aF'4A~\FM

y. ~
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
5o~~~9Nn SE~J~~
Department of Homeland Sec u ri ty
Washi ngton, DC 20528 / www.oi g.dhs.gov
DCT 1 7 2U 14
MEMORANDU M FOR: The Honorable Jeh C. Johnson
Sec retary
FROM: John Roth ~~~~
Inspec tor General
SU BJECT: Allegati ons of Mi su se of U ni ted States
Sec ret Servi c e Resou rc es
The Offi c e of Inspec tor General i s c ondu c ti ng an i nvesti gati on i nto
allegati ons that the U ni ted States Sec ret Servi c e i ni ti ated a
protec ti on operati on of one of i ts employees, resu lti ng i n Sec ret
Servi c e personnel, resou rc es, and assets bei ng u ti li z ed for ac ti vi ti es
ou tsi de the sc ope of the Sec ret Servi c e mi ssi on. Spec i fi c ally, we
rec ei ved allegati ons that the Sec ret Servi c e u sed i ts personnel to
protec t a Sec ret Servi c e employee at her home -desc ri bed by the
Sec ret Servi c e as a "welfare c hec k" -and that i t c ondu c ted law
enforc ement database qu eri es i n c onju nc ti on wi th these vi si ts. The
i nvesti gati on i s su bstanti ally c omplete, and thi s memorandu m
detai ls the i nvesti gati ve fi ndi ngs regardi ng these allegati ons.
We revi ewed doc u ments and Sec ret Servi c e poli c i es, i ntervi ewed the
employee and Sec ret Servi c e su pervi sors i nvolved i n approvi ng the
welfare c hec ks, Sec ret Servi c e Cou nsel, as well as all ei ght agents
i nvolved i n c ondu c ti ng the c hec ks.
Bac kgrou nd
On Ju ne 30, 2011, a Sec ret Servi c e employee, who was an
assi stant i n the Offi c e of the Di rec tor, was i nvolved i n an
alterc ati on wi th a nei ghbor. Ac c ordi ng to the employee, she had
been harassed by her nei ghbor and the nei ghbor had assau lted her
father, whi c h resu lted i n the loss of several of her father's teeth.
The loc al poli c e arrested the nei ghbor as a resu lt. Early on the
morni ng of Ju ly 1, 2011, the employee rec ei ved an Interi m Peac e
OF'eA~\F.4
y. T
5 0 ~~~ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
~t'~ND SE~J
Department of Homeland Sec u ri ty
Order agai nst the nei ghbor i n state c ou rt. Thi s "Peac e Order"
di rec ted the employee's nei ghbor to refrai n from fu rther
harassment, not to c ontac t the employee or her father, and not to
go on the employee's property. On Ju ly 5 , 20 11 a Temporary Peac e
Order was i ssu ed agai nst the nei ghbor.
Sec ret Servi c e Response
On Ju ly 1, 20 11, the employee related her si tu ati on to her
su pervi sor, who was the Exec u ti ve Assi stant to the Di rec tor of the
Sec ret Servi c e. He, i n tu rn, relayed i t to Kei th Prewi tt, Depu ty
Di rec tor of the Sec ret Servi c e, and the sec ond i n c ommand at the
Sec ret Servi c e at the ti me (who has si nc e reti red) . When we
i ntervi ewed the employee, she told u s that she c onsi ders Prewi tt a
fri end of her fami ly. Prewi tt, i n tu rn relayed the i nformati on to A.T.
Smi th, the Assi stant Di rec tor for Investi gati ons (who c u rrently
holds the posi ti on of Depu ty Di rec tor) and told hi m that he thou ght
that the Sec ret Servi c e shou ld do somethi ng to assi st the employee.
Smi th told u s that i t was hi s i dea to have agents go to her home to
c hec k on her. Smi th di rec ted the Spec i al Agent i n Charge (SAC) of
the Washi ngton Fi eld Offi c e to have agents c ondu c t welfare c hec ks
on the employee. Sec ret Servi c e Di rec tor Mark Su lli van and Prewi tt
were both made aware that the Washi ngton Fi eld Offi c e agents
were c ondu c ti ng these vi si ts to the employee's home.
Offi c i als i n the Washi ngton Fi eld Offi c e dec i ded to u ti li z e the Sec ret
Servi c e's "Prowler" team to c ondu c t vi si ts to the employee's home,
loc ated i n ru ral Maryland. The Prowler assi gnment c onsi sts of a
rotati ng team of two Spec i al Agents assi gned to the Washi ngton
Fi eld Offi c e who respond to su spi c i ou s persons and si tu ati ons i n
and arou nd the Whi te Hou se and the Nati onal Capi tal Regi on. The
Prowler team agents u se u nmarked, fu lly-equ i pped Sec ret Servi c e
vehi c les and wear c i vi li an c lothes wi thou t Sec ret Servi c e i denti fi ers.
