| 2010 NEWS & UPDATES ARCHIVE |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES LOCAL 918-FEDERAL PROTECTIVE SERVICE Representing Federal Protective Service Employees Nationwide |
| Copyright 2009: American Federation of Government Employees Local 918. All rights reserved. |
January 9, 2010
| AFGE Local 918-FPS Warning to Our Membership Use of assigned government-owned law enforcement vehicle and exercise of authority off-federal property could be detrimental to your career |
On January 7, 2009, an FPS Inspector was arrested by investigators with the FPS Policy Compliance Unit and ICE Office of Professional Responsibility. The Inspector
had been federally indicted on seven misdemeanor charges for violations of Section 242 of Title 18, U.S. Code. In summary, the Inspector had conducted traffic stops
off-federal property while operating an assigned FPS law enforcement vehicle. AFGE Local 918-FPS is not familiar with the merits or specifics of the government’s case
however, based upon information as we know it now, we believe the Inspector's actions, when properly and competently presented at trial, would tend to exculpate him
from the alleged criminal elements and hopefully lead to acquittal or dismissal of charges. This officer will get his day in court and of course is presumed to be
innocent.
This message is not intended to get involved with the particularities or advocacy of this individual’s case. It is intended to point out a very significant detail pertaining to
this arrest that apparently has potential to impact to all FPS Law enforcement officers who operate government-owned vehciles, especially marked police units, whether
on duty, during official travel or even during routine Home-To-Work commute. From casually examining the indictment, it appears, that for at least one U.S. Attorney's
Office, in one federal court district, that at least one grand jury saw that the mere presence of that marked police vehicle - especially with the accompaniment of an on-
or off-duty officer bearing the accouterments of FPS police authority - uniform, badge, weapon, vehicle emergency equipment (lights, PA, siren) - at location other
than federal property with public interaction (traffic stop or related driving incident) as constituting that officer's and vehicle's presence as being within the meaning of
"color of law" as applied within the cited statute. The Grand Jury saw it appropriate to issue a seven count misdemeanor indictment decreeing that the alleged conduct
of that officer rose to the level of being inherently criminal and that such conduct was also allegedly a deprivation of civil rights under the color of law. Apparently the
nature of the alleged actions and the postured FPS authority cemented the color of law perception.
AFGE Local 918-FPS is issuing a warning to all of FPS law enforcement membership who operate government-owned law enforcement vehicles: You are
driving a marked FPS Police vehicle that is also liveried with an 800 number that for all practical purposes has become the "drop a dime" line for both legitimate and
artificial public complaints. If you cover, deface or remove the 800 number you are violating policy and can be disciplined. You are in the public eye. Also, the agency
is disastrously and historically inconsistent in how it establishes, enforces and administers policy concerning off-property (on and off duty) enforcement/assistance
expectations and obligations of its officers when encountering public summoning (hailing) incidents or those that develop on view.
FPS at FLETC and some of the HQ and Regional Leadership - with either only a tacit wink and a nod, or a softly spoken verbal nudge - will tell you to get involved in
everything that you see or encounter while representing the agency off property. They won't give you the appropriate authorizing policy, MOU/MOA, state certification,
deputization or peace officer recognition that would tend to guide and support (and likely indemnify) such good faith actions as being within the lawful constructs of off-
property empowerment apparently intended within the framework of Title 40, U.S. Code, Section 1315 despite the fact that many States and municipalities have granted
some type of law enforcement authority to FPS law enforcement officers.
You are on your own! Thus you are potentially a highly visible public target that the agency has the option to either back up or turn its back upon, subject to their
arbitrary discretion. Your actions potentially constitute your exposure to personal liability. We each must follow orders and act within the law and in accordance with
moral conscience. You must make your own decisions about these types of things. Just remember, your actions, righteous or reckless, will be in the public eye.
Assume that you are being videotaped and maintain your professionalism at all times. Get professional liability insurance, and document any verbal or implied policies
by recapping them back to the issuing supervisor.
Home-To-Work authorization is a privilege and not a right. Do not abuse it. On the same note, it is not mandatory to accept a vehicle for Home-To-Work travel. If you
accept this authorization, you are assuming the risks.
AFGE Local 918-FPS will be seeking to address the related issues with the Agency and through our Congressional contacts. FPS needs to enter into agreements with
State and local governments, to the extent possible, to clearly define the authority of FPS law enforcement officers in localities throughout the country and to develop
Regional policies on the exercise of any local authority granted by a State or municipality. Otherwise, FPS should consider issuing unmarked vehicles to all FPS law
enforcement employees.
