Dennis Hollingsworth, et al v. USDCSF, et al

Filing 1

FILED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. DOCKETED CAUSE AND ENTERED APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL. NOTIFIED REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST OF FILING. [7187906] (HH)

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE USMS had taken to improve judicial security and to enhance its capability to respond to judicial security incidents.44

To improve the USMS's capacity to protect the federal judiciary, the OIG made six new recommendations. Since September 2007, the USMS has reported to the OIG the steps it has taken to implement them. For example, the USMS developed plans to improve its threat assessment process and for implementing a protective intelligence function to idenbfy potential threats, including objectives, tasks, milestones, and resources. The USMS created a Guidefor Offie of Protective Intelligence Personnel to Coordinate Protective Investigations, which describes a comprehensive strategy for handling protective investigations and is in the process of modlfylng its inappropriate communication Threat Module of the Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS)to produce more user-friendly reports. Also, the USMS is finalizing policies for Technical Operations Group support concerning protective operations and investigations for Judicial Security Rapid Deployment Teams. The OIG has closed four of the six recommendations.

D

44 Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Review o the United f States Marshals Seruice Judicial Security Process, Evaluation and Inspections Report 1-2007-0104, September 2007.

U.S.Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

44

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

ockets.Justia.com

The OIG found that USMS efforts to improve its capabilities to assess reported threats and idenbfy potential threats languished from the issuance of the March 2004 report to early 2007. We found that threat assessments took longer to complete, resulting in a backlog of 1,190 "pending" threat assessments as of October 1, 2006. Further, the USMS did not implement an effective program to develop protective intelligence that identified potential threats against the judiciary.

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE APPENDIX 1 : METHODOLOGY OF THE OIG REVIEW 1

The methodology used in this review included interviews with USMS, EOUSA, and FBI personnel, as well a s site visits to four federal judicial districts where we interviewed federal judges, USMS personnel, AUSAs, and other USAO personnel. In addition, we conducted a survey of a stratified random sample of AUSAs and performed document reviews and database analyses. Interviews at USMS Headquarters and EOUSA To determine the role and responsibilities of the USMS and the role of EOUSA in the protection of federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and AUSAs, we interviewed 10 individuals: 4 from USMS headquarters at the Judicial Security Division and 6 from EOUSA. At USMS headquarters, we interviewed the Chiefs of the Office of Protective Operations, the Office of Protective Investigations, the Office of Court Security, and the Threat Management Center. At EOUSA, we interviewed the Director of EOUSA, the Chief of the Security Programs Staff, a Threat Management Specialist, a Physical Security Specialist, a Program Assistant for the Mission Assurance Team, and a Program Assistant for Physical Security. Site Visits We conducted site visits at four judicial districts. We chose the districts based on the number and severity of threats received by federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and AUSAs in the districts, the number of prosecutors in the districts, and geographic location. During these site visits, we conducted interviews and reviewed documents a t four USAOs and four USMS district offices. At each USAO, we interviewed the U.S. Attorney, the Regional Security Specialist, the District Office Security Manager, and four AUSAs. At each USMS district office, we interviewed the U.S. Marshal, the Judicial Security Inspector, and at least one District Threat Investigator. We also interviewed at least two federal judges in each district to determine their experiences with protective measures provided after the judge received a threat. At three of the sites, we interviewed the judge who served as the Chair of the Court Security Committee for that district. At each site, we also interviewed an FBI Special Agent who performed criminal investigations of threats against federal judges and AUSAs to
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

45

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

determine how the FBI and USMS coordinate their simultaneous investigations. In total, we interviewed 60 individuals in the field. When we report the percentage of site visit interviewees who held a particular opinion in our findings sections, we based the percentage on the number of people who answered a specific question on that topic instead of on the total number of i n t e ~ e w e e s . Survev We conducted a web-based survey of a stratified random sample of U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs to assess how they perceived the extent of the security provided to them in response to the threats they received. We also sought to determine what security measures were provided in response to threats received, as well a s what security training was provided by the USMS and their respective USAOs. Using demographic data supplied by EOUSA about current AUSAs, we assigned the attorneys to different subsets and selected a random sample within each subset. The subsets were defined by three demographic factors: gender, length of service as a federal prosecutor, and the number of personnel working at the USAO. We sent an invitation to participate in the web-based survey to the 688 U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs. We received 383 responses, a 56-percent response rate. Some survey questions required respondents to select from predetermined responses, while other questions allowed respondents to respond in their own words. In choosing the respondents' comments included in the body of this report, we selected those that were the most representative of the opinions expressed by the respondents. Appendix I 1 contains a copy of the survey and the results. 1 Document and Database Review To determine the role and responsibilities of the USMS headquarters and the district offices in the protection of federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and AUSAs and the response to threats received by those individuals, we reviewed the USMS's mission, directives, policies, and manuals; performance measures; budget documents; federal laws; and threat data from the Threat Management Center. To determine the number and types of threats received by federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and AUSAs in various districts, we reviewed USM- 1 1
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

46

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

Report of Investigation forms and USM-550 Preliminary Threat Report forms from the USMS Threat Management Center database.45 We also used the database to assist in determining: the sites to visit based on the number and severity of threats per district; the federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and AUSAs to interview regarding their experiences in receiving threats; the average time for the USMS to respond to a threat; the risk levels assessed to each threat by the USMS; and the protective measures that were provided to threatened federal judges and AUSAs in response to various threats. To examine the role and responsibilities of EOUSA in the protection of U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs, we reviewed EOUSA's mission, policies, procedures and manuals; training materials; budgets for protective measures; Urgent Reports submitted by the USAOs when a threat was received; and the EOUSA threat database. To determine the role of the USAOs in the protection of U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs, we reviewed office security plans; Urgent Reports generated when a threat was received by a n attorney; security training materials; position descriptions for security-related positions; and budget requests pertaining to security for each of the four districts we visited.

45 USM- 11s and USM-550s contain a summary of the threat event, information on the suspect, and a report of investigation containing a synopsis of the protective investigation.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

47

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
1: APPENDIX 1 1 RESULTS OF OIG SURVEY OF U.S. ATTORNEYS AND ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEYS

We conducted a web-based survey of a stratified random sample of U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) to assess how they perceived the extent of the security provided to them in response to the threats they received. We sent invitations to participate in the web-based survey to the 688 members of the chosen sample. Three hundred eightythree attorneys in 30 districts responded to the survey. Note: When percentages do not add to 100,it is because of rounding.

