On or about May 17, 2008, someone in the Cincinnati field office of the FBI discarded a document on Ron Tammen. The document was located in their Classification 190 files, right up front, in the file labeled “0”—known as the zero file. Classification 190 files have to do with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act. As for the 0 files, here’s what the National Archives and Records Administration has said about them: used for administrative and logistical matters but mostly were used for citizen correspondence related to a classification, routine request for information, and general reference materials.
As you may recall, I was a little bemused when I learned that Ron’s 0 record had been destroyed in May 2008, since I also knew that Frank Smith, Butler County’s cold case detective, had reopened the case roughly five months earlier, in January. Butler County is in the Cincinnati field office’s jurisdiction. Why would the FBI have destroyed Ron’s record when they knew the case had been reopened? And did they ever pass along whatever was in the 0 file to Det. Smith? And if the document had to do with the Privacy Act, could it be that Ron Tammen himself had requested that his fingerprints be expunged? That seems…oh, I dunno…significant.
As I mentioned in The Cincy file, I wanted to know more. As you can see in the above graphic, Ron’s now nonexistent document was identified with the ending label “Serial 967,” which means that his was document number 967 within the 0 file, behind number 966 and ahead of 968. I wanted to see who Ron’s neighbors were in the file, so I submitted a FOIA request for all documents numbered between 900 and 999. For example, if the surrounding documents were all fingerprint expungement requests, then I’d be willing to bet that Ron’s now obliterated document was a fingerprint expungement request as well. Today I received 39 documents, which you can review here.
There’s not a lot of information to be gleaned from these documents. Only the titles are provided, which offer at least a glimpse into the 0 file’s contents. Some of the documents are administrative. Some have to do with expungement requests from various people whose names—and all other pertinent information—have been redacted. Some have to do with requests for documents, most likely from people who wanted to review whatever documents that the FBI has on them. And then there’s the beloved redacted category. Here’s a breakdown by subject and the number of documents having to do with each. (Note that I was conservative in my groupings.)
|SUBJECT||NUMBER OF DOCS|
|Copy of inmates rights||1|
|Application to DEA (*Drug Enforcement Administration, I believe)||1|
|Court orders re expungement should go to BCII (*Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation, I believe)||1|
|Proof of death||1|
|Request all documents||5|
|Imperfected request, notary needed||1|
|Entry ordering expungement||1|
|Extry (*?) ordering expungement||1|
|ELSUR (Electronic Surveillance) [redacted]||1|
|CJIS instructions re expungement||1|
|Proper submission of expungement||1|
|Order sealing conviction||1|
|Returning order sealing conviction||1|
|Disposition of case||1|
|Return disposition sheet—referred to DEA||1|
|Third-party request require privacy waiver or proof of death||2|
|Enclosing copy of certified judgment order expunging record||1|
|Inquiry re [redacted] Ident record||1|
|Return judgment entry with Ohio instructions from CJIS||1|
|CJIS and need for fingerprints||1|
|Copy of Attorney General order 556-73||1|
|ELSUR check for [redacted] inmate||1|
|Corrections on rapsheet||1|
It is what it is—generally, a hodgepodge of requests from a bunch of random people plus some administrative guidance from Criminal Justice Information Systems (CJIS) on expungement and other noteworthy topics. I’m actually a little baffled by the 0 file’s lack of specificity. They couldn’t create separate files for expungement requests versus FOIA requests versus administrative guidelines under Classification 190? They had to toss them all into the same gigantic file?
But let’s not give up just yet. I’ve also come to learn a few additional facts about the Cincinnati file:
- Just because the document number has a “CI” in front of it doesn’t mean that it originated in the Cincinnati office per se. The FBI’s Cincinnati field office encompasses 48 counties in southern Ohio. (Cleveland’s field office has jurisdiction over the remaining 40 counties in northern Ohio.) The Cincinnati field office also comprises resident agencies, which are located in other cities, such as Dayton and Columbus. Ron’s document could have originated in any one of Cincinnati’s resident agencies—we can’t be sure of which one. However, we can be sure that it originated in southern Ohio.
- The Classification 190 files are overseen by the chief division counsel—a lawyer. This person reports directly to the special agent in charge, or the SAC. The SAC heads up the entire Cincinnati field office.
- The destruction of files is overseen by the administrative officer, and he or she does so on the basis of the document retention schedules we’ve discussed in past blog posts, generally years later. This person also reports directly to the SAC.
- Ever since the FBI automated its files, agents can enter a name and pop up a number of files in which that name appears, regardless of the file’s origin. When the agent working with Det. Frank Smith was conducting his or her search on Tammen in January 2008, all of the relevant files appeared on screen, including Tammen’s Classification 190 record.
