler
Brett Max Kaufinan
American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Kade Crockford
Daniel McFadden
American Civil Liberties Union
of Massachusetts
211 Congress Street
Boston, MA 02110

 Case Document 1-2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 8

EXHIBIT 

Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 8
U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D.C. 20535
February 5, 2019
MR. NATHAN WESSLER
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 BROAD STREET
18TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10004
FOIPA Request No.: 1427589-000
Dear Mr. Wessler:
This acknowledges receipt of your Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the FBI, dated
January 18. 2019. For administrative tracking purposes, additional FOIPA Request Numbers may be
assigned if it is determined your request seeks records about multiple subjects. You will be notified of any
additional tracking numbers if assigned. Below you will find check boxes and informational paragraphs
about your request, as well as specific determinations per statute. Please read each one carefully.
You submitted your request via the FBI’s eFOIPA system.
We have reviewed your request. Consistent with the FBI eFOIPA terms of
service, future correspondence about your FOIA request will be provided in an
email link.
We have reviewed your request. Consistent with the FBI eFOIPA terms of
service, future correspondence about your FOIPA request will be sent through
standard mail.
Your request for a public interest fee waiver is under consideration, and you will be
advised of the decision at a later date. If your fee waiver is not granted, you will be
responsible for applicable fees per your designated requester fee category below.
For the purpose of assessing any fees, we have determined:
As a commercial use requester, you will be charged applicable search, review,
and duplication fees in accordance with 5 USC § 552 (a)(4)(A)(ii)(I).
As an educational institution, noncommercial scientific institution or
representative of the news media requester, you will be charged applicable
duplication fees in accordance with 5 USC § 552 (a)(4)(A)(ii)(II).
As a general (all others) requester, you will be charged applicable search and
duplication fees in accordance with 5 USC § 552 (a)(4)(A)(ii)(III).
Please check the status of your FOIPA request at www.fbi.gov/foia by clicking on FOIPA Status
and entering your FOIPA Request Number. Status updates are adjusted weekly. The status of newly
assigned requests may not be available until the next weekly update. If the FOIPA has been closed the
notice will indicate that appropriate correspondence has been mailed to the address on file.
For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.”
The FOIPA Request number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all
correspondence concerning your request.

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 3 of 8
You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States
Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, or you
may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIA online portal by creating an account on the following web
site: https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or
electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely.
If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked “Freedom of
Information Act Appeal.” Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be
easily identified.
You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information
Services (OGIS) at 877-684-6448, or by emailing ogis@nara.gov. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s
FOIA Public Liaison by emailing foipaquestions@fbi.gov. If you submit your dispute resolution
correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please
also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/Information
Dissemination Section
Information Management Division

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 4 of 8
U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D.C. 20535

February 5, 2019
MR. NATHAN WESSLER
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 BROAD STREET
18TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10004
FOIPA Request No.: 1427589-000
Subject: Facial Recognition
Dear Mr. Wessler:
This is in reference to your letter to the FBI, in which you requested expedited processing for the abovereferenced Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request. Under Department of Justice (DOJ) standards,
expedited processing can only be granted in the following situations.
You have requested expedited processing according to:
28 C.F.R. §16.5 (e)(1)(i): “Circumstances in which the lack of expedited treatment could reasonably
be expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual.”
28 C.F.R. §16.5 (e)(1)(ii): “An urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged federal
government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information.”
28 C.F.R. §16.5 (e)(1)(iii): “The loss of substantial due process of rights.”
28 C.F.R. §16.5 (e)(1)(iv): “A matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there
exist possible questions about the government’s integrity which affect public confidence.”
You have not provided enough information concerning the statutory requirements for expedition; therefore,
your request is denied. Specifically, you have not described an urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged
federal government activity.
For questions regarding our determinations, visit the www.fbi.gov/foia website under “Contact Us.”
The FOIPA Request number listed above has been assigned to your request. Please use this number in all
correspondence concerning your request.
You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States
Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, or you
may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIA online portal by creating an account on the following web
site: https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically
transmitted within ninety (90) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely. If you submit your
appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked “Freedom of Information Act Appeal.”
Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 5 of 8

