Illegal Aliens: INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces in Los Angeles
(Letter Report, 10/26/2000, GAO/GAO-01-78).

Department of Justice policy encourages cooperation among law
enforcement agencies at all levels. The Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) participated
in two such task forces, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force
(OCDETF) and the Violent Gang Task Force. These task forces have come
under public and legal scrutiny for possible misconduct by law
enforcement officers. Several convictions were overturned because
evidence was tampered with or LAPD officers physically abused suspects.
Media reports fueled concerns that LAPD and INS secretly worked together
to illegally deport Latino immigrants. GAO concluded that INS was
neither involved in nor observed any misconduct while working in these
task forces. Interviews with INS officers, the Los Angeles District
Attorney's office, and immigrants rights groups did not reveal any
specific incidence of misconduct involving INS agents. GAO did note,
however, that documentation in certain arrest files was missing or
incomplete and that funding set aside for use in the OCDETF program was
improperly used for non-OCDETF activities.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GAO-01-78
     TITLE:  Illegal Aliens: INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces
	     in Los Angeles
      DATE:  10/26/2000
   SUBJECT:  Law enforcement
	     Drug trafficking
	     Interagency relations
	     Law enforcement agencies
	     Internal controls
	     Civil rights
	     Ethical conduct
	     Federal/state relations
	     Illegal aliens
	     Organized crime

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-78

ILLEGAL ALIENS INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces in Los Angeles

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Honorable Lucille RoybalAllard, House of Representatives

October 2000 GAO- 01- 78

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

Page 1 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

October 26, 2000 The Honorable Lucille Roybal- Allard House of
Representatives

Dear Ms. Roybal- Allard: In response to your request, this report addresses
the following issues you raised about Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) participation in law enforcement task forces: 1

ï¿½ First, this report addresses the primary concern you expressed regarding
whether there is evidence that INS investigative personnel (special agents)
in Los Angeles either observed or engaged in any misconduct- such as
physical abuse of aliens- during task force operations involving
participation by the Rampart Division of the Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD) in 1997 and 1998. As your office noted, the media have extensively
covered the ongoing Rampart scandal investigation, which has focused on
allegations that antigang officers in LAPD's Rampart Division physically
abused and/ or framed suspects and lied in court- misconduct that has led to
the subsequent reversal of dozens of convictions. Also, some media reports
have intimated that LAPD Rampart officers circumvented city policy- Special
Order No. 40 2 -by colluding with INS to deport Latino immigrants.

ï¿½ Next, regarding INS participation in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement
Task Force (OCDETF) program, this report addresses the following questions:
(1) In 1997 and 1998, to what extent were INS Los Angeles District Office
special agents who were assigned to the OCDETF program diverted to other
uses? (2) In 1997 and 1998, to what extent were nonpayroll OCDETF funds that
were allocated to the INS Los Angeles District Office to support OCDETF
cases used for other purposes? (3) To what extent are there indications that
other INS regions or districts have

1 By letter dated March 14, 2000, you asked us to answer two sets of
questions- one set (six questions) about INS' overall or generally
applicable policies and roles regarding task force participation and another
set (eight questions) about INS' participation in the operations of task
forces in Los Angeles. Responses to these specific questions are presented
in appendix I.

2 The order states that “undocumented alien status in itself is not a
matter for police action” and “officers shall not initiate
police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a
person.” The purpose of this long- standing order, which was issued in
1979, is to overcome the reluctance of immigrants to come forward and report
crimes or to act as witnesses because they fear they will be deported. Being
a city policy document, Special Order No. 40 is applicable to LAPD only and
not to other local or state law enforcement agencies in California and also
is not applicable to federal agencies, including INS.

Page 2 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

used OCDETF resources (special agents and/ or nonpayroll funds) for
nonOCDETF purposes?

To address your primary concern, our review focused partly on determining
the extent that the traditional and well- established channels- such as the
U. S. Attorney's Office for the Central District of California, Justice's
Office of the Inspector General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation's
(FBI) office in Los Angeles- had received complaints and initiated
investigations involving allegations, if any, of misconduct by INS special
agents, particularly in joint operations or interactions with LAPD. Further,
we did the following:

ï¿½ At INS' Los Angeles District Office, we interviewed personnel who were
responsible for or participated in antigang operations.

ï¿½ Also, at INS' Los Angeles District Office, we reviewed case files of
aliens who were arrested or detained.

ï¿½ At INS headquarters, we reviewed the interim results of an ongoing
administrative investigation being conducted by INS' Office of Internal
Audit.

ï¿½ We contacted three immigrant- rights groups in Los Angeles to obtain their
comments or observations regarding possible misconduct by INS agents.

ï¿½ We contacted INS' Office of General Counsel to determine if any civil
lawsuits had been filed alleging misconduct by special agents in INS' Los
Angeles District Office.

Due to the sensitivities related to ongoing criminal investigations of LAPD,
we did not review LAPD records nor interview LAPD officers regarding the
facts and circumstances of their activities involving joint operations or
other interactions with INS.

Regarding INS participation in the OCDETF program, we interviewed INS and
Executive Office for OCDETF officials and reviewed applicable funding
guidance. Also, for nonpayroll OCDETF expenditures by INS' Los Angeles
District Office for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, we reviewed available
invoices, receipts, and inventory records. Appendix III presents additional
details about our scope and methodology in addressing the objectives.

Page 3 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Department of Justice policy encourages cooperation among law enforcement
agencies at all levels. From this perspective, INS' antigang efforts in Los
Angeles- including joint operations or other interactions with LAPD- can be
viewed as being consistent with established policy. Nonetheless, cooperative
efforts alone are not determinative of whether or not any misconduct
occurred; and, if it did, whether INS personnel observed or engaged in such
misconduct.

One way Justice and law enforcement agencies identify possible misconduct is
by using the traditional and well- established channels for receiving
complaints from affected parties- channels external to INS. Thus, we
contacted responsible officials in these channels in the U. S. Attorney's
Office, Justice's Office of the Inspector General, FBI, and Los Angeles
County District Attorney's Office. These officials said that they had no
criminal or civil rights investigations ongoing that involved INS Los
Angeles District Office antigang agents as prospective suspects.

Another way these agencies identify possible misconduct is to directly
interview INS managers, supervisors, and special agents who are responsible
for or who participate in antigang operations. We held interviews, and all
of the interviewees said that they had neither observed nor engaged in any
misconduct, such as physically abusing aliens or conspiring with LAPD to
circumvent LAPD Special Order No. 40. Some INS OCDETF agents in the Los
Angeles District Office expressed concerns about how and why aliens were
arrested by LAPD. However, in response to our inquiries, the OCDETF agents
acknowledged that they had no specific awareness of whether INS agents
colluded with LAPD to circumvent city policy, as well as no direct or first-
hand knowledge of any instances of physical abuse of aliens or other types
of misconduct by INS agents.

Regarding INS' antigang operations in Los Angeles, available files of 124
aliens arrested or detained from July 1997 through December 1998 contained
no documentation specifically evidencing whether or not any INS agents
observed or engaged in any misconduct. Our analysis of the 124 files
indicated that 106 of the arrested aliens were in the United States
illegally, and 85 had a prior felony conviction.

In analyzing the 124 files, we observed various internal control weaknesses.
Many files, for example, did not have one or more required documents, such
as an Arrest Card (46 files) and a Form I- 213 standard booking sheet (16
files). Moreover, we noted that even when key documents were in the files,
the documents frequently lacked complete Results in Brief

Page 4 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

information. For example, when aliens were referred to INS by another law
enforcement agency, the forms I- 213 often failed to note the circumstances
of the referrals or even the fact that the apprehensions were referrals.
Further, for 31 of the 124 files we analyzed, the forms I- 213 did not have
a supervisor's signature, although required by district policy. We are
recommending that the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service take action to address these internal control weaknesses. In
commenting on a draft of this report, Justice agreed to work with INS to
take immediate steps to implement our recommendation.

In March 2000, partly in response to media reports, INS' Office of Internal
Audit began an administrative investigation to determine whether INS Los
Angeles agents had observed or engaged in any misconduct in carrying out
their roles and responsibilities on antigang task forces. At the time of our
review, this investigation was substantially completed and had found no
instances of misconduct. At our request, Office of Internal Audit officials
allowed us to corroborate the scope, methodology, and results of their
investigation by reviewing their workpapers and related files.

Additionally, we contacted three immigrant- rights groups in Los Angeles to
discuss possible misconduct by INS agents. Officials of one group declined
to provide us any names or specifics of any alleged misconduct situations
involving either LAPD or INS. Officials of the other two groups primarily
raised general allegations about LAPD rather than INS.

Finally, one civil lawsuit alleging misconduct- naming both LAPD and INS as
defendants- was filed in February 2000 in federal district court (Central
District of California). At the time of our review, the lawsuit was still
pending.

Regarding INS participation in the OCDETF program, the Los Angeles District
Office did not follow applicable guidance, which specifies that all funds
appropriated to the program are to be spent in their entirety on OCDETF
cases. During much of 1997 and/ or 1998, all of the district's seven OCDETF
special agents- who were supposed to be dedicated full time to the program-
were reassigned to support other INS investigative operations. We estimated
that these reassignments collectively represented 7. 06 full- time
equivalent agents, which equated to about $845,500 in payroll costs
(salaries and benefits) for the applicable periods. Also, of the total
nonpayroll OCDETF funds ($ 39,143) allocated to the INS Los Angeles District
Office for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, $26,174 (67 percent) was used for
purposes not related to OCDETF investigations. The non- OCDETF uses or
expenditures included, for example, purchasing

Page 5 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

equipment and supplies and repairing vehicles for other INS law enforcement
programs.

For a broader perspective, we contacted the INS OCDETF coordinator in each
of the program's nine regions. Most of the regional coordinators stated that
INS OCDETF agents in their regions were sometimes used for non- OCDETF
purposes and that nonpayroll OCDETF funds should be, but were not always,
used only for OCDETF cases. The coordinators said that periodic diversions
of OCDETF agents and funds to other law enforcement uses generally resulted
from responding to competing priorities. We are recommending that the
Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service take steps to
ensure that INS districts use OCDETF resources in accordance with applicable
guidelines- that is, for OCDETF purposes only. In commenting on a draft of
this report, Justice agreed to work with INS to take immediate steps to
implement our recommendation.

At the request of the Attorney General, INS examined and reported on the
agency's participation in law enforcement task forces in 1996. INS' report
showed that two programs- the OCDETF program and the Violent Gang Task Force
(VGTF) program- accounted for a large majority (about 72 percent) of the 312
INS special agents assigned to task forces as of March 1996.

The OCDETF program is a multiagency approach initiated in 1982 to
comprehensively attack large- scale, drug- trafficking organizations. The
program consists of a network of task forces- organized into nine geographic
regions across the United States- with members from federal, state, and
local criminal justice agencies. Regarding federal participants, key
Department of Justice components include the FBI and the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), as well as Department of the Treasury components, such
as the Customs Service and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
Although the OCDETF program was established in 1982, INS did not become a
full member until 1986:

“Before INS became an OCDETF participating agency, INS senior special
agents worked on OCDETF investigations when other participating agencies
requested INS assistance and it had staff available. Basically, any of INS'
33 district offices could have participated in investigations on an as-
needed basis. Due to the dramatic rise in serious crimes committed by
foreign- born individuals, the Attorney General made INS an OCDETF program
participant in December 1986.” 3

3 INS Drug Task Force Activies: Federal Agencies Supportive of INS Efforts
(GAO/ GGD- 94- 143, July 7, 1994), p. 4. Background

Page 6 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

The Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement (ICDE) appropriation provides
resources in support of Justice agencies participating in OCDETF. For fiscal
year 2000, the total ICDE funding for Justice agencies was $317 million. Of
this total, the FBI was allocated $108.5 million (34 percent), DEA was
allocated $104.0 million (33 percent), U. S. Attorneys were allocated $83.3
million (26 percent), and INS was allocated $15.3 million (5 percent). 4

The VGTF program, the other major national task force program mentioned
above, generally is an INS- only task force, although VGTF operations have
been conducted jointly or cooperatively with other law enforcement agencies.
The VGTF program was formed in 1992 as an initiative of the Attorney
General, who directed INS to reassign a total of 150 special agents to task
forces in 16 large metropolitan areas (including Los Angeles) and 20 smaller
urban communities. According to INS documentation, the purpose of VGTFs
“is to engage in law enforcement operations against alien gangs and
gang- related activity and to bring the full weight of the immigration laws
to bear against serious violent offenders.”

In Los Angeles in recent years, a prominent gang- the 18 th Street Gang- has
been targeted by FBI- led OCDETF and INS- led VGTF operations. Also, for
extended periods in 1997 and 1998, some or all of INS' seven OCDETF agents
in Los Angeles were taken off ongoing OCDETF cases and reassigned to assist
the VGTF in identifying suspected alien gang members. Further, when aliens
were arrested under VGTF operations, the seven INS OCDETF agents processed
the arrestees to determine and document criminal and/ or immigration-
related violations, if any. As needed, INS VGTF agents in Los Angeles
coordinated with and/ or conducted joint operations with county sheriffs'
offices or city police departments. For example, LAPD officers at times (1)
assisted INS VGTF agents in locating gang members for whom arrest warrants
had been issued and (2) provided perimeter security and a uniformed presence
during INS VGTF operations. Also, during some VGTF operations, INS agents
were stationed at the Rampart Division.

4 The remainder (about $6 million) was allocated among four Justice
components- U. S. Marshals Service, Criminal Division, Tax Division, and the
Executive Office for OCDETF.

Page 7 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Although not determinative of whether or not any misconduct occurred, INS'
antigang efforts in Los Angeles- including joint operations or other
interactions with LAPD- can be viewed as being consistent with the
Department of Justice's policy to encourage cooperation and close
coordination among criminal justice agencies at all levels. Also, the
results of our inquiries with external channels (e. g., the U. S. Attorney's
Office for the Central District of California, Justice's Office of the
Inspector General, and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office)
and with internal channels (e. g., INS' Office of Internal Audit) for
handling any allegations of misconduct- as well as the results of our
interviews with INS agents and our review of INS' case files- did not find
any evidence of INS- related misconduct. In reviewing the case files,
however, we observed various internal control weaknesses.

The Department of Justice's policy is to encourage cooperation and close
coordination among criminal justice agencies at all levels. The following
policy guidelines specifically applicable to INS were promulgated by the
Attorney General in 1988:

“It is Departmental policy for the INS to cooperate with federal,
state and local law enforcement officers who notify INS of suspected
violations of the immigration laws, or who seek INS assistance in the
investigation and detection of serious criminal offenses involving
aliens.”

“In many jurisdictions, state law authorizes local officers to enforce
criminal provisions of federal law, including criminal immigration
provisions. Operations conducted by state and local officers under their own
authority will not be directed by the INS. However, INS agents and officers
of other jurisdictions at all levels of government are encouraged to engage
in joint operations and task force efforts directed at uncovering
significant criminal activities which involve aliens and/ or violations of
the immigration laws. Within the scope of these efforts, INS agents will
remain responsible for all arrests for immigration violations.”

“ In instances where warrants of arrest or deportation in immigration
proceedings have been issued by lawful competent authority, it is the
position of the Department that other federal, state and local officers may
assist INS in the apprehension of these wanted aliens through detention and
surrender to immigration agents for execution of the warrant( s).” 5

These policy guidelines were still in effect at the time of our review,
according to Justice officials. Thus, from a perspective of law enforcement
cooperation, INS' antigang efforts in Los Angeles- including joint
operations or other interactions with LAPD- can be viewed as being

5 Statements of Edwin Meese III, Attorney General of the United States, in
“Department of Justice Guidelines on Cooperative Efforts Between the
Immigration and Naturalization Service and Other Law Enforcement
Agencies,” March 2, 1988. No Evidence Found

Regarding Possible Misconduct by INS Agents

Justice Policy Encourages Cooperative Efforts Between INS and Other Law
Enforcement Agencies

Page 8 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

consistent with established policy. However, cooperative efforts alone are
not determinative of whether or not any misconduct occurred.

Generally, if there are complaints or allegations of misconduct by federal
law enforcement agents- misconduct such as violations of civil rights or use
of excessive force- applicable U. S. Attorney and FBI offices are
responsible for conducting investigations.

The U. S. Attorney (Central District of California) and officials in the
FBI's field office in Los Angeles said that their offices had no criminal or
civil rights investigations ongoing that involved INS Los Angeles District
Office antigang agents as prospective suspects. We received similar
responses in contacting other relevant Department of Justice components- the
Criminal Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Office of Professional
Responsibility, and the Office of the Inspector General- and the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's Office.

In response to our questions, managers, supervisors, and special agents in
INS' Los Angeles District Office (i. e., personnel who had responsibilities
for or who participated in antigang operations) said that they had not
observed or engaged in any misconduct. For instance, each of the INS VGTF
special agents said that they had neither observed nor engaged in incidents
where suspects or aliens were physically abused or mistreated. Similarly,
each of the agents said that they had not observed or engaged in incidents
where INS agents colluded with or knowingly helped LAPD to circumvent the
constraints or requirements of LAPD Special Order No. 40.

