 |
 |
 |
|
| February 4 - 11, 2010 |
font size: T T T |
You are viewing the full, printable version of This Week's Issue 
President Proposes 1.4 Percent Pay Raise for Military and Civilian Feds for Fiscal Year 2011
On Monday, President Obama unveiled his budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2011, which included a 1.4 percent pay raise for both military members and civilian federal employees. While many federal employee groups and unions applauded the President's proposal for adhering to the principle of "pay parity" between members of the military and civilian federal employees, they expressed muted disappointment about the size of the proposed pay raise. The groups point out that the 1.4 percent figure is the lowest in decades, and argue that the proposed raise will do nothing to help close the gap between public and private sector pay. The groups have pledged to try to get the 1.4 percent figure bumped up as the White House proposal works its way through the legislative process. We'll keep you updated. |
9-11 Commission Leaders Say Effectiveness of DNI Depends on President
The Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 9-11 Commission told the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week that strong support from the President is needed to ensure that the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) can force the integration of the intelligence community, as intended by the 2004 legislation. At the second in a series of Committee hearings to examine implementation of the 9-11 Commission recommendations five years after they were enacted into law, Commission Chairman Tom Kean and Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said the failure of the U.S. government to detect and thwart terrorist attacks at Fort Hood and on December 25th underscore continued tensions among components of the intelligence community. "One of the challenges revealed in our hearing last week was the overwhelming amount of information that is collected for analysis," said Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Connecticut). "We must better organize our intelligence gathering and analysis efforts so crucial information can be mined more quickly from this vast mountain of data we build. The President also needs to clarify the primacy of the Director of National Intelligence, who has an immensely difficult job integrating 16 intelligence agencies, spread throughout the federal government, and include him in all major decisions regarding terrorism directed at the United States and its citizens." Kean and Hamilton - whose 2004 recommendations paved the way for the federal government to adjust its intelligence operations to meet the evolving threat of 21st century terrorism - also emphasized the importance of supporting strong civil liberties protections in an age when the government must intrude on some areas of individual privacy for the sake of security. And they renewed their plea for Congress to consolidate its oversight of the intelligence community and the Department of Homeland Security, a 9-11 Commission recommendation that met with fierce resistance from the full Senate in 2004. Read the testimony of Kean and Hamilton before the Senate Committee. The next hearing in the Committee's series will look at passenger pre-screening and watchlisting issues raised by the December 25th terrorist attack. That hearing has not yet been scheduled. |
CIA Links Stricter Language Requirements with Promotions
Last Friday, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Director Leon E. Panetta unveiled a new policy that links tougher language requirements with promotions into the Agency's top ranks - the Senior Intelligence Service. In a note to the CIA workforce, Panetta said, "I expect our SIS officers to lead the way in strengthening this critical expertise." Panetta explained that while many senior Agency officers have tested proficient in a foreign language over the course of their careers, some have not kept their skills current. Under the new policy, promotions to SIS for most analysts and operations officers will be contingent on demonstrating foreign language competency. If an officer is promoted to SIS and does not meet the foreign language requirement within one year, he or she will return to their previous, lower grade. Panetta called the new policy "a powerful incentive" to maintain and improve skills critical to the Agency's global mission, while noting that languages play "a key role" in the CIA's work at all career levels. "The stricter requirement for SIS promotion," said Panetta, "is meant to ensure that leadership on this vital initiative comes from the executive level. With an unwavering commitment from SIS officers - to both lead by example and to support language proficiency at all levels - we will reach not only our language goals, but our ultimate objective: an Agency that is better positioned to protect our nation in the years ahead." The new policy is intended to advance the Director's aggressive five-year initiative, launched last May, to strengthen the Agency's foreign language capabilities. "Deep expertise in foreign languages is fundamental to CIA's success," Panetta said. "Whether an officer is conducting a meeting in a foreign capital, analyzing plans of a foreign government, or translating a foreign broadcast, language capability is critical to every aspect of our mission." The main goals of the five-year initiative are to: - Double the number of analysts and collectors who are proficient in a foreign language;
- Expand the number of officers proficient in mission-critical languages such as Arabic, Pushto, and Urdu;
- Transform how the CIA conducts language training; and
- Make language skills an even more important factor in Agency hiring.