They are not part of the Presi denti al Protec ti ve Di vi si on, bu t rather
assi gned to the Washi ngton Fi eld Offi c e Protec ti ve Intelli genc e Uni t.
The operati on, whi c h was vari ou sly referred to as "operati on
moonli ght" and "operati on moonshi ne," c ommenc ed on Ju ly 1,
20 11, when the employee was able to obtai n an Interi m Peac e
Order i n Charles Cou nty, Maryland. The welfare c hec ks c onsi sted
2
o~eA~~Fti
y. ~
x
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
o~~~9ND SE~J~
Department of Homeland Sec u rity
of two agents driving to the employee's home, a 50 minu te drive
(withou t traffic ) from the White Hou se, and remaining in their c ar
ou tside of her hou se, parked on the road that the employee and the
neighbor shared. The agents wou ld also sometimes c all the
employee shortly before or u pon their arrival to determine if there
were any issu es. The du ration of these visits c ou ld not ac c u rately
be determined. Some agents told u s that they remained there
between 15 minu tes and 2 hou rs, to inc lu de drive time.
The log rec ordsl that we were able to obtain, however, show that on
at least one oc c asion, on Ju ly 5th, two different teams of agents
c ondu c ted welfare c hec ks at different times and loc ations du ring
the day, spec ific ally her residenc e and the Charles Cou nty Cou rt
Hou se in LaPlata, Maryland. Ou r investigation did not reveal any
instanc es in whic h the Sec ret Servic e agents approac hed the
neighbor involved in the dispu te, nor c ou ld we c onc lu de that the
neighbor's hou se was ever u nder direc t su rveillanc e. As reportedly
is their prac tic e, the Sec ret Servic e c ondu c ted c riminal history and
c ommerc ial database c hec ks on the neighbor, the resu lts of whic h
were given to the agents doing the welfare c hec ks.
Rec ollec tion of the agents involved vary as to how long the
operation lasted; some thou ght it had lasted approximately one
week, others thou ght it had lasted u p to two weeks, while one agent
spec u lated that it lasted u p to a month. The SAC of the
Washington Field Offic e told u s that the operation only lasted five
days, from Friday to the following 'I`u esday. The employee told u s
that it had lasted only u ntil she was able to obtain a Temporary
1 We were able to end two different log rec ords du ring ou r investigation.
The first, entitled "Command Post Protec tee Log," was a handwritten
sign- in sheet, on a single sheet of paper, in whic h the assigned agents
wou ld list the times and ac tivities in whic h they were engaged in the
operation. This rec ord reflec ted visits on Ju ly
1St, 2nd, 3 rd,
4~, and 5~.
The times of arrival and departu re were inc omplete. The sec ond rec ord
we obtained was the "Prowler Daily Field Ac tivity Report," a printed form,
with a single page for eac h day, listing the ac tivities, times and loc ation
of the agents assigned. Of the forms provided to u s, only Ju ly
2na, 3 rd,
and 5~ appeared to inc lu de information relevant to the operation.
K ~
a ~ e A r l ~ t i
~ ~ o
x ~
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERA L
o~ F~ gND SE~ ~ ~
De pa r t me nt of Home l a nd Se c u r i t y
Pe a c e Or de r , on ~ .i e sda y , Ju l y 5, 2011. Ou r r e vi e w of t he l og
she e t s r e fl e c t i ng Pr owl e r a c t i vi t y showe d t ha t vi si t s we r e c ondu c t e d
on Ju l y
1St , 2na ~ 3 r d 4 t n~
a nd 5t h. A Se c r e t Se r vi c e sc he du l e of
pr ot e c t e e move me nt s for Ju l y 7 t h r e fl e c t e d a not a t i on t ha t t he
Pr owl e r r u ns t ot he e mpl oy e e 's a r e a ha d be e n di sc ont i nu e d. Fr om
ou r r e vi e w of t he r e c or ds pr ovi de d by t he Se c r e t Se r vi c e , we ha ve no
e vi de nc e t ha t t he we l fa r e c he c ks l a st e d be y ond t he r e c e i pt of t he
Te mpor a r y Pe a c e Or de r on Tu e sda y , Ju l y
St n.