During our interviews with INS VGTF special agents in Los Angeles, among
other inquiries, we asked the agents whether they had any reason to question
arrests or detentions made by the LAPD. All of these special agents said
they had no reason to question the legal sufficiency of LAPD's arrests or
detentions of aliens who were subsequently referred to INS. For example, one
VGTF special agent responded substantially as follows:

ï¿½ For an INS agent to ask this type of question of an LAPD officer or any
other law enforcement officer would be viewed as questioning the officer's
integrity.

ï¿½ The role of the INS agent is not to question the circumstances or legal
sufficiency of an arrest made by another law enforcement agency's officer.

ï¿½ Rather, the role of the INS agent is to determine whether immigration law
has been violated. No Ongoing Criminal or

Civil Rights Investigations of INS Los Angeles Agents

Interviews of INS Managers, Supervisors, and Special Agents

Page 9 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

In this last regard, under federal law, in general, aliens who are
unlawfully in the United States are subject to removal, regardless of
whether they commit or are convicted of a crime. Thus, in responding to our
questions, some VGTF agents emphasized that INS has a duty to enforce the
law- including unlawful entry situations or other potential violations
regarding immigration status. The agents said that INS' responsibilities
include interviewing individuals detained by other law enforcement agencies,
which have contacted INS.

Some INS OCDETF agents in the Los Angeles District Office expressed a
concern that, during the 18 th Street Gang project, INS VGTF agents worked
very extensively and perhaps too closely with LAPD's Rampart Division. In
this regard, the INS OCDETF agents opined that LAPD officers may have
arrested or detained aliens for suspected immigration violations only- which
is counter to LAPD Special Order No. 40- and then handed the aliens off to
INS VGTF agents to officially determine the aliens' legal status. However,
in response to our inquiries, these OCDETF agents acknowledged that they had
no specific awareness of whether INS agents colluded with LAPD to circumvent
city policy, as well as no direct or firsthand knowledge of any instances of
physical abuse of aliens or other types of misconduct by INS agents.

Regarding INS' Los Angeles VGTF operations, we reviewed available files of
aliens arrested or detained from July 1997 through December 1998. For this
period, according to a computerized spreadsheet list maintained by INS' Los
Angeles District Office, a total of 153 individuals were arrested or
detained. 6 Of this total, we analyzed 124 files- those that were still
available at the district office and others that were located elsewhere and
returned to the district by September 22, 2000.

In analyzing the files, we did not find documentation specifically
evidencing whether or not INS agents observed or engaged in any misconduct.
Moreover, our analysis of the case files was not designed to address issues
involving the legal sufficiency of arrests or detentions, such as whether
the agent or officer had the requisite level of suspicion for making an
arrest. However, we expected that our analyses of selected data fields- such
as arrest warrant, gang affiliation, and criminal history information- could
provide indications of any patterns and/ or anomalies that merited follow-
up.

6 This number included individuals who were referred to INS by other law
enforcement agencies and individuals arrested or detained by INS special
agents during their field operations. It did not include individuals who
were released to INS upon completion of their prison or jail sentences.
Review of INS' Case Files

Page 10 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Generally, regarding the operations and results of INS' 18 th Street Gang
project in Los Angeles, our analyses of the 124 files showed the following
(see table 1):

ï¿½ In 62 cases, an arrest warrant or other INS document was issued on a date
after the arrest. Such arrests do not necessarily indicate any type of
misconduct. For example, the arrests could have resulted from “street
encounter” situations, including those wherein associates happened to
be found with a targeted gang member. Under federal law, INS agents have the
authority to make warrantless arrests in certain situations where the agents
have reason to believe that the individual has violated laws regulating the
admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of aliens and is likely to
escape before a warrant can be obtained.

ï¿½ LAPD was involved in 36 arrests. Generally, according to the INS agents we
interviewed, the role of LAPD was to provide perimeter security or a
uniformed presence during INS VGTF operations. Also, INS at times
interviewed individuals held at LAPD facilities. These interviews, according
to the INS agents we contacted, focused on determining whether immigration
law had been violated, rather than questioning whether LAPD officers had the
required level of suspicion for arresting or detaining the individuals.

ï¿½ At the time of arrest, 106 of the arrested aliens were in the United
States illegally, 64 belonged to a gang, and 85 had a prior felony
conviction.

ï¿½ Regarding final dispositions of arrested aliens, 73 were ordered removed-
38 by issuance of a warrant of removal/ deportation and 35 by reinstatement
of a prior removal/ deportation order. 7

7 Under revised provisions for the removal of aliens established in the
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (P. L.
104- 208), aliens charged by INS as deportable are now placed in
“removal” proceedings as opposed to “deportation”
proceedings. Antigang Project's Operations

and Results

Page 11 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

File review topic Number of aliens Percent (based

on 124 cases reviewed)

Warrant or other document was issued on a date after the arrest 62 50

LAPD was involved in the arrest 36 29 Alien characteristics (at time of
arrest): In the United States illegally 106 85 Belonged to a gang a 64 52
Had prior felony conviction 85 68

Final dispositions: Warrant of removal/ deportation 38 31 Reinstatement of
prior removal/ deportation order 35 28 Convicted and sentenced to prison b
15 12 Note: For each of the four topics- warrants, LAPD involvement, alien
characteristics, and final dispositions- appendix II (see tables II. 1
through II. 4) presents further details, with numbers of cases in
subcategories that total to 124 for each respective topic. a The subjects
admitted belonging to a gang at the time of arrest, or the file
documentation showed a

gang affiliation. b These aliens were convicted under 8 U. S. C. 1326
(reentry of removed aliens) or other criminal

statutes. Source: Developed by GAO based on review of INS files.

In the 124 files, we observed various internal control weaknesses. Many
files, for example, did not have one or more required documents:

ï¿½ For 46 cases, the files did not have an Arrest Card. Among other purposes,
the Arrest Card is used to record the names of the apprehending agents, as
well as the date, time, and place of the alien's arrest.

ï¿½ Also, for 16 cases, the files did not have a Form I- 213 (Record of
Deportable/ Inadmissible Alien), which is INS' standard booking sheet.

Moreover, we noted that even when key documents were in the files, the
documents frequently lacked complete information. For example, when aliens
were referred to INS by another law enforcement agency, the forms I- 213
often failed to note the circumstances of the referrals or even the fact
that the apprehensions were referrals. Further, for 31 of the 124 files we
reviewed, the forms I- 213 did not have a supervisor's signature, although
district policy required that a supervisory agent review and sign all
documentation associated with the arrest and processing of an alien for
removal. District policy also required that a supervisory agent review the

Table 1: Summary Results of Our Review of 90 Case Files

Internal Control Weaknesses

Page 12 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

case file to ensure that all relevant documents were properly stored in the
file.

Appendix II presents more details about our analysis of INS' case files.
INS' Office of Internal Audit has investigative responsibility for almost
all noncriminal misconduct complaints regarding INS employees. Generally, to
help ensure that the misconduct reporting and resolution process is
available to individuals with allegations of INS employee misconduct, the
Office of Internal Audit has conducted several efforts. Among others, these
efforts have consisted of (1) participating in community education and
outreach meetings; (2) distributing complaint posters to INS offices for
display in detention and holding areas; and (3) ensuring that the agency's
Internet website includes a description of the complaint resolution process,
answers to frequently asked questions, and the capability to download a
preaddressed and franked complaint form (Form I- 847) for submission to the
Office of Internal Audit.

In March 2000, partly in response to media reports, the Office of Internal
Audit began an administrative investigation, focusing explicitly on whether
INS agents in Los Angeles had observed or engaged in any improper conduct
during antigang operations. At the time of our review, the office had
substantially completed its investigation. Preliminary results of this
investigation showed no instances of misconduct by INS agents, according to
the senior special agent in charge of the investigation and the Director,
Office of Internal Audit.

These officials said that the scope and methodology of the administrative
investigation of INS' Los Angeles District Office included (1) interviewing
managers, supervisors, and special agents who had responsibilities for or
who participated in antigang operations and (2) reviewing case files of
aliens who were arrested. At our request, the INS officials allowed us to
corroborate the scope, methodology, and results of their investigation. For
example, the officials permitted us to read the typed transcripts of the
audio- recorded, sworn interviews conducted with INS OCDETF and VGTF special
agents.

According to the Director, Office of Internal Audit, while no instances of
misconduct by INS special agents had been identified, the administrative
investigation raised concerns about the lack of documentation- particularly
incomplete forms I- 213 (Record of Deportable/ Inadmissible Administrative
Investigation

Conducted by INS' Office of Internal Audit

Page 13 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Alien)- in the Los Angeles District's case files. 8 The Director noted that,
in many instances:

ï¿½ The forms I- 213 did not show a predication (reason) for the stop and
subsequent detention of the individual by LAPD and did not identify the
officer making the initial stop.

ï¿½ The processing INS agent did not know anything about the aliens being
processed, except that they had been detained by LAPD.

Such incomplete documentation, the Director opined, renders INS less able to
defend allegations that the agency simply acted to remove those individuals
brought to it by LAPD.

In August 2000, we asked Office of Internal Audit officials whether their
office had any other ongoing or recently closed investigations involving INS
Los Angeles agents wherein the alleged misconduct was similar in nature to
that of the LAPD Rampart case. The response was, “no,” according
to an Office of Internal Audit senior agent for investigative operations,
who indicated that he had pursued our question by (1) checking with the
office's Regional Supervisor responsible for oversight of INS Los Angeles
District cases and (2) running a computerized inquiry of all cases of record
with INS' Office of Internal Audit and Justice's Office of the Inspector
General for the past 12 months.

We contacted three immigrant- rights groups in Los Angeles- the Central
American Resource Center, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los
Angeles, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Citing
concerns about possible reprisals in the form of deportations, officials of
one of the three groups declined to provide us any names or specifics of any
alleged misconduct situations involving either LAPD or INS.

Officials of the other two groups primarily raised general allegations about
LAPD rather than INS. The officials commented, for instance, that LAPD
officers frequently violated LAPD Special Order No. 40 by directly targeting
individuals or groups and asking them questions about immigration status.
The officials mentioned specific names and examples of alleged misconduct in
reference to only one situation- a situation

8 The Form I- 213 is the standard booking sheet for INS enforcement and is
used to record biographical data about an individual and the specific
information required to establish alienage and removability- information
about citizenship, immigrant or nonimmigrant alien status, the violation of
immigrant status, any criminal violations, and work history. Contacts With
ImmigrantRights

Groups

Page 14 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

wherein a civil lawsuit was recently filed (June 2000) in the federal
district court (Central District of California) in Los Angeles by
plaintiffs, who seek status as class- action representatives. 9 Among other
matters, the complaint alleges that one of the plaintiffs- a gang mediator
and leader of a truce organization- was targeted and falsely arrested by
LAPD for the impermissible purpose of having the plaintiff deported. The
lawsuit named LAPD as a defendant but did not include INS.

In response to our inquiry, INS Office of General Counsel officials said
that, as of July 2000, one civil lawsuit had been filed naming INS as a
defendant and alleging misconduct by special agents in INS' Los Angeles
District Office during the 18th Street Gang project. The lawsuit was filed
in February 2000 in federal district court (Central District of California)
by six plaintiffs, who seek status as class action representatives. The
plaintiffs allege that their civil rights were violated by various actions-
such as unreasonable searches and seizures and false arrests- committed by
LAPD officers and INS agents. Also, the plaintiffs' complaint alleged that
LAPD and INS engaged in joint efforts in violation of LAPD Special Order No.
40.

At the time of our review, the lawsuit was still pending. INS is being
represented by the Office of Immigration Litigation, Civil Division,
Department of Justice.

Executive Office for OCDETF guidelines specify that congressionally
appropriated funds for the OCDETF program are to be spent only for OCDETF
investigations and prosecutions. For much of 1997 and 1998, the Los Angeles
District Office did not strictly follow applicable guidance for OCDETF
funds- neither in the use of special agents nor in certain nonpayroll
expenditures. Moreover, we were told of similar concerns in other districts
when we contacted the INS OCDETF coordinator in each of the program's nine
regions.

The Executive Office for OCDETF- organizationally located within the Justice
Department's Criminal Division- is responsible for developing policies or
guidelines for the OCDETF program. The current guidelines- OCDETF Program
Guidelines (Nov. 1997)- apply to anyone working on an

9 Homies Unidos v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 00- 05911, (C. D. Cal.,
filed June 2000). According to the complaint, Homies Unidos is a not- for-
profit organization that provides “programs for gang members and
former gang members to assist them in obtaining and keeping employment,
avoiding violence in the streets, developing their human potential in the
arts and in education and providing programs that offer alternatives to
criminal behavior.” One Civil Lawsuit Has Been

Filed Naming INS As a Defendant

INS OCDETF Funds Not Always Used for OCDETF Cases

OCDETF Funds Are to Be Used Only for OCDETF Cases

Page 15 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

OCDETF case, regardless of whether he or she has been officially designated
as an OCDETF attorney or agent. According to the guidelines:

“Funds appropriated to the OCDETF program will be spent in their
entirety on OCDETF investigations and prosecutions. An agency's non- OCDETF
drug enforcement resources may be used to supplement the OCDETF
program.”

“Each agency will be responsible for accounting for its OCDETF
resources and will accurately report its time as prescribed by the
reimbursable agreement process.” 10

Also, under the terms or conditions of an agreement with the Executive
Office for OCDETF, INS may be reimbursed for certain case- development
expenditures that ultimately lead to an approved OCDETF investigation.
Generally, according to the agreement:

ï¿½ Such reimbursements shall be limited to fully documented costs incurred
during the 30- calendar- day period (for drug investigations) or the
90calandar- day period (for money laundering investigations) immediately
before the date that the OCDETF Investigation Initiation Form 11 is fully
executed.

ï¿½ A maximum of payroll costs for three full- time equivalent (FTE) agent
personnel and $10, 000 in nonpersonnel costs may be reimbursed in the pre-
OCDETF approval stage.

ï¿½ Requests for exceptions to these limitations must be submitted with full
documentation to the Executive Office for OCDETF.

Regarding the use of OCDETF funds, we found that INS' Los Angeles District
Office did not strictly follow applicable guidance- neither in the use of
special agents nor in certain nonpayroll expenditures.

The OCDETF group in INS' Los Angeles District Office is staffed with seven
special agents who are to work full time on OCDETF cases. The payroll costs
(salaries and benefits) of these agents are covered by OCDETF funds.
However, all of these agents were reassigned to support other INS
investigative operations- the operations of the district's VGTF-

10 Executive Office for OCDETF, OCDETF Program Guidelines (Nov. 1997), pp.
2- 3. 11 The Investigation Initiation Form provides an explanation of each
investigation considered for task force approval. Also, this form- when
fully endorsed by all necessary officials- is the authorizing instrument for
spending OCDETF funds. INS Los Angeles District:

OCDETF Funds Used for Other Law Enforcement Purposes

INS OCDETF Special Agents Used for Other Law Enforcement Purposes

Page 16 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

during much of 1997 and/ or 1998. More specifically, of the district's seven
OCDETF agents, five were reassigned to support the VGTF for about 16 months,
and the other two agents were reassigned to support the VGTF for about 7
months.

We estimated that these reassignments collectively constituted a use of 7.06
FTE agents for purposes not in compliance with OCDETF guidance. Further, we
estimated that the payroll costs for these 7.06 FTE agents for the
reassignment periods totaled about $845,500. 12

Nonpayroll OCDETF funds allocated to INS' Los Angeles District Office
totaled $39, 143 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998. Of this total, we found
that $26,174 (67 percent) was used for law enforcement purposes not directly
related to supporting OCDETF cases. For example, in 1997, the district used
$10,000 of OCDETF funds to purchase a countersurveillance device, which was
subsequently loaned to the U. S. Secret Service- an agency that is not a
member of the OCDETF program. The countersurveillance device was not used by
either INS or the Secret Service to support OCDETF cases. Other examples of
expenditures not compliant with OCDETF guidelines included purchases of law
enforcement equipment (such as handcuffs and flashlights) and digital
cameras for use by VGTF agents.

Appendix I (see table I. 7) gives further details about the nonpayroll
expenditures we reviewed and found to be noncompliant with OCDETF
guidelines.

In response to our findings regarding the use of OCDETF resources, INS Los
Angeles District Office management said that using the district's OCDETF
special agents and nonpayroll funds to support non- OCDETF investigations-
such as VGTF operations- was completely justified. That is, management said
that, from a productivity standpoint, OCDETF resources in the district often
are better used for other (non- OCDETF) INS responsibilities. In
explanation, while acknowledging that some agents in the district's OCDETF
unit were productive, district management said that the unit's overall
productivity was much too low, which justified using OCDETF resources as
needed for more productive law enforcement operations. As an example,
district management commented that the INS OCDETF agents in Los Angeles
seldom requested nonpayroll funds to support conducting investigations.