CIA officials report that major progress already is being made: - The majority of National Clandestine Service officers in language training are studying mission-critical languages;
- Fifty percent of the most recent graduates of the NCS training program immediately entered language training;
- The Directorate of Intelligence will now send some of its new hires directly to language training;
- New distance-learning tools are being deployed; and
- In Fiscal Year 2009, the number of Agency officers with foreign language proficiency rose by nine percent, an increase that can be attributed in part to the CIA's success in recruiting new officers with language skills.
|
Former New York City Police Department Sergeant Sentenced for Making False Statements to DEA Special Agents
On Tuesday, at the federal courthouse in Central Islip, New York, Roosevelt Green, formerly a Sergeant with the New York City Police Department, was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for making false statements to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Special Agents during a narcotics investigation. The sentence was imposed by United States District Judge Joseph F. Bianco, and announced by Benton J. Campbell, United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. On June 16, 2009, as jury selection was about to commence in his trial, Green pleaded guilty to lying to DEA agents on May 22, 2007. As Green's guilty plea, indictment, and underlying complaint reveal, he used NYPD computers to obtain vehicle registration information for two DEA surveillance vehicles and provided that information to Frank Wilson, a long-time Wyandanch narcotics trafficker. In a May 22, 2007 interview with DEA agents, Green falsely stated that he did not provide the vehicle registration information to Wilson. In February 2007, the DEA, Suffolk County Police Department (SCPD), Suffolk County Sheriff's Department (SCSD), and the United States Attorney's Office commenced a court authorized wiretap investigation of Wilson's narcotics trafficking organization, which had been distributing cocaine and "crack" cocaine in Suffolk County for more than a decade. Law enforcement officers intercepted a series of conversations between Green and Wilson, which revealed that Wilson asked Green to check license plates on two vehicles Wilson thought might have been used to follow him. The intercepted conversations further revealed that, while on duty in an NYPD patrol car on March 31, 2007, Green used NYPD computers to obtain vehicle registration information for two vehicles and provided that information to Wilson. Both those vehicles had been used to conduct surveillance of Wilson and his co-conspirators during the wiretap investigation. In a subsequent conversation, Green told Wilson that he wanted a warm-up suit and a pair of sneakers in exchange for the information. On May 22, 2007, DEA agents and NYPD detectives executed a federal search warrant at Green's Wyandanch residence. A number of items were seized, including sneakers and other articles of clothing Green admitted receiving from Wilson. At that time, Green told the DEA agents that he had had conversations with Wilson and that he was aware that Wilson was a drug dealer, but denied having obtained vehicle registration information for him. As a condition of his plea agreement with the government, Green, a 12-year veteran, resigned from the NYPD immediately after his guilty plea on June 16, 2009 and agreed not to seek future employment with any federal, state or local law enforcement agency. "Law enforcement officers have the responsibility to serve the public and protect their communities. This defendant abused that responsibility and used his position to obtain sensitive information that he provided to a known drug dealer," stated United States Attorney Campbell. "By doing so, he not only violated his duties as a police officer, but also endangered fellow law enforcement officers and the public through his actions." Campbell thanked the DEA, SCPD, and SCSD for their efforts during this prosecution, and also thanked the NYPD for its cooperation and assistance during the investigation. |
Attorney General Holder Appoints Three New U.S. Attorneys to Advisory Committee
On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder announced the appointment of three new U.S. Attorneys to serve on the Attorney General's Advisory Committee (AGAC) - Sanford Coats of the Western District of Oklahoma; Steven M. Dettelbach of the Northern District of Ohio; and Jim Letten of the Eastern District of Louisiana.
"I welcome the addition of these U.S. Attorneys to the AGAC, which plays a critical role in the department. I will rely heavily on them as we work to further the department's efforts to reduce violent crime and gang violence, promote civil rights, ensure fairness in the marketplace and above all, preserve our national security," said Attorney General Holder.
The AGAC, chaired by U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota B. Todd Jones, was created in 1973. The committee, which reports to the Attorney General through the Deputy Attorney General, represents the voice of the U.S. Attorneys and provides advice and counsel to the Attorney General on policy, management, and operational issues impacting the Offices of the U.S. Attorneys.
Sanford Coats was presidentially appointed U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma on December 30, 2009. Prior to his appointment, he served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Oklahoma (2004-2009); Assistant U.S. Attorney on detail for the Eastern District of Louisiana (2007); and an associate attorney with Fellers, Snider, Blankenship, Bailey & Tippens (1999-2003).
Steven Dettelbach was presidentially appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio on September 17, 2009. He previously served as a partner with Baker & Hostetler LLP (2006-2009); Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio (2003-2006); Counsel to the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. Senate (2001-2003); Assistant U.S. Attorney (1997-1999) and Deputy Chief for the Southern Division, (1997-2001), District of Maryland; trial attorney (1992-1996) and Acting Deputy Chief (1996-1997), Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice; and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, District of Columbia (1993). Dettelbach serves as Chair of the AGAC's Civil Rights Subcommittee.
