Non-Disclosure Agreements Between FBI and Local Law Enforcement for StingRay

 

Here is a collection of all of the non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) between the FBI and local/state law enforcement agencies for purchases of cell site simulators that have been disclosed to date, in order by the date on which they were signed:

Here is a list of all of the NDAs between the FBI and local/state law enforcement agencies when the FBI assists a local or state law enforcement agency that have been disclosed to date, in order by the date on which they were signed:

If you are aware of any additional NDAs, please let me know: @mlacabe

 

Jun 072015
 

In a May 28, 2015, response to a public records request, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), released an unredacted non-disclosure agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Despite releasing the unredacted NDA, the BCA still claims that portions of the Harris Corporation Terms and Conditions, descriptions of what it purchased and their prices are still exempt from disclosure:

It should be noted that portions of these documents have been redacted pursuant to Minnesota Statute 13.82, subd. 25 as they would reveal deliberative processes or investigative techniques of this agency that would disclose the existence of and the capabilities provided by cellular exploitation equipment to the public. Disclosure of the redacted portions of the documents would reveal sensitive technological capabilities possessed by the law enforcement community and may allow individuals who are the subject of investigation to employ countermeasures to avoid detection by law enforcement.

Credit goes to Rich Neumeister and the Minneapolis Star Tribune for forcing the Minnesota BCA to release a redacted NDA between the BCA and FBI in November 2014.

In this latest release, the BCA included unredacted and redacted versions of the NDA, entitled “Re: Acquisition of Wireless Collection Equipment/Technology and Non-Disclosure Obligations” and dated June 5, 2012.

The BCA also released an email from the FBI, advising it on how to prevent the NDA from being publicly disclosed.  That email from a Supervisory Special Agent at the FBI states,

Hello Andrew,

(U/LES) Thank you for talking with me yesterday about your pending disclosure request. As stated in our conversation, the protection of cell site simulator (CSS) information is a concern for all law enforcement agencies in the U.S. In light of the importance of the lawful usage of the CSS gear, my unit would like to assist you in protecting the data associated with the CSS gear from exposure to counter measures in criminal, terrorism, and foreign intelligence investigations. The first layer of protection for the CSS gear is the Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA), which your agency has signed in order to receive the CSS gear. From our conversation yesterday, my understanding is that you are being asked to disclosure all or part of the NDA. In order to clarify our position, I have attached a letter that the FBI has created for the purpose of articulating the law enforcement and legal support for protecting the NDA. We can send a signed copy of the letter to a government official, if you believe that will assist you in protecting the NDA. Please note that the letter is marked (LES).

(U/LES) In addition, you mentioned that the requestor has claimed that other disseminations of CSS information have appeared in the public view, which classifies them as “public record” pursuant to Minnesota’s laws, and therefore are subject to disclosure by your agency. When possible, would you be willing to send a sample of such information as we may be able to clarify the circumstances of the dissemination? Some disseminations may have been conducted unlawfully and therefore should not be considered “public record” or be subject to further authentication. In addition, we would like to be in a position to assist you in determining the scope and type of your pending response, so if we could set up a meeting with our FBI legal counsel and your office, that would be greatly appreciated.

A comparison of the redacted and unredacted versions of the NDA shows that the information redacted had nothing to do with the technical details or capabilities of the Harris Corporation equipment, but were mostly about preventing disclosure to the public, news media, and judicial system. One heavily redacted paragraphs states that the BCA should seek dismissal of a case in order to prevent disclosure of information about the Harris Corporation equipment. The document also redacted portions of FBI addresses, the name and division of the Assistant Director at the FBI, and the other signatories from the BCA. Here is the remaining text that was redacted in the NDA:

in press releases, in court documents, during judicial hearings, or during other public forums or proceedings

for the sale of the equipment/technology.

met the operator training standards identified by the FBI and’ are certified to conduct operations.

coordinate with the FBI in advance of its use of the wireless collection equipment/technology

the wireless collection equipment/technology or any software, operating manuals, or related technical documentation (including its technical/engineering descriptions) and capabilities)

concerning the wireless collection equipment/technology or any software) operating manuals, or related technical documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities)

wireless collection equipment/technology or any software, manuals, or related technical documentation

in any civil or criminal proceeding, use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology including, but not limited to, during pre-trial matters, in search warrants and related affidavits, in discovery, in response to court ordered disclosure, in other affidavits, in grand jury hearings, in the State’s case-in-chief, rebuttal, or on appeal, or in testimony in any phase of civil or criminal trial, without the prior written approval of the FBI. If the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension learns that a District Attorney, prosecutor, or a court is considering or intends to use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology in a manner that will cause law enforcement sensitive information relating to the technology to be made known to the public, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension will immediately notify the FBI in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to intervene to protect the equipment/technology and information from disclosure and potential compromise.