12 For more details on our estimates of the number and costs of FTEs used
for non- OCDETF purposes, see appendix I, which presents a response to the
question, “How were OCDETF funds used and spent by INS?” INS
OCDETF Nonpayroll

Expenditures for Other Law Enforcement Purposes

Reasons for Using OCEDETF Resources for Other Purposes

Page 17 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

To determine whether these types of problems or concerns existed in other
INS districts, we contacted the INS OCDETF coordinator in each of the
program's nine regions. 13 Most of the regional coordinators stated that INS
OCDETF agents in their regions were sometimes used for nonOCDETF purposes,
such as working on other cases or helping to provide security for special
events. The coordinators noted that such assignments were usually for short
periods of time- a few days or weeks, rather than months. However, most of
the coordinators said that INS OCDETF special agents should be used only on
OCDETF cases, and some coordinators expressed concern that ongoing OCDETF
cases suffer when INS agents are reassigned to other duties. In addition,
most of the coordinators also said that nonpayroll OCDETF funds should be,
but are not always, used only for OCDETF cases.

U. S. Attorney Office, Justice's Office of the Inspector General, FBI, Los
Angeles County District Attorney's Office, and other officials who
traditionally handle misconduct allegations said that they had no criminal
or civil rights investigations ongoing that involved INS Los Angeles
District Office antigang agents as prospective suspects. Also, district
office managers, supervisors, and special agents who had responsibilities
for or who participated in antigang operations said that they had neither
observed nor engaged in any misconduct, such as physically abusing aliens or
conspiring with LAPD to circumvent LAPD Special Order No. 40.

Further, regarding INS' antigang operations in Los Angeles, we reviewed
available files of aliens arrested or detained during the period July 1997
through December 1998 and found no documentation specifically evidencing
whether or not any INS agents observed or engaged in any misconduct.
However, in reviewing the files, we noted various internal control
weaknesses, as evidenced by some files not containing all required
documents, some files with partially or sketchily completed documents, and
some files with no indications of supervisory review.

At the time of our review, INS' Office of Internal Audit had substantially
completed an administrative investigation and had found no instances of
misconduct by INS Los Angeles agents in carrying out their roles and
responsibilities on antigang task forces. Additionally, the three
immigrantrights groups we contacted in Los Angeles did not provide us with
names or specifics of any alleged misconduct situations involving INS. We
noted, however, that one civil lawsuit alleging misconduct- naming both LAPD

13 The nine OCDETF regions are (1) Florida/ Caribbean, (2) Great Lakes, (3)
Mid- Atlantic, (4) New England, (5) New York/ New Jersey, (6) Pacific, (7)
Southeast, (8) Southwest, and (9) West Central. Similar Problems May Exist

in Other INS Districts Conclusions

Page 18 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

and INS as defendants- was filed in February 2000 in federal district court
(Central District of California). At the time of our review, the lawsuit was
still pending.

In reference to the OCDETF program, for the periods we reviewed, INS' Los
Angeles District Office did not strictly follow applicable guidance for the
use of OCDETF funds- neither in the use of special agents nor in certain
nonpayroll expenditures. We were told of similar concerns in other districts
when we contacted the INS OCDETF coordinator in each of the program's nine
regions.

In summary, our review found that INS needs to give more emphasis to
ensuring that (1) alien files, particularly in the Los Angeles District,
contain complete documentation and are properly reviewed and (2) all
districts use OCDETF resources for OCDETF cases only.

We recommend that the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service

ï¿½ have the Director of INS' Los Angeles District Office take appropriate
actions to ensure that alien files in the district contain required
documentation and that the files show evidence that they are timely reviewed
by supervisors; and

ï¿½ take steps to ensure that all INS districts use OCDETF resources in
accordance with applicable guidelines (i. e., for OCDETF purposes only).

We provided a draft of this report for comment to the Department of Justice.
On October 10, 2000, Justice's Assistant Attorney General for Administration
provided us written comments conveying the department's agreement with our
findings and recommendations. More specifically, Justice plans to take
immediate steps to resolve our findings regarding (1) internal control
weaknesses in relation to incomplete alien files and files with no
indications of supervisory review and (2) alleged use of OCDETFdesignated
INS agents and operational resources for other than OCDETF purposes. Also,
Justice said that it will work with INS to

ï¿½ ensure that alien files in the Los Angeles District contain required
documentation and show evidence that they are timely reviewed by
supervisors,

ï¿½ recover prior year funding for OCDETF resources that have been diverted
for non- OCDETF purposes, and Recommendations for

Executive Action Agency Comments

Page 19 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

ï¿½ strengthen internal controls to prevent further misuse of OCDETF funding.
The full text of Justice's comment letter is reproduced in appendix IV. As
arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the content of this
letter earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days after
its date. At that time, we will send copies to Senators Orrin Hatch,
Chairman, and Patrick Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Judiciary
Committee; Senators Strom Thurmond, Chairman, and Charles Schumer, Ranking
Minority Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice and
Oversight; Senators Spencer Abraham, Chairman, and Edward Kennedy, Ranking
Minority Member, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration;
Representatives Henry Hyde, Chairman, and John Conyers, Ranking Minority
Member, House Judiciary Committee; Representatives Bill McCollum, Chairman,
and Robert Scott, Ranking Minority Member, House Judiciary Subcommittee on
Crime; and Representatives Lamar Smith, Chairman, and Sheila Jackson Lee,
Ranking Minority Member, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and
Claims. Also, we will send copies to the Honorable Janet Reno, the Attorney
General; the Honorable Doris Meissner, Commissioner of the Immigration and
Naturalization Service; and Ms. Katharine Armentrout, Director, Executive
Office for OCDETF. We will also make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss
the matter further, please contact me at (202) 512- 8777 or Danny R. Burton
at (214) 777- 5600. Other key contributors are acknowledged in appendix V.

Sincerely yours, Richard M. Stana Director Tax Administration and Justice

Page 20 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Contents 1 Letter 22 INS' Overall or Generally Applicable Policies and Roles

Regarding Task Force Participation 22

INS' Specific Participation in the Operations of Task Forces in Los Angeles

34 Appendix I

Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

42 Antigang Project's Operations and Results 43 Internal Controls 47
Anomalous Cases 50 Qualifications or Limitations of INS' Case- File Data 55
Appendix II

Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special Agents From
July 1997 Through December 1998

57 Objectives 57 Overview of the Scope and Methodology of Our Work 57
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

67 Appendix IV Comments From the U. S. Department of Justice

68 GAO Contacts 68 Acknowledgments 68 Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Table 1: Summary Results of Our Review of 90 Case Files 11 Tables Table I.
1: Number of INS Agents Assigned to Task Forces, by Type of Task Force (Mar.
1996)

24

Contents Page 21 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Table I. 2: Number of INS Agents Assigned to OCDETF, by INS Region (Mar.
2000)

25 Table I. 3: Distribution (by Tier I Cities) of INS Agents

Assigned to VGTF (Mar. 1992) 25

Table I. 4: Distribution (by Tier II Cities) of INS Agents Assigned to VGTF
(Mar. 1992)

25 Table I. 5: Criminal Aliens Removed From the United

States, Fiscal Years 1995 Through 1999 29

Table I. 6: Payroll Costs of INS Los Angeles OCDETF Agents Reassigned to
Other Cases (June 1997 to Oct. 1998)

38 Table I. 7: INS Los Angeles District Office OCDETF

Nonpayroll Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998 39

Table II. 1: Information About Dates of Warrants, NTAs, and Other INS
Documents for Aliens Arrested During INS VGTF Operations (July 1997 Through
Dec. 1998)

45 Table II. 2: Information About LAPD's Involvement in

Arrests of Aliens During INS VGTF Operations (July 1997 Through Dec. 1998)

45 Table II. 3: Information About Immigration Status, Gang

Affiliation, and Criminal History of Aliens Arrested or Detained During INS
VGTF Operations (July 1997 Through Dec. 1988)

46 Table II. 4: Information About Final Disposition of Aliens

Arrested or Detained During INS VGTF Operations (July 1997 Through Dec.
1998)

47

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 22 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Representative Lucille Roybal- Allard asked us to review the participation
of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in law enforcement task
forces from two perspectives: (1) INS' overall or generally applicable
policies and roles regarding its participation in task forces and (2) INS'
specific participation in the operations of task forces in Los Angeles,
California. For each of these two perspectives, the requester asked several
specific questions. Our responses to the questions are presented in this
appendix.

Regarding INS participation, the two primary task force programs discussed
in this appendix are

ï¿½ the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program, which is
a national program established in 1982 to take advantage of multiagency
cooperation and coordination to identify, investigate, and prosecute members
of high- level drug trafficking and related enterprises; and

ï¿½ the Violent Gang Task Force (VGTF) program, which is another national
program but generally is an INS- only task force- although some VGTF
operations, at times, have been conducted jointly or cooperatively with
other law enforcement agencies.

The requester asked six questions in reference to INS' overall or generally
applicable policies and roles regarding participation in joint- agency task
forces. These questions are presented below, along with our respective
responses.

OCDETF. Although the OCDETF was established in 1982, INS did not become a
full member until 1986:

“Before INS became an OCDETF participating agency, INS senior special
agents worked on OCDETF investigations when other participating agencies
requested INS assistance and it had staff available. Basically, any of INS'
33 district offices could have participated in investigations on an as-
needed basis. Due to the dramatic rise in serious crimes committed by
foreign- born individuals, the Attorney General made INS an OCDETF program
participant in December 1986.” 1

1 INS Drug Task Force Activities: Federal Agencies Supportive of INS Efforts
(GAO/ GGD- 94- 143, July 7, 1994), p. 4. INS' Overall or

Generally Applicable Policies and Roles Regarding Task Force Participation

What Policies, Including Legislative Guidance or Congressional Mandates,
Apply to INS Participation in Law Enforcement Task Forces?

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 23 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

The Executive Office for OCDETF is responsible for developing policies or
guidelines for the OCDETF program. The current guidelines- OCDETF Program
Guidelines (Nov. 1997)- apply to anyone working on an OCDETF case,
regardless of whether he or she has been officially designated as an OCDETF
attorney or agent. Under the guidelines, the following are some of the
general policies that apply to all OCDETF operations:

ï¿½ Funds appropriated to the OCDETF program will be spent in their entirety
on OCDETF investigations and prosecutions.

ï¿½ A standard form- the Investigation Initiation Form (IIF)- provides an
explanation of each investigation considered for task force approval. The
IIF, when fully endorsed by all officials, is the authorizing instrument for
spending OCDETF funds.

ï¿½ While working cooperatively to investigate and prosecute organized drug
traffickers, OCDETF agents and attorneys handling OCDETF cases will remain
under the command and line authority of their own agencies.

ï¿½ It is not necessary that every OCDETF prosecution include specific drug
charges, but every OCDETF prosecution must be drug- related. That is, as
long as the investigation targets have been identified as major drug
violators and otherwise meet the OCDETF standards, the specific charges may
involve nondrug violations (e. g., tax, racketeering, money laundering,
currency, weapons, explosives, customs, and immigration).

ï¿½ Every approved OCDETF case is to operate under a district Assistant U. S.
Attorney coordinator.

VGTF. In March 1992, as part of “Enhanced Border Security and Criminal
Alien Enforcement Initiatives,” the Attorney General announced
formation of the VGTF program, whereby a total of 150 INS agents were to be
reassigned to implement the program. The reassigned or resulting staffing
levels for the program were to reflect the following distribution:

ï¿½ three to 12 agents in each of 16 large metropolitan areas (“ tier
I” cities) and

ï¿½ one agent in each of 20 smaller urban communities (“ tier II”
cities). As established by INS headquarters (the Office of Investigations),
policy guidance for the VGTF program included the following requirements
and/ or clarifications:

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 24 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

ï¿½ VGTF special agents were to be devoted full time to the program and not
carry any other case load.

ï¿½ No VGTF activities or investigations were to be undertaken without
authorization from INS' Office of Investigations.

ï¿½ VGTF activities or investigations were to be undertaken in accordance with
INS' guidelines for targeting “large organizations involved in a
continuing criminal enterprise.” For instance, VGTF activities were to
target specific gangs rather than single members or associates for the
purpose of making individual arrests or compiling statistics.

In summary, INS policy guidance noted that the VGTF program was not intended
to authorize area control operations, sweeps, or random arrests of known or
suspected gang members.

In 1996, at the request of the Attorney General, INS examined and reported
on its participation in task forces. INS' report showed that two task force
programs- OCDETF and VGTF- accounted for about 72 percent of the INS special
agents assigned to task forces (see table I. 1). More detailed staffing
information regarding these two programs is presented below.

Task force type Number of INS agents

assigned to the task force (as of Mar. 1996) Percentage of total a

OCDETF 107 34.3 VGTF 119 38.1 Joint Terrorism Task Force 28 9.0 Organized
Crime and Racketeering Strike Force 12 3.8 Local task forces 46 14.7

Total 312 99.9

a Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Source: INS data.

OCDETF. INS' field structure consists of 3 regions, covering 33 district
offices in the United States. According to the Executive Office for OCDETF,
deployment position levels are authorized for at least one INS OCDETF agent
for each federal judicial district office. As table I. 2 shows, INS had a
total of 109 agents assigned to the OCDETF program, as of March 2000. For
the Major Metropolitan

Areas in the United States, What Are the Various Task Forces That Have INS
Participation?

Table I. 1: Number of INS Agents Assigned to Task Forces, by Type of Task
Force (Mar. 1996)

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 25 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

INS regions Number of INS agents

assigned to OCDETF (as of Mar. 2000) Percentage of total

Central Region 38 34.9 Eastern Region 48 44.0 Western Region 23 21.1

Total 109 100.0

Source: Executive Office for OCDETF data.

VGTF. As mentioned previously, at the formation of the VGTF program in 1992,
a total of 150 INS agents were to be reassigned to implement the program.
The distribution of these agents at program formation included 16 tier I
cities (130 agents) and 20 tier II cities (20 agents), as shown in tables I.
3 and I. 4, respectively.

State Tier I city Number of INS agents

Arizona Phoenix 5 California Los Angeles 12

San Diego 10 San Francisco 10 District of Columbia District of Columbia 5
Florida Miami 10 Georgia Atlanta 10 Illinois Chicago 10 Maryland Baltimore 5
Massachusetts Boston 5 New Mexico Albuquerque 3 New York New York City 12
Pennsylvania Philadelphia 10 Texas Dallas 8

Houston 10 Washington Seattle 5

Total 16 cities 130

Source: INS data.

State Tier II city Number of INS agents

Arizona Tucson 1 Florida Orlando 1 Kansas Wichita 1 Indiana Indianapolis 1
Iowa Des Moines 1 Louisiana New Orleans 1

Shreveport 1 Missouri Kansas City 1 Nebraska Omaha 1

Table I. 2: Number of INS Agents Assigned to OCDETF, by INS Region (Mar.
2000)

Table I. 3: Distribution (by Tier I Cities) of INS Agents Assigned to VGTF
(Mar. 1992)

Table I. 4: Distribution (by Tier II Cities) of INS Agents Assigned to VGTF
(Mar. 1992)

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 26 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

State Tier II city Number of INS agents

North Carolina Charlotte 1 New Jersey Orange 1 New York Albany 1

Buffalo 1 Ohio Cleveland 1

Columbus 1 Oregon Portland 1 Pennsylvania Pittsburgh 1 Tennessee Memphis 1
Texas Corpus Christi 1 Wisconsin Milwaukee 1

Total 20 cities 20

Source: INS data.

Although a total of 150 agents were to be reassigned in 1992, the actual
allocation that year was 142 agents, according to INS officials.

Currently, the VGTF program has significantly less staffing than in 1992. As
of July 10, 2000, VGTF staffing totaled 74 agents 2 -a decline of 48 percent
from the 1992 level of 142 agents.

OCDETF. According to guidance from the Executive Office for OCDETF,
“Funds appropriated to the OCDETF program will be spent in their
entirety on OCDETF investigations and prosecutions. An agency's non- OCDETF
drug enforcement resources may be used to supplement the OCDETF
program.”

“Each agency will be responsible for accounting for its OCDETF
resources and will accurately report its time as prescribed by the
reimbursable agreement process.” 3

The Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement (ICDE) appropriation provides
resources in support of Justice agencies participating in OCDETF. For fiscal
year 2000, the total ICDE funding for Justice agencies was $317 million. Of
this total, the FBI was allocated $108.5 million (34 percent), DEA was
allocated $104 million (33 percent), U. S. Attorneys were allocated $83.3
million (26 percent), and INS was allocated $15.3 million (5 percent). 4

2 INS Investigations, Office of Field Operations, requested VGTF agent
allocations from each district office; however, two districts (Houston and
Dallas) did not respond to the request. 3 Executive Office for OCDETF,
OCDETF Program Guidelines (Nov. 1997), pp. 2- 3.

4 The remainder (about $6 million) was allocated among four Justice
components- U. S. Marshals Service, Criminal Division, Tax Division, and the
Executive Office for OCDETF. What Are the INS and

Department of Justice Regulations for Expenditure of Task Force Funds?

