Aguiar v. Drug Enforcement Administration
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 14344
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- DEA used a GPS tracker on Aguiar’s car during a narcotics investigation and visualized coordinates via mapping software; administrative subpoenas for phone/financial records were also issued.
- Aguiar (while his direct appeal was pending) submitted FOIA requests seeking: (1) all GPS tracking data and the proprietary software used to map it (or alternatively map images), and (2) four specific administrative subpoenas.
- DEA produced spreadsheets of raw GPS coordinates but refused to produce the mapping software or map images; it searched for the four subpoenas but reported they could not be located.
- District court ordered supplemental declarations; DEA submitted multiple, inconsistent declarations about whether it possessed or controlled the software and how it had searched for the subpoenas.
- District court granted summary judgment to DEA on software and subpoenas; D.C. Circuit vacated and remanded, finding agency declarations insufficient to support summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the GPS mapping software is an "agency record" subject to FOIA | Aguiar: software was used by DEA to visualize his tracking data and is an agency record or otherwise controlled by DEA | DEA: it does not possess or control the software; any software is third-party licensed/hosted and thus not an agency record | Vacated summary judgment; material factual questions remain because DOJ declarations were conclusory and internally inconsistent; remand for fuller factual record |
| Whether DEA must produce map images (visualization) as a format of existing data | Aguiar: FOIA entitles him to data in preferred format; map images are merely formatted GPS data | DEA: creating map images would be creating new records, which FOIA does not compel | Court declined to decide now (premature) because outcome on software request might obviate need; left for district court on remand if necessary |
| Whether DEA’s search for four administrative subpoenas was adequate | Aguiar: he previously saw copies in trial discovery and an agent testified they existed; DEA should have located them | DEA: it searched IRFS case files likely to contain subpoenas and found none; thus its search was adequate | Vacated summary judgment; declarations lacked detail (search terms/methodology and why IRFS was the only likely source); remand for detailed declaration or further search |
| Adequacy of agency declarations to support FOIA summary judgment | Aguiar: existing declarations were conclusory, inconsistent, and failed to answer key factual questions | DEA: submitted multiple declarations and claimed searches were conducted; little more to explain | Held that conclusory legal assertions and inconsistent statements do not satisfy summary-judgment burden; agency must provide reasonably detailed, fact-specific declarations |
Key Cases Cited
- U.S. Dep’t of Justice v. Tax Analysts, 492 U.S. 136 (establishes that agency bears burden to prove requested materials are not agency records)
- Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Secret Serv., 726 F.3d 208 (framework for "create or obtain" and "control" inquiry for agency records)
- Burka v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 87 F.3d 508 (constructive control can make privately located records agency records)
- Kissinger v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 (possession alone does not make a document an agency record)
- DiBacco v. U.S. Army, 795 F.3d 178 (requirements for agency affidavits and adequacy of FOIA search)