Background Questions
1)

Are you a U.S. Attorney or a n AUSA?
Attorney Type U.S. Attorney AUSA Total Number Percentage

8 375 383

2% 98% 1OO0h

2)

Are you male or female?
Gender
Female Male Total

Number

Percentage

139 244 383

36% 64% 1OO0h

3) What district do you work in?

I

District

I

Number

I

Percentage

I

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

48

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

r

-

mstrict

I

Number

I

Percentage

I

1 Total
4)

I

383

1

100%

I

How many attorneys are in your district office?

I
5)

Attorneys Per m c e 30-99

I

Number 132 172 383

I

percentage 35% 45%
1OO0h

I

loo+
Total

Since January 1, 2006, what type of matters do you primarily handle?
Matter Type Civil Criminal Total Number 75 308 383 Percentage 20% 80%
100%

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

49

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
6)

How many years' experience do you have as a n AUSA or U.S. Attorney? l (Include al the years you worked at any USA0 as a n attorney.) Years' Experience
Less than 1 year 1 to 3 years 4 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15+ years Total

Number
45 49 73 83 133 383

Percentage
12% 13% 19% 22% 35%
1OO0h

7) What type of case do you believe poses the greatest risk of receiving threats?
Case Type
Drugs Gangs Pro se (criminal defendant) Pro se (civil party) Public corruption Terrorism Tax (civil) Tax (criminal) Other Total

Number
100 171 24 33 2 13 5 10 25 383

Percentage
26% 45% 6% 9% 1% 3% 1% 3% 7%
100%

Twenty-five respondents chose "Other" and provided answers in their own words. The OIG categorized information within their answers as follows:

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

50

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

I

Category I Number of Responses 1 Irate family members 1 Judgment debtors 1 Liberty & property 3 Organized crime 1 Violent crime 2 White collar 2 Don't know 25 Total N=25 N represents the number of respondents.

I

8)

If you answered "Other" to the previous question, please spec@ whether the case was civil or criminal.
Civil or Criminal Case
Criminal Civil Civil & criminal Respondent answered forfeiture but did not classlfy the cases as civil or criminal Respondent answered risk was not case-related but rather was dependent on the defendant's tendency toward violence and mental history Respondent answered that he did not know what type of case posed the greatest risk, but then also answered criminal when asked to spec* a civil or criminal case Total

Number of Responses 1 9 2 1
1 1

1

25

9)

Do you know what procedures to follow in the event you, or a family member, receive a work-related threat?
Yes/No
Yes No No answer Total

Number 308 74 1 383

Percentage 80.4% 19.3% 0.3% 100%

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

51

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

10) Have you, or a n immediate family member, personally received a threat since January 2006 related to your employment at the USAO? (Please answer "yes" to this question only if you believe the threat was related to your employment at the USAO.)
Yes/No
Yes No Total

Number
6 1 322 383

Percentage 1% 6 84%
1OO0h

11) If you answered "Yes" to the previous question, please speclfy how many threats you received since January 2006.

I One Number of threats threat

I

Two threats Three threats More than three threats I Total I N=55 Only 5 of 61 respondents who reported receiving threats 5 in Question 1 answered this question. 0 One of the 5 respondents to this question reported 5 receiving over 1,000threats.

Number of responses 37 11 6 1 55

I

1

12) What types of work-related threats have you received? (Check all that apply-1
Threat Type Number Of Responses 3 E-mail Face-to-face 1 5 1 2 Letter 1 2 Telephone call Other 2 9 Total I 71 Respondents could select more than one response.

I

I

1

Twenty-nine respondents chose "Other" and provided answers in their own words. The OIG categorized information within their answers a s follows:

U.S.Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

52

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Origin of Threat Third party (e.g., informant) Person followed family member w r i t t e n threat Discovered by investigators Physical attack Reported I n a ~ ~ r o ~ r i a t e with defendant's significant other contact Alleged contract hit 1 Total
Number of Responses
18 1 4 1 2 1 1 1

I

I
I

29

13) For any threats that you or an immediate family member received since January 2006, was the threat related to a specific case to which you were assigned?
Yes/No Yes No Don't know Total Number 51
8 2 61

Percentage
84% 13% 3% 100%

14) Please spec@ the type of case to which you were assigned. (Check all that apply.)

N=51 Respondents could select more than one response.

Twenty-five respondents chose "Other" and provided answers in their own words. The OIG categorized information within their answers a s follows:
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

53

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Case Type Armed bank robbery Assault/civil rights Child exploitation Civil rights violation Collection Drugs & gangs Espionage & violent crime Extortion Felon in possession Firearms Firearms & child pornography Foreign request for assistance Fraud Identity theft Immigration Postal Project safe neighborhoods Number of Responses
1 1 1

2
1 1 1 1

2
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

stalking 2 Violent crime 2 White collar 24 Total N=25 One respondent answered with a number, not a case type.

15) If you answered "Other" to the previous question, please speclfy whether the case was civil or criminal.

I I civil

Civil/criminal

I

Number of Responses

I

Only 2 1 of 25 respondents who reported handling a n "Other" case type in Question 14 answered this question.

U.S.Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

54

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED

- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

16) Have you reported any threat(s) made against you personally or against a member of your family during your time as a U.S. Attorney or AUSA since January 20061
Yes/No
Yes No Total

Number 51
10

Percentage 84%
16%

61

10 0%

17) Of the times that you, or a member of your family, were threatened since January 2006, how often did you report those threats? (Select one.)
Threat Reported
Every time Most of the time - half or more than half of the times you were threatened Some of the time - less than half of the times you were threatened Never Total

Number Percentage 47 92% 4
0 0

8%
0% 0%

5 1

10 0%

18) If you only reported the threats most of the time or some of the time, l what was/were your reason(s) for not reporting a threat? (Check al that apply.)
Reason Not Reported I did not think the threat posed a real danger I was not familiar with the reporting procedures Threat reporting procedures were too cumbersome or inconvenient I did not want additional protection I did not feel that the protection provided would be adequate based on previous experience with the protection that was provided Other (please specify) Total Number
3
0 0 0
1

Percentage 75%
0% 0% 0%

25%
0%

0
4

10 0%

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

55

REDACTED

- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

19) If you never reported any threat(s) you received, why not? (Check a l l that apply.) See Question 17. All of the survey respondents stated that they l reported threats they received al or most of the time. 20) Since January 2006, when you reported your threat(s), to whom, and how often, did you report them? (Check all that apply.)
Entity Reporting To

I

I

District Office Security Manager Other USA0 managers USMS 2 2 19 FBI 3 1 State or local law enforcement 8 1 Other Missing column values indicate that no respondents chose that answer. One respondent reported the threat to ATF.