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 27 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Also, under the terms or conditions of an agreement with the Executive
Office for OCDETF, INS may be reimbursed for certain case- development
expenditures that ultimately lead to an approved OCDETF investigation.
Generally, according to the agreement:

ï¿½ Such reimbursements shall be limited to fully documented costs incurred
during the 30- calendar- day period (for drug investigations) or the
90calendar- day period (for money laundering investigations) immediately
before the date that the IIF for the OCDETF case is fully executed.

ï¿½ A maximum of payroll costs for three full- time equivalent agent personnel
and $10,000 in nonpersonnel costs may be reimbursed in the pre- OCDETF
approval stage.

ï¿½ Requests for exceptions to these limitations must be submitted with full
documentation to the Executive Office for OCDETF.

VGTF. With the exception of OCDETF, which is funded from the congressionally
approved budget for OCDETF, INS appropriations fund INS agents who
participate in task forces. The initial implementation of the VGTF program
was funded specifically under fiscal year 1992 reprogramming procedures.

OCDETF. Regarding OCDETF participation, INS' role is to focus on locating,
apprehending, investigating, and removing criminal alien drug traffickers
from the United States. According to the Executive Office for OCDETF, many
investigations are complex and labor intensive, requiring a mix of skills
and experience from more than one agency. Executive Office guidelines
recognize that a joint- agency task force can combine and utilize the unique
expertise of the participating members, such as

ï¿½ the surveillance capabilities of the FBI,

ï¿½ the U. S. Marshal Service's skills in fugitive investigations,

ï¿½ the experience of the Internal Revenue Service's Criminal Investigation
Division in investigating tax code violations,

ï¿½ the U. S. Customs Service's ability to interdict international drug
trafficking, and

ï¿½ the authority of INS to deal with alien drug traffickers. What Is INS'
Role in These

Task Forces, Particularly Regarding Identification of Deportable Aliens?

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 28 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

In 1994, we reported that: “As of January 1994, INS was involved in
257 OCDETF investigations- 27 as the lead agency, 68 as the colead agency,
and 162 in which it had assist roles. The 4 INS pilot cities [Houston, Los
Angeles, Miami, and New York] had 5 lead investigations, 27 colead
investigations, and 67 assist investigations.” 5

More recent statistics for the OCDETF program indicated that INS was a
sponsor 6 for 19 cases in fiscal year 1997, 26 cases in fiscal year 1998,
and 40 cases in fiscal year 1999.

VGTF. As mentioned previously, the VGTF was formed in 1992 as an initiative
of the Attorney General, who directed INS to reassign a total of 150 special
agents to task forces in 16 large metropolitan areas (tier II cities) and 20
smaller urban communities (tier II cities). According to a 1996 INS report
on the agency's participation in various task forces:

“The purpose of [VGTFs] is to engage in law enforcement operations
against alien gangs and gang- related activity and to bring the full weight
of the immigration laws to bear against serious violent offenders. The VGTFs
disrupt and dismantle criminal alien gangs through the identification and
prosecution of their members and associates. After prosecution and
conviction, the Service can physically remove alien gang members from the
United States through deportation. If the alien gang member returns to the
United States, he or she can be criminally charged with Re- entry After
Deportation [8 U. S. C. 1326] and face additional penalties for that
offense.”

A deportable alien is a person subject to any of the grounds of deportation
specified in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Generally, depending on an
alien's particular circumstances, an alien may be deportable based on
noncriminal or on criminal grounds. Noncriminal grounds for deportation
involve, for example, aliens who have status violations, such as entering
the country without inspection or overstaying the period specified in a
nonimmigrant visa. Criminal grounds for deportation may involve, for
example, a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude or conviction for an
aggravated felony.

Criminal activity has long been a ground for removal of aliens. For
instance, federal immigration control statutes, as early as 1891, provided

5 INS Drug Task Force Activities: Federal Agencies Supportive of INS Efforts
(GAO/ GGD- 94- 143, July 7, 1994), p. 7. 6 In reference to an agency's role
on a case, the term “sponsor” encompassed and replaced the
former terms of “lead” and “colead.” What Criminal
Acts or

Activities Constitute Deportable Offenses?

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 29 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

for the exclusion of persons who have been convicted of a felony or other
infamous crime or misdemeanor involving “moral turpitude.”

More recently, particularly beginning in the late 1980s, Congress began
passing stricter provisions applicable to criminal aliens:

ï¿½ The Anti- Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P. L. 100- 690) introduced the concept
of “aggravated felony” to the immigration laws. These felonies
included murder, illicit trafficking in drugs or firearms, and certain
crimes of violence.

ï¿½ The list of crimes considered aggravated felonies has been extended over
the years, including twice in 1996- by (1) the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act (P. L. 104- 132) and (2) the Illegal Immigration Reform
and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) (P. L. 104- 208).

ï¿½ The definition of “aggravated felony” now contains 21
paragraphs and includes such offenses as commercial bribery or theft, for
which a 1- year sentence is imposed.

ï¿½ The threshold for making crimes of violence aggravated felonies is also a
1- year sentence. After IIRIRA, this threshold is not based on the actual
time of incarceration, but instead on the period of incarceration ordered by
the court, even if prison time is wholly suspended.

Also, under 8 U. S. C. 1326, reentry of a previously deported alien is a
criminal offense. However, if a noncriminal deportee reenters the United
States, INS generally uses a procedure to “reinstate” the
original deportation order, rather than prosecute criminally under 8 U. S.
C. 1326.

Table I. 5 shows that the number of criminal aliens removed from the United
States increased from 31,631 in fiscal year 1995 to 62,838 in fiscal year
1999. The removals include aliens found to be deportable as well as those
deemed inadmissible.

Fiscal year Number of criminal aliens removed from the United States

1995 31,631 1996 36,203 1997 49,813 1998 55,541 1999 62,838 Source: INS
data.

Table I. 5: Criminal Aliens Removed From the United States, Fiscal Years
1995 Through 1999

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 30 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Being the criminal justice agency charged with administering the nation's
immigration laws, INS is responsible for identifying, arresting, and
removing aliens who commit crimes, including gang- related criminal
involvement. For purposes of its national VGTF program, INS defined a
“gang” as

“ a group of individuals associated in fact who exhibit continuing
loyalty to an individual or the group itself, who engage in antisocial and
or criminal behavior to the benefit of the group through the acquisition of
wealth or power. The group exhibits some level of organization if to do
nothing more than to determine membership. The hierarchy may be identifiable
either through level of supervision, through roles or through the
acquisition of wealth or power. Membership may have different attributes but
loyalty, order, and discipline exist among the members and likely will be
maintained through fear, intimidation and violence. The group tends to
operate in and through violence and intimidation to control a particular
geographical area.”

Generally, the process that INS uses for identifying, arresting, and
removing aliens involved in gang- related criminal activity is no different
than the process applicable to any other categories of criminal aliens. For
instance, to capture and remove criminal aliens, INS has

ï¿½ established a central contact point (the Law Enforcement Support Center,
located in Vermont) for law enforcement agencies to enable them to determine
if aliens they have in custody are illegally in the United States and, if
so, obtain INS assistance;

ï¿½ participated in community task forces with other law enforcement agencies
to address local criminal activity involving aliens;

ï¿½ participated in drug task forces with other law enforcement agencies to
fight drug trafficking, particularly organized groups run mostly by aliens;
and

ï¿½ established a regular or permanent presence at correctional facilities-
the Institutional Removal Program (formerly the Institutional Hearing
Program 7 )- to identify and process for deportation incarcerated aliens
immediately upon release from prison.

The Investigations Division of INS is the agency's primary component
responsible for interior enforcement. To identify aliens involved in
gangrelated criminal activity, INS relies upon matching field intelligence
with

7 Criminal Aliens: INS' Efforts To Identify And Remove Imprisoned Aliens
Continue To Need Improvement (GAO/ T- GGD- 99- 47, Feb. 25, 1999).
Generally, Regarding GangRelated

Criminal Involvement, What Process Is INS Supposed to Use in Identifying,
Arresting, and Deporting Criminal Aliens?

Identifying Aliens Involved in Gang- Related Criminal Activity

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 31 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

law enforcement database information. Sources of field intelligence include
INS' own special agents as well state and local law enforcement officers.
Relevant national databases include the following:

ï¿½ Central Index System. INS' Central Index System provides a reference to
all A- files, which are permanent records created and maintained by INS.
Each A- file is a record relating to one individual. For instance, an A-
file is to be created and maintained for each unauthorized alien apprehended
by INS and processed for removal. An A- file may contain several different
INS actions, such as apprehension and removal, application for and approval
or denial of benefits, naturalization, etc. A key document in the A- file
may be INS Form I- 213 (Record of Deportable/ Inadmissible Alien). Form I-
213 is the standard booking sheet for INS enforcement and is used to record
biographical data about an individual and the specific information required
to establish an alien's immigration status and removability- information
about citizenship, immigrant or nonimmigrant alien status, the violation of
immigration status, any criminal violations, and work history. Usually, when
an INS Investigations Division special agent begins an investigation, a
first step is to review all A- files related to the case.

ï¿½ National Crime Information Center 2000 (NCIC 2000). The nation's most
extensive computerized criminal justice information system, NCIC 2000
consists of a central computer located in the FBI's Criminal Justice
Information Services complex, Clarksburg, WV; dedicated telecommunications
lines; and a coordinated network of federal and state criminal justice
information systems.

Of course, sources of intelligence- as well as the existence of additional
databases- can vary by jurisdiction. In California, for example, INS' Los
Angeles District Office obtained intelligence from California state parole
officers and various county and/ or city police departments, including the
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). Similarly, district agents used

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 32 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

information from local gang- related databases, such as the GREAT system 8
and its successor, Cal- Gangs. 9

After identifying or targeting an alien involved in gang- related criminal
activity, INS can prepare a warrant- a criminal warrant or an administrative
warrant- to arrest the individual. Also, some apprehensions may involve
arrests without warrants. Under federal law, INS agents have the authority
to make warrantless arrests under certain circumstances, including
situations where the agents have reason to believe that the arrestee has
violated laws regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion, or removal of
aliens and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained. 10
According to INS' Office of General Counsel, courts have consistently held
that the phrase “reason to believe,” under the Immigration and
Nationality Act, as amended, is the equivalent of probable cause. 11

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, INS can initiate
removal (previously referred to as deportation 12 ) proceedings against
aliens who are convicted of or are involved in certain criminal or drug- or
terrorist- related acts. Also, in general, aliens unlawfully in the United
States are subject to removal, regardless of whether they commit or are
convicted of a crime.

According to training materials used at the Immigration Officer Academy
(Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; Glynco, GA), the standard
procedures for processing criminal aliens are as follows:

8 In 1986, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department began developing a
computerized database system- the Gang Reporting, Evaluation, and Tracking
(GREAT) system- to maintain selected information on identified street- gang
members. The system became operational in 1987, and data fields included
such information as gang member name, gang moniker (nickname), gang
affiliation, physical description, residence address, prior arrests, vehicle
information, and gang member's associates or acquaintances. See, Law
Enforcement: Information on the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Gang
Reporting, Evaluation, and Tracking System (GAO/ T- GGD- 92- 52, June 26,
1992).

9 Modeled after the GREAT system, Cal- Gangs is a statewide system built on
a series of node computers- located in various counties throughout the
state- that mirror copies of locally controlled gang files to the California
Department of Justice.

10 Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U. S.
C. 1357. 11 See Babula v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 665 F. 2d
293 (3d Cir. 1981); Au Yi Lau v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 445
F. 2d 217 (D. C. Cir. 1971), cert. denied 404 U. S. 864 (1971). 12 Under
revised provisions for the removal of aliens established in the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (P. L. 104-
208), aliens charged by INS as deportable are now placed in
“removal” proceedings as opposed to “deportation”
proceedings. Arresting Aliens Involved in

Gang- Related Criminal Activity Deporting Aliens Involved in Gang- Related
Criminal Activity

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 33 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

ï¿½ In all cases based on documentary evidence of criminal activity, certified
copies of conviction must be obtained. Also, if applicable, foreign
documents are to be authenticated.

ï¿½ An INS Form I- 247 (Immigration Detainer) is to be placed on all
incarcerated aliens- identified during the Institutional Removal Program-
who are amenable to INS action.

ï¿½ As applicable, Form I- 44 (Report of Apprehension or Seizure) and/ or G-
623 (Report of Service Participation in the Control of Marijuana, Narcotics,
and Dangerous Drugs) is to be prepared in instances where operations result
in the (1) arrest of individuals not amenable to INS action or (2) seizure
of contraband or narcotics.

ï¿½ A records check is to be conducted by accessing applicable databases,
including INS' Central Index System and the FBI's NCIC 2000. If there is an
A- file for the alien, request and review the file. Otherwise, create an
Afile if one does not already exist for the alien.

ï¿½ Execute Form I- 826 (Notice of Rights and Request for Disposition) and
then interview the alien. If there is no known INS record of the alien, take
a sworn statement using Form I- 263A (Jurat) and Form I- 263B (Record of
Sworn Statement).

ï¿½ Determine immigration status and removability based on all of the above
documentation. Determine the section of the Immigration and Naturalization
Act to be applied- section 212 (inadmissible) or section 237 (deportable).

ï¿½ Forms I- 213 are to be prepared on all aliens apprehended during the Alien
Criminal Apprehension Program, regardless of other investigative reports or
forms prepared.

ï¿½ If the alien is to be placed in removal proceedings, a Form I- 265 (Notice
to Appear, Bond and Custody Processing Sheet) is to be used and a Form I862
(Notice to Appear) is to be completed, issued, and served.

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 34 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

In recent years, INS agents have been assigned to and/ or participated in
two antigang related task forces in Los Angeles:

ï¿½ OCDETF. An OCDETF investigation of the 18 th Street Gang began in 1998 and
was still ongoing at the time of our review. The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) is the lead law enforcement agency. Initially, other law
enforcement participants were INS; the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and
Firearms (ATF); the U. S. Marshal's Service; and the LAPD.

ï¿½ Violent Gang Task Force (VGTF). This is a single- agency (INS only) task
force with operations in various areas of the nation. In Los Angeles, the 18
th Street Gang has been a target of VGTF investigations.

The requester asked eight questions in reference to INS' specific
participation in the operations of task forces in Los Angeles, CA. These
questions are presented below, along with our respective responses.

OCDETF. Any relevant federal law enforcement agency may submit a proposal
(an IIF) for an OCDETF investigation. In 1998, both INS and the FBI
submitted separate (but similar) IIFs to target the 18 th Street Gang in Los
Angeles. On March 13, 1998, the OCDETF Regional Coordination Group approved
the IIF submitted by the FBI. With this approval, the 18 th Street Gang
investigation officially became an OCDETF investigation. Participating
agencies listed on the approved IIF are the FBI, INS, ATF, and LAPD.

The FBI's focus on the 18 th Street Gang reportedly is an outgrowth of the
FBI's nationwide Safe Streets Violent Crimes Initiative, which began in
1992. That initiative was designed to allow each FBI field division to
address street gang and drug- related violence by establishing FBIsponsored,
long- term, proactive task forces to focus on violent gangs, crimes of
violence, and the apprehension of violent fugitives.

VGTF. In the early 1990s, as part of a national program, INS' Los Angeles
District Office began targeting Los Angeles street gangs that were known to
have illegal aliens as members. As mentioned previously, the VGTF was formed
in 1992 as a national initiative of the Attorney General, who directed INS
to reassign a total of 150 special agents to task forces in 16 large
metropolitan areas- including Los Angeles (see table I. 3)- and 20 smaller
urban communities (see table I. 4). INS' Specific

Participation in the Operations of Task Forces in Los Angeles

How Was INS Participation in These Los Angeles Task Forces Initiated?

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 35 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces OCDETF. The
answer appears to be, “no.” Indications are that INS vied

for a leadership role in the OCDETF investigation, as evidenced by the fact
that INS submitted an IIF to propose initiating an OCDETF investigation
targeting the 18 th Street Gang.

VGTF. The VGTF is a single- agency (INS only) task force, although some
operations were conducted cooperatively or jointly with other law
enforcement agencies. Based on our discussions with INS and FBI agents, we
found no evidence of FBI influence regarding VGTF operations.

OCDETF and VGTF. For all practical purposes, INS agents have never
participated in the OCDETF 18 th Street Gang investigation in Los Angeles,
although INS is listed as a participating agency on the IIF, which was
approved on March 13, 1998. This conclusion regarding INS' nonparticipation
is based on our review of available documentation and our interviews of
field office agents. For instance, all of the FBI and INS agents we
interviewed in Los Angeles said that INS has not participated in the OCDETF
investigation of the 18 th Street Gang.

However, for extended periods in 1997 and/ or 1998, all of INS' seven OCDETF
agents in Los Angeles were taken off other ongoing OCDETF cases and
reassigned to assist VGTF in identifying suspected alien gang members. Also,
when aliens were arrested under VGTF operations, the seven INS OCDETF agents
processed the arrestees to determine and document criminal and/ or
immigration- related violations, if any.