You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information Services
(OGIS) at 877-684-6448, or by emailing ogis@nara.gov. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s FOIA Public
Liaison by emailing foipaquestions@fbi.gov. If you submit your dispute resolution correspondence by email, the
subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please also cite the FOIPA Request Number
assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief
Record/Information
Dissemination Section
Information Management Division

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 6 of 8
U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation
Washington, D.C. 20535

February 5, 2019
MR. NATHAN WESSLER
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 BROAD STREET
18TH FLOOR
NEW YORK, NY 10004
Request No.: NFP-104152
Subject: All Communications pertaining to
Facial Recognition
Dear Mr. Wessler:
This is in response to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts (FOIPA) request regarding items
17, 18, and 20 of your request.
The FOIA/FOIPA provides for access to Government records where the records sought are
"reasonably described" [Title 5, United States Code, Section 552(a)(3)(A)]. Your letter does not contain
enough descriptive information to permit a search of our records. Therefore, your request is being
administratively closed. In accordance with Title 28, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 16.3(b), please
provide us more specific information.
Examples of specific information which could assist in locating potentially responsive records within
a reasonable amount of effort are as follows:







Complete names of individuals
o Birth date
o Place of birth
o Place of death
o Location of incident
Organizations/Events
o Date of event
o Time frame
o Location
Specific time frame
Specific location

For questions on how to reasonably describe your request, please email us at
foipaquestions@fbi.gov. You may also visit www.fbi.gov and select “Services,” “Information Management,”
and “Freedom of Information/Privacy Act” for additional guidance.
You may file an appeal by writing to the Director, Office of Information Policy (OIP), United States
Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20530-0001, or you
may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIA online portal by creating an account on the following web
site: https://www.foiaonline.gov/foiaonline/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or
electronically transmitted within ninety (90) days from the date of this letter in order to be considered timely.
If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked “Freedom of
Information Act Appeal.” Please cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be
easily identified.
You may seek dispute resolution services by contacting the Office of Government Information
Services (OGIS) at 877-684-6448, or by emailing ogis@nara.gov. Alternatively, you may contact the FBI’s
FOIA Public Liaison by emailing foipaquestions@fbi.gov. If you submit your dispute resolution

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 7 of 8
correspondence by email, the subject heading should clearly state “Dispute Resolution Services.” Please
also cite the FOIPA Request Number assigned to your request so it may be easily identified.
Enclosed for your information is a copy of the FBI Fact Sheet.

Sincerely,

David M. Hardy
Section Chief,
Record/Information
Dissemination Section
Information Management Division
Enclosure

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-2 Filed 10/31/19 Page 8 of 8

FBI FACT SHEET


The primary functions of the FBI are national security and law enforcement.



The FBI does not keep a file on every citizen of the United States.



The FBI was not established until 1908 and we have very few records prior to the 1920s.



FBI files generally contain reports of FBI investigations of a wide range of matters, including counterterrorism,
counter-intelligence, cyber-crime, public corruption, civil rights, organized crime, white collar crime, major thefts,
violent crime, and applicants.



The FBI does not issue clearances or deny clearances for anyone other than its own personnel or
persons having access to FBI facilities. Background investigations for security clearances are conducted by
many different Government agencies. Persons who received a clearance while in the military or employed with
some other government agency should contact that entity. Most government agencies have websites which are
accessible on the internet which have their contact information.