at the request of the FBI, seek dismissal of the case in lieu of using or providing, or allowing others to use or provide, any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology), if using or providing such information would potentially or actually compromise the equipment/technology. This point supposes that the agency has some control or influence over the prosecutorial process. Where such is not the case, or is limited so as to be inconsequential, it is the FBI’s expectation that the law enforcement agency identify the applicable prosecuting agency, or agencies, for inclusion in this agreement.

equipment/technology and any associated software, operating manuals, or related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities)

in any news or press releases, interviews, or direct or indirect statements to the media.

wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities)

UPDATE: June 18, 2015 – It turns out that the Minnesota BCA accidentally released the unredacted NDA. And I thought that someone there had come to their senses.

 

May 262015
 

In response to a January 28, 2015, public records request and after I sent $1.14 to cover the cost of copies, the Phoenix Police Department sent a copy of its February 11, 2013, non-disclosure agreement with the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

With other non-disclosure agreements from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, Erie County Sheriff’s Office, San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office, Baltimore Police Department, and Ventura County Sheriffs Office, we can readily determine what text was redacted from the NDA. Nearly all of the redactions are references to hiding information about the StingRay from the judicial system.

From the bottom of the first page, the words “to employ countermeasures” were redacted from the sentence “Disclosing the existence of and the capabilities provided by such equipment/technology to the public would reveal sensitive technological capabilities possessed by the law enforcement community and may allow individuals who are the subject of investigation wherein this equipment/technology is used to employ countermeasures to avoid detection by law enforcement.”

Near the top of the third page of the NDA, the words “during pre-trial matters, in search warrants and related affidavits, in discovery, in response to court ordered disclosure, in other affidavits, in grand jury hearings, in the State’s case-in-chief, rebuttal, or on appeal, or in testimony in any phase of civil or criminal trial,” were redacted from the sentence “The Phoenix Police Department shall not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology including, but not limited to, during pre-trial matters, in search warrants and related affidavits, in discovery, in response to court ordered disclosure, in other affidavits, in grand jury hearings, in the State’s case-in-chief, rebuttal, or on appeal, or in testimony in any phase of civil or criminal trial, without the prior written approval of the FBI.”

At the bottom of the third page, the words “seek dismissal of the case in” were redacted from the sentence “In addition, the Phoenix Police Department will, at the request of the FBI, seek dismissal of the case in lieu of using or providing, or allowing others to use or provide, any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology), if using or providing such information would potentially or actually compromise the equipment/technology.”

Later in the same paragraph, the words “control or influence over the prosecutorial process” were redacted from the sentence “This point supposes that the agency has some control or influence over the prosecutorial process.”

Also in the same paragraph, the words “prosecuting agency, or agencies” were redacted from the sentence “Where such is not the case, or is limited so as to be inconsequential, it is the FBI’s expectation that the law enforcement agency identify the applicable prosecuting agency, or agencies, for inclusion in this agreement.”

At the bottom of the fourth page, the words “the civil or criminal discovery process” were redacted from the sentence “In the event that the Phoenix Police Department receives a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) or an equivalent state or local law, the civil or criminal discovery process, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative process, to disclose information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities), the Erie County Sheriff’s Office will immediately notify the FBI of any such request telephonically and in writing in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to seek to prevent disclosure through appropriate channels.”

Other less interesting redactions included the names of people in the Phoenix Police Department, the name of the Assistant Director of the FBI’s Operation Technology Division (Amy Hess), and the phone numbers for the Assistant Director of the FBI’s Operation Technology Division and the Unit Chief of the Tracking Technology Unit.

May 192015
 

On May 19, 2015, the Tacoma Police Department released a February 13, 2013, letter from the FBI to Harris Corporation permitting it “to sell the  state-and-local version of the Stingray product with the restricted [“Landshark”] software to the Tacoma Police Department.”

The complete text of the letter:

Attention: Patricia Sciandra

Re: Contract J-FBI-09-211 “Landshark” Restricted Software Request Approval – Tacoma Police Department

Dear Ms. Sciandra:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has an approved non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in place with the captioned law enforcement agency. In accordance with the cited restricted software agreement and the April 6, 2010 agreement between the FBI and the Harris Corporation, your notification to the FBI of the agency’s intent to purchase, and our execution of the NDA, meets the FBI’s advance coordination requirement. Therefore, the Harris Corporation is permitted to sell the state-and-local version of the Stingray product with the restricted software to the Tacoma Police Department.