OCDETF. As mentioned previously, INS agents have not actively participated
in the OCDETF investigation of the 18 th Street Gang in Los Angeles. That
investigation is being led by the FBI and was still ongoing at the time of
our review. The FBI received some participatory assistance from LAPD (not
the Rampart Division).

VGTF. Because VGTF is a single- agency (INS only) task force, the VGTF did
not have other law enforcement agencies as formal members. However, as
needed, INS VGTF agents in Los Angeles coordinated with and/ or conducted
joint operations with other law enforcement agencies, such as county
sheriffs' offices or city police departments. For example, LAPD officers at
times (1) assisted VGTF agents in locating gang members for whom warrants
had been issued and (2) provided perimeter security and a uniformed presence
during VGTF operations. Also, during some VGTF operations, INS agents were
stationed at the Rampart Division and other LAPD divisions. Was There Any
Undue

Influence by the FBI to Have INS Participate in the Task Forces?

Are There Any Operational or Other Relationships Between These Task Forces?

In Each Task Force, What Was INS' Role and Relationship With LAPD and
Applicable Federal Agencies?

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 36 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Regarding other federal agencies, the FBI occasionally requested VGTF
assistance with immigration- related aspects of non- OCDETF FBI cases. Also,
as mentioned previously, all of INS' seven OCDETF agents in Los Angeles were
reassigned to support VGTF operations for extended periods during 1997 and/
or 1998.

Under federal law, in general, aliens who are unlawfully in the United
States are subject to removal, regardless of whether they commit or are
convicted of a crime. Thus, in discussions with us, VGTF agents emphasized
that INS has a duty to enforce the law- including unlawful entry situations
or other potential violations regarding immigration status. The agents said
that INS' responsibilities include interviewing individuals detained by
other law enforcement agencies, which have contacted INS.

Internal Control Weaknesses. At INS' Los Angeles District Office, we
reviewed available files of aliens arrested during antigang operations from
July 1997 through December 1998. In reviewing the files, we noted various
internal control weaknesses, as evidenced by some files not containing all
required documents, some files with partially or sketchily completed
documents, and some files with no indications of supervisory review.
Appendix II presents more details about the results of our review of case
files.

OCDETF and VGTF. At the time of our review, INS' Office of Internal Audit
had substantially completed an administrative investigation focusing
explicitly on whether INS agents in Los Angeles had observed or engaged in
any misconduct during antigang operations. According to the Director, Office
of Internal Audit, preliminary results of the investigation showed no
instances of misconduct by INS agents.

VGTF. We identified one internal “field review and audit” that
had been conducted of the VGTF in Los Angeles. 13 The review/ audit was
conducted during the week of September 13, 1993, and the results were
reported by memorandum (dated Oct. 1, 1993) to INS headquarters (Assistant
Commissioner, Investigations). The report included the following
observations:

“The Los Angeles VGTF works closely with many of the local police
departments as well as with other federal and state law enforcement
agencies. Liaison with these agencies was good and support of VGTF
activities by them was high.”

13 The review/ audit was conducted by a three- person INS team- a senior
special agent from the Eastern Regional Office (Burlington), a supervisory
special agent from the Philadelphia District Office, and a program analyst
from INS headquarters. To What Extent Have

Accountability Controls, Monitoring Measures, or Internal Reviews Documented
That INS' Participation Conforms With Applicable Policies and Roles?

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 37 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

“It appears that Department of Justice/ Headquarters policies
regarding VGTF initiatives are generally being followed. The VGTF is
primarily concentrating its efforts on the identification of gangs, their
leadership, membership and structure, and attempting to prosecute and/ or
deport gang leaders, members and associates.”

The report also had a considerable amount of discussion regarding certain
types of VGTF activities or operations- particularly jail checks and street
sweeps. This discussion acknowledged that members of the VGTF were divided
on the issue of whether or not jail checks and street sweeps were authorized
by or fell within the guidelines applicable to the VGTF program.

In March 1994, to clarify applicable policies, INS headquarters (Office of
Inspections) communicated the following guidance to the District Director,
Los Angeles:

“VGTF agents should not perform jail checks. This is an Alien Criminal
Apprehension Program (ACAP) function. In a future policy guidance
memorandum, jail checks will be specifically excluded from permissible VGTF
activities as were area control operations, sweeps and random arrests of
known or suspected gang members in our policy guidance memorandum #3 of
September 23, 1992. We also believe that the practice of approaching
individuals on the street with photographs of wanted gang members to
ascertain their whereabouts is an inherently unsound and unsafe
investigative technique and should be terminated immediately.”
(Underscoring in original.)

OCDETF. Regarding INS participation in the OCDETF program, our review found
that the Los Angeles District Office's use of OCDETF funds- involving the
use of special agents and certain expenditures of nonpayroll amounts- did
not strictly follow applicable guidance established by the Executive Office
for OCDETF. Our findings are discussed in the following section.

According to the OCDETF Program Guidelines, all funds appropriated to the
program are to be spent in their entirety on OCDETF investigations and
prosecutions.

The OCDETF Group in INS' Los Angeles District Office is staffed with seven
special agents, who are to work full time on OCDETF cases. However, during
much of 1997 and/ or 1998, all of these agents were reassigned to support
other INS investigative operations (i. e., operations of the district's
VGTF). Generally, the reassigned OCDETF agents were used to process aliens
arrested by VGTF agents.

The reassignments of the OCDETF agents can be quantified as follows: How
Were OCDETF Funds

Used and Spent by INS? INS Los Angeles District Office: OCDETF Agents Used
for Other Law Enforcement Purposes

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 38 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

ï¿½ Of the district's seven OCDETF agents, five were reassigned to support the
VGTF for about 16 months, and the other two agents were reassigned to
support the VGTF for about 7 months.

ï¿½ Mathematically, the OCDETF support for the VGTF during 1997 and 1998
converts to a total of 7.81 full- time equivalent (FTE) agents.

ï¿½ From the 7.81 FTE total, an allowable amount (0.75 FTE) can be subtracted.
This amount, under the terms of INS' reimbursable agreement with the
Executive Office for OCDETF, constitutes the maximum FTE reimbursement
allowed for case development or the pre- OCDETF approval stage. That is, the
allowable use of three agents for a 90- day calendar period converts to 0.75
FTE. Subtraction of 0.75 from 7.81 leaves a subtotal of 7.06 FTE agents not
used in compliance with OCDETF guidance.

We calculated that the payroll costs of the 7.06 FTE agents totaled
$845,530, as table I. 6 shows.

Cost component June – December 1997

January – October 1998 Total

Annual payroll: GS- 13/ step 5 pay a $67,051 $68,593 LEAP b (25 percent)
16,763 17,148 Benefits c 33,526 34,296

Total annual pay $117,340 $120,037

Monthly pay d $9,778 $10,003

Total number of months of reassignments 21 e 64 f 85 g

Total payroll of reassigned agents $205,338 $640,192 $845,530

a Pay amounts reflect Office of Personnel Management salary tables for the
Los Angeles area. According to the Executive Office for OCDETF, the typical
pay level for an INS OCDETF special agent is GS- 13, step 5. b Law
Enforcement Locality Pay (LEAP) is 25 percent of base pay.

c The Department of Justice uses a standard estimate of 40 percent to
calculate the costs of benefits, such as the employer's contributions for
the retirement system, health program insurance premiums, etc. d Monthly pay
was calculated by dividing annual pay by 12.

e During 1997, five INS OCDETF agents were each reassigned for 6 months, or
a cumulative total of 30 months. However, from this total, we subtracted 9
months because, under the terms of the reimbursable agreement between INS
and the Executive Office for OCDETF, three FTE agents can be used for up to
3 months for case- development purposes.

Table I. 6: Payroll Costs of INS Los Angeles OCDETF Agents Reassigned to
Other Cases (June 1997 to Oct. 1998)

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 39 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

f During 1998, five INS OCDETF agents were reassigned for 10 months each,
and two other INS OCDETF agents were each reassigned for 7 months. These
reassignments cumulatively totaled 64 months. g The total of 85 months is
another way of quantifying the 7. 06 FTE special agents not used in

compliance with OCDETF guidance. Source: Developed by GAO based on INS,
Office of Personnel Management, and Executive Office for OCDETF data.

Regarding nonpayroll expenditures, INS' Los Angeles District Office did not
follow applicable guidance for the 2 fiscal years that we reviewed. As table
I. 7 shows, of the total nonpayroll OCDETF funds ($ 39,143) allocated to the
district office for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, $26,174 (67 percent) was
used for purchases not related to OCDETF investigations.

Expenditure category Reviewed and

found to be compliant with OCDETF guidelines

Reviewed and found to be noncompliant with OCDETF guidelines Not reviewed a
Total

Equipment and supplies $0 $19,305 $6,192 $25,497

Travel and training 666 3,860 0 4,526

Vehicle repairs 5,378 3,009 499 8,886

Other b 0 0 235 235 Total $6,044 $26,174 $6,925 $39,143 Percentages 15.4
66.9 17.7 100.0

Note: The dollar amounts in the expenditure categories represent obligated
amounts for fiscal year 1997 and/ or fiscal year 1998. These obligated
amounts are based on the INS Los Angeles District Office's R- 31 account,
which is to be used for OCDETF- related purchases. a We did not review
certain small- dollar- amount expenditures nor certain expenditures for
items that

were expendable or otherwise not readily traceable. b The "other" category
consisted mainly of reimbursable work performed by the General Services

Administration. Source: Developed by GAO based on INS data.

Table I. 7 further shows that, of the noncompliant expenditures, the
category of equipment and supplies accounted for the largest amount-
$19,305. This amount represented about 74 percent of the noncompliant total
($ 26,174). The noncompliant equipment and supplies expenditures ($ 19,305)
consisted of the following:

ï¿½ $10,000. In 1997, the district purchased a countersurveillance device and
subsequently loaned it to the U. S. Secret Service. This device was not used
by either INS or the Secret Service to support OCDETF cases. INS Los Angeles
District Office:

OCDETF Nonpayroll Expenditures for Other Law Enforcement Purposes

Table I. 7: INS Los Angeles District Office OCDETF Nonpayroll Expenditures,
Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 40 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

ï¿½ $7,180. The district purchased a variety of law enforcement equipment,
such as handcuffs, clothing, flashlights, binoculars, etc. These items were
purchased under VGTF request.

ï¿½ $2,125. The district purchased four digital cameras for use by the VGTF
program.

Further, regarding travel and training, table I. 7 shows $3,860 of
noncompliant expenditures. This amount consisted of lodging, food, and other
travel expenses for four non- OCDETF agents to attend training seminars.

Finally, regarding vehicle repairs, table I. 7 shows $3,009 of noncompliant
expenditures. This amount was spent to repair 10 vehicles not in use for
OCDETF purposes.

OCDETF and VGTF. As discussed previously, during much of 1997 and/ or 1998,
all of INS' OCDETF agents in Los Angeles were reassigned to process aliens
arrested by VGTF agents. Generally, other than this programmatic aspect-
based on our interviews with managers, supervisors, and special agents in
INS' Los Angeles District Office and on our review of cases files in the
district (see next question), we found no indications of substantive
differences from the standard processing procedures described above.

However, we noted that INS' records do not necessarily cover all types or
levels of encounter. According to Immigration Officer Academy training
materials, there are three principal levels of encounter:

ï¿½ Consensual encounter. A consensual encounter occurs when the individual is
free to walk away from, and decline to speak to, the INS agent. An agent- as
does any person in general- has the right to ask questions of anyone as long
as the agent does not restrain the freedom of the individual (not under
arrest) to walk away.

ï¿½ Investigative stop. Section 287( a)( 1) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act gives INS agents the authority to interrogate without warrant any alien
or person believed to be alien about his or her right to be or remain in the
United States. It is implied that in order to interrogate an unauthorized
alien, the INS agent would have to stop the alien. An investigative stop
occurs when a person is “seized” or “stopped.” That
is, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable
person would believe that he or she was not free to leave. To make an
investigative stop, What Were the Procedures

for Processing Documented or Undocumented Aliens Encountered or Arrested by
INS Task Force Agents?

Appendix I Responses to Specific Questions Asked by the Requester

Page 41 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

the INS agent must have reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts that
the person being questioned is (or is attempting to be) engaged in a
criminal or administrative offense within the agent's jurisdiction.
Articulable facts can be based on (1) suspicion generated through a
combination of impressions and (2) perceived facts that break the
characteristic pattern of conduct and appearance of the majority of
lawabiding individuals in a given area. There is no set time limit for the
length of an investigative stop. However, the stop should be limited in
duration and nature as necessary to confirm or dispel the reasonable
suspicion that led the agent to make the stop. The length of the stop will
generally be justified as long as the agent diligently pursued the
investigation.

ï¿½ Arrest. An arrest occurs when a reasonable person in the suspect's
situation would have believed that he or she was in custody (under arrest).
In deciding whether an intrusion by an officer is considered an arrest, the
courts have considered various factors, such as the degree and manner of
force used; if the suspect was moved, where to, and why; how long the
suspect was detained; whether the suspect was searched; whether Miranda or
administrative rights were read; and whether the suspect was booked or
fingerprinted. Probable cause is needed to arrest a suspect in a criminal or
administrative situation. Arrests can be made without warrant if consent or
exigent circumstances exist.

The case files we reviewed in INS' Los Angeles District Office involved
arrests or detentions.

According to the INS Los Angeles District Office's computerized spreadsheet
list for the 18 th Street Gang project, a total of 153 aliens were arrested
or detained during the period July 1997 through December 1998. Of this
total, we reviewed 124 case files. The results of our review, including the
final dispositions of arrested aliens, are presented in appendix II (see
table II. 4). How Many Documented or

Undocumented Aliens Were Arrested by INS, and What Were Their Final
Dispositions?

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 42 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

This appendix presents the results of our analysis of incidents, from July
1997 through December 1998, in which aliens were arrested by INS Los Angeles
special agents assigned to the 18 th Street Gang project. According to
agency data for this period, INS special agents were involved in arresting
or detaining 153 individuals in connection with the 18 th Street Gang
project. 1 Of this total, we reviewed 124 files- those that were still
available in the district office and others that were located elsewhere and
returned to the district as of September 22, 2000. 2 In reviewing the 124
case files and other VGTF and OCDETF documentation:

ï¿½ We obtained and analyzed information about the antigang project's
operations and results, such as INS' use of arrest warrants, LAPD's
involvement in arrests, and the final dispositions of aliens, including
removals from the United States.

ï¿½ We also made some observations regarding internal controls, such as noting
whether INS' files (1) contained complete documentation of arrest and
detention incidents and (2) had been reviewed by supervisors.

ï¿½ Further, we identified and summarized five anomalous cases-( 1) two cases
wherein INS detained aliens (for about 8 days) without providing them
notification of charges, although it should be noted that both aliens had
one or more prior felony convictions, a previous deportation, and were back
in the United States illegally and (2) three cases wherein INS
inappropriately granted benefits to two criminal aliens and one illegal
alien.

The respective results are presented in the following sections. We found no
documentation in the files specifically indicating that INS agents had
either observed or engaged in misconduct during the 18 th Street Gang
project. The final section in this appendix discusses qualifications or
limitations of INS' case- file data. The principal limitation noted is that
key

1 The 153 individuals are those arrested or detained by INS special agents
during field operations as well as individuals who were referred to INS by
other law enforcement agencies. 2 Regarding the other 29 files, INS provided
us files for 6 individuals, but there was no documentation in the files
regarding the arrest or detention incident that occurred during our study
period, July 1997 through December 1998. For the other 23 aliens arrested or
detained during this period, INS was unable to provide us files by September
22, 2000. Appendix III gives more details about the 23 files we were not
able to review as well as the scope and methodology of our work in reviewing
the 124 files. We do not know whether the characteristics of the arrest
incidents for the 23 aliens whose files we were unable to review are similar
to the characteristics of the arrest incidents of the 124 aliens whose files
we did review.

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 43 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

case- file documentation- such as INS Form I- 213 (Record of Deportable/
Inadmissible Alien), which is the standard booking sheet for INS
enforcement- was prepared by INS OCDETF agents who were involved only in
processing the apprehended aliens and generally had no direct or first- hand
knowledge regarding the field circumstances of arrests or detentions.

When INS comes into contact with an alien- either through investigation or
through the alien's application for service- the agency is to assign an
alien identification number to the individual and then open an alien file
(often called an “A- file”) for him or her. This file is to
contain all original INS documents and evidence related to processing the
alien. The alien's file constitutes the official record for all INS actions
regarding an alien. For instance, removals from the United States and other
agency actions are not considered official unless documented in the alien's
file.

In analyzing the INS' case files for 124 individuals 3 arrested or detained
during the 18 th Street Gang project in Los Angeles, we obtained and
analyzed information regarding

ï¿½ INS arrest warrants and notices to appear (NTA); 4

ï¿½ LAPD's involvement in arrests and detentions; 5

ï¿½ the immigration status of aliens at the time of their arrest (i. e.,
whether the aliens were in the United States legally or illegally), the
aliens' gang affiliation, and their criminal histories; and

ï¿½ the final disposition of the aliens arrested or detained by INS. 3 Five of
the 124 individuals whose files we reviewed were each involved in 2 arrest
or detention incidents during our study period. As applicable, these dual
incidents are noted in the tabular results of our analyses.