An identity history summary check or “rap sheet” is NOT the same as an “FBI file.” It is a listing of
information taken from fingerprint cards and related documents submitted to the FBI in connection with arrests,
federal employment, naturalization or military service. The subject of a “rap sheet” may obtain a copy by
submitting a written request to FBI CJIS Division – Summary Request, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, WV
26306. Along with a specific written request, the individual must submit a new full set of his/her fingerprints in
order to locate the record, establish positive identification, and ensure that an individual’s records are not
disseminated to an unauthorized person. The fingerprint submission must include the subject’s name, date and
place of birth. There is a required fee of $18 for this service, which must be submitted by money order or
certified check made payable to the Treasury of the United States. A credit card payment option is also
available. Forms for this option and additional directions may be obtained by accessing the FBI Web site at
www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/identity-history-summary-checks.



The National Name Check Program (NNCP) conducts a search of the FBI’s Universal Index (UNI) to identify
any information contained in FBI records that may be associated with an individual and provides the results of that
search to a requesting federal, state or local agency. Names are searched in a multitude of combinations and
phonetic spellings to ensure all records are located. The NNCP also searches for both “main” and “cross
reference” files. A main file is an entry that carries the name corresponding to the subject of a file, while a cross
reference is merely a mention of an individual contained in a file. A search of this magnitude can result in several
“hits” on an individual. In each instance where UNI has identified a name variation or reference, information
must be reviewed to determine if it is applicable to the individual in question.



The Record/Information Dissemination Section (RIDS) searches for records and provides copies of FBI
documents responsive to Freedom of Information or Privacy Act (FOIPA) requests for information. RIDS
provides responsive documents to requesters seeking “reasonably described information.” For a FOIPA search,
the subject’s name, event, activity, or business is searched to determine whether there is an associated
investigative file. This is called a “main file search” and differs from the NNCP search.
FOR GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE FBI, VISIT OUR WEBSITE AT
www.fbi.gov

06/26/18

 Case Document 1-3 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 6

EXHIBIT 

 

 

Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-3 Filed 10/31/19 Page 2 of 6

U.S. Department of Justice

Drug Enforcement Administration
POI/Records Management Section
8701 Morrissette Drive
Spring?eld, Virginia 22152

 

 

Case Number: 19-00270-F FEB 1 2019

Subject: Records concerning DEA's purchase and use of face recognition and other biometric
recognition technologies from January 1, 2015 to the present

Nathan Wessler

American Civil Liberties Union
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10004
nwessler@aclu.org

Dear Mr. Wessler:

This letter responds to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Act request emailed
January 18, 2019, to the DEA.FOIA mailbox, seeking access to DEA records. Your request has
been opened and assigned the above case number. Please include this case number when
communicating with this of?ce.

The records you seek require searches in another of?ce or of?ces, and so your request
falls within "unusual circumstances." See 5 U.S.C. Because of these
unusual circumstances, we are extending the time limit to respond to your request beyond the ten
additional days provided by the statute. We have not yet completed a search to determine
whether there are records within the scope of your request. The time needed to process your
request will necessarily depend on the complexity of our records search and on the volume and
complexity of any records located. For your information, this of?ce assigns incoming requests
to one of three tracks: simple, complex, or expedited. Each request is then handled on a ?rst-in,
?rst-out basis in relation to other requests in the same track. Simple requests usually receive a
response in approximately one month, whereas complex requests necessarily take longer. At this
time, your request has been assigned to the complex track. You may wish to narrow the scope of
your request to limit the number of potentially responsive records or agree to an alternative time
frame for processing, should records be located; or you may wish to await the completion of our
records search to discuss either of these options.

As you are aware, the FOIA provides for three categories of requesters. ?6_6 5 U.S.C.
The FOIA de?nes a representative of the news media as a person or entity
"that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills
to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience." Id. at
see also Cause of Action V. FTC, 799 F.3d 1108 (DC. Cir. 2015). We have
determined that you are making this request as a ?representative of the news media,? therefore;
you will not be charged search fees.