In addition, AFGE Local 918-FPS finds the manner in which the arrest was accomplished to be abhorrent. The actions of the FPS Policy Compliance Unit and the ICE
Office of Professional Responsibility in effecting the arrest were above and beyond what were necessary for these misdemeanor allegations. There was ample
opportunity to handle the matter in a more appropriate manner rather than take actions which clearly served only to embarrass and demean the FPS employee. If you
have questions or concerns about the use of authority and government vehicles in your area, you should contact your supervisor and/or Local 918 shop steward or
Regional Vice-President.
Stay Safe!
had been federally indicted on seven misdemeanor charges for violations of Section 242 of Title 18, U.S. Code. In summary, the Inspector had conducted traffic stops
off-federal property while operating an assigned FPS law enforcement vehicle. AFGE Local 918-FPS is not familiar with the merits or specifics of the government’s case
however, based upon information as we know it now, we believe the Inspector's actions, when properly and competently presented at trial, would tend to exculpate him
from the alleged criminal elements and hopefully lead to acquittal or dismissal of charges. This officer will get his day in court and of course is presumed to be
innocent.
This message is not intended to get involved with the particularities or advocacy of this individual’s case. It is intended to point out a very significant detail pertaining to
this arrest that apparently has potential to impact to all FPS Law enforcement officers who operate government-owned vehciles, especially marked police units, whether
on duty, during official travel or even during routine Home-To-Work commute. From casually examining the indictment, it appears, that for at least one U.S. Attorney's
Office, in one federal court district, that at least one grand jury saw that the mere presence of that marked police vehicle - especially with the accompaniment of an on-
or off-duty officer bearing the accouterments of FPS police authority - uniform, badge, weapon, vehicle emergency equipment (lights, PA, siren) - at location other
than federal property with public interaction (traffic stop or related driving incident) as constituting that officer's and vehicle's presence as being within the meaning of
"color of law" as applied within the cited statute. The Grand Jury saw it appropriate to issue a seven count misdemeanor indictment decreeing that the alleged conduct
of that officer rose to the level of being inherently criminal and that such conduct was also allegedly a deprivation of civil rights under the color of law. Apparently the
nature of the alleged actions and the postured FPS authority cemented the color of law perception.
AFGE Local 918-FPS is issuing a warning to all of FPS law enforcement membership who operate government-owned law enforcement vehicles: You are
driving a marked FPS Police vehicle that is also liveried with an 800 number that for all practical purposes has become the "drop a dime" line for both legitimate and
artificial public complaints. If you cover, deface or remove the 800 number you are violating policy and can be disciplined. You are in the public eye. Also, the agency
is disastrously and historically inconsistent in how it establishes, enforces and administers policy concerning off-property (on and off duty) enforcement/assistance
expectations and obligations of its officers when encountering public summoning (hailing) incidents or those that develop on view.
FPS at FLETC and some of the HQ and Regional Leadership - with either only a tacit wink and a nod, or a softly spoken verbal nudge - will tell you to get involved in
everything that you see or encounter while representing the agency off property. They won't give you the appropriate authorizing policy, MOU/MOA, state certification,
deputization or peace officer recognition that would tend to guide and support (and likely indemnify) such good faith actions as being within the lawful constructs of off-
property empowerment apparently intended within the framework of Title 40, U.S. Code, Section 1315 despite the fact that many States and municipalities have granted
some type of law enforcement authority to FPS law enforcement officers.
You are on your own! Thus you are potentially a highly visible public target that the agency has the option to either back up or turn its back upon, subject to their
arbitrary discretion. Your actions potentially constitute your exposure to personal liability. We each must follow orders and act within the law and in accordance with
moral conscience. You must make your own decisions about these types of things. Just remember, your actions, righteous or reckless, will be in the public eye.
Assume that you are being videotaped and maintain your professionalism at all times. Get professional liability insurance, and document any verbal or implied policies
by recapping them back to the issuing supervisor.
Home-To-Work authorization is a privilege and not a right. Do not abuse it. On the same note, it is not mandatory to accept a vehicle for Home-To-Work travel. If you
accept this authorization, you are assuming the risks.
AFGE Local 918-FPS will be seeking to address the related issues with the Agency and through our Congressional contacts. FPS needs to enter into agreements with
State and local governments, to the extent possible, to clearly define the authority of FPS law enforcement officers in localities throughout the country and to develop
Regional policies on the exercise of any local authority granted by a State or municipality. Otherwise, FPS should consider issuing unmarked vehicles to all FPS law
enforcement employees.
In addition, AFGE Local 918-FPS finds the manner in which the arrest was accomplished to be abhorrent. The actions of the FPS Policy Compliance Unit and the ICE
Office of Professional Responsibility in effecting the arrest were above and beyond what were necessary for these misdemeanor allegations. There was ample
opportunity to handle the matter in a more appropriate manner rather than take actions which clearly served only to embarrass and demean the FPS employee. If you
have questions or concerns about the use of authority and government vehicles in your area, you should contact your supervisor and/or Local 918 shop steward or
Regional Vice-President.
Stay Safe!