A Review of the Department of Justice's 

and ATF's Implementation of 

Recommendations Contained in the OIG's 

Report on Operations Fast and Furious 

and Wide Receiver 

Oversight & Review Division 16-01 February 2016 

 

 

 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In September 2012, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a 

471-page report that described the findings of our review of two Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) firearms trafficking 

investigations, one code named “Operation Fast and Furious” and the other 

“Operation Wide Receiver.”1 Our review identified serious management flaws in 

both investigations and we made six recommendations to address the 

deficiencies we found. We requested that the Department of Justice 

(Department or DOJ) examine ATF’s law enforcement policies to ensure that 

they comply with the Department’s guidelines and policies, and evaluate the 

sufficiency of ATF’s case review procedures for matters that present heightened 

risk to the public or agents. We also believed that ATF should institute training; 

we requested the Department work with ATF to develop guidance on how agents 

should investigate gun trafficking organizations. 

The remainder of our recommendations were focused on the Department 

itself or its law enforcement components other than ATF. We requested that the 

Department evaluate the policies of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) to 

ensure that they are sufficient to address the concerns we identified from the 

conduct of Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Reciever. We also 

recommended that the Department more carefully scrutinize wiretap 

applications and regularly convene a working group of leaders from the 

Department’s law enforcement components to ensure appropriate coordination 

among them. In its initial written response to the report, the Department stated 

that it agreed with our recommendations and committed to implementing them. 

In this follow-up review we evaluated the Department’s efforts to 

implement our recommendations. We determined that four of the six 

recommendations can be closed. The two remaining recommendations have 

been resolved, but additional work needs to be completed in order for them to 

be closed. 

The four recommendations we are closing were directed to the 

Department and ATF. We found that the Department completed the review of 

ATF’s policies for consistency with the Department’s guidelines and policies as 

we requested. ATF finished its own internal policy review in 2014 which resulted 

in revisions to the Agency’s policies, including to its Orders on Undercover 

Operations and Confidential Informants. In addition, the Office of the Deputy 

Attorney General (ODAG) led a working group of senior officials that addressed 

risk management issues, including ones identified in Operations Fast and Furious 

and Wide Receiver and the findings and recommendations of the OIG’s report. 

1

 The OIG’s report, A Review of Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters, can be 

found at http://www.justice.gov/oig/reports/2012/s1209.pdf. 

i 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The working group examined the policies of all of the Department’s law 

enforcement components and issued two significant guidance documents that 

provide instructions on risk management. ATF modified several of its policies, 

including those addressing sensitive matters, as a result of ODAG’s review and 

inquiries from the OIG. For example, ATF made changes to its polices regarding 

home invasion undercover operations after the OIG raised concerns about the 

sufficiency of ATF’s oversight of these cases.2 

ATF also created guidance for its agents regarding how to develop 

enterprise/conspiracy cases involving firearms consistent with the policy on 

firearms transfers that ATF instituted as a result of Operation Fast and Furious. 

The guidance furnishes examples of investigative techniques that can be used in 

such investigations and instructs agents to “communicate and coordinate” with 

prosecutors, law enforcement partners, and within ATF “regarding potential 

criminal acquisition of firearms, trafficking, and acts of violence.” 

The remaining two closed recommendations were directed at the 

Department. As we recommended, the Department instituted regular 

coordination meetings with leadership from the law enforcement components, 

and developed new procedures regarding the review of wiretap applications. 

The first resolved recommendation concerns ATF’s case review procedures 

for sensitive matters. ATF has made significant progress to enhance its 

oversight of sensitive matters, such as by instituting a Monitored Case Program 

(MCP) to provide heightened scrutiny over cases that involve significant risk and 

by revising its Orders on Undercover Operations and Confidential Informants. 

We identified a limited number of steps that ATF should take to further improve 

its oversight of sensitive matters, such as revising ATF’s inspection process and 

certain aspects of the MCP to better account for risk. ATF has now taken many 

of the steps we recommended and has committed to making additional 

improvements. The OIG will continue to monitor ATF’s progress in this area. 

The second resolved recommendation involves the Department’s 

evaluation of the policies of the DEA, FBI, and USMS to ensure that they are 

sufficient to address the concerns we identified in the conduct of Operations 

Wide Receiver and Fast and Furious. We found that the efforts of ODAG’s 

working group on risk management resulted in the Department’s review of 

component policies on issues that overlapped with ones we identified in those 

Operations, such as oversight of sensitive cases and informant otherwise illegal 

activity, and led to the issuance of important guidance documents. However, 

we determined that the policies of the Department and its law enforcement 

components other than ATF did not sufficiently address risks associated with 

firearms transfers. 

2 In a “home invasion” undercover operation, ATF agents provide an opportunity for 

suspects to commit an armed robbery of a drug “stash house.” 

ii 
 

 

 

 

 

The Department has responded positively to our concerns on firearms 

transfers, though some work remains to be done. During our follow-up review, 

DEA issued a policy on risk assessment and mitigation that included guidance on 

firearms transfers, and revised it in January 2016 to comply more directly with 

our recommendation by specifying that agents were required to consult with a 

supervisor when confronted with firearms transfers. ODAG has informed us that 

the FBI and USMS also will be modifying their policies similarly, and that this 

work will be completed expeditiously. We will continue to monitor this process 

to ensure that the recommendations based on the problems uncovered in our 

prior review are fully addressed. 

As our 2012 report also made clear, our concerns with Operations Fast 

and Furious and Wide Reciever extended to issues other than firearms. For 

example, we emphasized the importance of oversight of confidential informants, 

especially in circumstances where the component has a regulatory function. We 

found that the Department and DEA failed to respond to our recommendation 

that addresses DEA’s use of informants who also are regulated by DEA, such as 

physicians and pharmacists. In addition, our review of DEA’s policies revealed 

that they did not incorporate important requirements from the Department’s 

guidelines on confidential informants, such as directions regarding otherwise 

illegal activity or procedures mandated by the guidelines for approval of certain 

highly sensitive informants. The Department has informed the OIG that it is 

working with DEA to revise DEA’s informant policies and to address these issues. 

Our report identifies the steps that we believe the Department and its law 

enforcement components need to take in order to close the two remaining 

recommendations. 

iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I. Introduction 

On December 14, 2010, U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agent Brian 

Terry was shot and killed while on patrol near Rio Rico, Arizona, approximately 

18 miles from the border with Mexico. Investigation of his death revealed that 

two firearms recovered at the scene of the shooting had been purchased 11 

months earlier by a suspect in a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives (ATF) case in Phoenix, Arizona, code named “Operation Fast and 

Furious.” 

Agent Terry’s death resulted in scrutiny of ATF’s management of 

Operation Fast and Furious, which became the subject of Congressional inquiries 

and media attention. ATF staff contacted members of Congress and reported 

that ATF had grossly mismanaged the operation and allowed the trafficking of 

hundreds of firearms to drug cartels in Mexico. On January 27, 2011, Senator 

Charles E. Grassley wrote to ATF Acting Director Kenneth Melson that the 

Senate Judiciary Committee had received allegations that ATF had “sanctioned 

the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers,” who 

then transported the firearms throughout the Southwest Border area and into 

Mexico. In February 2011, news stories began to appear describing flaws with 

ATF’s handling of its investigation. 

Senator Grassley’s staff also alerted the Office of the Inspector General 

(OIG) to an ATF agent’s allegations concerning Operation Fast and Furious. The 

OIG interviewed the whistleblower and opened a preliminary inquiry. On 

February 28, 2011, then-Attorney General Holder requested that the OIG 

conduct a review of Operation Fast and Furious, which the OIG commenced in 

combination with its earlier inquiry. 

Following an extensive review, we issued a 471-page report in September 

2012 that described our findings.3 The OIG determined that in October 2009 

ATF agents in Phoenix initiated an investigation of persons suspected of 

purchasing high-powered firearms on behalf of drug cartels. We found that 

during the ensuing 15-month investigation ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 

Arizona pursued a joint strategy that deferred overt enforcement action against 

individual purchasers of these firearms in favor of trying to build a case against 

the leaders of the organization that was trafficking them, with the consequence 

that agents seized only about 100 out of over 2,000 firearms that approximately 

40 subjects in the case had purchased. We determined that in many instances 

ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office failed to take enforcement action when they 

had both the opportunity and legal authority to seize firearms. Moreover, many 

of these firearms were later recovered by law enforcement officials at crime 

3 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, A Review of ATF’s Operation 

Fast and Furious and Related Matters (September 2012). 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

scenes in Mexico and the United States, including at the murder scene of Agent 

Terry. 

During our review of Operation Fast and Furious, the OIG also received 

allegations of ATF mismanagement of other firearms trafficking investigations. 