Se c r e t Se r vi c e Ju st i fi c a t i on
Smi t h, whodi r e c t e d t ha t t he se we l fa r e c he c ks be ma de , e xpl a i ne d
t ou s hi s r a t i ona l e for t he u se of t he se r e sou r c e s. He e xpl a i ne d t ha t
t he r u r a l l oc a t i on of t he e mpl oy e e 's r e si de nc e , t he l a c k of pol i c e
c ove r a ge , a nd t he e mpl oy e e 's pr e vi ou s hi st or y wi t h t he ne i ghbor
pr e se nt e d c onc e r n for t he we l fa r e of t he e mpl oy e e . The se c onc e r ns,
c ou pl e d wi t h he r st a t u s a s a Whi t e Hou se pa ss hol de r a nd he r
a c c e ss t ot he Se c r e t Se r vi c e Di r e c t or 's Offi c e we r e a l sode t e r mi ni ng
fa c t or s, a c c or di ng t oSmi t h.
The t hr e e ma i n Se c r e t Se r vi c e offi c i a l s i nvol ve d - - Pr e wi t t , t he SA C
of t he Wa shi ngt on Fi e l d Offi c e , a nd t he su pe r vi sor of t he Pr ot e c t i ve
Int e l l i ge nc e Uni t - - e a c h t ol d u s t ha t t he y be l i e ve d t ha t t he
a ssi gnme nt wa s wi t hi n Se c r e t Se r vi c e pol i c y a nd a n a ppr opr i a t e
u se of Se c r e t Se r vi c e r e sou r c e s. Pr e wi t t sa i d he wou l d ma ke t he
sa me de c i si on a ga i n, st a t i ng, "You l ook a ft e r y ou r pe opl e ."
The a ge nt s we i nt e r vi e we d we r e mi xe d i n t he i r be l i e fs a s t ot he
pr opr i e t y of t he a ssi gnme nt . Some t hou ght i t wa s a n a ppr opr i a t e
u se of gove r nme nt r e sou r c e s a nd wi t hi n Se c r e t Se r vi c e pol i c y , whi l e
ot he r s t hou ght t ha t t hi s wa s be st l e ft t ot he l oc a l pol i c e
de pa r t me nt .
None of t he Se c r e t Se r vi c e pe r sonne l we i nt e r vi e we d - su pe r vi sor s
or l i ne a ge nt s - be l i e ve d t ha t t he a c t i ons c ompr omi se d t he se c u r i t y
of t he Pr e si de nt or t he Whi t e Hou se .
We we r e u na bl e t ofi nd Se c r e t Se r vi c e pol i c y or r e gu l a t i on e i t he r
a ppr ovi ng or pr ohi bi t i ng t he a ssi gnme nt of Se c r e t Se r vi c e r e sou r c e s
~~4A/-`\FH
y. ~
5 o y~~ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
~~qND SE~'J
Department o f Ho meland Sec u ri ty
to pro tec t an emplo yee as a resu lt o f a matter u nrelated to her
statu s as a go vernment emplo yee.
Agenc y c o u nsel was no t c o nsu lted i n advanc e o f the assi gnment,
bu t stated that su c h an ac ti o n c o u ld be ju sti fi ed ei ther u nder the
Sec ret Servi c e's au tho ri ty to i nvesti gate vi o lati o ns o f federal
c ri mi nal law, i nvo lvi ng assau lt o n a federal emplo yee, o r u nder the
bro ader c o ntext o f a welfare c hec k. Co u nsel tho u ght that welfare
c hec ks were c o mmo n prac ti c e amo ng federal law enfo rc ement
agenc i es and that i t was nei ther u nu su al no r i mpro per fo r federal
agents to lo o k o u t fo r o ne ano ther and fo r o ther agenc y emplo yees.
Co u nsel di d no t beli eve that the ac ti vi ti es c o nsti tu ted an ethi c s
vi o lati o n, si nc e i t was no t u ndertaken fo r perso nal gai n.
Analysi s
We exami ned whether the u se o f Sec ret Servi c e reso u rc es to
pro vi de fo r welfare c hec ks u nrelated to an emplo yee's o ffi c i al
po si ti o n vi o lated the Offi c e o f Go vernment Ethi c s, Standards o f
Ethi c al Co ndu c t fo r Emplo yees o f the Exec u ti ve Branc h.
Spec i fi c ally, 5 CFR 2635 .704 states that "An emplo yee has a du ty
to pro tec t and c o nserve Go vernment pro perty and shall no t u se
su c h pro perty, o r allo w i ts u se, fo r o ther than au tho ri zed
pu rpo ses." An "au tho ri zed pu rpo se," i n tu rn i s defi ned as "tho se
pu rpo ses au tho ri zed i n ac c o rdanc e wi th law o r regu lati o n."
