Social Feeds

Be sure to Like and Follow FEDagent on Facebook for exclusive content and news stories affecting your career as federal law enforcement.

Subscribe!

Subscribe to our newsletter. It's FREE!
Read our privacy policy

Federal Employee Defense Services

Miscellaneous Information

Federal Employee Defense Services (FEDS) provides federal employee professional liability insurance to the entire federal employee community. The potential liabilities and vulnerabilities that exist for all federal law enforcement officers are very similar. For instance, PLI becomes necessary when an agent is sued personally for a job-related action (i.e., Bivens action); becomes involved in a misconduct or administrative matter/investigation for a job-related action or a judicial proceeding; or is the subject of a criminal investigation for a job-related action. For more information about your professional and personal liability exposures, choose the link below that best represents your position or agency:

You can also view FEDS' 15-minute PLI webinar for Law Enforcement Officers. This 15 minute webinar explains what FEDS professional liability insurance policy provides and how it protects federal agents and officers against professional and financial exposures. The webinar is followed by a live Question-and-Answer session.

View the webinars now.

FEDS is recommended and endorsed by the leading law enforcement associations. To compare FEDS to other PLI carriers, read Is There a Difference?

"I have been representing federal employees and officials for over 18 years. The past 10 years of my practice has been spent with a focus on defending federal law enforcement officers and employees in various investigations, disciplinary proceedings, and at DOJ's request in Bivens suits. The work of federal law enforcement took a sharp and marked turn post-9/11 into the realm of our national security. No doubt federal law enforcement activities pre-9/11 were complicated, dangerous and subject to all forms of scrutiny. The post-9/11 landscape has taken the work and scrutiny of federal law enforcement to a whole new place, making it unlikely anymore to complete a career in law enforcement without having to answer to an allegation of wrongdoing. While the type of allegation may vary from your use of the GOV, loss of a weapon, treatment of a witness or source, information on a travel voucher, to something as serious as your handling of a law enforcement operation, what remains constant is the new post-9/11 level of scrutiny you will be subject to by your agency when the allegation surfaces. I have seen first-hand in my representation of hundreds of law enforcement officials how having experienced, tenacious and objective legal counsel has saved a career even in cases of what you think is a "minor" matter. Having objective and experienced legal counsel to deal with federal matters is simply cost prohibitive. It's remarkable to be able to purchase through an insurance policy that kind of protection as well as the protection for payments of personal judgments if you are sued. If you are engaged in any law enforcement or homeland security function, you have to ask yourself if you are willing to gamble your life savings when you can so readily purchase an affordable safety net."

--Debra L. Roth, Partner, Shaw Bransford & Roth P.C.

Contest Corner

Win A Free Full Conference Pass to GovSec 2014

Want to win a FREE ticket to the nation's premiere government security, law enforcement and homeland security expo and conference?

GovSec 2014 is the only event that brings together everything you need to be ready when it counts. This year's conference runs from May 13-15 at the Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington DC.

Read more...

Takedowns

Three Charged with Allegedly Defrauding FCC of $32 Million

The Justice Department announced last week that three individuals have been charged for alleged roles in an approximately $32 million fraud against a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) program that provides discounted telephone services to low-income customers.

The indictment charged three defendants with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and fifteen substantive counts of wire fraud, false claims, and money laundering.

According to the indictment, the defendants engaged in a scheme to submit false claims with the federal Lifeline Program, which provides affordable, nationwide telephone service to Americans through discounted rates for qualifying low-income customers. The Lifeline Program is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company, a not-for-profit designated and authorized by the FCC.

Read more...

GEICO's Good Stuff

Tell Us: Why Do You Heart Public Service?

GEICO’s Good Stuff is a column series highlighting great stuff happening in the federal community.

The Public Employees Roundtable (PER) is collecting testimonials from government employees and members of the public in support of an I “Heart” Public Service whiteboard photo campaign. Images will be posted on the PER on Facebook and Instagram pages.

The group behind Public Service Recognition Week (PSRW), which takes place this year from May 4-10, launched the whiteboard campaign in support of this year’s theme: Proud to Serve.

Read more...

Case Law Update

Eleventh Circuit Held Fourth Amendment Violated Where Police Recorded Attorney-Client Conversation Between A Non-incarcerated Suspect and His Attorney

While investigating an alleged misdemeanor violation of a domestic violence injunction, Detective Thomas Marmo and Sergeant Brian Canova monitored, intercepted, and listened to privileged conversations between their non-incarcerated suspect, Joel Studivant, and his attorney, Anne Marie Gennusa, who were in an interview room at the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office. The police did so without any notice to Studivant and Gennusa, and without a warrant. Det. Marmo also seized (without a warrant) from Gennusa, on Sgt. Canova’s order, a statement written by Studivant. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that the surreptitious recording and monitoring of those attorney-client conversations, without notice to Studivant and his attorney, and without a warrant, violated the Fourth Amendment.

Read more...