Our review included examination of one of these investigations, Operation Wide 

Receiver, which was conducted by the Tucson Office of ATF’s Phoenix Field 

Division with the assistance of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona. As with 

Operation Fast and Furious, we determined that ATF failed to take necessary 

enforcement actions. 

Our findings concerning the causes of ATF’s conduct were troubling. We 

concluded that both Operation Fast and Furious and Operation Wide Receiver 

were supervised irresponsibly by ATF’s Phoenix Field Division and the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office, most significantly in their failure to adequately consider the 

risk to public safety in the United States and Mexico. We also found that ATF 

Headquarters and the leadership of the U.S. Attorney’s Office failed to exercise 

adequate oversight of Operation Fast and Furious in light of the risks the 

operation posed to public safety and on our country’s relationship with Mexico. 

We concluded that ATF’s senior leadership should have recognized that its 

agents were failing to take adequate enforcement action as the firearms straw 

purchasing activity continued at an alarming pace, and should have promptly 

concluded the case. In addition, we determined that some senior ATF officials 

ignored warnings from ATF staff about agents failing to seize firearms when they 

had the legal authority to confiscate the firearms. 

We also identified other instances where potential warnings went 

unrecognized. We found that the wiretap applications submitted to the 

Department of Justice (DOJ or the Department) Criminal Division in Operations 

Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver contained “red flags” regarding the failure to 

seize firearms in the investigations. However, during our review we found that 

Criminal Division staff did not raise concerns about the firearms information 

contained in the applications. 

We found problems with ATF’s coordination with other law enforcement 

agencies. We identified instances where ATF resisted efforts by U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to conduct independent or 

coordinated investigations even though ATF lacked sufficient resources to 

complete the work itself. In addition, ATF missed an early opportunity in 

Operation Fast and Furious to advance the investigation when it failed to exploit 

information that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) provided that may 

have led to the identification of a significant suspect. 

In light of these findings, our report made six recommendations to 

strengthen oversight of ATF, improve coordination among law enforcement 

components, and ensure that the mistakes that were made in Operations Fast 

and Furious and Wide Receiver are not repeated within DOJ. Our 

recommendations therefore were not focused exclusively on ATF. The 

recommendations were as follows: 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. The Department should examine ATF’s policies on law enforcement 

operations to ensure that they are in compliance with Department guidelines 

and policies. 

2. The Department should examine ATF’s case review procedures to 

verify that they are consistent with procedures adopted in other Department law 

enforcement components to ensure that matters involving “sensitive 

circumstances,” “special requirements,” and “otherwise illegal activity,” are 

sufficiently evaluated. The Department should assess ATF’s implementation of 

these procedures to ensure that they are effective and consistently applied. 

3. The Department should work with ATF to develop guidance on how to 

conduct enterprise investigations against gun trafficking organizations consistent 

with lessons learned from Operation Fast and Furious. 

4. The Department should review the policies and procedures of other 

law enforcement components to ensure that they are sufficient to address the 

concerns we have identified in the conduct of Operations Wide Receiver and Fast 

and Furious, particularly regarding oversight of sensitive and major cases, 

otherwise illegal activity, and use of informants where the component has a 

regulatory function. 

5. The Department should maintain a regular working group involving 

leadership from component law enforcement agencies to ensure appropriate 

coordination among them on significant law enforcement policies and 

procedures, and major investigations and law enforcement initiatives. 

6. The Department should require that high-level officials who are 

responsible for authorizing wiretap applications conduct reviews of the 

applications and affidavits that are sufficient to enable those officials to form an 

independent judgment that the applications meet the statutory criteria. 

In its initial written response to the report, the Department stated that it 

agreed with our recommendations and committed to implementing them. 

The Department’s response to our follow-up report is attached. 

II.	 Summary of the OIG Follow-Up Review and Structure of the 

Report 

In this follow-up review we evaluated the Department’s efforts to 

implement our recommendations. Since issuance of our report on Operations 

Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver on September 19, 2012, the OIG received 

written updates from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General (ODAG) on 

December 18, 2012, and May 6, 2013, that described the Department’s 

progress. Beginning in 2014, the ODAG, ATF, DEA, the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), and U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) also provided information 

in response to additional OIG requests regarding implementation of the 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

recommendations, such as the status of particular policy revisions. We also 

conducted interviews of staff from these components. 

Overall, we determined that four of the six recommendations can be 

closed and two of the recommendations are resolved.

4 Although we found that 

ATF has made significant progress to implement our recommendations, we 

identified some remaining issues with the Department’s oversight of its other 

law enforcement components regarding issues we highlighted in our report. For 

example, we determined that the policies of the Department and its law 

enforcement components, except for a new policy adopted by ATF, did not fully 

address risks associated with firearms transfers, and that DEA’s policies on 

confidential informants failed to address problems we identified in Operations 

Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver and were not consistent with the text of the 

applicable Attorney General’s Guidelines.5 During the course of this follow up 

review and in response to concerns we raised regarding its efforts to amend its 

policy, the DEA issued a risk mitigation and assessment policy that addresses 

firearms transfers, and the FBI and USMS have committed to revising their 

policies to address this subject. In addition, the Department and DEA are 

conducting a review of DEA informant policies that will address concerns we 

identified. We will continue to monitor the Department’s ongoing efforts in 

these areas. 

We believe it is important that the Department’s law enforcement 

components recognize and implement lessons from our reviews. This report 

supplements our recommendations to address this issue. 

Below we discuss each of our recommendations and their current status. 

4 Consistent with our normal practice, when specific action has been taken on a 

recommendation to fully address the issues raised by the recommendation, we consider the 

recommendation to be “closed.” Where a component has indicated a plan or an intention to 

implement measures in the future to address the recommendation, we consider the 

recommendation to be “resolved.” We consider a recommendation “open” where no action has 

been taken or insufficient information has been provided to determine whether sufficient action 

will be taken. 

5 The OIG has written extensively in the past about the importance of compliance with 

these Guidelines. See U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, The Federal 

Bureau of Investigation’s Compliance with the Attorney General’s Investigative Guidelines 

(September 2005). The OIG is currently evaluating DEA’s informant program and recently issued 

a report with seven recommendations, including one that requests that DEA “ensure compliance” 

with Guidelines’ requirements. See U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, 

Audit of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Confidential Source Policies and Oversight of 

Higher-Risk Confidential Sources, Audit Report 15-28 (July 2015). 

4
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III. Recommendations 

A. Recommendation One: ATF Policy Review 

We recommended that the Department examine ATF’s policies on law 

enforcement operations to ensure that they comply with Department policies 

and guidelines.

6 Our review of Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver 

identified instances where ATF had not revised its policies to institute controls 

sufficient to protect the public or to account for its move to the Department in 

2003. For example, until 2011 ATF had not updated its policies on confidential 

informants to account for the requirements of the Attorney General’s Guidelines 

Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants (“Informant Guidelines”). These 

Guidelines applied to ATF beginning in 2003 pursuant to an Order of the 

Attorney General. The Department, however, failed to amend the Guidelines to 

include ATF until February 2013. 

As we noted in our September 2012 report, ATF initiated a comprehensive 

evaluation of its policies on law enforcement operations and investigative 

techniques beginning in 2011. These policies are found in multiple ATF “Orders” 

that address topics such as Undercover Operations; Confidential Informant 

Usage; Investigative Policies, Procedures, and Techniques; Operational Planning, 

and ATF’s Firearms Enforcement Program.

7 One objective of ATF’s review was 

to ensure that its policies comply with Department mandates. We found that 

ATF completed its evaluation in 2014 and accounted for the OIG’s 

recommendations, though some of its policy revisions were made earlier in 

anticipation of the 2012 OIG report’s findings. According to ATF staff, the 

agency’s policy review identified omissions of subjects that are addressed in DOJ 

policies, but did not identify conflicts with those policies. As described further 

below, ATF responded to these omissions by updating its Orders on Undercover 

Operations and Confidential Informants, and establishing a policy on firearms 

transfers. 

In addition to ATF’s policy review, ODAG examined a subset of ATF’s law 

enforcement policies while leading a Risk Assessment Working Group (RAWG) 

that the Attorney General formed in 2012 due in part to risk management issues 

identified in Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver and the findings and 

recommendations of the OIG’s report. The RAWG was comprised of 

representatives of the Department’s law enforcement components, the Office of 

the Attorney General, ODAG, the Criminal Division, the Executive Office of U.S. 

Attorneys, and members of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. 

Attorneys. The RAWG’s mission was to evaluate the Department’s procedures 

6 Due to the focus of this follow-up review on the implementation of the recommendations 

contained in our report on Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver, and the number of 

policies at issue, the OIG did not conduct a separate audit of ATF’s policies to determine their 

consistency with the Department’s policies and guidelines. 

7 Besides its review of Orders, ATF reports that it also has completed a review of 55 ATF 

Directives. These do not address law enforcement operations. 

