Another One-Advice & Opinions

[PlanAhead]

Hey all, just a quick introduction and on to a few questions.

I just turned 20, out of California, college kid.

I figured, growing up, that'd I be a local police officer, and follow the old family tradition. However, I now want to get into Federal LE, rather than local, specifically looking at the United States Marshals Service and ICE. There seems to be a TON of threads on USMS, the two-year long running post is quite helpful.

Back on point. I am a full-time student, majoring (now) in Political Science (perhaps change to Business Marketing) gunning for my 4 year degree. I see that the type of degree itself is not much pertinent in the hiring process.

Would coming fresh out of college in a few years with a Bachelors put me as a competitive applicant? I have a friend going into the Military (ARMY) for MP, how would that compare as opposed to a degree, when applying? I have done some research and even read a few account stories of MP experience being a negative (yes negative) cloud when applying, though I suspect those to be "sour grape" stories, if you will.

Also, Per the hiring process guidelines via USMS webpage, I see there is no polygraph test conducted on hirees. How can this be, in a Federal Agency? Is it not listed because it's blanketed under BI in general? Being that Locals/States all polygraph, I assume a Federal Agency is a no brainer, and must as well?

USMS hiring process is "in an influx," and most information seems to put the hiring process, if successful, at 18+ months to get to FLETC. Am I off?

I have also been looking into, and recently emailed, about the student-intern programs. Any information, in general regarding that would be great.

I am ever-going in my emails, and research, and would love to get some expert advice and opinions on how to better prepare myself for future endeavors into FLE.



-Thanks

[schoromanski]

Welcome to the board.

Good idea to switch to business, consider accounting.

Getting hired with the marshals within 18 months, ha.. switchback can comment on that one. It is all possible, it just depends on several circumstances...

For instance, is there a hiring drive? Will the big O sign an executive order eliminating the hiring program you are suppose to be hired under. It all depends.

Many agencies will take students out of college for special agent positions, but it ALL depends when and if there is a hiring drive. Most have a 9 month rule which means within 9 months of graduating you can apply to special agent positions. It is rare but possible.

They do not polygraph because they feel as if it is discriminatory.

Many of the student programs will be canned in the next couple of years so get in while you can. Call agencies in your area and inquire about STEP, and SCEP.

If you get SCEP, you can get hired after graduation, but please note it takes a year to get hired in one of these programs and they are highly competitive.

You need to stand out from the crowd whether applying to these intern programs or becoming an agent... Do you play on a sports team? Are you a student leader? Do you have work experience? Can you articulate well?

You must consider all of that.

[MikeG]

Also, Per the hiring process guidelines via USMS webpage, I see there is no polygraph test conducted on hirees. How can this be, in a Federal Agency? Is it not listed because it's blanketed under BI in general? Being that Locals/States all polygraph, I assume a Federal Agency is a no brainer, and must as well?

Not a leo but I believe I read a report or maybe a post about DOJ agencies and polygraphs. FBI, DEA and ATF use pre-employment polygraph for special agents. The FBI actually screens all employees and has random screens after Hanssen arrest (although that would seem counterintuitive). Those three have their own polygraph teams. I think US Secret Service and CIA have pre-employment polygraph but they are not DOJ.

I believe the OIG has a polygraph division but I didn't think they use it for pre-employment screening.

I think the USMS uses polygraph for very specific things but they bring in OIG, FBI, etc, to administer it. I don't think they use it for pre-employment screening.

Just my recollection and it could be different now.

The interesting question for me is that polygraph is a POST requirement for my state, yet federal officers are cross-deputized to enforce state laws by the county sheriff. No post approval is necessary though, just notification.

[retdetsgt]

The interesting question for me is that polygraph is a POST requirement for my state, yet federal officers are cross-deputized to enforce state laws by the county sheriff. No post approval is necessary though, just notification.

I was made a whoop-do "special" special agent with the FBI when I was working a task force. Had the ID in a cheap plastic wallet and all! I didn't have to take a polygraph to get it either...... But it was only viable for that case and when I crossed a state line, I had to have a real fed with with me. The authority sort of went along with the plastic case, I guess.....