- Detective Smith’s file on the Tammen case was given to me by the Butler County Sheriff’s Office after Smith retired. His file contains all of the same FBI documents that I received from FBI Headquarters, with the exception that some portions of his documents had been unredacted (alas, nothing useful concerning Tammen, unfortunately). From what I can tell, he did not receive the 190-CI-0, Serial 967 document on Tammen.
One question I’ve had was whether the 190-CI-0, Serial 967 document was simply Det. Smith’s FOIA request to the Cincinnati office for Tammen’s documents. According to the FBI’s printout (above) of Tammen documents, which I’d obtained from my lawsuit, we don’t know the original date of the document that was destroyed in May 2008. Perhaps the FBI special agent whom Det. Smith was working with had created a record concerning Smith’s request and he or she didn’t feel the need to send that to Smith as well. But I’ve discounted that theory, since the record was destroyed only five months later, far earlier than normal retention schedules would permit.
Here’s where my head is at the moment: Document number 190-CI-0, Serial 967 could have been a boring old FOIA request from anyone seeking FBI documents on Ronald Tammen. Perhaps the agent working with Smith saw it and decided it was useless information for Smith’s purposes. (I can’t imagine who the FOIA requester would have been, though. I didn’t submit my FOIA request until 2010 and I think I preceded most others in the Tammen-obsessed public. For anyone reading this who may have submitted a FOIA request on Tammen to the Cincinnati FBI before 2008, please let me know.) Regardless, I’d think that the agent still would have passed the document to Smith. Who knows, the inquirer might have been relevant to Smith’s search. It’s tough to say without a date of origin.
It’s also feasible that Ron Tammen submitted a request to the FBI’s Cincinnati field office (or its resident agencies) to expunge his fingerprints, or, alternatively, that he submitted an information request to the FBI and that’s how he discovered that they’d had his prints. Either way, someone within the FBI may have felt the need to destroy that request in May 2008, five months after they found out that Butler County had decided to reopen his cold case.
Rest assured that Cincinnati hasn’t heard the last of me.
I found an issue. The sentence beginning “Cincinnati’s field office” is a rare instance of you butchering the King’s English. FWIW, I think at least 95% of the “howevers” in the world shouldn’t exist. Just read the post this minute, so no big thoughts yet
Yikes, good catch. Thanks! All fixed. Please note that I did use the word “comprises” correctly in the same paragraph, so I’m hoping I get points for that. (haha)
So very interesting and hopefully new ideas and info! Thanks so much for all your work all these years!
You’re welcome! Thank you for reading my blog, Priscilla! 🙏
OK, I’ve tweaked it. It is perfect now. 😉 Or, at least until someone finds more issues. Thankfully, blogging is fluid and my readers are forgiving!
Thanks for all the info from Ron’s FBI file. However, it’s a little confusing to ascertain, without the specific detailed document, what each document contained. For instance, did the Proof of Death page actually contain a Death Certificate? What about the application to the DEA? What did that contain? Could the DEA have requested the destruction of his fingerprints? What about the conviction and rap sheet? Your request for these documents has added more questions than I can ask here.
Could it be that his fingerprints were expunged to keep him from being implicated in other unsolved cold cases ? If the FBI had detailed information on him being involved in certain cases, removing his fingerprints would remove him as a suspect. If he worked for the DEA undercover, he might have been killed in the line of duty. If that were the case, the FBI or DEA would not want details of his demise being made public, as they’d have to go back to 1953 and teak the whole story. Keeping all of this information redacted keeps the agency from public scrutiny. In the words of Nathan Jessup from “A Few Good Men”, “You can’t handle the truth”.
Good morning! These are very good questions, and I can see that, in my hurry to get everything posted in time for my self-imposed midnight deadline, I didn’t make something clear. That is: these documents don’t pertain to Ron Tammen. They’re just documents that surrounded Ron’s in the Classification 190’s zero file, which is a hodgepodge of requests from various and sundry people whose names are all redacted. Ron only had one document in that file, and his document was destroyed on or about May 17, 2008. I’d requested this batch of docs just to see how they might have related. For example…were they all fingerprint expungements, were they all FOIAs, etc? But they weren’t ‘all’ of anything–instead, they’re all over the map.
This latest post has taught me two things about myself: 1) don’t make promises to post something by a certain time because stuff happens and there I am at 11:55 p.m., still working away and wondering if I’m going to make it in time, and 2) always wait until morning, when I can catch imperfections with a fresh new pair of editorial eyes, and I can tweak accordingly. Anyway, thanks so much for your insightful comments. I’m going to sip my coffee and tweak this post accordingly. 🙂