Jim Letten was presidentially appointed U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 2005 by then-President George W. Bush. He was the court-appointed U.S. Attorney from August 2001-2005, and Attorney General-appointed from April - August 2001. Letten served as First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Louisiana (1994-2001), and Assistant U.S. Attorney and Chief of the Organized Crime Strike Force Unit (1990-1994). In 2005, Letten was awarded the 2005 U.S. Attorney General's Medallion for Distinguished Service, recognizing his leadership following the devastation of Hurricane Katrina. Letten serves on the AGAC's Terrorism and National Security Subcommittee, Violent and Organized Crime Subcommittee and Environmental Issues Working Group. |
First Circuit Finds Fourth Amendment Violation for Forced Surgery to Retrieve Alleged Cellular Phone from inside Prisoner’s Body
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has held that the forced surgery of an inmate by two correctional officers and the doctor who performed the surgery violated the prisoner's constitutional rights. In this case, correctional officers at a Puerto Rico correctional institution searched the plaintiff/inmate's (Pereira-Castillo) living quarters. During the search, a handheld metal detector gave a positive reading when used to scan Pereira-Castillo's body. The officers took Pereira-Castillo to another area of the prison for law enforcement dogs to sniff him but the dogs did not indicate a presence of contraband. After officers then strip-searched and scanned Pereira-Castillo, the metal detector did not indicate a positive finding. Despite the negative findings, Pereira-Castillo was then x-rayed and placed under the constant surveillance of two correctional officers to determine if any foreign objects were physically expelled from his body. Thereafter, an officer took Pereira-Castillo to the medical director for the correctional complex to examine the abdominal x-ray film and was told that a foreign object was inside Pereira-Castillo that was consistent with a cellular phone. Pereira-Castillo denied the existence of a cellular phone inside of him. The officers transported Pereira-Castillo to a hospital to remove the purported foreign object from him. Two more examinations at the hospital did not reveal the presence of any foreign object and the test results were normal. Despite the knowledge of the previous factors that would not indicate an existence of a cellular phone inside of Pereira-Castillo, a doctor performed emergency exploratory surgery on Pereira-Castillo under total anesthesia. Prior to the operation, Pereira-Castillo signed the consent form for surgery under pressure and false pretenses of a less invasive procedure performed by the physician to confirm the presence of the foreign object before performing the surgery. The surgery revealed that there was no foreign object inside Pereira-Castillo.
Pereira-Castillo brought action in federal court against two correctional officers and the surgeon alleging violation of his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim and Pereira-Castillo appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals began its analysis with whether Pereira-Castillo was deprived of his Fourth Amendment rights, analyzing whether the searches at issue implicated and violated the amendment. To determine whether the Fourth Amendment was implicated with the physical examinations and surgery, the court had to determine whether the physical examinations and surgery constituted searches for evidence or legitimate medical procedures. The court determined that because the examinations and surgery were carried out at the insistence of correctional officials for the purpose of finding a cell phone inside of Pereira-Castillo, these were indeed searches for evidence. The Court of Appeals then considered whether the searches violated the Fourth Amendment. Legal precedent has determined that "the applicability of the Fourth Amendment turns on whether 'the person invoking its protection can claim a justifiable, a reasonable, or a legitimate expectation of privacy' that has been invaded by government action.'" Further, the court stated that in the prison context, prisoners are "accorded those rights not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives of incarceration." In addition, the Court of Appeals considered that a reviewing court must "'balanc[e] the need for the particular search against the invasion of personal rights that the search entails.'" Mindful of this principle, the Court of Appeals analyzed the physical examination and the surgery separately to determine whether each was reasonable under the circumstances. The Court of Appeals determined that the physical exams did not violate the Fourth Amendment because the "manner" and "place in which the search was conducted" weighed in favor of finding of reasonableness. The Court of Appeals stated that because the exams were conducted by medical professionals in the professional, private, hygienic confines of a hospital the examinations were reasonable. With regard to the surgery, the Court of Appeals determined that the search violated Pereira-Castillo's Fourth Amendment rights because even though the basis for believing there was a telephone inside him was slight, several tests had indicated the absence of any such object, and additional, far less intrusive testing could have prevented the need for such an intrusion. Thus, the search was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals further noted that Pereira-Castillo's signed consent form did not eliminate the Fourth Amendment concerns raised by the surgery. Because Pereira-Castillo had been forced to submit to searches, x-rays, and invasive examinations one day prior to his signing the consent form, the court found that his claim that he was pressured and intimidated into signing the consent form was plausible. The Court of Appeals found that the allegations in the complaint against the two correctional officers and the doctor who performed the surgery were sufficient to allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that each defendant was liable for the misconduct alleged. Specifically, the court determined that it was a plausible inference that the correctional officers pressured the doctors to conduct a medical procedure to remove the illusory cell phone from Pereira-Castillo's body. In addition, the Court of Appeals determined that the doctor who performed the surgery was acting under the color of law when she performed the surgery since she did so under pressure from a corrections officer. Thus, the Court of Appeals concluded that the physical exams did not violate Pereira-Castillo's Fourth Amendment rights, but held that the surgery was unreasonable and did violate his Fourth Amendment rights. The case is Sanchez v. Pereira-Castillo, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, No. 08-1748. |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
