In what circumstances will the District Attorney's Office be able to provide information to the criminal division of the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice?

Here the threat of prosecution is not "trifling" or "imaginary" as was true in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 28 L.Ed.2d 356. In Freed, neither the photos nor the fingerprints were available to other local, state, or federal agencies. In the case now before us, however, the information gathered by the civil division of the district attorney's office could easily be delivered to the criminal division of that same office. More importantly, in contrast to Freed, the present case does not involve some imaginary future crime. We are concerned here with possible criminal activity rooted in petitioners' past and current behavior, which could provide the predicate for a finding of criminal intent under section 270. In other words, while actual prosecution might lie in the future, the threat of such prosecution, and the incriminating behavior which forms the basis of that threat, dwell in the present.