Frequency of Reporting Threats to Entity Some of ~ o s of t the m e the m e 15 4 32 7 2 42 17 3 31

I

I

I

28 39

-

21) Please explain why you reported your threat(s) to the entity(s)you checked.
Reason Reported to Entity
Regulation S U D ~ M S O ~ /of command C~~~II Protection/safety of self and family Third party government employee informed threatenee Re~orted case a e n t to Described how the threats occurred No answer Miscellaneous Total N=51

Number of Responses
15 7 4
d
*

I

I
1

-

I

I

1 5 4 11

I

51

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

22) Once your threat was reported, was a threat assessment done?
Yes/No Yes No Don't know Total Number
34 4 13 51

Percentage
67% 8% 25%
1OO0h

23) Were you given the results of the threat assessment?
Yes/No
Yes No Don't recall Total

Number
24 9 1 34

Percentage
71% 26% 3%
100%

24) Please explain below why you believe that the threat assessment was or was not accurate or useful.

N=22 Only 22 of 24 respondents who reported receiving the results of the threat assessment in Question 23 answered this question. One respondent provided more than one response.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

57

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

25) After you reported the threat(s), what was the longest response time for l each of the following entities? (Check a l that apply.)
Responding Entity 0-3 hours
22

I District Office Security Manager I
Other USA0 managers USMS FBI State or local law enforcement Other

3-12 hours
5 5

33
22

12-24 hours 0 0
4 1 1 0

1-3 days
2 2 5

Don't know
22 11 17

3
2 1

9 6
2

3
1 1

36
42 0

0

Three respondents chose "Other" and provided answers in their own words. The OIG categorized information within their answers as follows:

I

Other Responding Entities

1

Number of Responses

I

Customs and Border Patrol 1 1 Federal authorities not involved 4 Total N=4 One respondent did not answer "Other" in Question 25, but responded to this question.

26) If other entities who are not listed in Question 25 responded to your threat, please speclfy which entities responded and their longest response time. Of the three respondents who indicated a n entity, two reported that the ATF responded within zero to three hours and the other respondent reported that Customs and Border Patrol responded within one to three days.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

27) Since January 2006, when you reported the threat(s) that you or your family received, were you afforded any protective measures?
Response
Never Some of the time Most of the time AU of the time Total

Number
29 5 2 15 51

Percentage

57% 10% 4% 30% 100%

28) Since January 2006, when you reported the threat that you or your family received, what were you or your family l offered? (Check al that apply.)

I

~ o t e c t i v Measure e

I

Not Offered

I

t

d

I

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

59

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

29) If you were offered other than those listed above, please speclfy what those measures were and whether you accepted or declined them.

I

I

Other Protective Measures Offered

Number of R ~ S D O ~ S ~ S 1

30) Please indicate whether the investigation(s) and the protective measures provided by the U.S. Marshals Service in response to the threat(s) were appropriate.

I

USMS Measures Appropriate

I

Number

I

Percentage

I

31) Please explain why you believe that the investigation and protective measures provided by the U.S. Marshal Service were or were not appropriate.
Appropriateness of USMS Response

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

60

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

32) Please indicate whether the investigation(s) and the protective measures provided by the EOUSA in response to the threat(s) were appropriate.

33) Please explain why you believe that the investigation and protective measures provided by the EOUSA were or were not appropriate.
R e a s o n s W h y EOUSA R e s p o n s e Was Or Was N o t A D ~ K O D X ~ ~ ~ ~ S D O I I S ~ S R~

I

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

34) If you believe any of the in Question 28 or Question 29 needed improvement, please explain below.
Protective Measures That Need Improvement Number of Responses

-

35) If you did not receive protective measures in response to a threat and you believe that you should have, please explain below.
Reason Respondent Should Have Received Protective Measures

I

Number of Responses

I

Daily Security Measures Provided

36) Where is your office located?

I

Location

I

Number

I

Percentage

1

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

62

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED

- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

37) If your office is NOT in a federal courthouse or federal building, which are used for building security? of the following (Check all that apply or check "don'tknow" if you are not familiar with the security measures used in your building.)

I

Non-Federal Facility Building Security Feature

I

Number

I

I

Percentage (of 1291

I

Non-Federal Facility Additional Security Measures Number of Responses

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

63

REDACTED

- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

38) How useful do you find the following building security measures? (Check N/A if you are not aware that your building has a particular measure)
Non-Federal Facility Security Measures Not Somewhat Useful Useful

39) If you are aware of other building security measures not mentioned above, please specify what those measures are and whether you find them useful.
Non-Federal Facility
Other Building Security Measures Not Useful Somewhat Useful Neutral Very useful

Did Not Specify ~sefulnes s

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

65

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED

- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

40) If you checked any of the building as not useful, please explain.

Non-Federal Facility Reasons Building Security Measures Are Not Useful

Number of

in Question 38

41) If your office IS in a federal courthouse or federal building, which of the l following security measures are used for building security? (Check al that apply or check "don't know" if you are not familiar with the security measures used in your building.)

I

Federal Facility security Feature

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

66

REDACTED

- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

I

Federal Facility Other Security Measures

I

Number of Responses

I

42) How useful do you find the following building (Check N/A if you are not aware that your building has a particular measure)
Federal Facility Security Feature

I

Useful

I

Useful

I

Neutral

1

Useful

1 GL I

N/A

I

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
43) If you are aware of other building

not mentioned above, please spec* what those measures are and whether you found them useful.

Federal Facility Other Building Security
Measures

Iz I k :

'

O

z

E

I I 1z 1 G
Neutral UseM

I

Did Not Specify Usefulness

1

44) If you checked any of the building security measures in Question 42 a s

not useful, please explain.
Federal Facility Reasons Building Security Measures Are Not Useful Number of

45) Are there any other

you believe should be taken in terms of building security? Please explain below.

