Public Complaint No. 1709574894 - 1455153082

On 03/28/2023, VA Police Lieutenant Ross ESTRELLA conducted an administrative investigation, also referred to as "Fact Finding," on former VA Police Officer Mario RAMIREZ (hereafter referred to as the "COMPLAINANT"). This investigation not only infringed upon the COMPLAINANT's rights as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but also created a hostile work environment. Prior to and during the factfinding process, ESTRELLA and VA Chief of Police Tyler WHITT informed the COMPLAINANT that his participation in the investigation was mandatory. The insistence on the COMPLAINANT's participation, despite his expressed unwillingness and concerns, exerted undue pressure on him. ADMIN INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BEFORE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION: The COMPLAINANT, having recently filed an EEO complaint against PHXVAPD management, experienced an overpowering pressure to collaborate in an administrative investigation that had the potential to result in groundless and retaliatory criminal charges. This circumstance invoked a coercive environment and unjustly subjected him to a state of vulnerability, as he was compelled to partake in a process to which he did not willingly provide consent. Such actions disregard fundamental principles of equity and reverence for an individual's rights, thereby raising profound doubts about the underlying motives and intentions behind the investigation. It is crucial to highlight that there appeared to be a lack of education and training within PHXAPD concerning Internal Affairs Investigation and Administrative Investigations in the past. Qualified supervisors would have understood the importance of refraining from conducting an administrative investigation unless absolutely necessary, particularly if it had the potential to impede an ongoing criminal investigation. If there were plans to conduct a criminal investigation, it would have been advisable to prioritize the criminal investigation and proceed with any necessary administrative actions afterward once the criminal investigation had concluded. This would have ensured the integrity of both investigations and upheld the rights of all parties involved. Conducting the criminal investigation ex parte, after the completion of the administrative investigation, raised concerns about procedural soundness and adherence to best practices. It is vital to ensure that investigations are conducted in a proper sequence and with consideration for fairness and transparency. It was evident that ESTRELLA (and WHITT), who was recently promoted to a supervisory role, lacked the necessary experience and knowledge in handling internal investigations of this nature in accordance with the regulations set by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Federal Law. This deficiency in experience and understanding likely contributed to the mishandling of the situation and the errors made during the administrative process, potentially violating the rights and protections provided to veterans under VA guidelines and Federal Law. VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS: During the investigation, the COMPLAINANT exercised his rights by refusing to speak and invoking his Fifth Amendment Right. He explicitly expressed his desire for legal representation and reiterated that he wanted a lawyer present. Despite this, both WHITT and ESTRELLA inappropriately disregarded the COMPLAINANT's assertion of his constitutional right to legal counsel and continued to press him to cooperate in the investigation. The actions of WHITT and ESTRELLA in disregarding the COMPLAINANT's request for legal representation were improper and violated his constitutional rights. As supervisors, WHITT and ESTRELLA should have been aware of and respected the rights afforded to individuals during internal investigations, which includes the right to have legal counsel present. This disregard for the COMPLAINANT's rights further highlights the need for proper education and training for supervisors, emphasizing the importance of understanding and upholding the rights and protections provided by the law. Additionally, it is crucial that the organization promotes a culture of respect for individuals' rights and ensures that all supervisors are well-informed about the appropriate protocols and procedures to follow when a person invokes their Fifth Amendment right and requests legal representation. By doing so, the organization can prevent future instances of violating individuals' rights during internal investigations and demonstrate its commitment to adhering to the principles of justice and due process. Furthermore, it is essential to highlight that the COMPLAINANT assertively invoked his Weingarten Rights and explicitly requested the presence of a union representative during the ongoing investigation. The COMPLAINANT firmly stated that WHITT and ESTRELLA attempted to inform him of his Weingarten rights, but he consciously chose not to answer any questions or sign the corresponding Weingarten form. In direct response to his unwavering request, WHITT and ESTRELLA promptly arranged for the involvement of Louis CURRY, Union President of AFGE Local 2382, to provide the necessary