5
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for assessing risk in law enforcement investigations and operations. The Group 

met regularly for approximately 1 year and examined issues such as the 

initiation and oversight of sensitive investigative activities, the use of 

confidential informants, and the authorization for informants or undercover 

agents to engage in otherwise illegal activities (OIA).

8 With respect to ATF, 

ODAG staff assigned to the RAWG examined ATF’s policies on firearms transfers; 

monitoring of sensitive cases (ATF’s Monitored Case Program (MCP)); the 

alcohol and tobacco enforcement programs; home invasion operations; 

undercover operations, including undercover storefront operations; confidential 

informants; operational planning; and inspections. 

The RAWG’s efforts resulted in the Deputy Attorney General’s issuance of 

two significant guidance memoranda concerning risk assessment that are 

pertinent to issues we identified in Operations Fast and Furious and Wide 

Receiver. On March 11, 2013, the Deputy Attorney General provided 

recommendations to prosecutors on how to evaluate sensitive investigative 

activities that require approval by headquarters review committees 

(Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, “Sensitive 

Investigative Activities Requiring Committee Review”). The Deputy Attorney 

General’s memorandum recommended that Department attorneys thoroughly 

evaluate issues such as the role of confidential informants, civil liability, and 

safety, including the transfer of dangerous commodities such as firearms. Id. at 

2-5. The Deputy Attorney General followed this guidance with another 

memorandum on December 7, 2013, which established law enforcement and 

prosecutor protocols for assessing and mitigating risk in law enforcement 

operations (Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole, 

“Baseline Risk Assessment and Mitigation Policies for Law Enforcement 

Operations in Criminal Matters”). The Baseline Risk Assessment Memorandum 

establishes 55 protocols in the following areas: assessing risk during the course 

of an investigation, initiation and oversight of sensitive investigative activities, 

use of confidential informants, authorization of OIA by undercover agents or 

informants, and investigations in which project generated income is 

contemplated. 

Following discussions with the OIG about Recommendation One, ODAG 

staff informed us that the Department believed that ATF's law enforcement 

policies complied with DOJ policies with three exceptions. First, aside from ATF’s 

undercover storefront operations, ATF’s policies did not require the submission 

of a concurrence letter from the U.S. Attorney for undercover operations that 

included a “sensitive circumstance.”9 “Sensitive circumstances” are defined in 

8 The Informant Guidelines define OIA as “activity that would constitute a misdemeanor 

or felony under federal, state, or local law if engaged in by a person acting without authorization.” 

The Guidelines recognize two types of OIA (Tier I and Tier II), with the more serious type (Tier I) 

including activities such as corrupt conduct by public officials and violence committed by persons 

other than confidential informants. 

9 After widespread publicity regarding its use of storefront operations in early 2013, ATF 

issued guidance to the field in March 2013 requiring written concurrence from the U.S. Attorney 

6
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the Attorney General’s Guidelines on Federal Bureau of Investigation Undercover 

Operations (generically “Undercover Guidelines”), and include matters such as 

the investigation of elected officials or activities that could give rise to tort 

claims against the United States.10 ODAG staff agreed with our assessment that 

ATF’s failure to require written concurrence from the U.S. Attorney conflicted 

with the requirements of the Undercover Guidelines, which ATF has committed 

to implement as requested by the Department. Former Deputy Attorney 

General Cole’s cover letter accompanying ODAG’s memorandum on Sensitive 

Investigative Activities Requiring Committee Review described these 

concurrence letters, reflecting the views of the prosecutor regarding the 

operation, as “extremely important” in the Department’s assessment of risk. 

ATF staff informed us that its agents were in the practice of obtaining the 

concurrence of U.S. Attorney’s Offices for sensitive matters, and in some cases 

this concurrence was obtained in writing. ATF agreed that its policies should be 

amended and issued a revised policy in March 2015 that requires the submission 

of a concurrence letter from the U.S. Attorney for undercover operations that 

include a “sensitive circumstance” as defined in the Undercover Guidelines.

11 

The second discrepancy between ATF and DOJ policies also involved 

undercover operations. We found that the “sensitive circumstances” criteria that 

ATF used to trigger review by its headquarters-based Undercover Review 

Committee (URC) did not expressly include operations that involve a “significant 

risk of violence or physical injury to individuals.” The Undercover Guidelines, as 

well as the undercover operations policies of the DEA, FBI, and USMS, all 

identify the “significant risk of violence” or “injury” as a “sensitive circumstance” 

that necessitates headquarters review. 

During this follow-up review we informed the Department of our belief 

that the omission of the “significant risk of violence” from the list of “sensitive 

circumstances” in ATF’s undercover policies was significant and warranted 

for undercover storefront operations. The OIG has initiated a review that is evaluating ATF’s 

storefront operations. 

10 The Department has not established Attorney General’s Guidelines on undercover 

operations for ATF, DEA, or the USMS. When we inquired with ODAG why the Undercover 

Guidelines applied only to the FBI, we were told that the omission of the other DOJ law 

enforcement components was longstanding and did not warrant revising the Guidelines because, 

with the exceptions concerning ATF that we describe below, the components’ undercover policies 

comply with them. According to ODAG, then-Attorney General Holder decided that all of the DOJ 

law enforcement components should comply with the Undercover Guidelines to the extent it is 

appropriate to their jurisdiction. We also were told by ODAG that the RAWG examined the law 

enforcement components’ undercover policies and confirmed that they complied with the 

Guidelines. 

11 The USMS has informed the OIG that it is revising its undercover policies to require the 

submission of a concurrence letter from the U.S. Attorney for undercover operations that include a 

“sensitive circumstance” under the Attorney General Guidelines and that are likely to lead to the 

collection of evidence supporting a federal prosecution. According to staff from the USMS, they 

could not recall when the USMS had an undercover operation that included a “sensitive 

circumstance,” and hence the omission of the concurrence letter policy did not affect prior cases. 

7
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

revision of the policies to include that language or comparable text. We were 

especially concerned about this omission given ATF’s failure to properly evaluate 

public safety in Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver. For example, 

we found that ATF was not presenting its “home invasion” undercover operations 

to the URC, or requiring a written concurrence letter from the U.S. Attorney, 

even though the operations in fact presented “a significant risk of violence.”12 

Moreover, we found that some judges had leveled criticism at ATF concerning its 

handling of these operations.13 ODAG staff agreed with the OIG’s assessment 

that ATF’s policies concerning review of home invasion undercover operations 

were insufficient to meet Department requirements. 

In response to these concerns, ATF amended its undercover policies. 

Given the significant risks associated with home invasion undercover operations, 

ATF changed its authorization procedure to require review by the URC and the 

submission of a written concurrence letter from the U.S. Attorney. In addition, 

we were told by ODAG and ATF that ATF is amending its Order on Undercover 

Operations to add the “significant risk of violence” to its list of “sensitive 

circumstances” and supplementing the list with examples of operations that 

present such a risk. According to ATF, in light of the agency’s focus on violent 

crime involving firearms and explosives, the term “significant risk of violence” 

standing alone lacked sufficient specificity to put ATF agents on notice as to 

which operations were covered and that presentation of examples was 

warranted. 

Lastly, ODAG staff informed us that the Department was not initially 

satisfied that ATF and all other DOJ law enforcement components had in place 

12 In a “home invasion” undercover operation, ATF agents provide an opportunity for 

suspects to commit an armed robbery of a drug “stash house.” ATF’s manual on home invasion 

operations highlights the significant risk of violence in this undercover technique as follows: 

The [home invasion] technique developed by ATF, or what’s referred to in some judicial 

districts as a “stash house robbery,” is no different in theory than any other proactive law 

enforcement sting operation, with one exception – violence. . . . 

[T]his opportunity to rob a drug stash house is only appealing to people who know the 

value of a quantity of cocaine, have the means or connections in the criminal community 

to sell it and are willing to use violence – and even to kill – to obtain it. 

Suspects provided with this opportunity are willing to go into a situation where they may 

have to kill, or may possibly be killed, for profit. . . . [T]he targets of ATF home invasion 

investigations show up with pistols, shotguns, assault rifles, knives, hand cuffs, flex cuffs, 

stun guns, masks, ballistic vests, and fake police uniforms. 

ATF Home Invasion Operations, FY 2013 1st Edition, 5-6. 

13 See, e.g., United States v. Mayfield, 771 F.3d 417 (7th Cir. 2014); United States v. 

Black, 733 F.3d 294 (9th Cir. 294) (Noonan, J, dissenting); United States v. Hudson, 3 F. Supp. 

3d 772 (C.D. Cal. 2014), rev’d on other grounds, United States v. Dunlap, 2014WL6807733 (9th 

Cir. 2014). 

