VIRGINIA:
IN
THE
CIRCUIT
COURT
OF
FAIRFAX
COUNTY
HARRISON
NEAL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case
No.
CL-2015-5902
FAIRFAX
COUNTY
POLICE
DEPARTMENT,
et
al.,
Defendants.
ANSWER
AND
GROUNDS
OF
DEFENSE
COME
NOW
Fairfax
County
Police
Department
(FCPD),
and
Colonel
Edwin
C.
Roessler,
Jr.
(Chief
Roessler)
Defendants
herein,
by
counsel,
and
file
this
Answer
and
Grounds
of
Defense
to
the
Complaint
filed
herein
by
the
Plaintiff.
(
Answer
1.
The
first
sentence
of
f
1
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
The
second
and
third
sentences
of
f
1
of
the
Complaint
are
denied.
The
acronym
assigned
to
the
Fairfax
County
Police
Department
in
the
second
sentence
of
1
of
the
Complaint
is
incorrect.
The
Defendants
are
without
sufficient
information
either
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
of
the
fourth
sentence
of
1
of
the
Complaint,
so
those
allegations
are
denied. To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
any
other
provisions
of
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint, any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
2.
f
2
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
3.
The
Defendants
are
without
sufficient
information
either
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
of
sentence
4
of
f
1
of
the
Complaint,
so
those
allegations
are
denied.
4.
14
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted.
5.
The
first
sentence
of
If
5
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted.
The
second
sentence
of
]f
5
of the
Complaint
is
denied.
6.
If
6
of
the
Complaint
is
denied.
7.
f
7
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted.
8.
The
first
sentence
of
"f
8
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted.
The
second
and
third
sentences
of
f
8
of
the
Complaint
are
denied.
9.
f
9
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted.
10.
•[
10
of the
Complaint
is
admitted.
11.
]f
11
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted.
12.
f
12
of
the
Complaint
is
denied.
13.
f
13
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted,
except
to
the
extent
that
the
paragraph
asserts
that
the
vehicle
license
plate
number
that
the
Plaintiff
submitted
a
request
regarding
is
actually
the
Plaintiffs
vehicle's
license
plate
number.
The
Defendants
are
without
sufficient
information
either
to
admit
or
deny
that
allegation,
so
it
is
denied.
14.
The
first
and
third
sentences
of
*[
14
of
the
Complaint
are
admitted,
except
to
the
extent
that
the
paragraph
asserts
that
the
vehicle
license
plate
number
that
the
Plaintiff
submitted
a
request
regarding
is
actually
the
Plaintiffs
vehicle's
license
plate
number.
The
Defendants
are
without
sufficient
information either
to
admit
or
deny
that
allegation, so
it
is
denied.
The
second
sentence
of
14
of
the
Complaint
is denied.
2
15.
The
Defendants
are
without
sufficient
information
either
to
admit
or
deny
the
allegations
of
If
15
of the
Complaint,
so
those
allegations
are
denied.
16.
116
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
17.
117
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
18.
If
18
of the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
19.
'119
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
20.
Tf
20
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
21.
If
21
of the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
22.
^f
22
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
3
23.
f
23
of
the
Complaint
is
denied.
24.
|
24
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
25.
If
25
of
the
Complaint
contains
a
legal
conclusion
to
which
no
answer
is
required.
To
the
extent
that
the
Defendants
are
required
to
answer
this
paragraph
of
the
Complaint,
any
allegations
contained
therein
are
denied.
26.
f
26
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted.
27.
f
27
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted.
28.
If
28 of the
Complaint
is
admitted.
29.
f
29
of
the
Complaint
is
admitted.
30.
f
30
of
the
Complaint
is
denied.
By
way
of
further
answer,
the
Defendants
affirmatively
state
that
the
Plaintiff,
by
counsel,
was
aware
when
he
filed
the
Complaint
that
the
State
Police
did
not
cease
to
use
its
ALPR
equipment
for
"passive"
data
collection,
and
that
they
maintain
passive
data
for
a
period
of
24
hours.
31.
The
Defendants
admit
that
the FCPD
retains
ALPR
data
for
364
days.
The
remaining
allegations
contained
in
f
31
of
the
Complaint
are
denied.
32.
If
32
of
the
Complaint
is
denied.
The
Plaintiff
is
referred
to
in
the
plural
in"f
32
of
the
Complaint,
which
is
incorrect.
There
is
only
one
plaintiff
to
the
Complaint.
33.
f
33
of
the
Complaint
is
denied.
The
Plaintiff
is
referred
to
in
the
plural
in
Tf
33
of
the
Complaint,
which
is
incorrect.
There
is
only
one
plaintiff
to
the
Complaint.
4
The
Defendants
hereby
deny
any
allegations
contained
in
the
Complaint
that
require
a
substantive
response
but
are
not
addressed
in
the
above paragraphs.
Pursuant
to
Rule
3:11
of
the
Rules of
the
Supreme
Court
of
Virginia,
a
reply
is
demanded
to
the
new
matters
pleaded
herein.
The
Defendants
assert
that
the
actions
they
have
taken
with
regard
to
the
Plaintiff's
allegations
are
not
in
violation
of
the
Data
Collection
and
Dissemination
Practices
Act
(Act),
and
therefore,
the
Plaintiff
is
not
entitled
to
the
remedy
soughtin
his
Complaint.
A
license
plate
number
is
not
personal
information
as
defined
in
the
Act,
and
therefore,
the
Plaintiff
is
not
an
aggrieved
person
who
is
entitled
to
any
of
the
relief
that
he
requests
in
his
Request
for
Relief.
WHEREFORE,
the
Defendants
respectfully
requests
that
the
Complaint
herein
be
dismissed
with
prejudice.
Virginia
State
Bar
No.
44419
12000
Government Center
Parkway,
Suite
549
Fairfax,
VA
22035-0064
Phone:
(703)324-2421
Fax:
(703)
324-2665
\
Counsel
for
FCPD
and
Colonel
Roessler
Grounds
of Defense
Respectfully
submitted,
FAIRFAX
COUNTY
POLICE
DEPARTMENT
COLONEL
EDWIN
C.
ROESSLER,
JR.
By
Counsel
DAVID
P.
BOBZIEN
COUNTY
ATTORNEY
5
CERTIFICATE
OF
SERVICE
I
hereby
certify
that
on
the
18th
day
of
September,
2015,
a
true
copy
of
the
foregoing
document
was
sent
via
electronic
mail
and
mailed, first-class mail,
postage
prepaid,
to:
Rebecca
K.
Glenberg,
Esquire
Hope
R.
Amezquita, Esquire
American
Civil
Liberties
Union
Foundation
of
Virginia,
Inc.
701
East
Franklin
Street,
Suite
1412
Richmond,
Virginia
23219
Fax:
(804)
649-2733
Edward
S.
Rosenthal,
Esquire
Rich
Rosenthal
Brincefield
Mannitta
Dzubin
&
Kroeger,
LLP
201
North
Union Street, Suite
230
Alexandria,
Virginia
22314
Fax:
(703)
299-3441
6