There i s no spec i fi c statu to ry o r regu lato ry au tho ri zati o n fo r the u se
o f Sec ret Servi c e reso u rc es to pro tec t an emplo yee i nvo lved i n an
u nrelated pri vate di spu te. Ti tle 18, Uni ted States Co de, sec ti o n
305 6, enti tled "Po wers, au tho ri ti es, and du ti es o f Uni ted States
Sec ret Servi c e," li sts the permi ssi ble ac ti vi ti es o f the Sec ret Servi c e:
pro tec ti o n o f c ertai n li sted perso ns, i nc lu di ng the Presi dent;
i nvesti gati ng the vi o lati o n o f c ertai n li sted c ri mi nal statu tes,
i nc lu di ng c o u nterfei ti ng and frau d; c o o rdi nati ng events o f nati o nal
si gni fi c anc e; and maki ng arrests fo r federal felo ni es.
The Pro wler agents were no t i nvesti gati ng a po tenti al assau lt o n a
go vernment emplo yee, whi c h i s a vi o lati o n o f 18 USC ~ 115 . The
Sec ret Servi c e has the po wer to arrest an i ndi vi du al fo r su c h an
assau lt, bu t has no expli c i t statu to ry au tho ri ty to i nvesti gate i t.
5
a~en~?\Fti
y. T
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
yo~F~gND SE~'J4
Department of Homeland Sec u rity
(For example, assau lts on Sec ret Servic e protec tees are c ondu c ted
by the FBI.) In any event, to be a federal c rime, the assau lt wou ld
have to have oc c u rred in the c ou rse of the employee's du ties or as a
resu lt of being a federal employee. We did not find that to be the
c ase here, and it was apparent to those involved that it was not the
c ase. First, it was the employee's father, not the employee herself,
who had been assau lted. Sec ond, the employee ac knowledged that
the original inc ident was u nrelated to her statu s as a federal
employee, althou gh the neighbor may have known of her statu s.
Third, we fou nd no evidenc e that the event was treated by the
agents as an assau lt investigation - no reports were written, nor
were there any investigative steps taken that wou ld lead u s to
c onc lu de that the agents were engaged in a c riminal investigation.
Moreover, none of the agents we interviewed said that they were
c ondu c ting a c riminal investigation.
The c ondu c t is made more problematic by virtu e of the employee's
position within the Sec ret Servic e. She was along-term employee
of the Sec ret Servic e and at the time was an Assistant in the
Direc tor's offic e. Her hu sband was also along-term employee of
the Sec ret Servic e, and she c onsidered Prewitt and the Assistant to
the Direc tor to be her personal friends.
Sec tion 2635.101 of the Standards of Ethic al Condu c t states that
"employees shall ac t impartially and not give preferential treatment
to any private organization or individu al," and fu rther states that
they mu st avoid any ac tions that c reate the appearanc e of violating
ethic al standards. Sec tion 2635.702 of the Standards of Ethic al
Condu c t states that a government employee shall not u se his
pu blic position for his own private gain, or for the private gain of
friends or relatives. Here, the employee's position as working in the
Direc tor's offic e and her friendship with high-level Sec ret Servic e
offic ials c reated the appearanc e that it was that relationship, rather
than fu rthering offic ial government fu nc tions, that motivated the
assignment of the Prowler team.
Every Sec ret Servic e employee we interviewed, withou t exc eption,
maintained that their protec tive fu nc tion was not c ompromised by
assigning the Prowler team to this du ty. Nevertheless, the Prowler
team exists to provide roving su pport for the Sec ret Servic e's
a~eA~\Fti
y. f
J ~ OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
~F~gND SE~J ~
Department of Homeland Sec u rity
protec tion mission and is within the Washington Field Offic e' s
Protec tive Intelligenc e Unit. The rec ords we reviewed show that,
other than the welfare c hec ks, they foc u sed primarily on the area
arou nd the White Hou se. Based on the rec ords we were able to
obtain, the Prowler team was diverted for a c onsiderable period of
time: J u ly 2nd - 3.5 hou rs; J u ly 3rd - 5 hou rs; and J u ly 5th -over 4
hou rs and 8 hou rs (in two shifts) . In eac h of these instanc es, the
Prowler team wou ld have been u nable to respond to exigenc ies at
the White Hou se. On at least two of the days in qu estion (J u ly
1 St
and J u ly 5th) , the President was in the White Hou se at the same
time that the Prowler team was engaged in welfare c hec ks in ru ral
Maryland, at least 50 minu tes away.
7