Tag: Driving under the influence

The Custodians of Law!

Look at their behavior and the action taken.

Wish I could take a report on Indian Police and Security Agencies,should make a spicy reading.

Any one has an idea?

.

From the original Source.

Click the Link at the end of the Post for full report in pdf format.

‘

From: HQ_OFFICE_OF_ PROFESSIONAL RESPONSI BILITY
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 6:12 AM
To: FBI _ALL _EMPLOYEES
Subject: OPRS QUARTERLY ALL EMPLOYEE E-MAIL – Octobtr 2012 Edition
Ciassification: TJNCLASSIFIED
NOT FOR PUBLIC DISSEMINATION
OPRs Quarterly All Employee E-Mail – October 2012 Edition
Set forth below are examples of cases adjudicated by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) during the last
quarter. OPR sends these Quart&Iy E-Mails to educate employees about the Bureaus standards of conduct and to aid
employees in steering clear of ethical pitfalls and other violations. We do not include cases in which OPR finds that the
employee did nothing wrong (more than one-third of the cases we adjudicate).
Candice M. Will
Assistant Director
Office of Professional Responsibility
1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, SuIte 444 North
202-220-7800

Examples of Recent Adjudications:

1. Domestic Violence: During argument with spouse, Employee broke spouses e-reader in half
and pointed unloaded gun at dog’s head while dog was sitting in spouse’s lap. In mitigation,
Eniployee had been struggling with spouses mental health issues and fol!owing this incident, entered
marriage counseling. In aggravation, Employee introduced a firearm into a domestic dispute, an
extraordinarily serious escalation.
PENALTY: 45-Day Suspension
OFFENSE: Assault/Battery, Offense Code 4.1
2. DUI: Erriployee was stopped by police for driving private ly-owned vehicle while under the
influence of alcohol. lt was Employee’s second DUI whUe employed by the FBI. A second DUI while
employed at the FBI resuits in dismissal.
PENALTY: Dismissal
OFFENSE: DUI in Privately-Owned Vehicle, Offense Code 4.4
3. lmproper Financial Relationship with a Source: Employee purchased a used car from a
Confidential Human Source (CHS). Employee had previously served as the CHSs handler. In
mitigation, Employee did not seek a discount, paid fair market value for the car, and is a valued
employee with an excellent record.
PENALTY: 3-Day Suspension
OFFENSE: Improper Financial Relationship with a Source, Offense Code 1.2
4. lmproper Handling of Evidence: Employee failed to properly secure and accurately account for
evidence seized during a search warrant. Empioyee was in charge of irventorying the evidence.
Employee failed to recount the currency to verify its correct amount prior to placing it in evidence
vault, resulting in a subsequent discrepancy. Employee also failed to properly secure drug evidence
in the safe, instead co-mingling it with non-valuable evidence. In mitigation, Employee was
responsible for multiple duties on the day ofthe search and was overburdened. In addition,
Employee is a nine-year employee with no previous disciplinary matters.
PENALTY: 3-Day Suspension
OFFENSE: Investigative Deficiency, Offense Code 1.6
5. lmproper Handling of Evidence; Lack of Candor Not Llnder Oath: Employee failed to follow
Bureau procedures for the destruction of drug evidence. Employee did not weigh each item prior to
destruction, despite specific instruetions to do so from the Evidence Control Technician and
Employee’s supervisor. Also, Employee improperly stated all drug eviderice had been properly
weighed. In mitigation, Employee was attempting to adhere to a tight timeframe; Employee verified
there was no tampering with any packages prior to their destruction; Employee’s coriduct did not
negatively impact pending investigations; and Employee self-reported his misstatements. In
aggravation, Employee’s actions in failing to follow the proper procedure served as a poor example to
more Junior employees and Employee was under administrative inquiry at the time for unrelated
conduct.
PENALTY: 8-Day Suspension
OFFENSE: Investigative Deficiency, Offense Code 1.6
Lack of Candor Not Under Oath, Offense Code 2.5
6. lmproper Relationship with Criminal Element; Lack of Candor Under Oath: Employee
engaged in a romantic relationship with former boyfriend (now husband) knowing he was a drug
user/dealer. Employee also lied under oath when questioned during the administrative inquiry about
her husband’s activities. Prior to polygraph exam, Employee adnitted husband’s drug use, inciuding
being aware when she married hirn that he was a habitual drug user’ who sold drugs to rnake
money. PENALTY: Dismissal
OFFENSE: Lack of Candor Under Oath, Offense Code 2.6
lmproper Relaticnship with Criminal Element, Offense Code 5.9

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/02/21/office.of.professional.review.-.cnn01302013_0000.pdf

Related:

An FBI special agent accused of driving on the State Thruway in Eden without wearing pants will see his charges dismissed if he steers clear of additional trouble for the next six months.

John A. Yervelli Jr., 48, assigned to the Buffalo FBI office, was granted an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal Tuesday night in Eden Town Court.

Yervelli was charged with misdemeanor public lewdness last month by State Police. A truck driver told troopers Yervelli was driving a passenger vehicle about 9 p.m. Dec. 7 when the off-duty FBI agent “pulled up next to his truck, turned on the dome light and displayed that he was not wearing pants, while making lewd gestures,” according to State Police.

An Erie County prosecutor Wednesday confirmed this week’s court ruling, and said Yervelli is required to complete a psychological counseling program as part of the decision.

http://www.buffalonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130123/CITYANDREGION/130129616/1024

Related articles

• FBI battling ‘rash of sexting’ among its employees (cnn.com)
• FBI issues report detailing spread of lurid employee misconduct (guardian.co.uk)