W. L. Scott Bean, III
Chief, Technical Surveillance Section
Operational Technology Division

May 162015
 

On February 27, 2015, California Senator Jerry Hill introduced SB 741, which “would require that require local governing bodies in California to take public comment before implementing cell phone intercept technology.

SB-741 was discussed at a meeting of the California Senate Judiciary Committee on May 12, 2015. After opening remarks by Senator Hill, Tracy Rosenberg of the Bay Area Civil Liberties Coalition spoke in favor of the bill and Aaron Maguire of the California State Sheriff’s Association spoke against the bill.

Maguire said,

We are in respectful opposition to the bill. We’re in opposition to actually several bills that are currently moving through both houses. And really it is sort of a philosophical disagreement. I agree wholeheartedly with the author about the checks and balances that we have in our system in terms of the legislature appropriating certain money and the executive branch utilizing those funds, but I think what we have here is something that goes a little bit too far, which is where the state is mandating that certain items be placed on the board agenda which is, so, with whether it’s with respect to unmanned aerial vehicles or whether its this type of technology or other tactics or other things, we just think that this simply just goes too far and for those reasons, we’re in opposition. Thank you.

After Maguire’s remarks, Senator Joel Anderson asked, “When you use this type of technology, is it considered wiretapping?” Maguire responded, “To be honest with you, Senator Anderson, as far as I know, laws with regard to state, federal, and Fourth Amendment are followed.” Committee Chair Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson noted, “That’s sort of not exactly an answer. So do you have an answer to that?” However, it was Rosenberg who responded, noting that law enforcement frequently seeks an order for a pen register, which is technology for landline telephones that judges understand. Orders for pen registers also have the advantage of not requiring probable cause – they only require that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation.

Towards the end of the hearing, Senators Mark Leno and Joel Leno both requested to be added as co-authors to the bill, which was passed unanimously.

Click here for the audio of the SB 741 hearing – a total of 12 minutes and 30 seconds.

May 042015
 

Previously, the Ventura County Sheriff released a heavily redacted non-disclosure agreement with the FBI and similarly redacted terms and conditions from Harris Corporation (See http://www.cehrp.org/ventura-county-sheriff-has-a-stingray/).

Today, I received the following responses to my appeal:

 

Apr 132015
 

In a March 26, 2015, response to my public records request, the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office provided a heavily-redacted copy of a non-disclosure agreement with the FBI dated May 29, 2012. Based on the number of pages, the non-disclosure agreement appears similar to non-disclosure agreements between the FBI and the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and between the FBI and the Erie County Sheriff.

The non-disclosure agreement refers to “wireless collection equipment/technology manufactured by Harris Corporation,” which indicates that the equipment is likely a StingRay.

In a followup response to my public records request, dated March 27, 2015, the Ventura County Sheriff’s Office provided four heavily-redacted documents from Harris Corporation:

Apr 092015
 

In a March 19, 2015, response to my public records request, the Los Angeles Police Department responded, “To the extent that any such records may exist…they would constitute official information.” The letter goes on to state that all requested documents are exempt under California Government Code section 6254(k) and section 6255 without indicating whether such records exist.

However, a little research shows that on August 2, 2005, the Los Angeles City Council approved the purchase of a cell phone tracking system from Digital Receiver Technology for an amount not to exceed $260,000. Background material for the agenda item stated, “Most vendors only offered a product that could track phones issued by one or two cellular service providers. Conversely, DRT’s equipment can track and monitor all cellular phone traffic, making it the most advanced product on the market.” Digital Receiver Technology was purchased by Boeing in December 2008.

On April 29, 2010, the Chief of Police wrote a memo to the Police Board of Commissioners to approve a donation of $347,050 from the Los Angeles Police Foundation for a Harris StingRay II system, three high-power Harpoon amplifiers, a laptop, an Amberjack antenna and training. On July 6, 2010, the Los Angeles City Council formally accepted the donation.

Media coverage:

Apr 082015
 

In an emailed response to public records request, the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Office released a lightly-redacted copy of its non-disclosure disagreement with the FBI. The document is dated December 7, 2012, and uses the same template of the NDA between the FBI and the Erie County Sheriff that was released by the ACLU on April 7, 2015.