4 An INS warrant for arrest is an administrative warrant authorizing INS
agents and immigration officers to take an alien into custody for removal
proceedings for noncriminal violations. Arrest warrants for criminal
violations are issued by a judge or magistrate. In our summary of data,
“arrest warrant” refers to both INS administrative arrest
warrants and criminal arrest warrants. An NTA is a charging document that is
used to commence removal proceedings to determine the deportability or
inadmissibility of an alien. The document also contains information- such as
the statutory grounds for removal, and the date and time- about the alien's
removal hearing. The NTA may be issued with or without an INS administrative
warrant for arrest.

5 Our review was not designed to address issues regarding the legal
sufficiency of an arrest or detention, such as whether the agent or officer
had the requisite level of suspicion for making an arrest. Antigang
Project's

Operations and Results

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 44 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

As table II. 1 shows, for 62 of the 124 aliens whose files we analyzed, INS
issued the arrest warrant, NTA, or other significant document 6 after the
aliens had been arrested or detained. Generally, rather than direct
targeting based on prior intelligence, such arrests reflect “street
encounter” and/ or “bench detainee” situations. Street
encounter arrests can result from any number of circumstances, including
those in which subjects are found with a targeted gang member or are
questioned during the search for a targeted suspect. Bench detainees are
individuals who have been detained by another law enforcement agency, such
as LAPD, which has, in turn, contacted INS regarding the individual's
immigration status. 7 For both types of situations- street encounter
apprehensions and bench detainee transfers- INS is to give the alien legal
notice of the charges by preparing a warrant or NTA.

Table II. 1 also shows that, for 49 of the 124 aliens whose files we
analyzed, INS issued the arrest warrant or other document on a date earlier
than the date of the arrest or detention. These cases reflect direct
targeting based on prior intelligence. INS' investigative actions for
locating these suspects varied by incident. In some cases, VGTF agents had
to first determine whether the alien in question was actually in the United
States. The agents did this by collecting such information as driver's
license numbers or motor vehicle violations. This information was then used
to prepare a Form I- 213 in support of an INS Warrant for Arrest or NTA. In
other cases, when less information about a suspect was available, the agents
collected other documentation, such as the alien's criminal history record,
and then prepared a Form I- 213. In these instances, the agents generally
did not prepare an INS Warrant for Arrest or NTA until they had actually
located and detained the suspect.

6 Depending on the circumstances of the incident, we compared the date of
each alien's arrest or detention with the issuance date of one or more of a
variety of applicable documents- such as the INS Warrant for Arrest, NTA,
Notice of Intent/ Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, Warrant for Removal/
Deportation, criminal complaint, criminal warrant, and Form I- 213.

7 Other law enforcement agencies contacted INS for a variety of reasons. In
some cases, the individual's rap sheet noted that he or she had been
previously deported from the United States; in other instances, VGTF agents
had given other law enforcement agencies a list of targeted gang members.
Arrest Warrants, NTAs,

Other INS Documents

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 45 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

When was the warrant or other INS document issued? Number of aliens Percent

Warrant/ document was issued on a date before the arrest 49 40 Warrant/
document was issued on the same date as the arrest 10 8 Warrant/ document
was issued on a date after the arrest 62 50 Not applicable (no warrant/
document issued) 3 2

Total a 124 100

a For the individuals involved in a second arrest incident, the warrant,
NTA, or other INS document was issued on the date of the incident for two of
the individuals. For two other individuals, issuance was on a date after the
arrest, and for one other individual the issuance was before the arrest
date.

Source: Developed by GAO based on review of INS files.

For 36 of the 124 aliens whose files we analyzed, LAPD was involved in the
alien's arrest, as table II. 2 shows. Generally, according to the INS agents
we interviewed, the role of LAPD was to provide perimeter security or an
uniformed presence during INS VGTF operations. Also, as mentioned above, INS
at times interviewed “bench detainees” held by LAPD.

It is not an uncommon practice for INS to interview suspects detained by
other law enforcement agencies. For instance, if a county sheriff's office
or a city police department has arrested an individual and has concerns
about that person's immigration status, contacting INS is an appropriate law
enforcement procedure.

Was the LAPD involved in the custody incident? a Number of aliens Percent

No b 78 63 Yes 36 29 Could not determine 10 8

Total c 124 100

a Includes incidents where LAPD either referred the individual to VGTF or
participated jointly with VGTF in taking the alien into custody. b Some of
the arrests may have involved other local law enforcement agencies or the
California Parole

Office. c For the five individuals who each were arrested or detained twice,
LAPD was not involved in the

second incident for all five individuals. Source: Developed by GAO based on
review of INS files.

Table II. 1: Information About Dates of Warrants, NTAs, and Other INS
Documents for Aliens Arrested During INS VGTF Operations (July 1997 Through
Dec. 1998)

LAPD's Involvement in Arrests

Table II. 2: Information About LAPD's Involvement in Arrests of Aliens
During INS VGTF Operations (July 1997 Through Dec. 1998)

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 46 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Regarding the immigration status, gang affiliation, and criminal history of
aliens arrested, table II. 3 shows the following:

ï¿½ The large majority of aliens (106) were in the United States illegally
when arrested or detained.

ï¿½ In reference to gang affiliation, 64 of the aliens belonged to a gang, 21
had a prior association with a gang, and 8 claimed no association to a gang.
There was no mention of gang association in the records for 26 of the
aliens.

ï¿½ Also, a large majority of the aliens (103) had a criminal record at the
time of the incident. Eighty- five had at least one prior felony conviction,
and 49 had more than one prior felony conviction. Sixty- nine had at least
one prior misdemeanor conviction.

Aliens' immigration status and background Number of aliens Percent

Status at time of arrest/ detention: In the United States illegally 106 85
In the United States legally 18 14

Total a 124 99

Gang affiliation at time of arrest: Belonged to a gang b 64 52 Had a prior
association c 21 17 No gang association d 8 6 No mention of gang association
26 21 Unknown 5 4

Total 124 100

Criminal history at time of arrest: Had prior criminal record 103 83 No
prior criminal record 20 16 Unknown 1 1

Total 124 100

Had prior misdemeanor conviction 69 56 No prior misdemeanor conviction 53 43
Unknown 2 2

Total 124 101

Had prior felony conviction 85 68 No prior felony conviction 38 31 Unknown 1
1

Total 124 100

Aliens' Immigration Status, Gang Affiliation, and Criminal History

Table II. 3: Information About Immigration Status, Gang Affiliation, and
Criminal History of Aliens Arrested or Detained During INS VGTF Operations
(July 1997 Through Dec. 1988)

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 47 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Had more than one prior felony conviction 49 40

Note: Percentages do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. a For the
individuals involved in two arrest incidents, all five individuals were in
the United States

illegally at the time of the second incident. b The subjects admitted
belonging to a gang at the time of the arrest, or the file documentation
showed

a gang affiliation c The subjects acknowledged a prior association with a
gang but claimed they no longer belonged to a

gang. d The subjects denied belonging to a gang or the file documentation
did not mention gang affiliation.

Source: Developed by GAO based on review of INS files.

Regarding final dispositions, as table II. 4 shows, 73 of the aliens were
ordered removed- 38 by issuance of a warrant of removal/ deportation and 35
by reinstatement of a prior removal/ deportation order.

Final disposition Number of aliens Percent

Warrant of removal/ deportation 38 31 Reinstatement of prior removal/
deportation order 35 28 Convicted and sentenced to prison a 15 12 Voluntary
removal 7 6 Released (not charged) b 5 4 Board of Immigration Appeal 1 1
Other c 15 12 Unknown 8 6

Total d 124 100

a These aliens were convicted under 8 U. S. C. 1326 (reentry of removed
aliens) or other criminal statute and were still in prison at the time of
our review. b Of the five released aliens, three were legal permanent
residents, one was an asylum applicant, and

one was in the United States illegally and was subsequently released by INS
(details of this case are provided in this appendix, on p. 52). c These
cases involved a variety of situations. For example, one case was
administratively closed and

dismissed; one individual was determined to be a U. S. citizen after trial
proceedings, and the case was dismissed; one case was pending adjudication
at the time of our review; and another was pending asylum proceedings. d For
the five individuals involved in two arrest or detention incidents, four
aliens had a prior

removal/ deportation order reinstated as a result of the second incident,
and one alien had a warrant of removal/ deportation implemented.

Source: Developed by GAO based on review of INS files.

In analyzing the 124 files and making observations regarding internal
controls, we noted that a number of INS' files (1) did not contain complete
documentation of arrest and detention incidents and/ or (2) had not been
reviewed by supervisors. Final Dispositions

Table II. 4: Information About Final Disposition of Aliens Arrested or
Detained During INS VGTF Operations (July 1997 Through Dec. 1998)

Internal Controls

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 48 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

INS' Special Agent's Handbook requires that an INS Form I- 213 (Record of
Deportable/ Inadmissible Alien) be completed as soon as possible after an
alien is apprehended or located and that the original record be placed in
the file. Also, according to a 1970 memorandum from the INS Western Region-
the most recent guidance available- an Arrest Card (WR- 424) should be
attached to the original Record of Deportable/ Inadmissible Alien form. The
memorandum noted that because the Arrest Card documents “the material
admissions made prior to arrest” it is especially important that the
arresting agent complete and file an Arrest Card when another agent is
responsible for interviewing and processing the alien. The memorandum also
noted that attaching the Arrest Card to the Form I- 213 would make the
Arrest Card available to the trial attorney in cases involving a contested
deportation. INS' Deputy Assistant Regional Director for Investigations at
the Western Region confirmed that the 1970 memorandum, although dated, was
still in effect. He also reiterated the importance of the Arrest Card in
documenting the circumstances surrounding a field arrest, particularly when
different agents are responsible for arresting and processing the alien. For
the time period we reviewed, INS VGTF agents were almost exclusively
responsible for targeting and apprehending suspects, while INS OCDETF agents
were responsible for interviewing and processing arrested aliens.

Further, according to INS' training guidance for new agents 8 and the Los
Angeles District's Standard Operating Procedures, other applicable
documents- such as the Warrant for Arrest or NTA and the Warrant of Removal-
must be stored in the alien file as a “permanent, retrievable
record” of the alien's immigration history.

Collectively, 57 of the 124 alien files we analyzed did not have one or more
required documents. 9 More specifically,

ï¿½ Forty- six of the 124 alien files reviewed did not have an Arrest Card. 10
8 INS Participant Workbook for Special Agents, Immigration Officer Academy,
February 1999. 9 As mentioned previously, for six other aliens, we were
unable to review the case files for internal control purposes because these
files did not contain documentation regarding the arrest or detention
incident in question.

10 The Arrest Card records such information as the alien's name; place and
date of birth; immigration status; the place, date, and time the alien was
questioned by INS; the time and place the alien was arrested; and the names
of the apprehending agents. The Form I- 213, INS' standard booking sheet,
provides additional biographical data about the alien and the specific
information required to establish his or her immigration status and the
ground for removal, such as citizenship, nonimmigrant alien status, the
violation of immigration status, and any prior criminal violations. It also
includes a narrative portion that allows for documentation of evidentiary
information concerning the alien. Incomplete Documentation

in Files

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 49 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

ï¿½ Sixteen of the 124 files analyzed did not have a Form I- 213. For 11 other
files we reviewed, a Form I- 213 was in the file but had not been signed by
the preparer.

ï¿½ Nine of the 51 files, which should have contained a NTA, did not contain a
NTA.

ï¿½ Thirteen of the 55 files, which should have contained a Notice of Intent/
Decision to Reinstate Prior Order, 11 did not contain this document. 12

ï¿½ Eight of the 124 files analyzed did not contain a record of the final
disposition of the individual.

ï¿½ Eight of the 25 files that should have contained a detainer did not
contain one.

Moreover, in two instances, a Warrant of Removal/ Deportation was in the
files but was not signed by the officer who witnessed the removal. 13

During our analysis, we also noted that even when key documents- such as
forms I- 213 and Arrest Cards- were in the alien files, the documents
frequently lacked complete information. For example, while we did not
specifically quantify these omissions, our observations were that:

ï¿½ In many instances, the forms I- 213 lacked complete data on the
circumstances of the arrests, such as the names of the arresting agents and
the date, time, and location of the arrests. When aliens were referred to
INS by another law enforcement agency, the forms I- 213 often failed to note
the circumstances of the referrals or even the fact that the

11 In cases in which an alien has been previously removed from the United
States, INS can take action to reinstate the prior removal/ deportation
order. A Notice of Intent/ Decision to Reinstate Prior Order notifies the
alien of this action.

12 In the case of one alien who was arrested twice during the time period we
reviewed, the Notice of Intent/ Decision to Reinstate Prior Order for the
second arrest and removal incident was in the file but was not signed by an
authorizing official. According to an INS agent who oversees processing at
the Los Angeles District Office, if the Notice of Intent/ Decision to
Reinstate Prior Order has not been signed by an authorizing official, it is
not binding.

13 At the time of the alien's physical removal, the officer effecting the
removal is to complete the reverse side of the Warrant of Removal/
Deportation. The officer is to note the name of the alien and the place,
date, and manner of removal. Once completed, the back of the warrant serves
as evidence of the alien's identity and prior removal if the alien illegally
reenters the United States. This evidence may be used to administratively
reinstate the removal/ deportation order or to prosecute the alien under 8
U. S. C 1326 (reentry of removed aliens). If the back of the warrant has not
been signed, there is no official evidence of the alien's removal.

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 50 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

apprehensions were referrals. When the files did mention referrals, such
annotations were sometimes noted on the back of Arrest Cards, but just as
often were noted on miscellaneous, hand- written documents within the files.

ï¿½ Many of the forms I- 213 also failed to document whether or not the aliens
were gang members, despite notations (such as references to gang- related
tattoos) on the Arrest Cards or other documents indicating that the aliens
belonged to a gang. Further, in those instances where gang membership was
noted, we saw no comments on the forms I- 213 that addressed the
individual's activities within the gang or provided intelligence information
about other gang members or the gang's activities. 14

ï¿½ In some instances, the Arrest Cards did not show the date, time, or
location of the arrests. Further, in many of the instances in which aliens
were referred to INS by another law enforcement agency, that information was
not documented on the Arrest Cards.

In INS' Los Angeles District, according to the Deputy Assistant District
Director for Investigations, the policy is that supervisory agents are to
review all documentation associated with the arrest and processing of an
alien for removal. Such review of the alien file is to be indicated by the
supervisor's signature on the Record of Deportable/ Inadmissible Alien form.

In 31 of the 124 alien files we analyzed, the Form I- 213 did not have a
supervisor's signature. Also, in many instances, we noticed (but did not
specifically quantify) that the Form I- 213 was completed and signed by the
preparing agent and his or her supervisor in advance of the alien's arrest.
This usually occurred when the Form I- 213 was used to provide support for
an administrative Warrant for Arrest or NTA. After the arrest, the Form I-
213 was usually amended, according to district procedure, to document the
circumstances surrounding the apprehension. However, on the amended forms we
reviewed, we saw no indications that a supervisor had reviewed the
amendments or reviewed the alien's file after the alien was processed and
deported.

During the course of our file analysis, we identified (1) two arrest or
detention cases in which INS detained aliens without timely notification of

14 The Form I- 213, according to the INS Participant Workbook for Special
Agents, should record the circumstances of the arrest, including referrals,
and provide “a detailed account of any additional information that is
of intelligence value.” This guidance also notes that the Form I- 213
may document intelligence information provided by the subject that relates
to other aliens in the United States. Supervisory Review of Files

Anomalous Cases

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 51 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

charges and (2) three other cases wherein INS granted benefits to aliens who
should have been disqualified due to previous convictions or removals from
the United States.

In two cases we analyzed, aliens were detained- for longer than the 48 hours
provided for in applicable provisions 15 -without being notified of the
charges against them. It should be mentioned, however, that both of the
aliens had at least one prior felony conviction, a prior deportation, and
were back in the United States illegally. Regarding dispositions, INS again
removed one of the individuals but released the other alien to the streets.

Case 1: The alien was detained for 8 days in INS custody before being
notified of the charges against him. The Form I- 213 and/ or the Arrest Card
indicated that the alien was picked up by LAPD as a narcotics suspect on or
about April 26, 1998, and that LAPD referred the alien to INS VGTF.
Accordingly, on or about the same date, an INS VGTF agent interviewed the
alien at the LAPD station and transferred the alien to an INS detention
facility. On or about May 4, 1998, an INS detention officer alerted INS
OCDETF agents that the alien had not been processed. On or about that same
date, the alien's case file was obtained and reviewed by an INS OCDETF
agent, who found no executed warrant of deportation in the file and found no
indication of a prior deportation record in INS' Deportable Alien Control
System (DACS). 16 However, the OCDETF agent found some evidence of a prior
deportation to Mexico in July 1997. An immigration judge had ordered the
1997 deportation as a result of an immigration court hearing. Regarding the
current incident, upon being questioned by the OCDETF agent, the alien
admitted that he had returned to the United States shortly after his 1997
deportation. Also, the alien (who had gangrelated tattoos on his face and
stomach) acknowledged membership in the 18 th Street Gang and that he had a
prior felony conviction for possession of cocaine base. Because the OCDETF
agent could not find verification of the alien's prior deportation in the
alien file or in DACS, an immigration hearing was held to determine status.
As a result of the hearing, the alien was removed from the United States on
May 6, 1998.