8
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

policies that were sufficient to meet the Baseline Risk Assessment 

Memorandum’s requirement to assess with prosecutors on an on-going basis 

whether an investigation’s benefits outweigh its risks and whether the 

investigation is accomplishing its goals, though ODAG is now satisfied that is the 

case. Specifically, ATF advised the OIG that its agents are expected to confer 

with prosecutors during the course of investigations to evaluate benefits and 

risks and that ATF supported ODAG’s efforts to encourage such dialogue. 

According to ODAG, however, ATF’s submissions to the RAWG initially failed to 

adequately describe ATF’s consultation policies and practices. ATF subsequently 

supplemented its submissions with additional information establishing the 

consultation requirement to ODAG’s satisfaction. 

In light of the revisions described above, ODAG staff has advised the OIG 

that it believes that ATF’s law enforcement policies currently comply with the 

Department’s policies and guidelines. Officials at ATF told us that ATF shares 

ODAG’s view. 

In sum, officials at both ATF and ODAG have advised the OIG that they 

have completed reviews of ATF policies on law enforcement operations to ensure 

that they are in compliance with Department policies and guidelines. Based on 

the information that ATF and ODAG provided to the OIG regarding these 

reviews, we found that the Department has concluded the evaluation of ATF’s 

policies that we requested. 

Recommendation One is closed. 

B. Recommendation Two: ATF Case Review Procedures 

We recommended that the Department examine ATF’s case review 

procedures to verify that they are consistent with procedures adopted in other 

Department law enforcement components to ensure that matters involving 

“sensitive circumstances,” “special requirements,” and “otherwise illegal activity” 

(collectively “sensitive matters”) are sufficiently evaluated. We also 

recommended that the Department assess ATF’s implementation of these 

procedures to ensure that they are effective and consistently applied. We made 

these recommendations after determining from our review of ATF’s oversight of 

Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver that the case review procedures 

employed in those investigations were not adequate to detect serious flaws, 

including ones that implicated public safety and relations with Mexico. 

During this follow-up review we evaluated the Department’s written status 

updates to this recommendation and obtained additional information from ODAG 

and ATF. The Department’s updates highlighted three initiatives to assist ATF to 

better manage risks related to sensitive matters and to ensure consistency with 

other DOJ law enforcement components: (1) the work of the RAWG; (2) 

revisions to ATF’s Orders on confidential informants and undercover operations; 

and (3) the establishment of ATF’s MCP. 

9
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

According to ODAG staff, during its oversight of the RAWG it examined 

and compared selected policies of the Department’s law enforcement 

components, including ATF’s case review procedures for sensitive matters. With 

the exceptions noted in Recommendation One, which have been resolved, ODAG 

determined that ATF’s review procedures are consistent with Department 

policies and guidelines and with practices in other DOJ law enforcement 

components. This includes the risk-management requirements established in 

the Baseline Risk Assessment Memorandum. 

The Department also reported that ATF has revised its Orders concerning 

confidential informants and undercover operations to improve its oversight 

practices. For example, ATF formed separate review committees for confidential 

informants and undercover operations respectively that are staffed with senior 

ATF officials and at least one DOJ Criminal Division prosecutor. These 

committees evaluate circumstances that present heighted risks to ATF, such as 

use of an informant for longer than 6 years, certain types of undercover 

operations, or authorization for undercover employees to commit otherwise 

illegal activity. ATF’s revisions to its Order on confidential informants also 

included adding stricter controls on authorization of OIA. 

According to the Department, the MCP is another method that ATF uses to 

improve its oversight of sensitive matters. ATF has established risk-based 

criteria for including cases in the MCP. These encompass various activities that 

ATF has determined pose or are associated with substantial risks, such as the 

trafficking or straw purchasing of more than 50 firearms, use of wiretaps in ATFled investigations, or matters involving a documented nexus to international 

crime.

14 For cases that qualify for inclusion in the MCP, the MCP imposes 

reporting requirements on ATF Field Divisions. Agents must prepare a written 

“initial submission” and either 30-day or 90-day “updates” that are sent to ATF 

Headquarters staff for review. In order to assist agents with their disclosure 

responsibilities, ATF has developed report templates that agents complete to 

satisfy their initial and periodic reporting requirements. Agents also are required 

to participate in case briefings. Specifically, the case agent and first-line 

supervisor assigned to a monitored case report at least monthly to field division 

management, as does the Special Agent-in-Charge to the supervising Deputy 

Assistant Director of Field Operations at ATF Headquarters. The ATF Director 

and Deputy Director also receive briefings each month on select monitored cases 

from field staff and the supervising Deputy Assistant Director from 

Headquarters’ Office of Field Operations. 

14 According to the ATF Order that governs the MCP, risk assessment is a critical 

component of the MCP. It provides that ATF “must establish with certainty that we have critically 

reviewed apparent and foreseeable risks, that our plans to mitigate those risks are sound . . . .” 

and that “[t]o achieve this, there must be full disclosure, complete candor, and transparency 

regarding all investigative and administrative developments in any investigation – and in particular 

in any monitored case. . . .” ATF Order 3200.1. 

10
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition to the information we obtained from the Department’s status 

updates regarding the RAWG and our review of ATF’s revision of its Orders and 

the policy outlining the requirements of the MCP, the OIG requested detailed 

information from ATF about its oversight procedures. We inquired about a 

variety of issues, including procedures for conducting case file reviews, 

inspection criteria, implementation of the MCP, and the responsibilities of ATF’s 

Undercover Branch. We obtained documents about these issues and also 

conducted interviews. 

We believe that the efforts described in the Department’s status updates 

and in the information that ATF provided to us in response to our requests 

demonstrate significant progress to improve ATF’s review procedures for 

sensitive matters. The RAWG scrutinized the policies of the Department’s law 

enforcement components involving oversight of sensitive matters, including 

ATF’s policies on undercover operations, confidential informants, and otherwise 

illegal activity, to ensure that they met the Department’s risk management 

requirements. ATF’s revision of its Orders on confidential informants and 

undercover operations conformed them to Department policies and guidelines. 

The MCP creates a reporting framework that improves communication between 

ATF Headquarters and its field divisions on cases that warrant greater 

supervision. 

However, our interviews with ATF staff and examination of documents 

identified four areas of concern regarding ATF’s oversight of sensitive matters 

that warranted ATF’s attention before we can close Recommendation Two.

15 

These address: (1) the amendment of ATF’s MCP report templates and MCP 

Order to better account for risk; (2) ATF inspection procedures; (3) 

authorization practices concerning confidential informant OIA; and (4) the role 

of polygraphs in ATF’s evaluation of allegations of unauthorized illegal activity by 

confidential informants.16 

With respect to the MCP report templates, we were concerned that they 

did not capture sufficient risk-related information, and in that respect did not 

fulfill the purposes underlying both the MCP and ODAG’s Baseline Risk 

Assessment Memorandum.17 Our review determined that the MCP initial 

submission template includes sections for reporting basic information about the 

monitored case, including the name of the case agent and supervisors, date the 

15 The issue of ATF’s failure to include the “significant risk of violence” as a “sensitive 

circumstance” in its undercover operations policies also is applicable to Recommendation Two. We 

discussed that issue above in the context of Recommendation One. 

16 The OIG also is evaluating the MCP in its pending review of ATF’s undercover storefront 

operations and may provide additional recommendations concerning the MCP in that report. 

17 ATF’s Order that governs the MCP provides for “regular risk assessment” through 

required reporting and other monitoring activities. ATF Order 3200.1 at Section 5.c. The Baseline 

Risk Assessment Memorandum similarly specifies procedures that law enforcement components 

and prosecutors must implement to ensure that risks are adequately evaluated on an ongoing 

basis. 

11
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

investigation was opened, and a summary of the investigation. It also includes 

15 additional sections that cover various topics, some of which may not apply in 

each case, such as “narcotics evidence,” “international,” “storefront 

investigations,” and “confidential informants.” Many of these sections request 

numerical information about the investigation. The update submission template 

is an abbreviated version of the initial submission and omits the majority of the 

topical sections. Both templates request information about “potential issues, 

challenges, or concerns” that may affect the investigation. 

We believed that ATF should revise its reporting templates and MCP Order 

to account for the ODAG memoranda described in Recommendation One. First, 

we recommended that ATF attach both memoranda as exhibits to the Order, and 

consider amending the Order to include references to them. The ODAG 

memoranda set forth important requirements and guidance regarding risk 

assessment and mitigation and agents who have cases in the MCP should be 

knowledgeable about them. The Order currently attaches two other ODAG 

guidance documents as exhibits (these concern criminal discovery and 

disclosure obligations), along with other materials, including the criteria for 

including cases in the MCP and reporting templates. We believed that the ODAG 

memoranda are sufficiently relevant to the purposes of the MCP that they 

merited at least comparable treatment. 

