📂 Despite years of documented misconduct, improper arrest practices, and civil rights violations, no meaningful corrective action has been taken by the Office of the Senior Security Officer (OSSO), Office of Security and Law Enforcement (OSLE), Office of Security and Preparedness (OSP), or even the VA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG). All of these entities are fully aware of the systemic failures within the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Police Department.

📨 They have received complaints, disclosures, affidavits, and legal breakdowns—yet they have taken no measurable action to discipline those responsible, correct unlawful practices, or ensure compliance with federal and constitutional standards.

While these multiple oversight bodies—OSSO, OSLE, and even OIG—have received and reviewed formal disclosures, conducted interviews, and were made aware of systemic issues at the Phoenix VA Police Department, none of them hold final decision-making power over administrative corrective action. That authority rests solely with the Phoenix VA Healthcare System Director, who maintains direct control over the police department. While the Medical Director retains administrative authority over the police department and has been consistently informed of the issues, no corrective action has been taken. The absence of intervention—despite detailed disclosures and clear policy violations—raises serious concerns about whether this inaction reflects institutional tolerance or an unwillingness to confront entrenched misconduct.

🔄 But this is about to change.

🛡️IN JULY, OSP TAKES OVER OVERSIGHT – AND EXCUSES WILL EXPIRE 🛡️

With the upcoming transfer of direct oversight and operational authority to the Office of Security and Preparedness (OSP), the VA can no longer claim that accountability is optional. OSP will have command-level authority and must decide whether it will continue protecting individuals with sustained misconduct—or finally uphold the law and enforce ethical standards.

OS&LE (which houses its own CID and internal affairs (IA) division) can no longer overlook the fact that multiple law enforcement officials have unresolved Giglio and Brady impairments stemming from prior incidents of dishonesty, discriminatory behavior, and misconduct. These issues have direct implications for federal & state prosecutions, as they compromise the officers’ ability to testify credibly in court. With the transition of oversight to OSP, it is critical that a centralized tracking system or disclosure registry be implemented to formally identify, monitor, and report such impairments. Failure to do so risks undermining the integrity of every investigation and prosecution involving these officers.

🚨 THEY KNOW THEIR ARREST PROCEDURES ARE WRONG – AND STILL WON’T FIX THEM 🚨 

VA Law enforcement official, spefically in leadership roles, at the Phoenix facility continue to operate under the mistaken belief that their arrest procedures can mimic those of local Arizona police—particularly under Arizona’s “cite and release” law (ARS § 13-3903). Under this Arizona law, local police officers may physically arrest someone for a misdemeanor or petty offense, transport them to the station, photograph and fingerprint them, and then release the person with a signed citation promising to appear in court. This practice is commonly used by local law enforcement agencies in Arizona to balance enforcement, identification, and efficiency.

However, federal law does not permit the use of post-booking citation release. Once an individual is taken into custody under federal authority, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 5, require that the person be brought before a magistrate judge without unnecessary delay. There is no provision under federal law that allows an officer to release a subject with a citation after booking.

This has been clarified in:

• DOJ memos and internal policy guidance;
• Federal court general orders, including General Order 25-05 (updated March 7, 2025, by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona), which directly clarifies and reaffirms the procedural distinction between citation-based issuance and custodial arrest under federal authority. The order makes clear that any individual taken into federal custody must be processed in accordance with Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, requiring a timely appearance before a magistrate judge. It explicitly prohibits post-arrest citation release by the arresting officer, reinforcing that only a judicial officer may authorize release following custodial detention (See General Order 25-05 Here);
• Violation notice program rules and USDCVN implementation guidelines;
• Numerous procedural briefings issued to VA police supervisors and leadership since 2022.

Despite this, the Phoenix VA Police Department has continued to detain individuals, and release them with violation notices without judicial oversight—an approach that directly violates Rule 5, Rule 4, and the clear guidance provided under General Order 25-05.

⚠️IS THE MEDICAL CENTER’S LEADERSHIP STILL PROTECTING THEM? ⚠️

🏢 For now, the Phoenix VA Medical Center Director holds administrative control over the police department. But after July, OSP will assume direct authority—and with it, the responsibility to act. The question is:

Will OSP finally address misconduct and non-compliance?

• Will they establish a Giglio and Brady database to track officers with known integrity, credibility, and discriminatory conduct issues?
• Will they ensure compliance with federal due process laws, Rule 5 court mandates, and internal oversight expectations?
• Or will they inherit the same culture of silence, favoritism, and procedural illegality

📜 CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL VIOLATIONS BY PHOENIX VA POLICE📜

🚓 Improper Use of State Arrest Powers Under Federal Authority: Phoenix VA officers have been making arrests under the guise of Arizona’s citizen’s arrest statute while simultaneously operating under federal police authority granted through 38 U.S.C. § 902. They have been booking individuals into local jails under state charges—despite lacking jurisdictional or statutory authority to do so.

⚖️ Violation of Federal Due Process: Rule 5 These arrests are being executed by federal officers using federal credentials and resources, but bypassing the mandatory judicial procedures required under federal law. Specifically, these actions violate Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which mandates that any person arrested under federal authority must be presented promptly before a magistrate judge.

📖 Fifth Amendment and Prompt Presentment Doctrine: This procedural failure implicates the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections. The “prompt presentment” doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in McNabb v. United States and reaffirmed in Mallory v. United States, holds that once a person is arrested under federal authority, they must be brought before a judicial officer without unnecessary delay. The doctrine is rooted in the Constitution's guarantee that liberty cannot be denied without due process of law.

🔍 WE ARE WATCHING. WE ARE DOCUMENTING. WE ARE NOT DONE 🔍 

The individuals responsible for the current misconduct have been named. The federal violations have been documented. The constitutional breaches—including making arrests under the guise of Arizona’s citizen’s arrest statute while simultaneously operating under federal police authority granted through 38 U.S.C. § 902, and booking individuals into local jails under state charges without proper jurisdiction or statutory authority—have all been disclosed to Congress, VA OIG, and the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP). These arrests are being carried out not as private citizens, but as federal officers using federal resources and credentials, while completely bypassing the mandatory judicial process required under federal law.

Specifically, these actions violate Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which requires that any individual arrested under federal authority must be presented promptly before a magistrate judge. This rule reflects the foundational due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment and the Supreme Court’s doctrine of "prompt presentment"—a constitutional requirement rooted in Mallory v. United States and McNabb v. United States. By continuing to process individuals through state systems without timely federal presentment, the Phoenix VA Police Department undermines core constitutional protections and exposes the agency to serious legal risk.

🧹 The transition to OSP is not just administrative—it’s a final opportunity to clean house. If they fail to act, they will join the list of those who enabled years of abuse at one of the largest and most dysfunctional VA police departments in the country.