United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 75

DECLARATION of Joe Dominic in opposition to 2 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Chris Caligiuri, # 2 Declaration of Arif Alikhan, # 3 Declaration of Jim Hart, # 4 Declaration of Jeffrey Rosen, # 5 Declaration of Diana Carbajal, # 6 Declaration of Holly Cooper, # 7 Declaration of Tom Wong)(Sherman, Lee)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 XAVIER BECERRA Attorney General of California THOMAS PATTERSON Senior Assistant Attorney General MICHAEL NEWMAN . SATOSHI YANAI Supervising Deputy Attorneys General CHRISTINE CHUANG ANTHONY HAKL CHEROKEE DM MELTON LEE I. SHERMAN Deputy Attorneys General State Bar No. 272271 300 S. Spring Street Los Angeles, CA 90013 Telephone: (213) 269-6404 Fax: (213) 897-7605 E-mail: Lee.Sherman@doj.ca.gov Attorneys for Defendants 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, 17 18 19 Case No. 2:l 8-cv-00490-JAM-KJN v. 21 THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of California, in his official capacity; and XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of California, in his official capacity, 22 DECLARATION OF JOE DOMINIC IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Defendants. 20 Judge: Honorable John A. Mendez Action Filed: March 6, 2018 23 24 25 26 27 28 Deel. of Joe Dominic in Supp. ofDefs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (l 8-cv-00490-JAM-I<JN) 1 I, Joe Dominic, declare as follows: 2 1. I am a resident of the State of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts ,' .. 3 set forth in this declaration. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the 4 matters set forth below. 5 2. I am currently employed by the California Department of Justice ("CalDOJ") as 6 the Chief of the California Justice Information Services ("CJIS") Division, a position that I have 7 held since October 5, 2015. I have served at CalDOJ, in CJIS for 25 years. Before assuming my 8 current role, I was the Director of the Criminal Justice Information Technology Services Branch. 9 3. I am familiar with Senate Bill 54 ("SB 54"), California Government Code section 1o 7282 et seq., which I understand is being challenged in this case. Moreover, I have reviewed the 11 Amended Declaration of Thomas Homan filed in this matter on April 2, 2018 (ECF No. 46-2). 12 4. CJIS is responsible for providing criminal justice intelligence, identification, 13 information and technology services to law enforcement, regulatory agencies and the public. As 14 part of those responsibilities, CJIS maintains databases into which state and local law 15 enforcement agencies input criminal justice data. CJIS serves as the administrator of these 16 databases, and allows law enforcement agencies-federal, state, and local-to have access to the 17 information contained in those databases. 18 5. Law enforcement agencies may access California's databases through the 19 California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System ("CLETS"), which is managed by 20 CJIS. The purpose of CLETS is to provide an efficient law enforcement communications 21 network that is accessible to all law enforcement agencies within the state. CLETS provides the 22 network mechanism for law enforcement agencies to access and conduct queries into the 54 23 databases used by California law enforcement agencies. 24 Information Accessible Via CLETS 25 6. Several of the databases available through CLETS contain addresses for persons 26 who have had interactions with the criminal justice system. For example, the Supervised Release 27 File ("SRF") is a California criminal justice database accessible via CLETS with information 28 about active parolees, probationers, sex and arson registrants, violent offenders, and career 1 Deel. of Joe Dominic in Supp. ofDefs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) 1 criminals. The SRF allows law enforcement agencies to input messages into the database about 2 encounters with subjects. The SRF contains data fields for the subject's address for officers to 3 input into the databas.;. ·The SRF also contains mandatory fields for "Start Date of Supervision," 4 which means the date under which a person begins his or her probationary period. Under some 5 circumstances, this would correlate with the date that a person is scheduled to be released from 6 custody. 7 .... ' 7. In addition, the California Sex Arson Registry ("CSAR") is California's repository 8 for sex and arson registration information that is accessible via CLETS. Local law enforcement 9 agencies are required to use CSAR to register, track, and monitor their sex and arson registrants 1o after they are convicted of qualifying offenses. Upon registration, sex and arson registrants must 11 provide their address, which is input into CSAR. 12 8. Users with access to CLETS may conduct queries across all the databases 13 available, or conduct queries through specific databases. For instance, a law enforcement officer 14 with access to CLETS may conduct a query for a person by his or her name and/or date of birth 15 throughout all of the databases available via CLETS to identify the person who is the subject of 16 the law enforcement officer's inquiry, and any information that is available about that person. If 17 the person's address or start date of supervision was input into SRF or the CSAR database, then 18 the inquiring law enforcement agency would be able to identify that information through CLETS. 19 Immigration Anthorities' Access to CLETS 20 9. Any law enforcement officer who seeks access to CLETS must agree in writing to 21 the terms and conditions of using CLETS prior to having access to the CLETS and the 22 information contained therein. Officers with federal agencies may access CLETS in the same 23 manner as state and local law enforcement officers. Specifically, officers with the Department of 24 Homeland Security ("DHS"), including Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and 25 Customs and Border Protection ("CBP"), are eligible to access CLETS. They may access CLETS 26 through their own offices and equipment, and do not need to go through a California state or local 27 law enforcement agency in order to obtain access. 