 

 

Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-3 Filed 10/31/19 Page 3 of 6

Case Number: 19-00270-F Page 2

We regret the necessity of this delay, but please be assured that your request will be
processed as soon as possible. If you have any questions or wish to discuss reformulation or an
alternative time frame for the processing of your request, you may contact Government
Information Specialist Jewell W. Carroll at 202-307-4006, our Customer Service Hotline
Representative at 202-307?7596 or mail your correspondence to:

DEA HEADQUARTERS

ATTN: UNIT (SARF)
8701 MORRISSETTE DRIVE
SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22152

In addition, you may wish to visit our website at to determine if the
information you are requesting is already available to the public. You may contact our FOIA
Public Liaison at 202-307-7596 for any further assistance and to discuss any aspect of your
request. Additionally, you may contact the Of?ce of Government Information Services (OGIS)
at the National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA mediation
services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Of?ce of Government
Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8601 Adelphi
Road, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001; e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202?741-
5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202?741?5769.

Sincerely,

WWLWILK

Katherine L. Myrick, Chief
Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit
POI/Records Management Section

 

Case Document 1-3 Filed 10/31/19 Page 4 of 6

",9.me US. Department of Justice
is Drug Enforcement Administration
5 POI/Records Management Section
?mat; 8701 Morrissette Drive
Spring?eld, Virginia 22152

 

FEB 1 3+ 2013
Case Number: 19-00270-F

Subject: Records concerning purchase and use of face recognition and other biometric
recognition technologies from January 1, 2015 to the present

Nathan Wessler

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, New York 10004


 

Dear Mr. Wessler:

This letter responds to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Act request emailed
January 18, 2019, to the DEAFOIA mailbox, seeking expedited treatment. Your request has
been opened and assigned the above case number. Please include this case number when
corresponding with this of?ce.

In your request letter, you request expedited treatment pursuant to the ?rst, second, third,
and/or fourth standards enumerated in the Department of Justice's regulations. Expedited
treatment pursuant to the ?rst standard will be granted where not doing so "could reasonably be
expected to pose an imminent threat to the life or physical safety of an individual." 5 U.S.C. 
See also 28 C.F.R. (2015). Under the second standard. you
must show that there is urgency to inform the public about an actual or alleged Federal
Government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information."

5 U.S.C. See also 28 C.F.R. (2015). Under the third
standard, you must show that the request involves "[t]he loss of substantial due process rights."
28 C.F.R. (2015). Under the fourth standard, you must show that the subject
matter of your request is a "matter of widespread and exceptional media interest in which there
exist possible questions about the government's integrity which affect public con?dence." Id. at
1 iv). This of?ce makes determinations regarding the ?rst three standards, while the
Department's Director of Public Affairs makes determinations regarding the fourth standard. See
id. at 

You have requested expedited processing of your request pursuant to the Department's
standard permitting expedition for requests involving urgency to inform the public about an
actual or alleged federal government activity, if made by a person primarily engaged in
disseminating information." 28 C.F.R. (2015). Based on the information you
have provided, we have determined that your request for expedited processing under this

Case Document 1-3 Filed 10/31/19 Page 5 of 6

Case Number: Page 2

standard should be denied. This office cannot identify a particular urgency to inform the public
about an actual or alleged federal government activity beyond the public's right to know about
government activities generally. Please be advised that, although your request for expedited
processing has been denied; it has been assigned to a Government Information Specialist in this
of?ce.

If you are not satisfied with my response to this request, you may administratively appeal
by writing to the Director, Of?ce of Information Policy (OIP), United States Department of
Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530?0001, or you may
submit an appeal through FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following
website: Your appeal must be
postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your
request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly
marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal."

 

If you have any questions or wish to discuss reformulation or an alternative time frame
for the processing of your request, you may contact our Customer Service Hotline Representative
at 202-307?7596 or mail your correspondence to the above address.