U.S.Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Needed Building Security Measures

I

Number of Responses

I

46) Does your office provide parking?
Location of Parking

I

Responses Of

I

47) W h a t features does the parking facility have? (Check all that apply.)
Parking Security Features Number of

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

69

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

! and provided answers in their own words. The OIG categorized information within their answers as follows:

I

Other Parking Security Measures

1

~~~s~~

I

48) If you think the security of your office's parking facility needs improvement, please explain below.

I

Needed Parkine Im~rovements

I Number of Responses 1

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

70

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
49) Are there any other y o u believe should be taken in terms of parking facility security? Please explain below.

I

Additional Parking Measures Needed

I

Responses Of

I

50) Do you have a

51) Do you believe that protective measure?
I S / N O

should be offered as a routine

I

Number

I

Percentage

I

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

52) Please explain why you believe that be offered as a routine protective measure.

should or should not

Reasons

Should Be a Routine Protective Measure

Number of Responses

Reasons Should Not Be a Routine Protective Measure

Number of Responses

Security Training

53) Have you received personal security training at the USA0 (either in person, by Powerpoint presentation, or other means)?
Security Training Received security training Did not receive security training Don't recall if received security training Total Number
29 1
55

Percentage
76% 14%

37 383

10% 100%

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

72

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 54) How long after you were initially employed at the USA0 did you receive the security training (either in person or by other means)?
Elapsed Time From Initial Employment to Security Training Within the first month Within the fust 3 months Within the fust 6 months Within the first year Sometime after the first year of employment Don't remember when training received Total Number
71 6 19 26 53 116 21 9

Percentage
24% 2 % 7% 9% 18% 40% 100°?

55) As part of your initial security training, did you receive instructions to follow if you receive a threat?
Yes/No
Yes No Don't know Total

Number
220 12 59 21 9

Percentage 76% 4% 20% 10 0%

56) Have you received subsequent personal security training as a refresher (either in person, by Powerpoint presentation, or by other means)?
Yes/No
Yes No Don't know Total

Number
217 47 27 21 9

Percentage 75% 1 6% 9% 10 0%

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

57) Did your security training address any of the following topics? (Check all that apply.)

I

Security Training Topic
Home security Work-related travel Driving Commuting Emergency contact numbers Other None of the above

I

Number of Responses
122

I

Percentage (out of 291)
42%

I

I

I

195 124 128 199 21 41

I

1

67% 43% 44% 83% 7% 14%

Twenty-one respondents chose 'Other' and provided answers in their own words. The OIG categorized information within their answers as follows:

I

Other T o ~ i c s Covered in Securitv Training

I

Number of R ~ S D O ~ S ~ S I

Courtroom security Additional aspects of work-related travel
I t s

3 1

I

2

I

Don't recall Total N=21 Some respondents provided more than one response.

7 23

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

74

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

58) How useful did you find the security training provided in the following areas? (Check "N/A" if you did not receive training in an area.)
Not Useful 15
16 12 13 7 10 10 6
'Ornewhat

Home security Work-related traveling Driving Commuting 24-hour emergency contact numbers Initial security briefing Subsequent refresher training Training on threat procedures N=291

Useful 19
28 22 26 16 25 20 25

Neutral
24 29 24 25 22 32 34 32

Useful
73 107 76 69 108 119 104 124

Vev Usefd 19
27 19 17 72 37 36 38

N/A
141 84 138 141 66 68 87 66

59) If you think any of the security training or briefings provided in your office need improvement, please explain below.
Security Topics That Need Improvement Residential and commuting topics Refresher training Overall training content Parkine information Number of Responses 18 11 14 3

I Miscellaneous
I

I

I Total
N=54 Some respondents provided more than one response.

I

8 56

I
I

I

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

75

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

60) Are there any other measures you believe the training should address in terms of personal safety? Please explain below.

61) Does the District Office Security Manager make websites, brochures, or videotapes on security topics easily available to you?
Yes/No
Yes N o Don't know Total

Number 136 68 179
383

Percentage 36% 18% 47%
1 Oh O0

62) Do you find these websites, brochures, or videotapes on security topics useful?
Usefulness of Websites, Brochures, or Videotapes Not useful Somewhat useful Neutral Useful Very useful Total Number 6 22 43 57 8
136

Percentage 4% 16% 32% 42% 6%
100%

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

76

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

63) Please explain below why you find these resources to be usehl or not usehl.
Reasons Resources Number of Responses Are or Are Not Useful Information is too general in 7 nature Information is useful and 8 relevant DOSM provides current security 4 information to the USA0 4 Information is a good refresher Comments discuss topics covered in the training Have not reviewed the materials Materials not always consulted Useful once received training as a U.S. Attorney Have to request materials in order to review them Too much information provided Total N=30 Some respondents provided mor than one response.

I

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

77

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE APPENDIX IV: THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE'S RESPONSE

U S Dcpartmcnt of Justice ..
llnited Sates Marshals Service

MEMORANIXIM TO.

M i ~ i ~ n r l 13ulledge D .

Assisant Inspector General

Associate Director

SUBJECT:

Response Rzgarding the Revi of the Protection o f the Judiciary and the llnifed States Atlomevs, Assilnment Numbcr A-2008-006

d

This is in rcsponsc to your corrcsp>ndcnccsccking cmmcnl on thc draft subjcrt rcport. Attached please find tlie USMS rcsponse l the zpplicable recommcndaticms. o Should yau haw any questions, please contact Ms. Isabel Howell, Audit Liaiso~, at

202-307-6444.
Attachment
c:

Isribel Howcll
External Audit Liaisur~ United Sates Marshals Service

Richard P. Theis
Assistant Dircctnr. Audit [.isiron Group

Justice Management Division

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

78

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

USMS Response to Draft Recrrmmeodvriionv
Recommendatiao 1) The USMS clm~ly erpiaio to pmtectees the detrimeotal effect that delays or the failure to report hns an the security provided
Response: Concur The LSMS constantly interacts with protectees and emphasizes the need for ~mmcdialc reporti~lg threats. inappropriate communtcarions, and other security issues. The USMS dso of

ernphasiza to its employees the irnportaruce of communication with, and support of, federal
prosecutors who receive inappropriate communications m&o+ threats. Specifically, Protective