They didn't need a polygraph to catch Hanssen if they'd just paid the least bit of attention to his life style.

[PlanAhead]

Thanks for the replies.

schoromanski ,

Maybe I should send Switchback a pm. Sounds like you just have to be at the right spot (applying) at the right time, to make your way down the pipeline with USMS. Any info on the hiring state of ICE?

Not good to hear about the Student Programs. To answer your question(s): No. I wrestled thru-ought school and graduated with honors. Work experience is minimal. I'm quite confident in my articulation and application abilities. Currently maintaining a 3.7, hopefully transferring UCI in the nearing semester.

MIke G,

Thanks for the info. I found it odd that a Poly wasn't listed. I just "googled" a few things about it, and actually came up with a list of LE agencies that don't Poly. NYPD was on it, of all agencies. Not sure how factual that is though, being that NYPD is one of the biggest annual hiring LE agencies in the nation.

Any information/thoughts on the ARMY MP experience vs a Bachelors degree?

Appreciate any and all info. and advice.

[MikeG]

They didn't need a polygraph to catch Hanssen if they'd just paid the least bit of attention to his life style.

You caught me. I was thinking about the guy that passed all the polygraphs. I thought he was FBI. Was it Ames at the CIA? Hanssen didn't take any.

Wiki had a good article on Hanssen. Two people I feel for is the IT guy that wanted to nail Hanssen and was laughed away and the guy they thought was the mole that put up with harassment for years. I hope he got a good settlement.

[retdetsgt]

You caught me. I was thinking about the guy that passed all the polygraphs. I thought he was FBI. Was it Ames at the CIA? Hanssen didn't take any.

Wiki had a good article on Hanssen. Two people I feel for is the IT guy that wanted to nail Hanssen and was laughed away and the guy they thought was the mole that put up with harassment for years. I hope he got a good settlement.

That's half the problem with the polygraph, a sociopath or psychopath can pass one because they have no conscience about lying. IMO, the feds rely on it way too much and take it too much as gospel.

Regarding blowing off the IT guy, that's part of the culture of arrogance handed down by J. Edgar. I ran into that all the time when I was working with them. Pre computer ID of prints, if we found they misidentified someone, we couldn't just write and say you made a mistake. We had to pee all over ourselves and word it in a manner that we were asking them to please check the prints again and see if WE were wrong. Seriously.

[Sierra]

ICE HSI (homeland Security Investigations, no longer Office of Investigations) is not going to open up for SA slots for a while. Word came down that they are severely backlogged due to the budget, etc. Not sure when the IEA slots will open to the public. IEA doesn't require poly; I don't know about the SA.

[MikeG]

That's half the problem with the polygraph, a sociopath or psychopath can pass one because they have no conscience about lying. IMO, the feds rely on it way too much and take it too much as gospel.

Regarding blowing off the IT guy, that's part of the culture of arrogance handed down by J. Edgar.

Oh that's everywhere though. People are social and they believe what they want to believe. "Social Engineering" is probably one of the biggest threats to computer security. The hacker that convince one person in the org that he's benevolent and suddenly all the security is breached. Hanssen hacked into a co-workers account, ran a check to see if he was being investigated and then excused his hacking as demonstrating vulnerability. IT group hates that but the thing is, the boss wants to believe him and so policy is ignored. The second time was he was running a password crack program to gain unauthorized access to his computer. He claimed he just needed the admin password to install a printer. IT goes ballistic but once again boss wants to believe him. That's just a manipulation of his social relationships. It's scary that social engineering and manipulation can affect a paranoid investigative agency. It's not just FBI either, it works on banks, tech companies, local governments.

Hackers don't break your 256-bit bit DES encryption keys, they convince you to tell them the password.

I'll give a heads up to those with smart phones like android and iphone. I see officers all excited to set up their agencies email account on their smartphone, if allowed. They also have all their co-workers email, phone and address on their phone. They have passwords set up in case it gets lost or stolen. They meet all the basic IT guidelines for security. Then they go find apps to install. To get it to run, they grant the app access to their email, phonebook and the internet. I have no idea if they app is malicious or not, but I know if some stranger asked for all that info, they'd tell them to pound sand. But make their phone blink pretty colors and they'll inadvertantly give it away with a smile.

