老澳门开奖结果

The City of Sunrise, Florida, tried to take a page from the CIA鈥檚 last week when it responded to an 老澳门开奖结果 public records request about its use of powerful cell phone location tracking gear by refusing to confirm or deny the existence of any relevant documents. And the state police are trying to get in on the act as well. We have written about the federal government鈥檚 abuse of this tactic鈥攃alled a 鈥淕lomar鈥� response鈥攂efore, but local law enforcement鈥檚 adoption of the ploy reaches a new level of absurdity. In this case, the response is not only a violation of Florida law, but is also fatally undermined by records the Sunrise Police Department has already posted online.

A few weeks ago, the 老澳门开奖结果 sent public records requests to 36 state and local Florida law enforcement agencies seeking information about their use of 鈥渃ell site simulator鈥� surveillance devices known as 鈥淪tingrays.鈥� We were partly motivated by the discovery that the Tallahassee Police Department had argued in court to permanently seal court records discussing its Stingray use, apparently in deference to a nondisclosure agreement with the device鈥檚 manufacturer. That鈥檚 pretty offensive, but at least the new Tallahassee police chief has to investigate his department鈥檚 practices. The City of Sunrise鈥檚 position might be even more galling.

Today we sent a reply letter to Sunrise, explaining that it鈥檚 bad enough that the Glomar response has no basis under Florida law. Government agencies are required to respond to a public records request by searching for and releasing relevant documents, or explaining why individual documents fall within one of the narrow statutory exemptions to disclosure. Refusing to even confirm whether records exist violates the letter and spirit of the Florida Public Records Act.

But even more embarrassing for the city is that the Sunrise Police Department has already publicly acknowledged that it owns at least one Stingray. A document posted on the city鈥檚 public reveals that in March 2013 the Police Department investigated purchasing a $65,000 upgrade to its existing Stingray device, as well as other related technology and services. (See for an explanation of the abbreviations found on this form). An agency cannot acknowledge a fact in one context, but then refuse to confirm or deny the same information in response to a public records request. Sunrise鈥檚 response might be laughable if it weren鈥檛 such a bald violation of government transparency laws.

Sunrise is not the only entity attempting to conceal information about Stingray use. In response to an 老澳门开奖结果 request, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (the state police) released heavily redacted records revealing that the agency has spent more than $3 million on Stingrays, that it has signed agreements with a number of local and regional law enforcement agencies allowing them to use the FDLE鈥檚 devices, and that it has asked local agencies to sign non-disclosure agreements. (Florida newspapers have some of this information before, based on their own records requests). But the FDLE claimed that they don鈥檛 have to disclose any other responsive records, without telling us how many documents they withheld or why. We usually see this kind of response in the national security area; from a state police agency, it is particularly indefensible.

Today we also sent a reply letter to the FDLE explaining why its response is inadequate and asking it to release additional documents, including the text of the nondisclosure agreement and any policies and procedures it has setting rules about how and when Stingrays can be used.

In recent months the 老澳门开奖结果 and the press have begun to uncover a of police departments across the country deliberately concealing basic information about their use of Stingrays from the public. This technology raises serious questions under the Fourth Amendment. The public is entitled to full disclosure of records so it can engage in an informed debate about the legality and wisdom of these devices, and provide oversight of their use.