INSPECTOR GENERAL COMMENTS CONCERNING THE DEPUTATION PROCESS (Initiating Requests; "Blanket "Requests; Renewal Requests and General Comments Concerning the Process)

U. S. Agency for International Development

"The use of the U. S. Marshal's deputation is generally impractical because it is extremely time consuming. This creates delays in investigations, lost evidence and suspects being lost. The nature of our cases do not lend themselves to this alternative. U. S. Attorneys who handle most of our cases desire fast action in cases where an immediate search is required. For example, in ongoing bribery cases consensual monitoring is often done with one to three days notice. It is not possible to obtain deputation in this period."

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

"While I have not used DOJ's program for deputizing Assistant U. S. Marshals at the NRC, I have had experience with the program during my tenure with the Labor Department's Office of Inspector General. It has been my experience that this program is an ineffective way to protect IG personnel who may encounter dangerous situations in the execution of their duties. First, the process was too slow to be responsive. Investigators often must react quickly to circumstances which could place them in danger. As a result, the DOJ deputation program was too cumbersome to provide the necessary support to meet the Office's mission needs. Also, I found the DOJ policy governing this program inconsistent and confusing."

Railroad Retirement Board

"The OIG believes that the deputization process is cumbersome and inefficient, resulting in the delay of just those criminal investigations that call for the most effective and timely response. The deputization process requires the time, attention and involvement of Special Agents, Supervisory Special Agents, agency managers, U. S. Attorneys, their Assistants and staff, staff members of the Department of Justice, as well as staff members of the U. S. Marshal's Service, both in Washington, D. C. and at the local level; thus a considerable amount of federal government resources are utilized that could more efficiently be spent on the timely and effective investigation and prosecution of violators of federal law. In addition, the lengthy review process has both a debilitating effect on

-2

criminal investigations that must be put "on
hold"
pending a final response as well as an inhibitive effect
on the referral of cases that would, on appearance, be
eligible for consideration for deputization, yet which
an agency would be reluctant to delay due to concern
over possible loss of evidence, unavailability of
witnesses or subjects, etc. As currently constituted,
the deputization process is
viewed by investigative

personnel more as an impediment rather than a mechanism
to assist in the conduct of an investigation."

With respect to the IG's experience in requesting deputations, he provides the following comments:

"The deputization process has taken an average of six months. Interestingly, one request was approved in thirty (30) days; another took one year. Both subjects demonstrated a propensity towards violence. In the first case the subject was residing in a house believed to be the scene of "crack" cocaine trafficking and had show abusive behavior towards the RRB annuitant. In the second case, the subject had previously been arrested cases certainly warranted deputization; however, the unequal length of time for final approval is obviously baffling."

for

murder.

Both

Small Business Administration

"It has been the policy of this office to attempt to utilize the deputation process in full compliance with the Department of Justice guidelines. The criteria for applying for deputation includes anticipation of a danger, situations where there is theoretically no other viable assistance from another law enforcement agency, and where it is necessary for the successful completion of a criminal investigation. In recent weeks, we have been verbally advised that the request must also contain a certification that the investigation is being legally conducted under the restrictions of the 'Kmiec ' opinion."

Regarding the review process for deputation requests, the OIG provided the following comments:

"On average, our deputation requests have been taking two months for approval after receipt by the Justice Department. The range of approval time has run from two weeks to five months during the past year. We currently have four requests, two initial and two renewals (from June 1989) which have been pending an average of seven months. In two of those pending requests, the delay has been cause by the AUSA not completing and returning the questionnaire.

-3

It should be noted that the questionnaire has been in use since May 1989, when the Justice Department revised its procedures to 'streamline' the process. The result has caused more confusion and delay with the process, and we have had two AUSAs refuse to endorse deputation requests because of the additional paperwork burden it imposed on them."

The IG feels that the primary weakness in the process is the requirement that the agent anticipate danger far enough in advance So as to begin the request for deputation. In reality, the IG states that danger can manifest itself at any time during the conduct of an investigation and the agent would have no way of predicting it.

Department of Labor

Within the Department of Labor, the OIG has an additional component, the Office of Labor Racketeering (OLR), which employs a number of criminal investigators who are presently deputized as Special Deputy United States Marshals, pursuant to a "blanket" deputation from the Department of Justice. OLR received the blanket deputation from DOJ on July 9, 1987, renewable on a yearly basis.

as

The Acting Inspector General stated this authority (through the deputation process) is a poor substitute for statutory law enforcement authority. He described the renewal process cumbersome, inefficient, expensive and inordinately burdensome even when done on a group basis. OLR is required to report detailed statistics to DOJ on a quarterly basis. He also stated the renewal process has proven to be disruptive to OLR operations and the uncertainty of continued authority may also cause recruitment and retention of personnel problems.

Regarding the renewal process of blanket deputations, the Acting IG stated they have not been timely and the result has been that voids in the blanket deputation have been created. For example, on June 30, 1988 the initial deputation expired. The local U. S. Marshals were not notified by June 30, 1988, and as a result a number of OLR investigators were not redeputized on time. Several investigations had to be suspended since the activity included dangerous interviews, One agent

investigative

surveillances and protection of cooperating witnesses. was under a threat at the time was unable to protect himself until he was redeputized. OLR encountered similar problems when the "blanket" deputation was renewed in June 1989. The Associate Attorney General did not approve renewal of the "blanket" deputation until June 29, 1989. Consequently, most OLR investigators were not redeputized until after July 4, 1989, and again, several investigations had to be suspended for safety

reasons.

Department of Transportation