


                UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


COMPUTER PROFESSIONALS FOR          )
  SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY             )
666 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E.       )
Suite 303                           )
Washington, DC 20003,               )
                                    )	
               Plaintiff,           )
							)     C.A. No. 
      v.                            )
							)
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION     )
9th and Constitution Ave., N.W.     )
Washington, D.C. 20535              )
                                    )
               Defendant            )
____________________________________)


COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

	1. This is an action under the Freedom of Information Act,   5 U.S.C. ¤ 552, for injunctive and other appropriate relief and seeking the disclosure and release of agency records improperly withheld from plaintiff by defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Jurisdiction and Venue

	2. This Court has both subject matter jurisdiction over this action and personal jurisdiction over the parties pursuant to 5 U.S.C. ¤ 552(a)(4)(B).  This court also has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ¤ 1331.  Venue lies in this district under 5 U.S.C. ¤ 552(a)(4)(B).

	3. Plaintiff Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility ("CPSR") is a non-profit membership organization incorporated in the state of California, with offices in Palo Alto, California, Washington, DC and Cambridge, Massachusetts and membership groups in 20 metropolitan areas across the United States.  Plaintiff's membership includes a Nobel Laureate and four recipients of the Turing Award, the highest honor in computer science.  Plaintiff's activities include the review of federal computing and telecom-munications policies to determine their possible impacts on civil liberties and privacy interests.  Among its other activities, plaintiff has prepared reports and presented testimony on computer technology issues at the request of congressional committees and has hosted two conferences in Washington, DC on cryptography and wiretapping.

	4. Defendant Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") is a component of the Department of Justice.  FBI is an agency within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. ¤ 552(e).


Plaintiff's FOIA Requests and Defendant's Failure to Respond

	5. On or about March 6, 1992, defendant publicly introduced a legislative proposal to amend the United States Criminal Code provisions on electronic interception of wire communications by government agents. 18 U.S.C. ¤ 2110 et seq.   The proposed legislation amends the Communications Act of 1934 and requires the Federal Communications Commission to issue "such regulations as are necessary to ensure that the government can intercept communications . . . ."  The proposal will also "prohibit the use . . . of any telecommunications equipment or technology which does not comply with the regulations" and subjects providers who do not comply "to a civil penalty of $10,000 per pay for each day in violation."  The proposal also states that "[t]he Attorney General . . . may direct that any [FCC] proceeding concerning regulations, standards or registrations issued or to be issued . . . shall be closed to the public."

	6. In a statement issued on March 6, 1992, FBI Director William S. Sessions asserted that "[t]he legislative proposal is not solely a law enforcement proposal but is a result of a cooperative effort by Administration and Congressional leaders, telecommunications industry executives and law enforcement." 

	7. On March 10, 1992, FBI Director Sessions testified before a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee in support of the legislative proposal.

	8. By letter to defendant dated April 1, 1992, plaintiff submitted a Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request for "all records regarding the Bureau's decision to seek new legislative authority for wire surveillance in the digital communications network."

	9. On April 29, 1992, FBI Director Sessions testified before a subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee in support of the legislative proposal.

	10. By letter to plaintiff dated May 4, 1992, defendant represented that "a search of the indices to our central records system files at FBI headquarters revealed no record responsive to your request."

	11. By letter to the Department of Justice dated May 6, 1992, plaintiff appealed defendant's response and noted that FBI Director Sessions had testified before Congress on the Bureau's legislative proposal. 

	12. By letter to plaintiff dated June 26, 1992 the Department of Justice informed plaintiff that it had "decided to remand your request for documents for further processing of responsive documents. Those records that can be released will be made available to you directly by the FBI."

	13. To date, defendant has not yet provided the documents requested by plaintiff.  Plaintiff has exhausted the applicable administrative remedies.

	14. By letter to defendant dated August 14, 1992, plaintiff requested copies of all records regarding the FBI's decision to seek new legislative authority for wire surveillance created since plaintiff's earlier request was submitted on April 1, 1992.  To date, defendant has not yet provided the documents requested by plaintiff.  Plaintiff has exhausted the applicable administrative remedies.

	15. By second letter to defendant dated August 14, 1992, plaintiff requested copies of all FBI records regarding the analysis of technological alternatives to wiretapping that were incorporated in the General Accounting Office report titled "Advanced Communications Technologies Pose Wiretapping Challenges."  Plaintiff noted that the requested information "is crucial to the public's understanding of the Bureau's need for enhanced power to conduct electronic surveillance."   To date, defendant has not yet provided the documents requested by plaintiff.  Plaintiff has exhausted the applicable administrative remedies.

	16. Defendant has wrongfully withheld the requested records from plaintiff.

Requested Relief
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that this Court:

	A. order defendants to disclose the requested records in their entireties and make copies available to plaintiff;
	B. provide for expeditious proceedings in this action;
	C. award plaintiff its costs and reasonable attorneys fees incurred in this action; and
	D. grant such other relief as the court may deem just and proper.
	


						Respectfully submitted,

						___________________________
						DAVID L. SOBEL
						D.C. Bar No. 360418
					
						MARC ROTENBERG
						D.C. Bar. No. 422825
						
						Computer Professionals
						 for Social Responsibility
						666 Pennsylvania Ave., S.E.							Suite 303											Washington, DC  20003
						(202) 544-9240
						Counsel for Plaintiff