(DTls). and Judicial Security Intelligence Invcstigniors (Plls), District +firedInvcst~gators Inspators (JSls) receive training that explains the mlc of (he District Office Security Manager (DOSM) within the United States Attorneys Office (USAO), and f i e r emphasizes h e significance of mintaining a close working relationship with the DOSM. Tbe USMS also regularly provides training to the court family. to include USAO, on issues that ii~clu&off-site sccurily, personal security, and llrnsily threat rtzporting. That training sessions utilize a nurnber ofresources, including USMS Publication 94, O f 3 i t e Securityfor judge.^, United Stdc.s A/torneys, and Their-Furnidks, USMS Publication 6, PersonaI Security Ilandbook, and a Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice (DOJNIJ) publication, Protective Intelligence and Threat Assessment inveseigations. Through coordination with the Administrative Ofice of the United Shtes Courts (AOUSC), the USMS also provides security presentations during Judicial Nomince Bricfings and New Chief J udge Onentat~ons,During these presentations, the USMS s h = security issues and provides copies of USMS Publications 6 and 94. When Judges update Form USM 50. Judicial Personnel Profile, the USMS emphasizes tlhe importance of reporting threats and inappinpriate communications. 'Ihc USMS has also begun emphasizing thc imporlmw of thrcat reporting through prcscntations at magistrate judgcs mnferenws, judicial confcremca, and at Judicial Security Committee meetings.
The USMS wiU continue to emphasize the need for immediate reporting of Uucats, inappropriate cornn~unications, security i s ~ u c twhcne~~r opportunity &S.CS. and s
Receonmemdation 2) The USMS update its saurfty handbook to emphasize both the importance of immediately reporting threats to the USMS and the consequences of delays or failures to report. Kespanse: Concur

USMS Publication 94 is widely distributed both to the Judiciary and USAOs. Publication 94 was last edited and updated h r distribution in December 2008. The USMS is currently cbllecting informlion to make necessary edits for n future edition. Future revisions to Publication 94 will include verbiage emphasizing the importance of immediately reporting threats and inappmpriate communications to the USMS,as well as the consequences of delaying or failing to report these issues.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

79

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Recommendation 3) EOUSA

Rmmmendation 4) The USMS review1trends ie reporting timeliness annually and provide
results of that analysis to the Administrative Olfice of thc U.S. Courts (AOUSC) and the EOUSA for their use in judicial eonfcrences and attorney conferences.
Response: Concur
The USMS will review trends in reporting timeliness annually and provide results of that analysis to AOUSC and EOUSA for use in judicial and attorney conferences.

Recommendation 5) The USMS implement controls to ensure that required risk assessments are complctea3 and documented in the USMS tbreat database, including the assignment of risk levels, s n d that the pn~tective measures provided in response to each threat also be documented in the USMS threat database.
Response: Concur

The USMS conducts protective invtstigations using the behavior b a d ttppmwh to assess the threat and assign a risk level. Dl!ls/Plls E the field noti@ the UShlS Threat n Management Center (TMC') receive support in the fonn of recommendations and analysis. and For low and potential risk cases, the case is designated as "standard." For high risk cases, the DTIIdPIls assign the priority raling of "expedite" to the Form USM 550, Preliminary Threat Report to idcntify the urgcncy for analysis. As the protective investigation progresses, thu facts and behavior that are developed may change, and are documented on a Form USM-I 1, investigative Report. Because the risk level changes during the investigation, either escalating or deesdating, no fixed risk level is entered into the Justice Dctainee Information Syslcm (JDIS).

The District Judicial Security Inspector (JS1) is responsible for rccornmending and coordinating thc protective response. The PSI and the DTI/PII then consult with district management to identie the appropriate protective measures and the protective response.The SSI frequently coordinates the protective response with USMS Headquarters.
this As a rcsult ~pf process, risk lcveils are communicated between the DTIPII, the JSI, and district management so that protective responses help ensure the safety of our protectees. Unfortunately there is no way to quantify how many attacks have been prevented through this process.

'he USMS i s revising the Guide to Pruftctive Investigations and Contemporary Threal ~M'anagemenr, working guide and instruction manual for DTIs/YIIs that was last %vised in a 2008. The USMS is also revising its Policy Directive 10, Judiciial and Court Security. This policy directive was last revised in 2006. Following these revisions, both docunicnts &11
provide consistent ims~mction guidance concerning risk assessments and the assignment of and risk levels.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

80

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Recommendation (6) Establish internal contmis at USNS Headquarters to ensure that the US.MS database contains full and accurate infomattion, incllading ensuring that district offices regularly enter data in the "FBI notified" and 4bNotificationDaten Gelds. Response: Concur The USMS will strengthen existing internal controls at USMS Headquarters to cnsm that the USMS database, the Justiix Detainee Information System (JDIS), contains full and accmlt: informalion.

The USMS will adjust JDIS to reflati both notification of the FBI (dale, location, and Special Agent) on a threat, as well as non-notification of the FBI when an i nappropiate comunication has been reported but does not rise to the level of prosecutorial investigation. The current database only allows the district to report when and where notification of the FBI firas accomplished, and does not take into account the numerous cases that have no prosecutorial merit, including nuisme calls, repetitive pro se filing, inappropriate amction, and c~thers, The current internal canuols consist of personnel in the 'l+hrcatManagement h t c r
(TMC) reviewing all cases as they are entered into JDIS by the district. Once the change discussed above is tmade in the JDIS database, the USMS will provide additional direction to the field, as well as additional training for TMC personnel, to ensure each case is thoroughly completed.

Per USMS Direc~ivc 0.3, Protective Investigdions, all threats are inappropriate 1 communications, but not all inappropriate communications are threats. In this review, the OIG
used the term threat to encompass both threats and inappropriate communications, and did not

differentiate between the two. Per USMS Di~ective 10.3, section E. l . . "Report lo Ofice of c, Protective Intelligcncc (OPI) Duty hsk: In the event of a t h a t or inappropriate report the situation to the OPI duty desk and communication, district managers will ~mmediatelly the local oficc of the FBI (if the inappropriate communication contaitns a threat). .."

Re~o~mmendation Coordinate wilh the FBI to establish a tmemorandum of understanding 7)
to formalize the coordimation of protective and criminal investigations..
Response:

Concur

Thie USMS will consult with the FBI about establishing a memorandum of understanding to formalize the coordination of protcctive and criminal investigations. Recommendation 8)Develop a mechanism Lo trick the USMS district office responses to

emergency notifications fmm local law enforcement agencies regarding emergency
responses tu federal judges' residences.