The NDA includes these references to public records requests:

7. The San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department shall not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology including, but not limited to, during pre-trial matters, in search warrants and related affidavits, in discovery, in response to court ordered disclosure, in other affidavits, in grand jury hearings, in the State’s case-in-chief, rebuttal, or on appeal, or in testimony in any phase of civil or criminal trial, without the prior written approval of the FBI. If the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department learns that a District Attorney, prosecutor, or a court is considering or intends to use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology in a manner that will cause law enforcement sensitive information relating to the technology to be made known to the public, the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department will immediately notify the FBI in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to intervene to protect the equipment/technology and information from disclosure and potential compromise.

8. In addition, the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department will, at the request of the FBI, seek dismissal of the case in lieu of using or providing, or allowing others to use or provide, any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology), if using or providing such information would potentially or actually compromise the equipment/technology. This point supposes that the agency has some control or influence over the prosecutorial process. Where such is not the case, or is limited so as to be inconsequential, it is the FBI’s expectation that the law enforcement agency identify the applicable prosecuting agency, or agencies, for inclusion in this agreement.

Public records request acknowledgement from March 16, 2015

Public records request acknowledgement from March 30, 2015

Media coverage:
Law enforcement officials: Cell phone disclosures would hurt investigations – The Desert Sun, Feb. 15, 2014

Apr 072015
 

The source for this text is the non-disclosure agreement between the Erie County Sheriff’s Office and the FBI obtained by the ACLU.

U.S. Department of Justice

Federal Bureau of Investigation

June 29, 2012

Scott R. Patronik
Chief
Erie County Sheriff’s Office
10 Delaware Avenue
Buffalo, NY 14202

Re: Acquisition of Wireless Collection Equipment/Technology and Non-Disclosure Obligations

LAW ENFORCEMENT SENSITIVE (LES): The information in this document is the property of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and may be distributed within the federal government (and its contractors), U.S. intelligence, law enforcement, public safety or protection officials and individuals with a need to know. Distribution beyond these entities without FBI Operational Technology Division authorization is prohibited. Precautions should be taken to ensure this information is stored and/or destroyed in a manner that precludes unauthorized access. Information bearing the LES caveat may not be used in legal proceedings without first receiving authorization from the originating agency. Recipients are prohibited from subsequently posting the information marked LES on a website on an unclassified network.

Dear Scott R. Patronik:

We have been advised by Harris Corporation of the Erie County Sheriff’s Office’s request for acquisition of certain wireless collection equipment/technology manufactured by Harris Corporation. Consistent with the conditions on the equipment authorization granted to Harris Corporation by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), state and local law enforcement agencies must coordinate with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to complete this non-disclosure agreement prior to the acquisition and use of the equipment/technology authorized by the FCC authorization.

As you are aware, law enforcement agencies increasingly rely on wireless collection equipment/technology to conduct lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance. Disclosing the existence of and the capabilities provided by such equipment/technology to the public would reveal sensitive technological capabilities possessed by the law enforcement community and may allow individuals who are the subject of investigation wherein this equipment/technology is used to employ countermeasures to avoid detection by law enforcement. This would not only potentially endanger the lives and physical safety of law enforcement officers and other individuals, but also adversely impact criminal and national security investigations. That is, disclosure of this information could result in the FBI’s inability to protect the public from terrorism and other criminal activity because, through public disclosures, this technology has been rendered essentially useless for future investigations. In order to ensure that such wireless collection equipment/technology continues to be available for use by the law enforcement community, the equipment/technology and any information related to its functions, operation, and use shall be protected from potential compromise by precluding disclosure of this information to the public in any manner including but not limited to: in press releases, in court documents, during judicial hearings, or during other public forums or proceedings. Accordingly, the Erie County Sheriff’s Office agrees to the following conditions in connection with its acquisition and use of the Harris Corporation equipment/technology:

1. By entering into this agreement, the Erie County Sheriff’s Office affirms that it has statutory authority to lawfully employ this technology and will do so only in support of public safety operations or criminal investigations.

2. The Erie County Sheriff’s Office assumes responsibility for operating the equipment/technology in accordance with federal law and regulation and accepts sale liability for any violations thereof, irrespective of the Federal Bureau of Investigation approval, if any, for the sale of the equipment/technology.

3. The Erie County Sheriff’s Office will ensure that operators of the equipment have met the operator training standards identified by the FBI and’ are certified to conduct operations.

4. The Erie County Sheriff’s Office will coordinate with the FBI in advance of its use of the wireless collection equipment/technology to ensure de-confliction of respective missions.

