Summary: At Phoenix VA Police, leadership has turned misinterpretation into policy. Federal laws, VA regulations, and even their own directives are treated as suggestions — bent, ignored, or redefined whenever convenient. Instead of following clear rules, leaders willfully disregard them, replacing legal guidance with their own improvisations. This culture of “optional compliance” leaves officers confused, veterans unprotected, and accountability abandoned.

🚨A SYSTEM BUILT ON MISINTERPRETATIONS🚨

At the Phoenix VA Police, officers are regularly told — with the air of authority and a false sense of correctness — by leadership that they can bypass written directives and established procedures. That’s not a slip-up — that’s a culture. Leadership repeatedly tells officers they can sidestep directives, creating an environment where misinterpretations replace legal guidance and policies are treated as "optional."

In practice, bending, stretching, and outright ignoring VA directives has become the norm. Instead of consulting the Office of General Counsel (OGC) ⚖️ or the U.S. Attorney’s Office, leadership substitutes its own legal spin and trains officers in ways that directly conflict with binding federal law.

This isn’t about whether officers “feel like real cops.” It’s about leadership deliberately circumventing their own directives and VA policies. Their willful disregard and misrepresentations, combined with refusal to seek legal guidance and repeated jurisdictional missteps, put both officers and the public at risk. ❌

🤔WHY ARE VA POLICE LEADERS ACTING LIKE THEIR OWN LAWYERS?🤔

Officers were recently told by Phoenix VA leadership that they could issue citations for misdemeanors not committed in their presence by simply writing a probable cause statement and mailing it to the CVB ✉️ — bypassing the requirements of VA Directive 0730, which states: 

“When a misdemeanor is not committed in the presence of a Department police officer, the facts must be communicated to the U.S. Attorney for guidance and instructions on the appropriate action” (VA Handbook 0730/3, ch. 7, § b(2)(b), at 6 (July 11, 2014)).

Instead of following this rule, leadership instructed officers to skip it altogether. Don’t worry about calling prosecutors, they said. Just write the statement, send it to CVB, and move on.

🎭The Illusion of Authority vs. VA’s Reality🎭

Yes, other federal agencies may allow officers to rely on a probable cause statement with a USDCVN alone, and in many ways they have it good by not being weighed down with these restrictions — giving them clearer authority and less risk of tripping over technical violations. VA Police, unfortunately, do operate under tighter rules — and that makes their situation worse. Unlike other agencies that enjoy clearer authority, VA officers are boxed in by restrictive directives, yet still pressured by leadership to cut corners. ⚠️

It’s a lose-lose: follow the directives and risk being targeted, or obey unlawful orders and risk liability. And this is speaking directly to 🫵🏼 you Phoenix VA Officers — you know it🫵🏼. Compared to other agencies, you sometimes feel treated more like security guards than law enforcement 👮, and that frustration is real. But the real issue isn’t perception — it’s that leadership IGNORES, MISINTERPRETS, and WILLFULLY REFUSES to follow their own directives - except whenever it suits them (usaully when it's to retaliate against a Whistleblower, Harassment reporter, or EEO complainant).

And if they’re willing to disregard clear rules, what else might they disregard — especially when it comes to officers who insist on doing things the lawful way? The same standards they REFUSE to follow are the very ones they will WEAPONIZE against you the moment you step out of line. ⚖️ ⚖️

And not just any standards. We’re talking federal directives, VA regulations, and the authority of the Department of Justice. But at Phoenix VA, compliance appears optional depending on which meeting you walk into. 🤷

📜WHAT VA DIRECTIVE 0730 AND CVB AGENCY MANUAL STATES📜

The controlling provision could not be clearer:

• “VA Police may only issue a citation for a misdemeanor or infraction committed in their presence.”

• “If the misdemeanor is not committed in the officer’s presence, the known facts of the incident will be communicated to the U.S. Attorney for guidance and instructions for the appropriate action to be taken.” (VA Handbook 0730/3, ch. 7, § b(2)(b), at 6 (July 11, 2014))

This procedure is mandatory, not discretionary. It applies even if other federal agencies (e.g., Park Police, Border Patrol) operate under broader probable cause rules. The VA specifically limited its officers’ authority (unfortunately) to avoid jurisdictional conflicts and due process challenges. ⚖️

Leadership’s claim that mailing a citation and probable cause statement to the Central Violations Bureau (CVB) equals “notifying the U.S. Attorney” is flat-out wrong. The CVB manual makes it clear:

• “The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts established the Central Violations Bureau (CVB) for processing the violation notices.” CVB Agency Manual, at 1 (Mar. 2024).
• “The United States Attorney is responsible for all prosecutions in the United States District Court and for coordinating law enforcement efforts.” Id. at 2.
• “Instructions as to how the statement of probable cause should be completed may be obtained by contacting the local U.S. Attorney’s Office.” Id. at 11.

👉 Put simply:

• CVB is an administrative office.
• It processes tickets but does not decide whether or how to prosecute.
• Only the U.S. Attorney has authority to determine if a case is handled as a petty offense through CVB or escalated to a Class A misdemeanor by Information or Criminal Complaint.

 📚FLETC LEGAL TRAINING FRAMEWORK📚

The Federal LAw Enforcement Training Center's (FLETC) materials stress that arrest authority comes from statute and agency policy — and officers must stay within those limits. Step outside them, and the whole enforcement action crumbles. 💥

Source of Authority: VA Police powers derive from statutes (38 U.S.C. § 902) and are bounded by agency rules and training.

Arrest vs. Citation: A citation is still an arrest action ("non-custodial arrest"). Do it without authority, and it becomes an unlawful arrest.