Second, we recommended that ATF modify the MCP reporting templates 

to expressly address risks that are discussed in the ODAG memoranda, including 

risks to public safety, and confidential informant authorized and unauthorized 

illegal activity. We advised ATF that possible improvements to the templates 

could include the following: 

•	 Add a section entitled “Risk Assessment” that separately describes risks to 

public safety, agent safety, mitigation measures to address such risks, 

and whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office has been briefed on the risks; 

•	 Revise the section on “U.S. Attorney’s Office” to include a description of 

any concerns that the U.S. Attorney’s Office raised about the investigation 

or proposed operations and how the Field Division addressed those 

concerns; 

•	 Revise the section on “Participants” to include a description of whether 

any partner agencies have expressed concerns about the investigation or 

proposed operations and how the Field Division addressed those 

concerns; 

•	 Revise the section on “Firearms” to inquire as to whether ATF’s Firearm 

Transfers policy has been violated or whether the Field Division has 

received allegations of the same (“Firearm Transfers,” November 3, 2011, 

incorporated into Section 77 of ATF Order 3310.4C); 

•	 Revise the section on “Confidential Informants” to include the name of the 

handling agent; whether the informant is authorized for otherwise illegal 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

activity, and if so, the terms of the authorization (type of illegal activities, 

duration, location); evidence or allegations of informant unauthorized 

illegal activities; whether the informant has disregarded agent 

instructions; and any special controls that the Field Division has instituted 

to monitor the informant’s activities; and 

•	 Revise the section on “Storefront Investigations” to account for safety and 

risk factors identified in ATF’s Storefront Investigations manual and in its 

Storefront guidance (“Revisions to Storefront Policy and Guidance,” March 

21, 2013), including site selection, security assessments, and oversight.18 

In addition, we recommended that ATF consider modifying the “update 

submission” template as follows: 

•	 Revise the section on “Overall Investigation Summary” to identify; (1) 

any changes in the goals or other aspects of the investigation that deviate 

from the terms of any prior authorizations (such as changes in the 

location of an operation) or otherwise impact the risks associated with it; 

(2) the progress made to achieve the investigation’s goals, and an 

estimate of when the goals will be fully achieved; and (3) new significant 

information concerning any of the reporting sections included in the initial 

submission, with specific reference to any information that would impact 

the risk associated with the investigation. 

ATF staff informed the OIG that it agreed that the MCP templates should 

be updated to account for the risk-assessment concepts described in the ODAG 

memoranda, and that it found nothing objectionable about the notion of 

incorporating compliance checklists into its MCP reporting templates as we have 

suggested. ATF further agreed that the issues we identified above for tracking 

in the templates are important ones and informed us that the issues were under 

active consideration by the agency. 

Since that time, ATF attached both ODAG memoranda on risk assessment 

as exhibits to the MCP Order, as we recommended. In addition, in January 

2016, ATF furnished the OIG with revised templates that addressed many of our 

concerns. For example, the revised “initial submission” template requires the 

production of information about concerns expressed by the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office or partner agencies and whether a confidential informant has been 

authorized to conduct otherwise illegal activity. The “update submission” 

template includes sections for describing investigative results, any challenges or 

concerns affecting the investigation, and whether the goals of the investigation 

have changed. ATF also informed the OIG that it anticipates making additional 

changes to the templates that will address concerns we identified regarding 

18 The OIG expects to make recommendations in its final report on select ATF storefront 

operations for revisions to ATF’s Storefront Investigations manual. ATF currently has a 

moratorium on storefront investigations. 

13
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

firearms transfers and storefront operations. The OIG will continue to monitor 

ATF’s progress in this area. 

In addition to the MCP, ATF’s inspection process provides another method 

to oversee sensitive matters. As with other Department law enforcement 

components, ATF has an Inspection Division that inspects Headquarters offices 

and field divisions for compliance with policy and regulations. ATF Order 

8100.2B. At the start of our review we found that ATF was performing 

inspections of eight subject matter areas, and had developed inspection 

checklists for each area.19 In response to our review and recommendations 

from ODAG, ATF in February 2015 added three areas and modified its inspection 

procedures to include interviews of agents regarding operational planning and 

the use of confidential informants.20 According to the Chief of ATF’s Inspection 

Division, each Field Division conducts a self-inspection covering these topics 

every year, while the Inspection Division seeks to inspect each field division 

once every 3 years. The Chief also stated that budget limitations and 

reengineering efforts disrupted ATF’s inspection cycle between 2010 and 2012, 

and that the Inspection Division was still “catching up” to its goal of visiting each 

field division once every 3 years. 

As with the MCP report templates, our review determined that the 

Inspection Division’s procedures and criteria are not sufficiently risk-based and 

focused on sensitive matters. For example, we found that the Inspection 

Division was not inspecting various activities that carry substantial risk, such as 

undercover operations, and did not weight its selection of case files for review 

based on the presence of risk factors. We also found that the inspection 

checklist for confidential informants did not evaluate OIA or issues related to 

unauthorized illegal activity, such as notifications required under the Attorney 

General’s Guidelines. We believe that ATF should revise its inspection 

procedures to better address risks to the agency. These modifications should 

proceed from a comprehensive assessment that identifies such risks.21 In 

January 2016, ATF advised the OIG that it was developing new information 

collection procedures to better identify investigations that present heightened 

operational risk and that warrant enhanced inspection scrutiny. ATF intends to 

update the OIG about its progress as its work in this area continues, and the 

OIG will continue to monitor its progress. 

19 These are: N-Force Investigation and Documentation Analysis, Evidence Vault, 

Confidential Informant, Agent Cashier Funds, Referral of Information, N-SPECT Inspection and 

Documentation Analysis, Travel Miscellaneous, and Issued Property. 

20 The new subject matter areas are: firearms training, operational planning, and the 

Monitored Case Program. 

21 We described risk identification and mitigation procedures in our report, Federal Bureau 

of Investigation’s Integrity and Compliance Program (November 2011). We recognize that much 

of this underlying work may already have been completed through ATF’s development of the MCP 

and participation in the RAWG. 

14
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We also determined that ATF needed to enhance agent education and 

oversight concerning informant OIA. We reviewed select authorizations for OIA 

and found that in some cases approvals were not made by ATF officials of 

sufficient seniority. For less serious types of OIA, known as Tier II OIA, the 

applicable Attorney General Guidelines require authorization from an agent who 

is a “senior field manager.” We found in a limited number of cases that 

authorizations for Tier II OIA were being provided from supervisors below this 

level of seniority. In addition, our interviews with agents revealed that some 

were not familiar with OIA. We did not identify instances where agents obtained 

improper authorizations of Tier I OIA. 

We raised our concerns regarding the authorization for OIA and agent 

knowledge of the relevant requirements with ATF. In response, the Assistant 

Director for Field Operations issued guidance to all ATF Special Agents-InCharge (SACs) in November 2014 that reminded them that all agents must 

understand the definition of OIA and that described the Tier II OIA approval 

process. ATF also modified the form it uses to authorize Tier II OIA to ensure 

that the authorization is provided by either a SAC or Assistant Special Agent-InCharge (ASAC). 

Another oversight practice related to OIA that we determined ATF needed 

to address concerned the use of polygraphs on confidential informants. We 

found that ATF did not have a policy regarding use of polygraphs on informants. 

Moreover, an experienced ATF polygrapher told us that “we avoid giving 

polygraphs to [confidential informants] whenever we can.” We were concerned 

by this because polygraphs can play a useful role in informant oversight, 

especially in circumstances where an allegation arises that the informant has 

engaged in unauthorized illegal activity. The FBI’s handbook on human sources 

provides that “[p]olygraph examinations should be considered a useful tool and 

should be considered for use when circumstances warrant.” After we brought 

this issue to ATF’s attention, ATF amended its confidential informant policies to 

acknowledge the availability of polygraph examinations for informant suitability 

reviews and other circumstances as appropriate.22 

Lastly, Recommendation Two also requested that the Department assess 

ATF’s implementation of its procedures concerning sensitive matters to ensure 

that they are effective and consistently applied. According to ODAG staff, the 

RAWG required ATF and other DOJ law enforcement components to furnish 

training materials to ODAG demonstrating that they are training their personnel 

to implement the protocols set forth in the Baseline Risk Assessment 

Memorandum. Those protocols address risks common in the sensitive matters 

we identified in the recommendation, such as OIA. ODAG evaluated ATF’s 

materials and determined that they were satisfactory. ATF also provided these 

22 ATF’s Order on Confidential Informants now provides that: “[s]pecial agents are 

reminded that polygraph services are available upon request for any Initial Suitability 

Determination, Semiannual Suitability Review, or at any time deemed necessary by the controlling 

agent.” ATF Order 3252.1A. 