Sincerely,

mime

Katherine L. Myrick, Chief
Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit
POI/Records Management Section

Case Document 1-3 Filed 10/31/19 Page 6 of 6

U.S. Department of Justice

Drug Enforcement Administration
FOI/Records Management Section
8701 Morrissette Drive
Spring?eld, Virginia 22152

 

 

Case Number: 19-002704: APR 12 2019

Subject: Records concerning DEA's purchase and use of face recognition and other biometric
recognition technologies, including information related to Rekognition or Face API face
recognition technology by Amazon and Amazon Web Services (AWS) and Microsoft, and records
pertaining to FBI's FACE services or NGI database from January 1, 2015 to the present

Nathan Wessler

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor

New York, New York 10004
nwessler@aclu.org

 

Dear Mr. Wessler:

This letter responds to your Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act request dated
January 18, 2019, received by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Freedom of
Information/Privacy Act Unit (SARF), seeking access to information regarding the above subject.

Please be advised that your request has been assigned and is being handled as
expeditiously as possible. If you have any questions regarding the status of your request, please
contact Paralegal Amber L. Freeman at 202-307-6817 or include your case number and forward
your correspondence to the following address:

DEA HEADQUARTERS

ATTN: UNIT (SARF)
8701 MORRISSETTE DRIVE
SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA 22152

Sincerely,

A729 Clot D, ?twee/L

Katherine L. Myrick, Chief
Freedom of Information/Privacy Act Unit
FOI/Records Management Section

 

Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-4 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 1

CIVIL COVER SHEET

JS 44 (Rev. 06/17)

The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

American Civil Liberties Union & American Civil Liberties Union of
Massachusetts

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, & Drug
Enforcement Administration

NY

County of Residence of First Listed Defendant

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
NOTE:

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

Attorneys (If Known)

Daniel McFadden, ACLU Foundation of Massachusetts, 211 Congress
St., Boston, MA, 617 482 3170 (see complaint for complete list)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1

U.S. Government
Plaintiff

’ 3

Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

’ 2

U.S. Government
Defendant

’ 4

Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
Citizen of This State
’ 1

’
’
’
’
’

’ 2

’

2

Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State

’ 5

’ 5

Citizen or Subject of a
Foreign Country

’ 3

’

3

Foreign Nation

’ 6

’ 6

’
’
’
’
’
’
’

’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’
’

’
’
’
’
’
’

Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.

TORTS

110 Insurance
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
150 Recovery of Overpayment
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
(Excludes Veterans)
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran’s Benefits
160 Stockholders’ Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
196 Franchise

REAL PROPERTY
210 Land Condemnation
220 Foreclosure
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
240 Torts to Land
245 Tort Product Liability
290 All Other Real Property

’
’
’
’
’
’
’

PERSONAL INJURY
310 Airplane
315 Airplane Product
Liability
320 Assault, Libel &
Slander
330 Federal Employers’
Liability
340 Marine
345 Marine Product
Liability
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
Injury
362 Personal Injury Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
443 Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities Employment
446 Amer. w/Disabilities Other
448 Education

and One Box for Defendant)
PTF
DEF
Incorporated or Principal Place
’ 4
’ 4
of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
CONTRACT

DEF
’ 1

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
’ 365 Personal Injury Product Liability
’ 367 Health Care/
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
’ 368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
’ 370 Other Fraud
’ 371 Truth in Lending
’ 380 Other Personal
Property Damage
’ 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
’ 463 Alien Detainee
’ 510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
’ 530 General
’ 535 Death Penalty
Other:
’ 540 Mandamus & Other
’ 550 Civil Rights
’ 555 Prison Condition
’ 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of
Confinement

’ 625 Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
’ 690 Other

LABOR
’ 710 Fair Labor Standards
Act
’ 720 Labor/Management
Relations
’ 740 Railway Labor Act
’ 751 Family and Medical
Leave Act
’ 790 Other Labor Litigation
’ 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act

BANKRUPTCY
’ 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
’ 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
’ 820 Copyrights
’ 830 Patent
’ 835 Patent - Abbreviated
New Drug Application
’ 840 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY
’ 861 HIA (1395ff)
’ 862 Black Lung (923)
’ 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
’ 864 SSID Title XVI
’ 865 RSI (405(g))

FEDERAL TAX SUITS
’ 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
’ 871 IRS—Third Party
26 USC 7609