Prosecutorial Role: Probable cause alone doesn’t justify charging. The U.S. Attorney must decide. Skipping that step risks suppression of evidence and civil liability.

Bottom line: probable cause is necessary but not enough. For VA Police, Directive/Handbook 0730 requires referral to the U.S. Attorney before moving forward on misdemeanors not committed in their presence. ⚠️

⚠️YEARS OF MAKE-BELIEVE LEGAL ADVICE AND BAD INTERPRETATIONS⚠️

This isn’t new. For years, VA Police leadership has handed down misinterpretations of law, regulations, and directives. And when someone suggests calling OGC or the U.S. Attorney’s Office for real legal advice? Forget it. Leaders often flat-out refuse. Instead, they play lawyer and dare anyone to challenge them. 🙄

Here’s the problem: VA police officers aren’t lawyers, prosecutors, or judges. They’re federal law enforcement. They deserve clear, accurate guidance. Instead, they’re ordered to ignore directives — and threatened with discipline if they don’t. ❌

And the fallout has landed in federal court:

• Webb v. U.S. Dep’t of Veterans Affairs, No. CV-19-02955-PHX-SPL (D. Ariz. Dec. 11, 2019): Webb was physically arrested by Phoenix VA Police officers and released on a USDCVN. He was later charged with a felony offense through the state system. His due process rights were violated because he was never taken before a magistrate, directly conflicting with VA Directive 0730 and the Federal Rules. ⚖️

• McCulley v. United States of America, No. 2:22-cv-01940-DWL-MTM (D. Ariz. 2022): McCulley was charged under 18 U.S.C. § 113, even though VA property is proprietary jurisdiction where § 113 doesn’t apply. That statute only applies in exclusive and concurrent jurisdiction areas. See 18 U.S.C. § 7. The charge was later amended to a regulatory offense under 38 C.F.R. § 1.218. He went to trial and was acquitted. 🚨

• United States v. Sykes, No. 2:22-mj-08311-JZB (D. Ariz. 2022): Sykes was arrested and charged with a FELONY on a USDCVN, but CVB and the court processed it as a petty offense. He was never taken before a magistrate, again violating Directive 0730 and the Rules. The probable cause statement noted that a “Detention Search” was used, raising questions: What is a detention search legally defined as? It’s not in Directive 0730 or elsewhere — and in this case, Sykes was never taken before a magistrate. ❓

• • Note: That's right! Phoenix VA Leadership allowed a FELONY to be submitted on a "petty offense" citation - futher demonstrating how bad they misintrepreted things then and how they only evolved into  "culture" of MISINTERPRETATIONS and disregard for Federal law, rules, regualtions, and procedures. Even more questionable, what agency releases indivudals on FELONIES????

• Hart v. Granado, CV-22-02067-PHX-JAT (JFM) (D. Ariz. Nov. 6, 2023): Hart was initially charged under 18 U.S.C. § 113 until OGC caught the mistake and the charge disappeared. He also questioned being arrested without the offense being witnessed and the failure to be taken before a magistrate as required by Rule 5 and Directive 0730. ⚖️ Read Hart's Memorandum to the Office of the VA Chief of Police

These aren’t hypotheticals. They’re real cases showing what happens when VA Police leadership refuses to follow directives and ignores legal counsel. These cases are public records, accessible online or through Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) 🖥️, where transcripts, charging documents, and probable cause statements can be reviewed.

🚩WHAT’S THE RISK?🚩

• Invalid citations: Tickets issued under these questionable instructions could be tossed in court. Defense attorneys love this. 🎁
• Constitutional Concerns:The U.S. Attorney holds prosecutorial discretion. Bypassing them isn’t just sloppy — it cuts into due process rights. ⚖️
• Officer Morale: Imagine being taught one thing in training, then being told by leadership, “We don’t do that here.” It’s like being taught to drive with a seatbelt, only to be told later, “Take it off, we look tougher without it.” 🤦
• Public Trust: Veterans and staff expect VA Police to follow the law — not cafeteria directives that change with leadership moods. 🏥

🔥A PATTERN OF DISREGARD🔥

What’s happening here isn’t a misunderstanding. Phoenix VA Police have shown a consistent pattern of disregarding directives, misinterpreting federal law, and refusing to seek legal guidance. Misusing 18 U.S.C. § 113 in proprietary jurisdiction, failing to bring arrestees before a magistrate as required by Rule 5 and Directive 0730, and claiming CVB submissions equal USAO notification all point to willful disregard. 🚨

This isn’t sloppy. It’s a direct violation of VA directives and a choice to ignore the legal frameworks they are appointed to uphold. That’s not law enforcement. Not in federal service. Not anywhere. ❌

📢WHY THIS MATTERS📢

This isn’t about one hospital. It’s about whether the Department of Veterans Affairs can keep disregarding its own directives, misinterpreting federal law, ignoring legal counsel, and punishing anyone who pushes back. Veterans, employees, and the public deserve accountability — not leadership playing lawyer with people’s rights. The misuse of 18 U.S.C. § 113 in proprietary jurisdiction, the failure to follow Rule 5 and Directive 0730, and the false claim that CVB equals USAO notification all highlight systemic failure. ⚠️

💪ENCOURAGEMENT TO PHOENIX VA OFFICERS💪

To Phoenix VA Officers: you’re often told, “If you don’t like it, leave” or “find another job.” Those words aren’t about helping you — they’re about protecting corruption and keeping power in the hands of those who abuse it. Don’t buy into it. Stand firm. Report leadership for violations like these to OAWP or OIG — you can even do it anonymously. Don’t cave to threats. Hold them accountable. 🛡️