Response :Concur

U.S. Department of Justice Office of t h e Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

81

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
The USMS is developing a mechanism to track USMS district ofice responses to emergency notifications h m local law enforcement agencies regding emergency responses to fsderal judges' residlcnces. Recommendntion 9) Ensure tbat all districts send tbe required notification letters lo I d law enforcement agencies amd that the letters contain a working contact number that connect.direcrtty to the local USMS duty officer.

The USMS requires that all districts send notification letters to local law enforcement agencies, This is tracked within a USMS database that lists all federal judges, A new

memorandum will be issued that clearly explains that the notification letters contain a workiug

contact number that connects directly to the local USMS office. After business hou~s, USMS the
answering service, which is often an area law enforcement agency, will contact the USMS Duty Officer. As USMS Duty (5fficers rotate frequently, it is impracticd and unnecessary to havc rhe number connect "directly to the local USMS duly offtcer" as they may Ibc transferred, on vacation, or on leave.
It is believed that this finding of non-working n u r n h was primarily driven by the:

issuamce of a "working c n a t number that connects directly lo the load USMS duty officer." otc
The problem w u l d continue if contact mumbas were issued in this fashion, and we canno% suppori it.

The USMS agrees that it is critically important that the notification letter must list a working contact number for the local USMS office, and havc conncdivity to thc local USMS
Duty Ofticer at all times.
Recommenditt.ionLO) EUUSA Rccomm~ndrtionL1) The IISMS and EOUSA sign a MOU that defines their roles and responsibilities in protecting U S Attarneys and AUSAs who recekc threats. .. Hespunset Concur

The USMS will consult with EOUSA about establishing a memorandum of understanding that defines their roles a d responsibilities in pmtccting United States Attorneys and Assistant United States Attorneys who rcceivc threats.
Recommendation 12) EOUSA

Retoinmendation 13) EOUSA
Recemmendation 1 4) EOliSA

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

82

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE APPENDIX V: OIG'S ANALYSIS OF THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE'S RESPONSE

The Office of the Inspector General provided a draft of this report to the United States Marshals Service (USMS) for its comment. The report contained 14 recommendations: Recommendations 1, 2, 4, and 5 through 9 are directed to the USMS. Recommendations 3, 10, 12, 13, and 14 are directed to the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA). Recommendation 11 is directed to both the USMS and EOUSA.

V The USMS's response is included in Appendix I to this report. The OIG's analysis of the USMS's response and the actions necessary to close the recommendations are discussed below.
Recommendation 1. The USMS clearly explain to protectees the detrimental effect that delays or the failure to report has on the security provided.

Status. Resolved - open.

Summary o f USMS Response. The USMS concurred with this recommendation. According to the USMS, it already emphasizes to protectees the need for immediate reporting of threats, inappropriate communications, and other security issues. The USMS stated that it regularly provides training to federal court officials, including United States Attorney's Office (USAO) staff, on issues that include off-site security, personal security, and timely threat reporting.
The USMS further stated in its response that through coordination with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC),it provides security presentations during Judicial Nominee Briefings and New Chief Judge Orientations. According to the USMS, it stresses security issues during these presentations and provides copies of USMS security publications. The USMS stated that when judges update their judicial personnel profiles, the USMS emphasizes the importance of reporting threats and inappropriate communications. According to the USMS, it has also begun emphasizing the importance of threat reporting through presentations at magistrate judges' conferences, judicial conferences, and Judicial Security Committee meetings. The USMS stated that it will continue to emphasize the need for immediate reporting of threats, inappropriate communications, and security issues whenever an opportunity arises.
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

83

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OIG Analysis. The actions taken by the USMS are partially responsive to our recommendation. The USMS has described the training it provides to the judges, but did not mention training for attorneys. Please provide the OIG, by March 1, 20 10, with copies of the security presentations from Judicial Nominee Briefings, New Chief Judge Orientations, magistrate judges' conferences, judicial conferences, and a sample of the presentations 2009. from the Judicial Security Committee meetings for fiscal year (FY) Also please provide a list of the training provided to the other federal court officials, including the attorneys, and copies of the training presentations. Recommendation 2. The USMS update its security handbook to emphasize both the importance of immediately reporting threats to the USMS and the consequences of delays or failures to report. Status. Resolved - open. Summary o f USMS Response. The USMS concurred with this recommendation and stated that it is currently collecting information to edit its security handbook, Onsite Securityfor Judges, United States Attorneys and their Families, which was last updated in December 2008. The USMS stated in its response that future revisions to this handbook will emphasize the importance of immediately reporting threats and inappropriate communications to the USMS, a s well as the consequences of delaying or failing to report these incidents. OIG Analysis. The actions proposed by the USMS are responsive to our recommendation. Please provide the OIG with a n updated copy of the security handbook or a status report of the edits to the handbook by March 1, 2010. Recommendation 4. The USMS review trends in reporting timeliness annually and provide the results of that analysis to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and EOUSA for their use in judicial conferences and attorney training seminars. Status. Resolved - open. Summary of USMS Response. The USMS concurred with this recommendation. The USMS stated that it will review trends in reporting timeliness annually and provide the results of that analysis to AOUSC and EOUSA for use in judicial and attorney conferences.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

84

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OIG Analysis. The actions proposed by the USMS are responsive to our recommendation. Please provide the results of the analysis of the timeliness of threat reporting and the methods used to obtain the results by March 1,2010.

Recommendation 5. The USMS implement controls to ensure that required risk assessments are completed and documented in the USMS threat database, including the assignment of risk levels, and that the protective measures provided in response to each threat also be documented in the USMS threat database. Status. Resolved - open.