15 According to INS' Office of General Counsel, several provisions act in
concert to provide that suspects who are arrested without a warrant are not
to be detained more than 48 hours without being notified of the charges
against them. First, 8 C. F. R. 287. 3 (d) provides that the determination
whether or not to issue a NTA and warrant of arrest will be made within 24
hours of the arrest. Second, INS' Interim Enforcement Procedures (June 5,
1997) state the NTA and warrant of arrest must then “be served on the
alien within 24 hours of issuance in any instance where the Service [INS]
proposes to set bond or retain the alien in custody.”

16 INS district officers use DACS to find a variety of information about an
alien and his or her immigration history. DACS includes biographic details,
employment information, case histories, detention records, information on
immigration- related hearings, and departure records. Two Arrest Cases in
Which

Aliens Were Detained Without Timely Notification of Charges

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 52 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces Case 2: In
this case, the alien was also detained for 8 days without

receiving notification of the charges against him. According to an INS
OCDETF agent's memorandum found in the alien's file, the lengthy detention
without notification of charges resulted from a lack of coordination and
communication between VGTF and OCDETF agents about who was actually
processing the alien. When interviewed by an INS OCDETF agent 8 days after
being arrested, the alien claimed that he was never shown a warrant by the
arresting INS agents and had not spoken to anyone about his arrest until
this interview. The INS OCDETF agent who interviewed the alien could not
find a Warrant for Arrest or NTA in the alien's file. Although the alien was
in the United States illegally and was a deportable criminal alien, 17 the
INS OCDETF supervisor assigned to the 18th Street Gang project ordered the
alien released from custody. When we asked the Los Angeles Deputy Assistant
District Director for Investigations about this case, he acknowledged that
although INS had clearly acted inappropriately in detaining the alien
without a warrant, the OCDETF supervisor should not have released a
deportable criminal alien from INS custody.

In analyzing the files, we noted three cases wherein INS inappropriately
granted benefits to one alien and two criminal aliens. These cases involved
situations wherein each alien had two INS files- one file created to process
the alien's request for permanent resident status or other benefit or
service and another file created as a result of an investigative or
enforcement action. One major contributing factor to situations wherein
multiple alien files were created is INS' large backlog of forms I- 485
(Application to Register Permanent Residence or to Adjust Status). According
to a Los Angeles District adjudication official, the large backlog in Form
I- 485 applications has extended the waiting period for INS review of the
applications to about 2 years.

Case 1: In this case, the alien was arrested on a criminal complaint and
charged with violating 8 U. S. C. 1326, reentry into the United States after
removal. The alien had been deported three times prior to this incident and
had two felony convictions. 18 When VGTF agents apprehended him, the alien
produced a valid Employee Authorization Document (EAD) and told agents he
had an application pending for legal permanent resident status. Upon
investigation, VGTF agents found that the alien had been

17 The alien had one felony conviction for taking a vehicle without the
owner's consent and a second felony conviction for burglary. 18 One felony
conviction was for evading arrest by a peace officer and causing injury/
death, and the second conviction was for carrying a concealed weapon. Three
Cases Involving

Benefits Inappropriately Given to Aliens

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 53 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

granted the EAD under a separate alien file, which did not include copies of
his criminal history or prior deportations. On the day of his arrest, the
alien's EAD was revoked and his permanent resident application was denied.
The criminal charges against the alien were later dismissed by a magistrate
(for reasons not specified in the file), and the alien was removed from the
United States.

Case 2: In this case, the alien was prosecuted and convicted on the criminal
charge of reentering the United States following deportation. The alien had
three prior deportations and one felony conviction for robbery. When
arrested, the alien produced a valid EAD. Upon investigation, VGTF agents
learned that the alien had been granted the EAD under a separate alien file,
which contained his application for legal permanent resident status. The
alien admitted to his three prior deportations and felony conviction in his
Form I- 485 application. The day after the arrest, a VGTF agent took action
to have the alien's EAD revoked and the Form I- 485 application denied. The
alien was convicted of reentering the United States after deportation, and
was sentenced to 10 months in prison and 3 years supervised probation.

Case 3: In this case, INS VGTF agents arrested the alien in 1998; he had one
prior deportation in January 1993. During the interview with an INS OCDETF
agent, the alien disclosed that he was a legal permanent resident. Upon
investigation, the OCDETF agent learned that the alien had received legal
permanent resident status (July 1993) under a separate alien file 6 months
after his January 1993 deportation. (According to documentation in the file,
at the time of the 1993 arrest, the alien denied having a pending
application for benefits.) After discovering the alien's legal permanent
resident status, the INS OCDETF agent released the alien from custody.

At the time the alien's Form I- 485 application was approved in 1993, the
alien had one prior misdemeanor conviction but no felony convictions. We
asked an official with the INS' National Records Center to review the alien
file; he did not find a Form I- 485 application. Nor did the file contain
any indication that a background check for prior deportation and criminal
convictions had been completed. However, an approved visa application was
found in the file. According to INS records, the alien's name and birth date
were the same in both alien files. According to INS officials at the
California Service Center, in this case INS should have received a formal
waiver for the 1993 deportation before approving the alien's Form I- 485
application. The officials said that, without a formal waiver, the
application should have been denied.

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 54 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

According to enforcement and adjudication officials in INS' California
Service Center and the Los Angeles District Office, 19 INS must accept and
review all Form I- 485 applications, regardless of the applicant's status.
To file a Form I- 485, the alien must be eligible for an immigrant visa
number, which can be obtained either as an immediate relative of a U. S.
citizen or through the immigrant petition process. To obtain employment
authorization, the alien may simultaneously complete a Form I- 765
(Application for Employment Authorization). After approving the Form I765
application, INS issues an EAD allowing the alien to legally obtain
employment in the United States (for 1 year) while the Form I- 485 is
pending review.

However, according to these officials, criminal background checks on Form I-
485 applicants are not done until about a week before the required applicant
interview date, the last step in the review process. Due to large backlogs
of Form I- 485 applications, alien interviews often cannot be scheduled
until 2 years after the applications are filed with INS. Further, INS policy
does not require a prescreening of applicants for prior deportations and
criminal convictions, even when the applicant admits on his or her
application to either of these factors.

According to the Assistant Deputy to the Executive Associate Commissioner
for Field Operations, Immigration Services Division:

ï¿½ In the past, INS has considered implementing a policy to require
prescreening for prior deportations and criminal convictions before
processing a Form I- 485 application. However, INS determined that the costs
of such a policy would outweigh the benefits. 20

ï¿½ Although INS does not require prescreening, the agency's standard
procedures call for checking databases for a preexisting alien file when a
Form I- 485 is received. This checking procedure is designed to prevent
situations wherein multiple alien files are created.

In conclusion, this official commented that cases such as the three we
identified are rare.

19 INS Service Centers are responsible for screening immigrants who apply
for work- related benefits, while district offices screen immigrants who
apply for family- related benefits. 20 One reason prescreening is not done
is that INS has limited access to criminal databases. Federal and state
agencies that operate the databases have asked INS to limit its usage to
only those cases that clearly show an indication of criminal wrongdoing.
Summary Observations on Cases

Involving Benefits to Criminal Aliens

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 55 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

However, enforcement and adjudication officials at INS' California Service
Center and Los Angeles District Office said that they see many cases in
which INS has prepared more than one file on an alien- for example, one file
containing the Form I- 485 and another file containing his or her criminal
history. These officials acknowledged that INS procedures require Form I-
485 applicants to be screened through INS databases. However, they also
noted that such checks are performed only against the name used on the Form
I- 485. At this stage of the process, INS does not run “sounds-
like” checks that would identify possible spelling variations in the
alien's name. The officials said they see many cases in which an alien has
submitted a Form I- 485 using a slightly different name. Such submissions,
in effect, allow aliens who do not qualify for permanent resident status up
to 2 years in which to use the benefits afforded by forms I- 485 and I- 765
before INS runs a criminal background check to determine if the applications
for residency should be denied.

However, a Los Angeles District adjudication official said that, as of July
2000, the Los Angeles District had begun to run “sounds- like”
checks on Form I- 485 applicants. This official noted that, although INS
policy has always required such checks, the district had begun to routinely
perform these checks only since August 2000. According to this official,
“soundslike” checks allow INS to identify preexisting alien
files and help to avoid situations such as the three cases discussed above.

To address a perceived need for prescreening, INS' California Service Center
started a pilot project in 1996 to review- soon after the Form I- 485 has
been received- each applicant's history for prior deportations and criminal
convictions. The California Service Center has a special arrangement with
the U. S. Customs Service to use its databases to screen Form I- 485
applicants. INS plans to expand this pilot project to all four of its
Service Centers as soon as it can work out an expanded agreement with the
Customs Service. 21

Generally, regarding investigative efforts that result in apprehensions, the
INS agents who make the arrests or detentions also are to complete the
necessary paperwork for processing the aliens. That is, the field agents are
to prepare the INS Form I- 213 (Record of Deportable/ Inadmissible

21 On October 2, 2000, INS suspended its pilot project while it renegotiated
its Memorandum of Understanding with the Customs Service to allow all four
of INS' Service Centers to use Customs' databases. As of the date of this
report, INS and Customs had not yet finalized the revised agreement.
Qualifications or

Limitations of INS' Case- File Data

Appendix II Analysis of Files on Aliens Arrested by INS Los Angeles Special
Agents From July 1997 Through December 1998

Page 56 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Alien)- which is the standard booking sheet for INS enforcement- and other
required or needed documentation. However, in reference to operations of
INS' 18 th Street Gang project in Los Angeles, there was a bifurcation or
sharing of responsibilities between VGTF and OCDETF agents during July 1997
through October 1998. During this period, INS OCDETF agents were responsible
for processing suspects arrested or detained by INS VGTF agents.

Two potential qualifications or limitations of INS' case- file data for the
18 th Street Gang project are as follows:

ï¿½ In preparing forms I- 213 and other processing paperwork, the INS OCDETF
agents generally had no direct or first- hand knowledge regarding the field
circumstances of arrests or detentions. During most of this period, there
was no direct communication between the VGTF and the OCDETF agents. Rather,
the usual procedures were for VGTF agents to provide the OCDETF agents a
daily list of suspects apprehended, and the OCDETF agents then were to
complete the processing paperwork by using whatever notes accompanied the
list of suspects and by accessing computerized databases, such as criminal
history records and INS' Central Index System.

ï¿½ Also, most of the INS OCDETF agents complained about being assigned to
conduct processing paperwork for the 18 th Street Gang project. Generally,
as senior investigators, the agents felt that this type of work did not take
full advantage of their capabilities and experience. Thus, this attitude may
or may not have affected how thoroughly the agents prepared file
documentation.

Concerns about file documentation, particularly incomplete forms I- 213,
were raised by the administrative investigation conducted by INS' Office of
Internal Audit. In many instances, according to the Director, Office of
Internal Audit, (1) the forms I- 213 did not show a reason for the LAPD
stopping and subsequently detaining an individual and did not identify the
officer who made the stop and (2) the processing INS agent did not know
anything about the aliens who were being processed, except that they had
been detained by LAPD. The Director concluded that, while no instances of
misconduct by INS special agents had been identified, incomplete
documentation renders INS less able to defend allegations that the agency
simply acted to remove those individuals brought to it by LAPD.

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 57 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

At the request of Representative Lucille Roybal- Allard, our objectives were
to review various issues regarding INS participation in law enforcement task
forces. During our discussions with the requester's office, a primary
concern expressed was whether INS investigative personnel (special agents)
in Los Angeles either observed or engaged in any misconduct, particularly
during task force operations involving participation by the LAPD's Rampart
Division in 1997 and 1998. The requester's staff noted that the media have
extensively covered the ongoing Rampart scandal investigation, which has
focused on allegations that antigang officers in LAPD's Rampart Division
physically abused and/ or framed suspects and lied in court- misconduct that
has led to the subsequent reversal of dozens of convictions. Also, some
media reports have intimated that LAPD circumvented city policy by colluding
with INS to deport Latino immigrants.

As presented in detail below, in addition to her primary concern, the
requester asked us to address two sets of questions- one set about INS'
overall or generally applicable policies and roles regarding task force
participation and another set about INS' participation in the operations of
task forces in Los Angeles, CA.

As agreed with the requester's office, based on the results of our initial
inquiries regarding joint or cooperative law enforcement efforts, we focused
on

ï¿½ the OCDETF program, a national program with members from various Justice
components (including the FBI and INS) and various Treasury components
(including ATF and the Customs Service); and

ï¿½ the VGTF, an INS- only national program that began with implementation in
1992.

Regarding these two task forces, as further agreed with the requester's
office, we focused on operations that (1) were conducted during July 1997
through October 1998, 1 a period when INS OCDETF agents in Los Angeles were
assigned to work on the VGTF and (2) targeted members or associates of the
18 th Street Gang, one of the predominant street gangs in Los Angeles.

1 As subsequently noted, however, our review of INS' alien case files
covered arrests or detentions made from July 1997 through December 1998.
Objectives

Overview of the Scope and Methodology of Our Work

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 58 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Due to sensitivities related to ongoing criminal investigations of LAPD, we
did not review LAPD records nor interview LAPD officers regarding the facts
and circumstances of their activities involving joint operations or other
interactions with INS.

We conducted our review from April to August 2000 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

As agreed with the requester, in addressing the primary concern regarding
possible misconduct, we did not undertake a traditional
“investigation” as would be done by a law enforcement agency.
For instance, our work did not involve taking any sworn statements or
depositions or undertaking other discovery- type activities associated with
the courts or judicial processes. However, for assistance in designing audit
inquiries and questions, the team consulted with a GAO law enforcement
agent. The agent advised us to focus on determining the extent that the
traditional and well- established channels had received complaints and
initiated investigations involving allegations of misconduct, if any, by INS
special agents (i. e., determine any actions undertaken by the U. S.
Attorney, Justice's Office of the Inspector General, the FBI, and INS'
Office of Internal Audit).

Accordingly, to address the requester's primary concern regarding possible
misconduct, we reviewed background information about allegations involving
the LAPD; contacted the U. S. Attorney (Central District of California), the
FBI's field office in Los Angeles, and the INS Los Angeles District's Office
of General Counsel; interviewed INS managers, supervisors, and special
agents in Los Angeles; reviewed INS alien case files in Los Angeles;
contacted INS' Office of Internal Audit in Washington, D. C.; and met with
representatives of three immigrant rights groups in Los Angeles.

The background information we reviewed included the LAPD Board of Inquiry's
report, “Rampart Area Corruption Incident” (Mar. 1, 2000), as
well as numerous published newspaper articles.

We met with the U. S. Attorney (Central District of California) and
officials of the FBI's field office in Los Angeles to discuss the Rampart
incident and actual or potential implications, if any, involving federal
agents, particularly INS agents who participated in OCDETF or VGTF
operations in Los Angeles. For instance, we inquired about whether the U. S.
Attorney or the FBI had any ongoing criminal and/ or civil rights
investigations involving INS Los Angeles District Office special agents as
possible Primary Concern Regarding

Possible Misconduct Reviewed Background Information

Contacted the U. S. Attorney, the FBI Field Office, the INS Los Angeles
District's Office of General Counsel, and Others

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 59 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

suspects. Also, we contacted other relevant Justice components- the Office
of the Inspector General, the Criminal Division, the Civil Rights Division,
and the Office of Professional Responsibility- as well as the Los Angeles
County District Attorney's Office.

Further, we contacted the INS Los Angeles District's Office of General
Counsel to determine whether any private lawsuits had been filed against INS
and/ or its agents who participated in OCDETF or VGTF operations in Los
Angeles. In identifying such litigation, we did not comment on the merits of
any open or ongoing lawsuits.

At INS' Los Angeles District Office, we interviewed managers, supervisors,
and special agents who had responsibilities for or who participated in
OCDETF or VGTF operations.

In 1997, INS' Los Angeles District Office created and has since periodically
updated a computerized spreadsheet to record information about aliens who
were targeted and/ or arrested during antigang operations. As applicable,
recorded information for the 18 th Street Gang project was to include the
alien's file number, family and given names, type of warrant, arrest date,
and case disposition (e. g., conviction or deportation). To select case
files for our review, we worked with district office staff to identify
aliens arrested or detained from July 1997 through December 1998. Such
identification was not a simple matter, given that the computerized
spreadsheet had incomplete information that required research and
resolution. In some cases, for example, no file numbers or no dates were
shown on the spreadsheet, whereas, other cases sometimes involved aliases or
duplicate names and file numbers for the same individual.