representation and ensure the protection of their rights. These actions by ESTRELLA and WHITT demonstrate an infringement upon the COMPLAINANT's rights, as they continued to press for information despite his clear invocation of his Fifth Amendment Right and request for union representation. The persistent disregard for the COMPLAINANT's rights created a hostile work environment, placing additional pressure on him as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The COMPLAINANT asserts that the actions of WHITT & ESTRALLA during the administrative investigation violated his rights. During the investigation, the COMPLAINANT was informed that the results could lead to disciplinary action. Additionally, the COMPLAINANT was explicitly instructed to provide complete and truthful answers, with failure to do so being deemed as lack of candor and non-cooperation, potentially resulting in disciplinary measures. In light of the circumstances and the mounting pressure to face disciplinary action, the COMPLAINANT, under duress, reluctantly provided a compelled statement and signed the transcript presented by ESTRELLA. Notably, at the bottom of the transcript, it was explicitly stated: "An employee, however, will not be required to give testimony against himself or herself in any matter in which there is an indication that he or she may be or is involved in a violation of law wherein there is a possibility of self-incrimination." VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW AND VA HANDBOOK/DIRECTIVE: However, despite invoking his Constitutional rights, the COMPLAINANT argues that WHITT & ESTRALLA violated Title 38 Code of Federal Regulations § 0.735-12 – “Standards of conduct in special areas.” This regulation stipulates that VA employees are not obliged to provide a statement or testimony if it may incriminate themselves. VA Handbook 0700 reinforces this law from an employer’s role to ensure that an employee’s rights are not violated, and that the investigation is not compromised. In light of these circumstances, the COMPLAINANT adamantly contends that the actions undertaken by WHITT & ESTRELLA encroached upon his constitutional rights and flagrantly violated pertinent regulations pertaining to self-incrimination. Such violations are firmly rooted in the COMPLAINANT's genuine apprehension that pursuing an Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaint may expose him to retaliatory measures, coupled with the potential imposition of judicial criminal sanctions. IMPROPER CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION: In what was clearly an administrative matter regarding the 03/23/23 incident, PHXVAPD failed to conduct a proper criminal investigation. Instead, management inexplicably elected to initiate criminal charges against the COMPLAINANT, disregarding the fact that the appropriate course of action would have been to address the matter through administrative means. Furthermore, they coerced the COMPLAINANT into providing statements that seemingly imply culpability, despite the inherent self-incrimination concerns associated with such actions. If the officers had suspected the commission of a criminal offense from the COMPLAINANT, appropriate actions should have been taken. Even after UTHE contacted ESTRELLA regarding the matter, steps should have been taken, including: • Requiring the COMPLAINANT to disarm. • Collecting and securing the COMPLAINANT's law enforcement credentials. • Placing the COMPLAINANT on administrative leave. Following these immediate actions, PHXVAPD personnel should have retrieved the alleged evidence, properly documented it, and secured it. However, none of the PHXVAPD personnel believed a criminal act had transpired; instead, it was deemed an administrative violation. Yet, of utmost concern and deserving heightened attention, exactly one week subsequent to these events, the COMPLAINANT himself fell victim to targeted measures when he received an alarming United States District Court Violation Notice for a criminal firearms charge. In a baffling turn of events, this violation notice was explicitly directed by Operations Manager Joshua FISTER (W/M). Such circumstances give rise to grave apprehensions regarding the deliberate and unwarranted targeting of the COMPLAINANT, compelling further scrutiny and justifying intensified scrutiny of the situation at hand. The sequence of events indicates a significant mishandling of the case, with a failure to conduct a proper criminal investigation and an apparent inconsistency in how the incident was treated and addressed. Proper adherence to protocol, policies, and fair investigative practices could have mitigated the confusion and prevented the unwarranted imposition of criminal charges. COMPLAINANT CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENSE: Despite the COMPLAINANT's explicit request for legal representation and expressing a desire not to provide a statement, he was compelled to participate in an administrative investigation. This action raised concerns for the COMPLAINANT regarding potential management retaliation due to his filing of EEO and Whistle Blower Complaints. Sadly, a week later, the COMPLAINANT faced charges for a Class B Federal Misdemeanor. Had the PHXVAPD followed the recommended guidelines provided