Summary of USMS response. The USMS concurred with this recommendation. However, the USMS stated that the risk level may change during the investigation and therefore no fked risk level is entered into the threat database. According to the USMS, risk levels are communicated between the District Threat Investigator, the Protective Intelligence Investigator, the Judicial Security Inspector, and district management. The USMS is revising the Guide to Protective Investigations and Contemporary Threat Management, which is a working guide and instruction manual for District Threat Investigators and Protective Intelligence Investigators that was last revised in 2008. The USMS is also revising its Policy Directive 10, Judicial and Court Security, which was last revised in 2006. The USMS stated that following these revisions both documents will provide consistent instruction and guidance concerning risk assessments and the assignment of risk levels.
OIG Analysis. The intent of this recommendation was to ensure that the risk level and the protective measures are documented in the USMS threat database. If the risk level changes during the course of the threat response process, this change can be updated in the database. Without documentation of the risk level or the protective measures provided, the only way USMS headquarters can venfy that the appropriate protective measures have been taken is to contact the districts and rely on the memory of district personnel.

In addition, in its response the USMS did not speclfy what instruction and guidance concerning risk assessments and the assignment of risk levels would be provided in the revision of the USMS directive and the instruction manual. Please provide a copy of the revised directive and instruction manual that shows that the risk level and protective measures provided are

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE to be documented in the USMS threat database or a status report on the progress of the revisions by March 1, 20 10. Recommendation 6. Establish internal controls at USMS headquarters to ensure that the USMS threat database contains full and accurate information, including ensuring that district offices regularly enter data in the "FBI Notified" and notification date fields. Status. Resolved - open. Summary o f USMS Response. The USMS concurred with this recommendation and stated that it will strengthen existing internal controls at USMS headquarters to ensure that the threat database contains full and accurate information. The USMS will adjust the threat database to reflect both notification of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) of a threat, including the date, location, and Special Agent notified, as well as nonnotification of the FBI when a n inappropriate communication has been reported b u t does not rise to the level of a criminal investigation. Once the database is modified, the USMS will provide additional direction to the field, as well as additional training for headquarters personnel, to ensure each case is thoroughly completed. OIG Analysis. The actions proposed by the USMS are responsive to our recommendation. Please provide, by March 1, 2010, a screen capture of the threat database showing the changes made to the database, showing notification of the FBI of a threat, including the date, location, and Special Agent notified, as well as non-notification of the FBI when a n inappropriate communication has been reported b u t does not rise to the level of a criminal investigation. In addition, please provide the internal controls to be implemented to ensure that this data is recorded. Recommendation 7. Coordinate with the FBI to establish a memorandum of understanding to formalize the coordination of protective and criminal investigations.

Status. Resolved - open.
Summary of USMS Response. The USMS concurred with the recommendation and stated that it will consult with the FBI about establishing a memorandum of understanding to formalize the coordination of protective and criminal investigations.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

86

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - F R PUBLIC RELEASE O
OIG Analysis. The action proposed by the USMS is responsive to our recommendation. Please provide a copy of the memorandum of understanding between the USMS and the FBI formalizing the coordination of protective and criminal investigations, or a status report of the progress in establishing the memorandum, by March 1, 20 10.

Recommendation 8. Develop a mechanism to track the USMS district office responses to emergency notifications from local law enforcement agencies regarding emergency responses to federal judges' residences. Status. Resolved - open. Summary of U M Response. The USMS concurred with our SS recommendation and stated that it is developing a mechanism to track USMS district office responses to emergency notifications from local law enforcement agencies.
OIG Analysis. The action proposed by the USMS is responsive to our recommendation. Please provide a description of the mechanism that the USMS will use to track its district office responses to emergency notifications from local law enforcement agencies, or a status report on the creation of this mechanism, by March l , 2 0 10.

Recommendation 9. Ensure that all districts send the required notification letters to local law enforcement agencies and that the letters contain a working contact number that connects directly to the local USMS duty officer. Status. Resolved - open. Summary of U M Response. The USMS concurred in part with SS this recommendation. In its response, the USMS stated that it requires all districts to send notification letters to local law enforcement agencies and tracks in its database whether this notification is done. The USMS will issue a new memorandum that clearly explains that the notification letters are to contain a working contact number that connects directly to the local USMS office. After business hours, the USMS answering service, which is often a n area law enforcement agency, will receive the calls and contact the USMS duty officer. The USMS stated that because USMS duty officers rotate frequently, it is impractical and unnecessary to have the number connect directly to them as they may be transferred, on vacation, or on leave. The USMS also stated that it believed that the OIG finding of nonworking numbers was primarily driven by the past issuance of a working
U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

87

REDACTED - F R P B I RELEASE O U LC

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

contact number that connected directly to the local USMS duty officer. According to the USMS, the problem would continue if contact numbers were issued in this fashion, and it cannot support the part of the OIG recommendation to require that the letters contain a working contact number that connects directly to the local USMS duty officer. However, the USMS agreed that it is critically important that the notification letter list a working contact number for the local USMS office and have connectivity to the local USMS duty officer at all times.
OIG Analysis. The intent of this recommendation is to ensure that the USMS is notified promptly if a n emergency occurs at a judge's residence. The USMS has provided a viable explanation for its partial non-concurrence with this recommendation, and we accept the proposed alternative procedure. Please provide the OIG, by March 1, 20 10, a copy of the new memorandum that clearly explains that the notification letters must contain a working contact number that connects directly to the local USMS office or the USMS answering service after business hours. Please also provide the OIG some copies of letters the districts send to the local law enforcement agencies in their districts that contain a working number that connects directly to the local USMS office or the USMS answering service after business hours. Recommendation 11. The USMS and EOUSA sign a memorandum of understanding that defines their roles and responsibilities in protecting U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs who receive threats.