5. The Erie County Sheriff’s Office will not distribute, disseminate, or otherwise disclose any information concerning the wireless collection equipment/technology or any software, operating manuals, or related technical documentation (including its technical/engineering descriptions) and capabilities) to the public, including to any non-law enforcement individuals or agencies.

6. The Erie County Sheriff’s Office will not distribute, disseminate, or otherwise disclose any information concerning the wireless collection equipment/technology or any software) operating manuals, or related technical documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) provided to it to any other law enforcement or government agency without the prior written approval of the FBI. Prior to any approved distribution, dissemination, or comparable disclosure of any information concerning the wireless collection equipment/technology or any software, manuals, or related technical documentation related to such equipment/technology, all materials shall be marked “Law Enforcement Sensitive, For Official Use Only – Not to be Disclosed Outside of the Erie County Sheriff’s Office.”

7. The Erie County Sheriff’s Office shall not, in any civil or criminal proceeding, use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology including, but not limited to, during pre-trial matters, in search warrants and related affidavits, in discovery, in response to court ordered disclosure, in other affidavits, in grand jury hearings, in the State’s case-in-chief, rebuttal, or on appeal, or in testimony in any phase of civil or criminal trial, without the prior written approval of the FBI. If the Erie County Sheriff’s Office learns that a District Attorney, prosecutor, or a court is considering or intends to use or provide any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology in a manner that will cause law enforcement sensitive information relating to the technology to be made known to the public, the Erie County Sheriff’s Office will immediately notify the FBI in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to intervene to protect the equipment/technology and information from disclosure and potential compromise.

Notification shall be directed to the attention of:

Assistant Director
Operational Technology Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Engineering Research Facility
Building 27958A, Pod A
Quantico, Virginia 22135
(703) 985-6100

and

Unit Chief
Tracking Technology Unit
Operational Technology Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Engineering Research Facility
Building 27958A, Pod B
Quantico, Virginia 22135
(703) 985-6840

8. In addition, the Erie County Sheriff’s Office will, at the request of the FBI, seek dismissal of the case in lieu of using or providing, or allowing others to use or provide, any information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (beyond the evidentiary results obtained through the use of the equipment/technology), if using or providing such information would potentially or actually compromise the equipment/technology. This point supposes that the agency has some control or influence over the prosecutorial process. Where such is not the case, or is limited so as to be inconsequential, it is the FBI’s expectation that the law enforcement agency identify the applicable prosecuting agency, or agencies, for inclusion in this agreement.

9. A copy of any court order in any proceeding in which the Erie County Sheriff’s Office is a Party directing disclosure of information concerning the Harris Corporation equipment/technology and any associated software, operating manuals, or related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities) will immediately be provided to the FBI in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to intervene to protect the equipment/technology and information from disclosure and potential compromise. Any such court orders shall be directed to the attention of:

Assistant Director
Operational Technology Division
Federal Bureau of investigation
Engineering Research Facility
Building 27958A, Pod A
Quantico, Virginia 22135
(703) 985-6100

and

Unit Chief
Tracking Technology Unit
Operational Technology Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Engineering Research Facility
Building 27958A, Pod B
Quantico, Virginia 22135
(703) 985-6840

10. The Erie County Sheriff’s Office will not publicize its acquisition or use of the Harris Corporation equipment/technology or any of the capabilities afforded by such equipment/technology to the public, other law enforcement agencies, or other government agencies, including, but not limited to, in any news or press releases, interviews, or direct or indirect statements to the media.

11. In the event that the Erie County Sheriff’s Office receives a request pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. § 552) or an equivalent state or local law, the civil or criminal discovery process, or other judicial, legislative, or administrative process, to disclose information concerning the Harris Corporation wireless collection equipment/technology, its associated software, operating manuals, and any related documentation (including its technical/engineering description(s) and capabilities), the Erie County Sheriff’s Office will immediately notify the FBI of any such request telephonically and in writing in order to allow sufficient time for the FBI to seek to prevent disclosure through appropriate channels. Notification shall be directed to the attention of:

Assistant Director
Operational Technology Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Engineering Research Facility
Building 27958A, Pod A
Quantico, Virginia 22135
(703) 985-6100

and

Unit Chief
Tracking Technology Unit
Operational Technology Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Engineering Research Facility
Building 27958A, Pod B
Quantico, Virginia 22135
(703) 985-6840

The Erie County Sheriff’s Office’s acceptance of the above conditions shall be evidenced by the signatures below of an authorized representative and wireless collection equipment operators of the Erie County Sheriff’s Office.

Sincerely,

Christopher M. Piehota
Special Agent in Charge
Buffalo Division
Federal Bureau of Investigation