In response to your request, I have reviewed the FBI's actions in the Alcee Hastings case, including the process of attempting to interview the subject of the investigation and the service of a subpoena duces tecum. After reviewing Departmental correspondence and the associated court documents, I am satisfied that the FBI agents acted properly, and within the scope of their authority, in attempting to conduct the interviews and in serving the subpoena. Hastings challenged the propriety of the subpoena during pretrial proceedings. Our memorandum in opposition to Hastings' motion to quash the physical evidence carefully set forth the actions of the FBI agents and included their affidavits. The District Court agreed with attorneys from the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division that no improprieties occurred during these proceedings. I believe the FBI and the Office of Legislative Affairs have already provided responses to fairly detailed Congressional inquiries about this matter. As you know, every investigation of allegations of criminal conduct has its own unique characteristics. As such, we can not impose strict operational rules on all agents as to when they must inform a person that they are the subject of an investigation. First of all, the definition of "subject" is quite broad and covers the vast range of people, including those against whom there is little or no evidence of criminality. United States Attorneys' Manual § 9-11.150 (October 1, 1988). Second, some investigative scenarios would be foreclosed if we laid down a hard and fast rule requiring that all persons who are subjects of an investigation be notified of that fact by the investigative agents. Because each investigations has its own requirements, no firm rule on notification would be practical. Office of the Attorney General May 7, 1990 Honorable Edward M. Kennedy Dear Ted: I appreciate the concern you expressed during my April 3, 1990, testimony with respect to the GAO's recent finding that a "widespread pattern of discrimination" has resulted from the employer sanctions provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA). Please be assured that I, and the Administration in general, share those concerns. As I mentioned in our telephone conversation following the hearing, I have taken steps to comply with IRCA's requirement that a task force be formed to review the GAO Report, and to prepare recommendations to Congress. I have appointed John Dunne, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, to chair the task force, and he has testified before you to describe the steps that he is now taking to organize the task force so that it may expeditiously complete its work. We appreciate very much your interest, and that of Senator Simpson, in the work of the task force, and I know John will be in touch with you as his work progresses. Best regards. Dick Thornburgh In response to your request, I have reviewed the FBI's actions in the Alcee Hastings case, including the process of attempting to interview the subject of the investigation and the service of a subpoena duces tecum. After reviewing Departmental correspondence and the associated court documents, I am satisfied that the FBI agents acted properly, and within the scope of their authority, in attempting to conduct the interviews and in serving the subpoena. Hastings challenged the propriety of the subpoena during pretrial proceedings. Our memorandum in opposition to Hastings' motion to quash the physical evidence carefully set forth the actions of the FBI agents and included their affidavits. The District Court agreed with attorneys from the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division that no improprieties occurred during these proceedings. I believe the FBI and the Office of Legislative Affairs have already provided responses to fairly detailed Congressional inquiries about this matter. As you know, every investigation of allegations of criminal conduct has its own unique characteristics. As such, we can not impose strict operational rules on all agents as to when they must inform a person that they are the subject of an investigation. First of all, the definition of "subject" is quite broad and covers the vast range of people, including those against whom there is little or no evidence of criminality. United States Attorneys' Manual § 9-11.150 (October 1, 1988). Second, some investigative scenarios would be foreclosed if we laid down a hard and fast rule requiring that all persons who are subjects of an investigation be notified of that fact by the investigative agents. Because each investigations has its own requirements, no firm rule on notification would be practical. - 2 However, the Department does have a specific policy on advising a grand jury witness of his or her status if the person is a "target" of the investigation. The term "target" is far more concrete than the term "subject.” It is defined as "a person as to whom the prosecutor of the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him/her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant." Id. The Department has determined that at the grand jury stage fairness requires a person be informed that he or she is a target before testifying. In addition, it is the Department's policy that grand jury targets will not be subpoenaed to testify. They will be extended an invitation to appear, if they wish, after having been told that they are targets. I hope that this adequately addresses your concerns about contacts with subjects of investigations. Please rest assured that Director Sessions constantly monitors the actions of FBI agents and that any improprieties will be answered with appropriate action. I continue to be concerned that the rights of our citizens are fully protected from unwarranted, invasive actions by investigators and I will continue to strive to ensure that both the rights of both the innocent and the guilty are protected, while assuring that the guilty are fully prosecuted. We are also in the process of obtaining clearance of our views on your bill on child abuse and neglect (S. 1965) and will send you a letter explaining those views as soon as they have been cleared. I look forward to meeting again with you and the full Committee Membership again on Tuesday. rely, Dick Thornburgh |