by VA training guides, VA Handbook 0700, or even heeded BENNETT's concerns, the department would not have violated federal law, infringed upon the COMPLAINANT's constitutional rights, or disregarded VA procedures, policies, and regulations. DISMISSAL OF CHARGE BY U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE: On Monday, July 17th, 2023, at 9:16AM, the COMPLAINANT was the recipient of an email from Assistant U.S. Attorney Ross EDWARDS, communicating the dismissal of the charge against him by the government. Remarkably, EDWARDS provided no explanation for the dismissal of the aforementioned charge. Nonetheless, considering the multitude of errors committed throughout both the administrative and criminal investigations, it is hardly surprising that the charge was ultimately dismissed. Notably, one significant misstep made by PHXVAPD management was conducting the administrative investigation prior to the criminal investigation, a practice explicitly discouraged in Basic Administrative & Internal Affairs Investigation courses. It is commonly recommended to conduct the criminal investigation first, as compelled statements obtained during an administrative investigation cannot be subsequently utilized. By following the more appropriate approach of conducting the criminal investigation initially, all available evidence could have been effectively leveraged in any subsequent administrative investigation, thus averting the mismanagement of the situation. However, it is important to clarify that the COMPLAINANT's case was not of a criminal nature and should have been approached and handled solely as an administrative matter. It is crucial to distinguish between criminal cases and administrative cases and follow the appropriate procedures accordingly. In this specific situation, the focus should have been on resolving the administrative concerns and ensuring compliance with administrative protocols, guidelines, and regulations. Any errors or isinterpretations during the handling of the administrative investigation should have been addressed promptly and rectified to ensure a fair and just resolution. CONFUSION OF FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATION: As per 38 CFR § 1.218, it is explicitly stated that "No person while on property shall carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, except for official purposes." The regulation further clarifies that possession of firearms, whether openly or concealed and whether loaded or unloaded, is generally prohibited except for Federal or State law enforcement officers on official business. It is important to note that in the specific case of the COMPLAINANT, he was a federal law enforcement officer on official business, which may necessitate careful consideration and interpretation of the regulation in relation to his possession of personal firearms on VA property. This further emphasizes the need for a comprehensive and fair assessment of the situation, taking into account all relevant legal principles, including the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) and the prohibition of disparate treatment based on protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In evaluating the COMPLAINANT's possession of personal firearms on VA property, it is crucial to adhere to the principles of EEO, which require that individuals in similar circumstances be treated equally. Disparate treatment, where an individual is treated differently based on their membership in a protected class such as race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, is strictly prohibited under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. DISPOSITION In light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, it is abundantly clear that the rights of the COMPLAINANT have been egregiously violated. Not only was an improper administrative investigation conducted, but the COMPLAINANT was unduly coerced into providing a statement under the looming threat of disciplinary action. It becomes increasingly evident that the criminal charge faced by the COMPLAINANT was a flagrant act of retaliation. The violation of an individual's rights cannot and should not be overlooked, nor can an improper administrative investigation be simply dismissed. The COMPLAINANT's compelled statement, extracted under the duress of disciplinary action, strikes at the heart of justice, and must be acknowledged as such. Moreover, the COMPLAINANT's irrefutable belief that the criminal charge levied against them is retaliatory further underscores the need for a thorough examination of all pertinent evidence. This examination must scrutinize the motives and actions surrounding the case, leaving no room for bias or prejudice. In sum, it is indisputable that the COMPLAINANT's rights have been violated, an improper administrative investigation has taken place, he was coerced into giving a statement under duress, and he genuinely perceived the criminal charge as an act of retaliation. To restore faith in the legal system and uphold the principles of fairness and justice, it is incumbent upon all stakeholders involved to conduct a meticulous and comprehensive analysis of all evidence associated with this case, leaving no room for doubt or further violation of the COMPLAINANT's rights.