Anyone have a password manager? Do you know who wrote it and would you trust them with your credit card if you met them on the street? Not saying they are bad, just something to think about when you invite programs into your "circle of trust."

I ran into that all the time when I was working with them. Pre computer ID of prints, if we found they misidentified someone, we couldn't just write and say you made a mistake. We had to pee all over ourselves and word it in a manner that we were asking them to please check the prints again and see if WE were wrong. Seriously.

Did you sign the request "special" Special Agent Jim with your FBI badge ID?

[MikeG]

Here's the CIA guy wrongly assumed to be mole for four years. FBI was convinced it was him. That would suck.

Brian Kelley*»* Faculty*»* The Institute of World Politics

And there is an apparently a movie "Breach" that RDS would thouroughly enjoy as it examines why it took the FBI so long to get Hanssen.

Kelley's review of "Breach"
http://www.iwp.edu/docLib/20080415_KelleyonBreach.pdf

During those five years, the FBI invested a
staggering amount of technical and human
resources to try to obtain evidence to corroborate
its suspicions against that officer. He was placed
under 24-hour surveillance, his home and work
spaces were covertly searched, and computers
and telephones in both his home and office were
put under technical surveillance. Even an elaborate
“false flag” operation was run against him—
it proved no guilt; the officer dutifully reported
the unsolicited contact. On top of that, the officer
was subjected to a ruse polygraph administered
by a senior FBI polygrapher.

The results of all these efforts revealed nothing
pointing to the officer’s guilt. Moreover, the
senior FBI agent who administered the polygraph
was adamant that the examination determined
without a doubt that the alleged CIA spy
registered a “no deception indicated” response.
With nothing to substantiate contentions that the
CIA officer was a “master spy” who somehow
managed numerous acts of treason without leaving
behind any clues and who always stayed a
step ahead of their efforts, frustrated FBI counterespionage
investigators took to calling the officer
the “Evil Genius.”

[retdetsgt]

Here's the CIA guy wrongly assumed to be mole for four years. FBI was convinced it was him. That would suck.

The key here is it was someone who was not FBI. They threw a local Muslim lawyer in jail here for being linked to a train bombing in Spain based on a bad fingerprint identification. One person screwed it up, but it supposed to be verified by at least two other people. Apparently the other two were afraid to tell the first person he was wrong. That, by the way cost us taxpayers well over a million bucks. It was Spanish officials that finally said that wasn't his fingerprint. And the FBI is supposed to be the prime authority on fingerprint identification, they were the pioneers of it.

In my agency's fingerprint division, they cherish the moment they can find someone made a mistake so they can point fingers and laugh. And to my knowledge, they have never been accused of misidentifying a latent print.

If you google Brandon Mayfield, there are all sorts of stories on that fiasco. It began because of an attitude of never being wrong, I guess. I can tell you I've never gotten any positive reaction from them for pointing out an error they made. That 1930's attitude that all police used to have about never apologizing, never admitting mistakes that has gone everywhere else but there I think.

[MikeG]

If you google Brandon Mayfield, there are all sorts of stories on that fiasco. It began because of an attitude of never being wrong, I guess. I can tell you I've never gotten any positive reaction from them for pointing out an error they made. That 1930's attitude that all police used to have about never apologizing, never admitting mistakes that has gone everywhere else but there I think.

Wow. I can understand the institutional problem. I don't get how the independent fingerprint examiner hired by the district court and approved by Mayfield's attorney (former San Francisco inspector and not FBI) concluded the fingerprints matched. It's starting to make me think fingerprints are like polygraphs.

Here's where I read about the independent expert. MAYFIELD v. UNITED STATES

BTW, it was another lame decision by 9th US Court. I could respect either affirming or reversing on the facts. But they never fail to disappoint and went with the "lacked standing" argument and reversed on that (the government had already agreed that he had standing as part of the settlement, so WTF?). My guess is the 9th was caught between affirming the ruling against their conscience or reversing on the merits and getting hammered by SCOTUS.