Status. Resolved - open.

Summary o f USMS Response. The USMS concurred with the recommendation. The USMS will consult with EOUSA about establishing a memorandum of understanding that defines their roles and responsibilities in protecting United States Attorneys and AUSAs who receive threats.
OIG Analysis. The actions planned by the USMS are responsive to our recommendation. Please provide the OIG with a copy of the memorandum of understanding that describes the roles and responsibilities of EOUSA, USAOs, USMS headquarters, and USMS district offices by March 1, 2010.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE APPENDIX V : THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR UNITED STATES I ATTORNEYS' RESPONSE

U.S. Npartment of Justice

Mnh J h r e Budding. Rum 2261 9 LP ~ I I K T ~ P W ~ N j Avrew W II'~i~m~t#an. 2033? DC

DATE:

December I 1,2009
and Inspections

FROM:

~xecuiive Office for United ~t&es 4ttomeys

SgBJEC'T:

Reswnsz lo OIG's Reeort Entitled: Review ofthr Pralrcrion efrhz Jzidiciarp u ~ d
{he United .StzIes Altovrevs, A-2008-006

lXis memorandum is submittd by the Executive Office for LTnitd States AItomep (EOUSA) ia icspo~tsc thc audit rcporl by the Office of 11q~caui to Gciju-a](OIG) cnt~tlcd. "Review ofthe Protection of fheJudiciarv a d the United Stare1 Attorneys, " Rcporl No. A-2008006.

T ~ safety md security of each and evzry emplovee within the United Slates Attorneys' E OMces (USAOs), and within EOUSA, are of pam'tlount imporlance to EOUSA end the USAOs. EOUSA wclcomcs and apprecia~cs rcvicw regarding thc proccdurcs uscci to hclp protect this United States Attorneys md Assistant United States Allomeys. We believe the recorrmendations from (he reporl wii hake a posit:ve impact on the USAO community.
Asthe report makes clcar. the number of threa~ USAO pcmnnel have hen increasing to since 2006. EOUSA currendy has in place an effective anc relatively eficient system for learning about, mdcing, and hehing to respond to threats t~ United Stat%Attorneys and Assistmt lJnitcd States Attmeys. The system is hnsed upon a threat reporting struchlre thnt starts with a reyrt of a threat to the District Office Security Manager (DOSIC1) in a USAO. TIaee DOSM then reporu the thmt to EUUSA, the Uniled States Marsha's Service, and the ml,as approjriate.
Uf course, thc UOSM cai only report threats of which he or she .s aware. As the wport lr~kea clear. nnl nil thre~ts beingrppnrted to the I W S N s . in par( perhaps because the me ttaatened individual does not consicer the th-eat to be serious. As noted below in response to mmmmendatlon No. 3, t U V S A wll continue to not@ all U S A 0 employees to promptly notlfy

U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
the DOSM of any t hrcnt, regardless of whether ~ h cmploycc considers thc ahrco~ bc scrious. c to Kcpns of non-scrious threats rve siill important in helping EOUSA coordinate with the USMS and FBI, m in giving thssc egencbcs a conrcxt and pattcm to invcstigatc any f~lurc d rhreals, Thr: rcport of non-serious threat mny be critical in helping to prosecute a later. serious threat lo the same or another cnnployee,
Thc O G rcport also notcs that when rcpons of rhrcal arc madc. they do no1 always l inc tudc full md complete informatiron regarding the threat, and that tracking follow-up activities undcrlakcn rn respansc to ~ p o n c d lhreats corlld be improved, Even prior to the OIO repofl rcc(ommendation on this issue, EOUSA had undertaken to conven the current Urgent Report system to a web-based repcaning system. We expect that a web-bascd systcrn will improve the completeness and t lmelin&s of both initial rcparls of threat and follow-up reports.

The repon also suggests additional training for both DOSMs and EOUSA personnel. EOUSA always welcomes and emurages additional training. We note our continued
d~ssgreement, however, with the charactcri-ation, an pages ii, v, and 27, rcgardingrhe level of cxpcrtiw tteld by the cuncnt EOUSA security personnel. Unlike thc DOSM positions in the US AOs, which are collateral duty posikions and may properly be fillcd by persons with varying degrees of security experience, [he security personnel at EOUSA, including the Assistant Director for Security Programs,have and propdy should have extensive security-related backgrounds. We a s strongly disagrte with the statement on page 28 that the Assistant lo Director has limited time to devote to threat response and related mining. Thc safety tlnd security of USA0 employees is always the Assistant Director's top priorily.'

'EOUSh's Assistant Director has 29 )van of federal securiry relaled experience with the United States t h y , the Drug Enforcement Adrninistraiion, and other agencies. Both as a

~ounterinkiiigem Technician (Special Agent) for the Department of the Amy and later as Supervisory Physical Security Specialist with the DEA, he has undertaken residential security i evaluations of individuals following their rtcdpt of a t h a . H s evaluations included an assessment of the h e a t of criminal activity, such as burglaries, as well as more sophisticated intrusions such as electronic eavesdropping. As a Physical Security Specialist with the DEA,he developed designed, and implemented intrusion detection, access control, and surveillance systems for both commercial end residemial locations. Me has served as lm instructor with the US Army, DEA, the Department of Defense, and EOUSA an security-reltued topics, including physical security and risk management. He has oitmded, each yenr for the pas1 10 ycats, thc Anrerican Society for Industrial Security (MIS) m u d conference. which i s a 40 hour annual b n i n g t v m t in rariotts security disciplines. In addition, we note liut the current Theat hhmgc-1 Specialist at EOUSA is former Commander of the Technical Investtgations Section of ahe Maryland State Police. in t b t role k supemsed 20 investiptots and annlpts.

U.S.Department of Justice
Office of the Inspector General Evaluation and Inspections Division

90

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

REDACTED - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE
Recommendations

'The ~camrnendations bclow arc numbered according to thc numbcrs given thcm in thc
repon.

EiOUSA amend rhe US Anovm~s' ~Manirul cleuri'y inslntcr the A USAs rhar all ftlncirs ro mmt be reportedprom& to the District OHce Senirtty ~ k u g e r Stich insrrucrion . shtotrltt inciude an expkmulion of~hedetnmendal eflecf r h r clrluys or thefailure ro report

hrir on the sscwiry grovided
EOUSA o g m to implement this recommendation EOUSA has already, pnor to a formal amendment of lke USAM, issued a manorandm to ail1 United Staces Attorneys r e m i n d i ~ thcm that it is incumbent upon each h i s t a n t Unital States Attomc?; d each USA0 e r n p l o ) ~ to notify the Dismt Offkct Secmily Manager in their dlsbitx of any a d all threats, e\vn t f they do not believe that the threat is a d o u s ow. Tihe wemaMndum notes m t ~wrt t m play3 uk ~f h t a critical mle in helping the USMS a s s s the p e r n and context of f u t w h a a s EOUSA IS EOUSA wil providing 01G wiab a cop) of that m c m o d m under sqamte c o w In addrt~on, ~ t i f O C ~ k ! n USAM ha& k e n fdrmdty armmded. yC h
10

BOUU provide, rn consuIt&ion
slcaJassigned rlveot response.

with the

USndS n@crnenl

rrruinJng ro EOUU and

W U S A agrees to implement *is tecammendatron. EOUSA will consuls with Lhe USMS on the training cuPriculum. 11.

The USMS and EOUSA s