15
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

materials to the OIG, and we believe that they are consistent with the goals set 

forth in the Recommendation. 

In light of the foregoing we have determined that Recommendation Two is 

resolved. ATF should provide a written response to this assessment within 90 

days. This recommendation can be closed when ATF makes additional revisions 

to the MCP report templates to further improve evaluatinig risk and develops 

inspection procedures that evaluate leading risks to the agency as identified 

from a comprehensive risk assessment. In light of the foregoing, ATF does not 

need to provide additional information on authorization of Tier II OIA and 

polygraphs of informants. 

C.	 Recommendation Three: Gun Trafficking Enterprise 

Investigations 

We recommended that the Department work with ATF to develop 

guidance on how to conduct enterprise investigations against gun trafficking 

organizations consistent with lessons learned from Operation Fast and Furious. 

We made this recommendation to ensure that ATF agents understood how to 

build such cases in light of ATF’s firearms transfer policy, which took effect in 

November 2011. 

ATF codified its firearms transfer policy in an agency order in March 2013. 

The order differentiates between two types of firearms transfers: “controlled” 

and “uncontrolled.” ATF Order 3310.4C Section 77.a(6). In a “controlled 

firearms transfer” the government actively participates in the firearms transfer, 

such as attaching a tracking device to a firearm owned by a licensed firearms 

dealer, and may or may not own the firearms. ATF’s order prohibits agents 

from allowing firearms in a controlled delivery to leave their control. In an 

“uncontrolled firearms transfer” the government learns of a suspicious firearms 

transaction but does not actively participate in the transfer, and none of the 

firearms are owned by the government. Id. When an agent has a legal basis to 

make an arrest or seize the firearm in an uncontrolled firearms transfer, there 

are four options. According to the order: 

[T]he agent, considering primarily public and officer safety, must 

take all reasonable steps to prevent the firearm’s criminal misuse 

by: (1) intervening to stop the transfer (if the transfer has not yet 

occurred); (2) arresting the suspect; (3) taking the firearm into law 

enforcement custody; and/or (4) conducting continuous on-site 

physical surveillance to identify additional suspects or locations 

before taking enforcement action. If continuous on-site physical 

surveillance is used, such surveillance may not cease until 

enforcement action is taken. 

Id. 

Officials from the Department and ATF informed the OIG that they concur 

with Recommendation Three. The Department’s initial update regarding 

Recommendation Three cited ATF’s “Frontline” strategy. According to ATF, 

16
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Frontline is a “business model” that uses planning, performance assessments, 

and increased reliance on criminal intelligence to advance the agency’s law 

enforcement mission. (ATF Frontline Manual, 2013 1st Edition at vii to x). The 

Department and ATF also furnished training materials in 2014 for our 

examination that addressed issues in firearms prosecutions. However, our 

review of the Frontline strategy and training materials did not identify 

information that provided guidance to agents on how to develop 

enterprise/conspiracy cases and that also took ATF’s firearms transfer order into 

account. 

On July 6, 2015, ATF provided the OIG with new training materials which 

provide instruction on how to develop enterprise/conspiracy cases involving 

firearms while abiding by ATF’s firearms transfer order. The materials provide 

that the agency’s firearms transfer policy is not intended to prohibit complex 

investigations, and furnishes examples of investigative techniques that can be 

used in such investigations. It also instructs agents to “communicate and 

coordinate” with prosecutors, law enforcement partners, and within ATF 

“regarding potential criminal acquisition of firearms, trafficking, and acts of 

violence.” According to ATF, the training is mandatory for all agents and task 

force officers and had to be completed by September 30, 2015. 

We believe that ATF has taken the steps necessary to satisfy this 

recommendation. Therefore, Recommendation Three is closed. 

D.	 Recommendation Four: Policy Review of Other Law 

Enforcement Components to Account for Lessons from 

Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver 

We recommended that the Department review the policies and procedures 

of its law enforcement components other than ATF to ensure that they are 

sufficient to address the concerns we identified in the conduct of Operations Fast 

and Furious and Wide Receiver, particularly regarding oversight of sensitive and 

major cases, the authorization and oversight of otherwise illegal activity, and 

the use of informants in situations where the law enforcement component also 

has a regulatory function. We made this recommendation in order to minimize 

the risk that the mistakes made in Operations Fast and Furious and Wide 

Receiver would be repeated by the DEA, FBI, and USMS. 

We determined that ODAG, through its oversight of the RAWG, evaluated 

the policies of the Department’s law enforcement components regarding the 

three issues we highlighted in the recommendation to ensure that the policies 

satisfied the risk management requirements contained in the Baseline Risk 

Assessment Memorandum. As part of this review ODAG also initiated an 

assessment to determine whether additional firearms transfer policies are 

required in the Department besides the policy established by ATF in 2011. 

Despite the important and beneficial work of the RAWG, we identified 

three areas where we believe the Department needs to make improvements. 

These concern: (1) policies that address firearms transfers for components 

17
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

other than ATF; (2) the failure of DEA’s informant policies to incorporate 

requirements from the Informant Guidelines, especially concerning informant 

otherwise illegal activity; and (3) DEA’s use of informants who are regulated by 

DEA, such as physicians and pharmacists, or are employed by an entity that is 

regulated by DEA, such as a drug manufacturer. 

1. Firearms Transfers 

We found that with the exception of ATF, the policies of the Department 

and its law enforcement components did not sufficiently address risks associated 

with firearms transfers. As we described above, in response to problems 

identified in Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver, ATF established a 

policy on firearms transfers in November 2011 that addresses both “controlled” 

and “uncontrolled” firearms transfers. We determined, however, that neither 

DEA, FBI, nor the USMS instituted similar policy changes or provided guidance 

to their personnel. During our interviews, staff from these components provided 

various justifications for the lack of express policies that address firearms 

transfers, including that their agents did not engage in the troubling practices 

described in the OIG’s report, and that the risks related to firearms transfers 

were sufficiently managed through other policies, such as ones concerning 

undercover operations. 

We found these arguments unpersuasive. Because agents from the DEA, 

FBI, and USMS routinely deal with violent criminals with access to trafficked 

firearms, we believe that it is readily foreseeable that agents from these 

components could learn of uncontrolled firearms transfers, such as from an 

informant or wiretap, in circumstances where probable cause exists to seize the 

firearms or arrest the perpetrators. With limited exceptions, the firearms 

transfers in Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver were 

“uncontrolled.”23 An important lesson from the errors in Operations Fast and 

23 We also found that the DEA and USMS did not have policies that addressed when to 

contact ATF about uncontrolled firearms transfers. Staff from both agencies informed us that it 

was their practice to confer with ATF on matters involving firearms transfers because firearms are 

within ATF’s jurisdiction. DEA brought to our attention its policies on the “Debriefing of 

Confidential Sources,” which provide that if the non-drug related information provided from a 

confidential source “concerns a serious criminal offense (e.g. a felony), or a crime which is 

planned to be committed, then action will be taken to coordinate with supervisory personnel of the 

responsible law enforcement agency, and/or with federal or state prosecutor [sic].” These policies 

also reference DEA’s “Guide to Source Debriefing,” which identify possible questions regarding 

firearms, ammunition, and explosives. Our review of DEA’s policies determined that they were not 

sufficiently explicit and comprehensive to address the problems we identified in our report on 

Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver. For example, DEA agents may learn of firearms 

transfers in ways other than from a source debriefing. We had similar concerns with the USMS. 

USMS policy also does not mention firearms transfers or ATF; rather, it generally requires referral 

to the “appropriate federal, state, and/or local law enforcement authorities” of information about 

suspected criminal activity that is outside of USMS jurisdiction. FBI policy provides for referral of 

firearms matters to ATF in circumstances where the FBI otherwise lacks primary jurisdiction to 

investigate. 

18
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Furious and Wide Receiver was that agents should have the benefit of clear 

policies that specify how they are to address firearms transfers of any variety. 

While we recognize that it is not possible to devise written policies that 

address every investigative contingency, we recommended in our report on 

Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver that the Department review the 

policies and procedures of its law enforcement components other than ATF to 

ensure that they are sufficient to address the concerns we identified in the 

conduct of those operations. Although we do not believe it is necessary for the 

components to copy ATF’s firearms transfer policy verbatim, owing to their 

differing missions and jurisdictions, or to have a policy that solely applies to 

firearms, ensuring that the concerns identified in our prior report requires, at a 

minimum, that they have written policies specifying the level of supervision 

required when circumstances involving uncontrolled firearms transfers arise, and 

that decisions not to seize firearms cannot be left in the first instance to line 

agents or task force officers absent exigent circumstances. In the absence of 

such clear guidance, the risks to public safety, as well as the Department’s own 

law enforcement efforts, are substantial. We found that the Criminal Division’s 

Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) firearms guidance for prosecutors’ use 

in investigations that involve wiretaps is one example of a possible model 

policy.