[retdetsgt]

In April 2004, the FBI sent Mayfield's fingerprints to the Spanish government.   The SNP examined the prints and the FBI's report, and concluded that there were too many unexplained dissimilarities between Mayfield's prints and LFP # 17 to verify the match.   FBI agents then met with their Spanish counterparts in Madrid, who refuted the FBI's conclusion that there was a match.

After the meeting with the SNP, the FBI submitted an affidavit to the district court, stating that experts considered LFP # 17 a “100% positive identification” of Mayfield.   The affidavit did not mention that the SNP had reached a different conclusion.

He's arrested for a crime in Spain, but Spanish officials say it's not him, don't want him so they continue anyway and withhold that info from the court?? That would have been a career ender for me. No judge would ever accept another affidavit from me if I did that.

I think that the independent examiner wanted it to be him too badly too. Apparently he looked for similarities and not for dissimilar points. I worked in fingerprints for a while, but not long enough to be deemed expert. But I did learn a hell of a lot about prints during that time.

And no, fingerprints are not like the polygraph. I've seen prints of identical twins who on first examination look the same. But if you go through the whole print, you will find a few things that don't match.

I learned early on to work just as hard to prove someone innocent as guilty, it always pays off in the long run because you may not waste your time with someone innocent, you won't arrest the wrong person and you know everything the defense is going to throw at you and you will have an answer for it.

Here's another example of them jumping the gun and costing taxpayers a fortune.

More on the "Waddling Bandit" | OregonLive.com

[MikeG]

He's arrested for a crime in Spain, but Spanish officials say it's not him, don't want him so they continue anyway and withhold that info from the court?? That would have been a career ender for me. No judge would ever accept another affidavit from me if I did that.

I actually understand that SNAFU more. Without knowing who the affiant is, I don't know that he was aware of the Spain mismatch. The "FBI" as an org had it, but I don't know about the individual agent. He could be just as pissed as he is basing his PC off of three other expert agents who probably aren't working the case and has no clue they have contradictory stuff. Whats the requirement for disclosing exculpatory info? I would think the 100% match vs. partial match might be a problem but is it material? If he had said "partial match," I'd bet the FISA court would still sign off on the warrant. I would love to see the FBI report that cleared everybody.

[retdetsgt]

I actually understand that SNAFU more. Without knowing who the affiant is, I don't know that he was aware of the Spain mismatch. The "FBI" as an org had it, but I don't know about the individual agent.

I would think the 100% match vs. partial match might be a problem but is it material? If he had said "partial match," I'd bet the FISA court would still sign off on the warrant.

I'd be wiling to bet that someone knew about the Spanish take on it and also knew someone was getting an affidavit. If not, they are more screwed up that I could ever imagine. Maybe they share information with other like they share it with every other LE agency.

A "partial match" is like a partial pregnancy. It doesn't fly, it's either the same person or its not. You don't put crap like that in an affidavit, especially when you know someone else disagrees with the match. Besides, they thought it was a good match. And the Spanish disagreeing meant there was no case. The crime happened in Spain, not here. They don't want him, then it should be a done deal. If the SA knew that and presented an affidavit knowing all this and wanting all that other, he did it under false pretense because it would never go anywhere. If he didn't know about the Spanish, then someone withheld that from him. When the FBI apologizes, you know some heads rolled somewhere, that they don't make public.

I'd also like to hear any conversations between the FBI and the court appointed expert. I've got personal experience with them putting pressure on others to make for a desired outcome so they look good in the press. I didn't develop my mistrust from what I read in the paper. I've worked with some good guys that were SA's, but there is a culture there that still smacks of J. Edgar.

I'm waiting to see how this one below plays out in court. They are missing the first recorded conversation between the FBI employee (not an SA, I understand) and the defendant. They say it was because of equipment malfunction, but unfortunately, that's probably the key to whether or not they initially encouraged this little asswipe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Po..._car_bomb_plot