Forensics Journal - Stevenson University 2011 | Page 14

STEVENSON UNIVERSITY

Similar to the effort agencies undertook to comply with the law
from the landmark Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona, 384
U.S. 436 (1967), the Civiletti memorandum caused federal agencies
to create procedures and guidelines for how they conduct internal
investigations. Particularly impacted are the thousands of federal
investigators who are charged with the responsibility to investigate
federal employees and contractors for misconduct and violations
of law. At the forefront of this mission are the Offices of Inspectors
General (OIGs).

• You are being asked to provide information as part of an
investigation being conducted by the Office of Inspector
General into alleged misconduct and for improper perfor-
mance of official duties. This investigation is being conducted
pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.

• This is a voluntary interview. Accordingly, you do not have
to answer questions. No disciplinary action will be taken
against you solely for refusing to answer questions.

At about the same time guidelines were being developed to address
Garrity, Kalkines, and Weingarten, Congress enacted the Inspector
General Act of 1978 (IG Act). The IG Act established independent
OIGs in Executive Branch Departments, “whose primary responsibilities to the American public are to detect and prevent fraud, waste,
abuse, and violations of law and to promote economy, efficiency and
effectiveness in the operations of the Federal Government” (Welcome
to the IGnet). The IG Act of 1978 has been amended several times,
creating OIGs in many other agencies and designated federal entities.
There are currently seventy-three separate federal statutory OIGs,
with 12,600 employees (Fiscal Year [FY] 2009 Results at A Glance).
The OIGs are unique in that they are independent, while at the same
time a part of the agency they are responsible to for conducting investigations, audits, inspections, and evaluations. The Inspectors General
report directly to the agency head, such as a Cabinet Secretary or
Board Chairperson, in addition to having a dual reporting responsibility to Congress.

• Any statement you furnish may be used as evidence in any
future criminal proceeding or agency disciplinary proceeding,
or both.

The above warnings are provided to an employee or contractor when
the agency does not want to forgo the option to seek criminal prosecution of an employee, if warranted. The agency is not obligated
to provide this warning if the interviewee is voluntarily providing
information.