28 2 Deel. of Joe Dominic in Supp. ofDefs.' Opp'n to Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (I 8-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) I 10. SB 54 has not changed ICE or CBP's access to the databases available in CLETS. 2 My understanding is that SB 54 provides some limitations on the use of "agency or department 3 moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration 4 enforcement purposes." The databases that are available via CLETS are maintained for criminal 5 justice purposes only, and not for immigration enforcement purposes. My understanding is that 6 SB 54 also explicitly authorizes criminal history information accessed through CLETS to be 7 shared with immigration authorities to the extent otherwise permitted by state law. 8 ,',. 11. Data collected by CJIS shows that DHS agencies have continued to access CLETS 9 since January 4, 2018. Each agency that accesses CLETS is assigned an originating agency Jo identifier ("ORI") by the FBI. Each CLETS terminal within an ORI is assigned a Terminal 11 Mnemonic ("MNE"). CJIS is able to track every time that a specific MNE conducts a query in 12 CLETS. 13 14 15 12. Between October I, 2017 and December 31, 2017, DHS agencies collectively conducted 69,189 queries in CLETS. 13. By comparison, between January I, 2018 and March 31, 2018, DHS agencies 16 collectively conducted 89,223 queries in CLETS. 17 Immigration Authorities' Access to the CalGang Database 18 14. Thomas Homan maims allegations in paragraphs 33, 34, and 79 of his declaration 19 about California purportedly denying ICE access to the Cal Gang database. My understanding is 20 that the California provisions that govern Cal Gang are not at issue in this case. Nonetheless, my 21 declaration provides a true and accurate account of the administration of the Ca!Gang database, 22 prior to the passage of AB 90 and presently. 23 15. Cal Gang is a criminal intelligence database that contains information for persons 24 who law enforcement agencies have designed as a gang member or associate. Cal Gang is not 25 accessible via CLETS. As of October 2017, law enforcement users sought access to Cal Gang 26 through nine node administrators, consisting of local law enforcement agencies throughout the 27 State of California. Prior to January I, 2018, those node administrators controlled access to 28 3 Deel. of Joe Dominic in Supp. of Defs.' Opp'n to PL 's Mot. for Prelim. Inj. (l 8-cv-00490-JAM-KJN) I Ca1Gang. Before January I, 2018, no State of California agency, including CalDOJ, was 2 responsible for providing oversight of the Cal Gang database. 16. 3 ,',. On October 12, 2017, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 90 ("AB 90") into law, 4 which changed the administration of CalGm1g in several respects. First, effective January 1, 5 2018, the authority to administer CalGang was transferred to CalDOJ, which assigned 6 responsibility to CJIS for administering the database. Second, AB 90 imposed a moratorium on 7 the use ofCalGang for all users effective January I, 2018 until the Attorney General certified that 8 specified information from Cal Gang had been purged from the database. Third, AB 90 provides 9 that CalDOJ shall temporarily suspend access to CalGang for any user who shares information for 1o federal immigration law purposes, unless required by state or federal statute or regulation. 17. 11 I have been informed by my team that after the passage of AB 90, in October 12 20 I 7, two of.the ndde administrators located within the Orange Coimty District Attorney's office 13 and the San Diego Police Department suspended ICE from having acl)e~s,tp (;;alGang. These 14 node administrators did not consult with CJIS before denying access to ICE. ' , 18. 15 On January I, 2018, the Ca!Gang database vendor disabled the system and 16 prevented access for·,all users of the database to allow for the specified information to be purged 17 from the database as required under AB 90, On March 28, 2018, the Attorney General certified ]8 that this information had been purged from the database. On April 4, 2018, Cal Gang was 19 reactivated to all users who had access to the database prior to the moratorium, including ICE and 20 CBP. 21 19. On April 25, 2018, CJIS communicated to each of the remaining eight node 22 administrators, including the node administrators located in Orange and San Diego Counties, 23 informing them that DHS agencies are not presumptively precluded from using CalGang so long 24 as they, like all other users, use CalGang data in a manner consistent with state law. 25 20. There are thirty-three DHS users with active accounts for CalGang. They have all 26 had access to Cal Gang since the passage of AB 90 except during the general moratorium 27 described above. Eleven of those users have accessed Cal Gang collectively over forty times since 28 4 Deel. of Joe Dominic in Supp. of Defs.' Opp'n to Pl. 's Mot. for Prelim. Inj. ( 18-cv-00490-JAM-ION) October 2017. Four of those occasions have occurred on April 6, 11 , and 13, after CalGang was 2 3 re-activated. 21. Currently, node administrators, not CJIS, are responsible for allowing access to 4 any user of Cal Gang. CJIS has not, at any time, denied any DHS agency or user access to 5 CalGang. 6 22. If a node administrator were to deny access to a DHS user, and the DHS user were 7 to reach out to CJIS, my division would assist in obtaining access to the database through a 8 different node administrator, subject to state law limits on access and use . 9 10 11 12 13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on __~f."2 JJg' ,-1. . .""--'_.,__,~ f-J 5 ~ ~ , California. I ---' 2018 in 14 15 /Jsk 16 17 ,..----DOMINIC 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 Deel. of Joe Dominic in Supp. ofDefs.' Opp' n to Pl.'s Mot. for Prelim. Inj . ( l 8-cv-00490-JAM-KJN)

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?