IMMIGRATION
’ 462 Naturalization Application
’ 465 Other Immigration
Actions

OTHER STATUTES
’ 375 False Claims Act
’ 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
3729(a))
’ 400 State Reapportionment
’ 410 Antitrust
’ 430 Banks and Banking
’ 450 Commerce
’ 460 Deportation
’ 470 Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations
’ 480 Consumer Credit
’ 490 Cable/Sat TV
’ 850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
’ 890 Other Statutory Actions
’ 891 Agricultural Acts
’ 893 Environmental Matters
’ 895 Freedom of Information
Act
’ 896 Arbitration
’ 899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
’ 950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
’ 1 Original
Proceeding

’ 2 Removed from
State Court

’ 3

’ 6 Multidistrict
Litigation Transfer
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Remanded from
Appellate Court

’ 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

’ 5 Transferred from
Another District

’ 8 Multidistrict
Litigation Direct File

Freedom of Information Act, 5 USC 552

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION Brief description of cause:

Suit for disclosure of records under Freedom of Information Act

’ CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
JUDGE
DATE

CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
’ Yes
’ No
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

DOCKET NUMBER

SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

/s/ Daniel L. McFadden

10/31/2019
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #

AMOUNT

APPLYING IFP

JUDGE

MAG. JUDGE

 Case 1:19-cv-12242 Document 1-5 Filed 10/31/19 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
1. Title of case (name of first party on each side only) American Civil Liberties Union et al. v. U.S. Department of Justice et al.

2. Category in which the case belongs based upon the numbered nature of suit code listed on the civil cover sheet. (See local
rule 40.1(a)(1)).

✔

I.

160, 400, 410, 441, 535, 830*, 835*, 850, 891, 893, R.23, REGARDLESS OF NATURE OF SUIT.

II.

110, 130, 190, 196, 370, 375, 376, 440, 442, 443, 445, 446, 448, 470, 751, 820*, 840*, 895, 896, 899.

III.

120, 140, 150, 151, 152, 153, 195, 210, 220, 230, 240, 245, 290, 310, 315, 320, 330, 340, 345, 350, 355, 360, 362,
365, 367, 368, 371, 380, 385, 422, 423, 430, 450, 460, 462, 463, 465, 480, 490, 510, 530, 540, 550, 555, 560, 625,
690, 710, 720, 740, 790, 791, 861-865, 870, 871, 890, 950.
*Also complete AO 120 or AO 121. for patent, trademark or copyright cases.

3. Title and number, if any, of related cases. (See local rule 40.1(g)). If more than one prior related case has been filed in this
district please indicate the title and number of the first filed case in this court.

4. Has a prior action between the same parties and based on the same claim ever been filed in this court?
YES

9

NO

9✔

5. Does the complaint in this case question the constitutionality of an act of congress affecting the public interest?
§2403)
YES

9

NO

✔
9

YES

9

NO

9

(See 28 USC

If so, is the U.S.A. or an officer, agent or employee of the U.S. a party?

6. Is this case required to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges pursuant to title 28 USC §2284?
YES

9

NO

✔
9

7. Do all of the parties in this action, excluding governmental agencies of the United States and the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (“governmental agencies”), residing in Massachusetts reside in the same division? - (See Local Rule 40.1(d)).
YES
A.

✔
9

NO

9

If yes, in which division do all of the non-governmental parties reside?
Eastern Division

B.

9✔

Central Division

9

Western Division

9

If no, in which division do the majority of the plaintiffs or the only parties, excluding governmental agencies,
residing in Massachusetts reside?
Eastern Division

9

Central Division

9

Western Division

9

8. If filing a Notice of Removal - are there any motions pending in the state court requiring the attention of this Court? (If yes,
submit a separate sheet identifying the motions)
YES

9

NO

9

(PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT)
ATTORNEY'S NAME
ADDRESS

/s/ Daniel L. McFadden

ACLU Foundation of Massachusetts, 211 Congress St., Boston, MA

TELEPHONE NO.

617 482 3170
(CategoryForm1-2019.wpd )