24 

24 OEO examines wiretap applications before they are sent to a Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General in the Criminal Division for authorization. In approximately January 2014, OEO 

established risk mitigation guidelines for law enforcement officers engaged in investigations that 

involve wiretaps. The guidelines provide the following instructions regarding firearms that may be 

given to law enforcement personnel monitoring wiretaps: 

This [wiretap] investigation targets an organization whose members are believed 

to possess and traffic in firearms. In the event that there is a legal basis to make 

an arrest or seize firearms and the [wiretap] interceptions provide sufficient 

actionable intelligence concerning the possession or transfer of firearms, the 

investigative agency should take reasonable efforts to prevent the firearm’s 

criminal misuse. Reasonable steps to prevent the firearm’s criminal misuse may 

include: (1) intervening to stop the transfer; (2) arresting the suspects; (3) 

taking the firearms into law enforcement custody; or (4) disclosing the information 

to an appropriate investigator or law enforcement officer. In determining whether 

there exists a sufficient legal basis to make an arrest or seize the firearms, the 

investigative agents will rely upon their training, knowledge, and experience to 

balance the interests of public safety with the rights of persons who may be 

acquiring firearms for lawful purposes. The investigative agency will use its 

discretion in determining what methods to employ in deciding whether to seize or 

prevent the transfer of firearms, taking into consideration the safety of agents and 

law enforcement sources, public safety, the type of firearms and the potential 

danger that the illegal firearms pose, and the objectives of the investigation. 

Interdiction or other forms of early intervention may be necessary to prevent the 

criminal acquisition, trafficking, and misuse of firearms. Perfecting a criminal 

prosecution must never be more important than protecting public safety. 

Use of this guidance by prosecutors is not mandatory, however, and different U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices may opt to provide other instructions. 

19
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We believe that the RAWG’s work contributed significantly to framing the 

Department’s approach to risk management in law enforcement operations; 

however, we determined that the Department’s risk mitigation policies did not 

require the law enforcement components to expressly address firearms transfers 

in their policies, and themselves were incomplete because they did not 

specifically address uncontrolled firearms transfers. Former Deputy Attorney 

General Cole told us that the Department’s approach to firearms transfers had 

evolved since 2011 from a focus on ensuring proper control over firearms during 

undercover operations, to a recognition that the Department needed to more 

broadly evaluate its management of risks, especially those associated with 

dangerous commodities that include but are not limited to firearms.25 

The former Deputy Attorney General established a written policy in 

December 2013 that dealt with training and authorization procedures for 

activities that could include controlled firearms transfers, but it did not require 

components to adopt written policies specifically concerning such transfers and 

left unaddressed how agents should deal with uncontrolled transfers. The 

Baseline Risk Assessment Memorandum, which resulted from the RAWG’s work, 

requires Department law enforcement components to provide agents and firstline supervisors with training to “[e]nsure that any dangerous commodity or 

item (such as a firearm, body armor, explosives, etc.) does not leave law 

enforcement control . . . .” The policy also requires a review and approval 

process for OIA by undercover agents and informants that safeguards against 

dangerous commodities or items leaving law enforcement control. However, 

ODAG did not require components to establish written policies that expressly 

address firearms transfers, which we believe is important to best inform agents 

of their responsibilities. Due to the level of risk, the firearms transfer issues we 

identified in our report merit express treatment in agent investigative policies. 

Moreover, in light of the pivotal role that the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District 

of Arizona played in the issues that we analyzed in Operations Wide Receiver 

and Fast and Furious and prosecutors’ responsibility for helping to direct law 

enforcement operations generally, we also believe that prosecutors should be 

fully alerted to the risks associated with firearms transfers. 

25 For example, former Deputy Attorney General Cole sent an e-mail in March 2011 to the 

five U.S. Attorneys along the Southwest Border instructing them “not to design or conduct 

undercover operations which include guns crossing the border. If we have knowledge that guns 

are about to cross the border, we must take immediate action to stop the firearms from crossing 

the border, even if that prematurely terminates or otherwise jeopardizes an investigation.” He 

also requested that the U.S. Attorneys inform the local SACs of the policy. We discuss these 

communications in greater detail at page 99 of our Fast and Furious report. The Executive Office 

of the United States Attorneys further distributed Cole’s email to all then-U.S. Attorneys. 

However, the policy statement outlined in the Cole email was not made part of the U.S. Attorney’s 

Manual or other Department reference materials. We did not find evidence that any component 

within DOJ other than ATF established written policies to reflect the former Deputy Attorney 

General’s instructions, or that the Department specified a policy on uncontrolled firearms transfers 

involving the border. ATF’s firearms transfer policy also does not mention the U.S. border. We 

believe the Department should consider widely disseminating its views on these issues and making 

this information readily accessible by Department staff. 

20
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Department has responded positively to our concerns on firearms 

transfers, though some work remains to be completed. During our follow-up 

review DEA issued a policy on risk assessment and mitigation that included 

guidance on firearms transfers, and revised it in January 2016 to comply more 

directly with our recommendation by specifying that agents were required to 

consult with a supervisor when confronted with firearms transfers. ODAG has 

informed us that the FBI and USMS also will be modifying their policies similarly, 

and that this work will be completed expeditiously. Once these revisions are 

completed we believe that the Department should consider bringing them to the 

attention of prosecutors through the issuance of guidance.26 We will continue to 

monitor this process to ensure that the recommendations based on the 

problems uncovered in our prior review are fully addressed. 

2. DEA’s Informant Policies 

Our second area of concern involved the failure of DEA’s informant 

policies to incorporate requirements from the Informant Guidelines. For 

example, DEA’s policies did not include authorization procedures mandated by 

the Guidelines for certain highly sensitive informants. Although the 

Department’s Criminal Division approved DEA’s policies in 2004, we found that 

the Department did not begin reevaluating the omission of Guidelines 

requirements until 2014, after the OIG and the Government Accountability Office 

(GAO) initiated reviews. The GAO itemized these omissions in a recent report 

that evaluated agency policies concerning informant vetting and oversight of 

OIA, and monitoring processes to ensure compliance with the Guidelines.

27 

Some of these omissions are discussed in the OIG’s interim report on DEA’s 

confidential informant program. 

Apart from the absence of particular Guidelines provisions from DEA’s 

informant policies, we also were surprised to find that these policies did not 

include any section dedicated to OIA. In contrast, the agent manuals of the ATF 

and FBI (and OIG) all contain multipage sections specifically devoted to the 

issues that are derived from the Informant Guidelines.

28 DEA staff initially 

informed us that it believed that its policies governing drug purchases, which 

26 Ideally, this guidance would be readily available in Department reference materials 

used by prosecutors, such as the the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, USABook, and USANet (which 

currently contains ATF’s firearms transfer policy). We believe that, at a minimum, any such 

guidance would alert Department prosecutors to the fact that firearms transfers involve significant 

risks to public safety, that the Department’s law enforcement components have policies that 

address such transfers, and that prosecutors should consult with agents about those policies in 

circumstances where such transfers are likely or become known. 

27 See Government Accountability Office, Confidential Informants: Updates to Policy and 

Additional Guidance Would Improve Oversight by DOJ and DHS Agencies Appendix IV (September 

2015). 

28 As we discuss below, the USMS advised us that it does not authorize OIA. 

21
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

require development and authorization of an operational plan, sufficed to 

address informant risks related to OIA.29 

However, in response to concerns raised by the OIG and GAO about 

discrepancies between DEA’s policies and the Informant Guidelines, including 

the absence of express policies on OIA, ODAG and DEA decided to update DEA’s 

informant policies to account for all Guidelines requirements. On June 30, 2015, 

ODAG informed the OIG in a memorandum that the review of DEA’s policies was 

ongoing and that it will “ensure that DEA’s policies comply with the [Attorney 

General’s] Guidelines and are presented in a manner that is consistent with the 

[Attorney General’s] Guidelines in both form and function.” In addition, 

according to ODAG, the review will “clarify the requirements necessary to 

approve Otherwise Illegal Activity (OIA). . . .”30 

3. Use of Informants Subject to DEA Regulation 

We recommended that the Department review the other law enforcement 

components’ policies and procedures regarding the use of informants who also 

are subject to regulation by the same component. As described in our report, 

we found that ATF’s use of regulated Federal Firearms Licensees in Operations 

Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver raised significant concerns over potential 

conflicts of interest between ATF’s regulatory and criminal enforcement 

functions, and whether ATF agents created at least the appearance that they 

encouraged unlawful acts. ATF recognized these issues and revised its 

confidential informant policies in November 2011 to prohibit use of informants 

29 Our concern that DEA agents lacked sufficient guidance on OIA was compounded by 

our discovery of a memorandum from DEA’s Office of General Counsel that incorrectly took the 

position that “routine” informant purchases of narcotics are not OIA. The memorandum was 

circulated to several senior leaders in DEA, including the chief of DEA’s informant unit, before it 

was sent to GAO in response to questions GAO had raised with DEA about its informant program. 