Nonetheless, by working with INS staff responsible for maintaining the
computerized spreadsheet, we determined that a total of 153 aliens were
arrested or detained during the 18 th Street Gang project from July 1997
through December 1998. This number consisted of individuals who were
arrested or detained by INS special agents during field operations as well
as individuals who were referred to INS by other law enforcement agencies.
The number does not include 29 aliens who had already been sentenced and
incarcerated and then- upon completion of their prison or jail sentences
during our study period- were released to INS for deportation or removal
from the United States. We confined our review to INS arrests that took
place in the “field” or were based on referrals from other law
enforcement agencies. We anticipated that such arrests or referrals may have
presented a greater likelihood of misconduct, if any, than situations
involving post- incarceration deportations or removals. Interviewed INS
Managers,

Supervisors, and Special Agents in Los Angeles

Reviewed INS Alien Case Files in Los Angeles

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 60 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

To provide a basis for systematically analyzing INS' case files, we
developed a data collection instrument, which we used to review files for
124 (81 percent) of the 153 aliens 2 -those files that were still available
in the district office and others that were located elsewhere and returned
to the district as of September 22, 2000. For each of the 124 files that INS
located and provided to us, we used the data collection instrument to record
and analyze specific information, such as the name of the arresting INS
agent (or, if applicable, the name of the law enforcement agency that made
the referral to INS), the criminal history of the alien, the current offense
or reason for being targeted or arrested, and the final disposition of the
case. Our review was not designed to address issues regarding the legal
sufficiency of the arrests or detentions, such as whether the INS agents or
other applicable law enforcement officers had the requisite level of
suspicion for making an arrest.

As of September 22, 2000, INS was unable to provide us files for 23 of the
153 aliens arrested or detained from July 1997 through December 1998. Of
these 23 files, 3 involved aliens who were the subjects of
immigrationrelated litigation ongoing in other INS districts. Thus, we did
not request that these three files be returned to Los Angeles. INS was
unable to locate files for the other 20 aliens, even though the Los Angeles
District Office's computerized spreadsheet showed (1) a name and a file
number (an A- file number) for 8 of the cases and (2) a name (but no A- file
number) for 12 cases. We do not know whether the characteristics of the
arrest incidents for the 23 aliens whose files we were unable to review are
or are not similar to the characteristics of the arrest incidents for the
124 aliens whose files we did review.

According to INS management officials, difficulties in locating an alien's
file are not isolated to just the Los Angeles District Office. The officials
explained that:

ï¿½ INS uses a two- tier electronic system to track the location of its alien
files. At a national level, the location of files is tracked in INS' Central
Index System. At the local office level, the location of files is tracked in
the Receipt and Alien Files Accountability and Control System. The
reliability of file location information is completely dependent on the
regular use of these systems by local office personnel who relocate files.
In those

2 Of the 153 aliens, in addition to the 124 files we reviewed, INS provided
us files for 6 other individuals. However, although these six individuals
were listed on the INS Los Angeles District Office's computerized
spreadsheet as having been arrested or detained during our study period
(July 1997 through December 1998), there was no documentation in the
respective files regarding the arrest or detention incidents.

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 61 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

instances where personnel relocate files and inadvertently neglect to record
this movement in the appropriate system, it is difficult for INS to locate
these files.

ï¿½ In November 1999, INS created the National Records Center to consolidate
files at a central location and to resolve file accountability and data
integrity issues. Since the Center's inception, INS has relocated over 7
million files. Of these, the Center identified and corrected over 18,000
files. That is, while these 18, 000 files existed physically, no associated
electronic records existed in the Central Index System.

We interviewed the Director of INS' Office of Internal Audit (OIA). At the
time of our review, OIA had an ongoing administrative investigation to
determine whether INS agents in Los Angeles had observed or engaged in any
improper conduct during OCDETF or VGTF operations. OIA's investigation was
being conducted by a three- person team of special agents. We interviewed
the senior special agent who was leading the administrative investigation.
Further, from July 25 through 27, 2000, we reviewed the results to date of
the investigation. For example:

ï¿½ We read the typed transcripts of the audio- recorded, sworn interviews
that the OIA team had conducted of 39 INS personnel in the Los Angeles
District Office. Generally, these personnel were INS managers, supervisors,
or special agents who were responsible for and/ or who participated in the
OCDETF program or the VGTF program in Los Angeles, particularly operations
involving the 18 th Street Gang. 3 During the interviews, the OIA team asked
various types of questions regarding INS' role and relationships with LAPD.

ï¿½ Also, we read the “memorandum of investigation” summarizing
the casefile reviews conducted by the OIA team. Collectively, the three-
person OIA team had reviewed and summarized a total of 129 case files. Also,
the team had reviewed (but did not summarize) “approximately”
(the team's word) 45 other case files.

We met with representatives of three immigrant- rights groups in Los
Angeles- the Central American Resource Center, the Coalition of Humane
Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund. In our discussions with these groups, we sought to

3 At the time of OIA's interviews, some of the 39 INS personnel had rotated
to other positions, and a few had retired. Contacted INS' Office of Internal

Audit Contacted Immigrant- Rights Groups

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 62 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

obtain the names of any individuals or other specific information regarding
any alleged misconduct situations involving INS agents.

The requester asked six questions about INS' overall or generally applicable
policies and roles regarding task force participation. The scope and
methodology of our work in addressing the respective questions are presented
in the following sections.

We interviewed responsible federal officials- Justice, Treasury, INS, FBI,
ATF, and Executive Office for OCDETF- at headquarters in Washington, D. C.
Similarly, we interviewed managers, supervisors, and/ or special agents
assigned to relevant federal field offices in Los Angeles.

The Executive Office for OCDETF is responsible for developing policies or
guidelines for the OCDETF program. We reviewed the current guidelines-
OCDETF Program Guidelines (Nov. 1997)- that apply to anyone working on an
OCDETF case.

Also, we reviewed congressional reports or other guidance involving the
OCDETF program and INS appropriations.

We contacted the Executive Office for OCDETF and INS headquarters to obtain
information- such as staffing levels and locations- regarding INS
participation in the OCDETF program. Also, we contacted INS headquarters to
obtain similar information regarding other relevant task forces,
particularly the VGTF.

Also, we reviewed a 1996 INS report on the agency's participation in task
forces. The report, which was requested by the Attorney General, was based
on (1) two written surveys sent to INS field offices in 1995 and (2) a
telephonic survey of all districts and sectors in 1996.

We interviewed Justice, Executive Office for OCDETF, and INS officials.
Also, we reviewed applicable sections of the OCDETF Program Guidelines (Nov.
1997). Further, we reviewed provisions of the reimbursable agreements (for
fiscal years 1997 through 1999) between INS and the Executive Office for
OCDETF. INS' Overall or Generally

Applicable Policies and Roles Regarding Task Force Participation

What Policies, Including Legislative Guidance or Congressional Mandates,
Apply to INS Participation in Law Enforcement Task Forces?

For the Major Metropolitan Areas in the United States, What Are the Various
Task Forces That Have INS Participation?

What Are the INS and Department of Justice Regulations for Expenditure of
Task Force Funds?

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 63 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

We interviewed Justice, Treasury, INS, FBI, ATF, and Executive Office for
OCDETF officials at headquarters in Washington, D. C. Also, we interviewed
managers, supervisors, and/ or special agents assigned to relevant federal
field offices in Los Angeles. Further, we reviewed pertinent reports or
studies, including the following:

ï¿½ A 1996 INS report on the agency's participation in task forces. As
mentioned above, this report was based on (1) two written surveys sent to
INS field offices in 1995 and (2) a telephonic survey of all districts and
sectors in 1996.

ï¿½ A 1995 report prepared by Justice's Office of the Inspector General,
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Operations in the Department of
Justice (Audit Report 95- 31, Sept. 1995). According to Justice officials,
at the time of our review, the 1995 report was the most recent Inspector
General report on the OCDETF program.

ï¿½ Our 1994 report on INS' participation in the OCDETF program, INS Drug Task
Force Activities: Federal Agencies Supportive of INS Efforts (GAO/ GGD- 94-
143, July 7, 1994).

We reviewed applicable sections of the U. S. Code, selected law review
articles, and other publications covering immigration law.

We interviewed INS officials at headquarters and at the Los Angeles District
Office. We reviewed applicable INS operations manuals and related guidance,
including training materials presented at the Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center (Glynco, GA). Also, regarding VGTF operations, we reviewed
work plans developed by INS' Los Angeles District Office.

The requester asked eight questions about INS' specific participation in the
operations of task forces in Los Angeles. The scope and methodology of our
work in addressing the respective questions are presented in the following
sections. Our work focused on the INS Los Angeles District Office's use of
its OCDETF and its VGTF special agents in operations targeting the 18 th
Street Gang.

At INS' Los Angeles District Office, we interviewed managers, supervisors,
and special agents who had responsibilities for or who participated in
OCDETF or VGTF operations. We reviewed task force- related documentation,
including memorandums and other correspondence or reports. Also, we reviewed
the approved Investigation Initiation Form- What Is INS' Role in These Task

Forces, Particularly Regarding Identification of Deportable Aliens?

What Criminal Acts Constitute Deportable Offenses?

Generally, Regarding GangRelated Criminal Involvement, What Process Is INS
Supposed to Use in Identifying, Arresting, and Deporting Criminal Aliens?

INS' Specific Participation in the Operations of Task Forces in Los Angeles

How Was INS Participation in These Los Angeles Task Forces Initiated?

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 64 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

which authorized implementation of an OCDETF investigation of the 18 th
Street Gang in Los Angeles- and we discussed the genesis of this
investigation with FBI and INS officials.

We interviewed FBI officials at headquarters and the agency's field office
in Los Angeles. Similarly, we interviewed INS headquarters officials, in
addition to managers, supervisors, and special agents in INS' Los Angeles
District Office who had responsibilities for or who participated in OCDETF
or VGTF operations. Further, in Los Angeles, we contacted the Assistant U.
S. Attorney (Central District of California) responsible for coordinating
the OCDETF 18 th Street Gang investigation.

In INS' Los Angeles District Office, we interviewed managers, supervisors,
and special agents who had responsibilities for or who participated in
OCDETF or VGTF operations; and, we contacted the Assistant U. S. Attorney
(Central District of California) responsible for coordinating the OCDETF 18
th Street Gang investigation. Also, regarding VGTF operations, we reviewed
work plans developed by INS' Los Angeles District Office.

In addition to reviewing task force work plans, memorandums, and other
available correspondence or reports, we interviewed managers, supervisors,
and/ or special agents assigned to relevant field offices in Los Angeles. We
did not interview LAPD officers. However, in interviewing INS special agents
in Los Angeles, we specifically probed them about operational relationships
with LAPD. For instance, our discussions with INS special agents on the VGTF
covered the following types of questions:

ï¿½ Regarding the execution of arrest warrants, what assistance did LAPD
provide to VGTF agents? For example, did LAPD officers simply help INS to
locate targeted individuals? Or, did LAPD officers actually make the arrest
(e. g., physically “cuff” the suspect)?

ï¿½ To what extent, if any, did INS agents and LAPD officers operate jointly,
such as riding or patrolling together in the same car or vehicle?

ï¿½ Did LAPD officers identify aliens for INS to arrest? If so, how?

ï¿½ Do INS special agents know of any instances whereby LAPD officers arrested
aliens but did not file charges and referred the aliens to INS? If so, how
many instances? Was There Any Undue Influence

by the FBI to Have INS Participate in the Task Forces?

Are There Any Operational or Other Relationships Between These Task Forces?

In Each Task Force, What Was INS' Role and Relationship With LAPD and
Applicable Federal Agencies?

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 65 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

This question, involving the extent of INS' conformity with applicable
policies and roles, has dual connotations- one connotation involving the
requester's primary concern about possible misconduct by INS agents and a
second connotation involving the use of OCDETF funds. As previously
mentioned, to address the requester's concern about possible misconduct, we
reviewed background information about allegations involving LAPD, and we met
with representatives of the following law enforcement entities:

ï¿½ the U. S. Attorney's Office (Central District of California);

ï¿½ the FBI's field office in Los Angeles;

ï¿½ other relevant Justice components, including the Office of the Inspector
General, the Criminal Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Office of
Professional Responsibility, INS' Office of Internal Audit, and the INS Los
Angeles District's Office of General Counsel; and

ï¿½ the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. Also, in Los Angeles,
we interviewed INS managers, supervisors, and special agents; reviewed INS
alien case files; and contacted three immigrant- rights groups.

Regarding the second connotation, as agreed with the requester's office, we
focused on the INS Los Angeles District Office's use of OCDETF funds, which
is covered in the following section.

First, we reviewed applicable funding or expenditure criteria in the OCDETF
Program Guidelines (Nov. 1997), the reimbursable agreements between INS and
the Executive Office for OCDETF, and INS' Personal Property Operations
Handbook (June 1999). Then, we conducted interviews and/ or reviewed
documentation to determine how INS Los Angeles District Office OCDETF
personnel (special agents) were used and the purposes for which nonpayroll
expenditures were made. For instance, at INS' Los Angeles District Office,
in addition to interviewing managers, supervisors, and special agents who
had responsibilities for or who participated in the OCDETF program, we
interviewed accounting and finance or technical support staff, including the
property control officer.

Regarding OCDETF funds for fiscal years 1997 and 1998, we grouped the
nonpayroll expenditures into four categories-( 1) equipment and supplies,
(2) vehicle repairs, (3) travel and training, and (4) other. Then, as
applicable, we reviewed available invoices, receipts, inventory records, To
What Extent Have

Accountability Controls, Monitoring Measures, or Internal Reviews Documented
That INS' Participation Conforms With Applicable Policies and Roles?

How Were OCDETF Funds Used and Spent by INS?

Appendix III Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 66 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

etc. For example, to determine whether vehicle- repair expenditures involved
only those vehicles used to support OCDETF cases, we took the following
steps:

ï¿½ First, to identify all vehicle repair expenditures, we checked the
district office's “log of operations report” for OCDETF funds.

ï¿½ Then, we traced or matched the repair expenditures to the respective Form
G- 514 (Requisition- Materials- Supplies- Equipment), which included a data
field showing the vehicle identification number.

ï¿½ Next, for each vehicle, we used the vehicle identification number and the
applicable Form G- 205 (Government Vehicle Recurring Cost Record) to
establish whether the vehicle was assigned to the OCDETF program.

Also, to determine whether these types of funding problems or concerns
existed in other INS districts, we interviewed (by telephone) the INS OCDETF
coordinator in each of the program's nine regions: (1) Florida/ Caribbean,
(2) Great Lakes, (3) Mid- Atlantic, (4) New England, (5) New York/ New
Jersey, (6) Pacific, (7) Southeast, (8) Southwest, and (9) West Central.
With these coordinators, in addition to discussing the use of OCDETF funds,
we discussed INS' policies and procedures for staffing OCDETF positions.
Further, we discussed these issues with officials at INS headquarters and
the Executive Office for OCDETF.

In INS' Los Angeles District Office, we interviewed managers, supervisors,
and special agents who had responsibilities for or who participated in
OCDETF or VGTF operations. Also, regarding VGTF operations, we reviewed the
INS Los Angeles District Office's work plans and monthly reports of
investigation activities. Also, we reviewed the district office's case files
for aliens who were arrested from July 1997 through December 1998.

As mentioned previously, according to the INS Los Angeles District Office's
computerized spreadsheet list for the 18 th Street Gang project, a total of
153 aliens were arrested or detained from July 1997 through December 1998.
Of this total, we reviewed 124 files- those that were still available in the
district office and others that were located elsewhere and returned to the
district as of September 22, 2000. Among other purposes, we conducted the
case- file review to determine the final dispositions of the aliens who were
arrested. What Were the Procedures for

Processing Documented or Undocumented Aliens Encountered or Arrested by INS
Task Force Agents?

How Many Documented or Undocumented Aliens Were Arrested by INS, and What
Were Their Final Dispositions?

Appendix IV Comments From the U. S. Department of Justice

Page 67 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

Page 68 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Richard M. Stana, (202) 512- 8777 Danny R. Burton, (214) 777- 5600

In addition to the above, David P. Alexander, Marco F. Gomez, Barbara A.
Guffy, Geoffrey R. Hamilton, James D. Moses, Samuel S. Van Wagner, and
Hector L. Wong made key contributions to this report. GAO Contacts

Acknowledgments

Page 69 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Page 70 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Page 71 GAO- 01- 78 INS Participation in Antigang Task Forces

Ordering Copies of GAOReports The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to
the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the
Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit
cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a
single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

or visit: Room 1100 700 4 th St. NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) U. S.
General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using fax number
(202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet For information on how to access GAO
reports on the INTERNET, send e- mail message with “info” in the
body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at: http:// www.
gao. gov Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs To contact
GAO FraudNET use: Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- Mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Telephone: 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated
answering system)

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. G100

(183642)
*** End of document. ***