ODAG and DEA officials have acknowledged that the memorandum was in error. 

30 The GAO also raised concerns about the USMS’ omission of Informant Guidelines 

requirements from its policies. See, e.g., GAO Report at 14-16. We interviewed USMS staff about 

the role of the Informant Guidelines in USMS operations. According to the Deputy Assistant 

Director of Investigative Operations for the USMS, the USMS does not utilize “confidential 

informants” within the meaning of the Informant Guidelines. Under the Informant Guidelines, a 

“confidential informant” is “any individual who provides useful and credible information to a 

[Justice Law Enforcement Agency (JLEA)] regarding felonious criminal activities, and from whom 

the JLEA expects or intends to obtain additional useful and credible information regarding such 

activities in the future.” Guidelines at I.B.6. According to the Deputy Assistant Director, while the 

USMS sometimes compensates persons for information in fugitive investigations, the USMS does 

not maintain ongoing relationships with these persons that would cause the USMS to expect or 

intend to collect additional information from them in the future. He also advised the OIG that the 

USMS never authorizes OIA for persons who furnish the USMS with information. However, we did 

not find a USMS policy that memorializes this practice. Staff from the USMS Office of General 

Counsel advised the OIG that the USMS is preparing a policy that prohibits authorization of OIA. 

In addition, the USMS is amending its policies to incorporate all Informant Guidelines 

requirements. According to the USMS, it does not anticipate use of the new policies, however, 

because it does not utilize confidential informants. We agree with the USMS that its decision to 

add policies concerning OIA and that address the potential for future informant use is advisable. 

22
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

from industries that ATF regulates, except in extraordinary circumstances.31 

ATF Order 3252.1. 

We determined that the Department and DEA did not sufficiently respond 

to that part of Recommendation Four that addresses the DEA’s use of informants 

who also are subject to being regulated by it.

32 Unlike ATF, the DEA does not 

have policies that specifically address the handling of such informants. Although 

the DEA requires heightened scrutiny of informants whose utilization “is likely to 

raise complex legal issues,” we believe this language is far too vague to put 

agents on notice that informants who are also regulated by the DEA raise issues 

that require special consideration. We further determined that the DEA did not 

evaluate whether it needed to make policy changes to address the concerns we 

raised in our report. In the same June 30, 2015, memorandum discussed 

above, the ODAG informed the OIG that the ongoing review of the DEA’s 

informant policies “will ensure that the Agent’s Manual addresses the use of 

registrants as confidential sources and includes policies governing such use.” 

4. Steps Necessary to Close Recommendation Four 

In conclusion, we found that the Department’s response to 

Recommendation Four was mixed. The work of the RAWG resulted in the 

Department’s review of component policies on issues that overlapped with ones 

we identified in Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver, such as 

oversight of sensitive cases and informant OIA, and led to the issuance of 

important guidance documents. However, we found that the law enforcement 

components other than ATF did not adequately assess the lessons of Operations 

Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver, and that the Department did not give 

sufficient attention to the need for policies on uncontrolled firearms transfers. 

The Department is working to address these concerns. DEA has issued new 

policy that addresses firearms transfers, and the FBI and USMS have indicated 

to ODAG their intention to add new policies to address this issue as well. 

Therefore, Recommendation Four is resolved. In order to close this 

recommendation, the Department should provide the OIG with information 

demonstrating that: 

1. Controlled and uncontrolled firearms transfers are expressly addressed 

in FBI and USMS policies.

33 Similar to the policies implemented by ATF and 

31 Examples of such circumstances include use of employees of licensees where the 

Federal Firearms Licensee is suspected of illegal activity, and of licensees who are arrested and 

charged and agree to cooperate with law enforcement. ATF Order 3252.1 sec. 31a & b. 

32 Businesses, health professionals, and pharmacies that handle or administer controlled 

substances must register with DEA and comply with regulations enforced by the agency. 

33 Once these revisions are completed, we suggest that the Department consider 

providing guidance to prosecutors related to controlled and unconcontrolled firearms transfers and 

include it in Department reference materials, such as the U.S. Attorney’s Manual, USABook, and 

USANet. We suggest that the Department consider the same for firearms transfers involving the 

U.S. border. 

23
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEA, the FBI and USMS policies should provide for sufficient supervisory input 

and approval before a decision is made not to seize firearms in an uncontrolled 

transfer. The Department may wish to consider integrating firearms transfers 

into policies that address other dangerous commodities and items, such as 

explosives, though we believe it is important that applicable policy expressly 

reference “firearms” given the issues we found in our Fast and Furious report; 

2. The DEA and USMS have established policies that address when to 

contact ATF about uncontrolled firearms transfers; 

3. The Department completes its review of DEA’s informant policies; and 

4. DEA has amended its Agent’s Manual to address the use of registrants 

as confidential informants. 

In addition, prior to release of this report, we supplemented our 

recommendations to request the Department to evaluate how to better utilize 

the lessons learned from the OIG’s reports when they address issues that have 

relevance to other Department components. We believe that an issue as 

significant as the failings in Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver 

should have prompted thorough policy reviews within the Department’s other 

law enforcement components, especially with regard to uncontrolled firearms 

transfers. Although our report was focused on ATF, it has significant 

ramifications for the Department’s other law enforcement components, and 

Recommendation Four was directed squarely at evaluating the sufficiency of the 

policies and procedures of those other components. Similarly, as we explained 

at the start of this report, the OIG has written extensively in the past about the 

importance of oversight of confidential informants and the management of OIA 

within the FBI, yet the Department permitted the DEA to have informant policies 

that did not expressly address the issue.34 During our review we raised our 

concerns with ODAG staff. We informed the Department that we believed that 

new procedures were necessary. 

In response, the Department’s Justice Management Division (JMD) issued 

a policy in December 2015 that requires JMD to review all future OIG 

recommendations to determine whether they could be beneficial to multiple DOJ 

components. Under the policy, each quarter JMD will compile a list of a new 

OIG recommendations for ODAG’s examination and will identify those that ODAG 

may want to consider applying to mulitiple components. ODAG will determine 

which recommendations should be applied broadly and what additional actions 

are necessary. We believe that JMD’s policy is a positive development. The OIG 

will seek information in the future about how the new procedure is working. 

34 See note 2. 

24
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E. Recommendation Five: Law Enforcement Coordination 

We recommended that the Department maintain a regular working group 

involving leadership from its component law enforcement agencies to ensure 

appropriate coordination among them on significant law enforcement policies 

and procedures, case deconfliction mechanisms, and major investigations and 

law enforcement initiatives. Our review of Operation Fast and Furious identified 

numerous instances where information was not adequately shared between law 

enforcement agencies. 

In response to this recommendation, ODAG staff informed the OIG that 

the Department has instituted quarterly meetings between the Deputy Attorney 

General, the Directors of the Department’s four law enforcement components, 

the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and a member of the 

Attorney General’s Advisory Committee of U.S. Attorneys. In a memorandum 

dated January 10, 2013, former Deputy Attorney General Cole advised these 

Department leaders that he and the Attorney General had determined that 

regular group meetings would be beneficial “to discuss significant law 

enforcement policies, procedures, and initiatives.” The first such meeting 

occurred in February 2013 and concerned the activities of the RAWG. Since that 

time, the Department has organized five other coordination meetings. 

In addition, ODAG staff informed us that the Department has instituted 

regular meetings of the operational chiefs from the Department’s four law 

enforcement components.35 Initially, these meetings took place concurrently 

with the meetings of the RAWG. The first non-RAWG related meeting occurred 

in March 2014 and concerned issues related to the Southwest Border. ODAG 

intends for these meetings to occur approximately bi-monthly. Issues 

addressed during the meetings have included crime in the Upper Midwest and 

interagency coordination. According to ODAG staff, the operational chiefs set 

the agenda topics for these meetings unless the Attorney General or Deputy 

Attorney General identifies an issue that should take precedence. 

Recommendation Five is closed. 

F. Recommendation Six: Review of Wiretap Applications 

We recommended that the Department require that high-level officials 

who are responsible for authorizing wiretap applications conduct reviews of the 

applications and affidavits that are sufficient to enable those officials to form an 

independent judgment that the applications meet the statutory criteria found in 

the Federal Criminal Code. See 18 U.S.C. § 2518. We made this 

recommendation after we found that Deputy Assistant Attorneys General 

(DAAG) in the Department’s Criminal Division were, except in limited 

circumstances, not reviewing the applications and affidavits and instead were 

35 These meetings included, for example, DEA’s Chief of Operations, and ATF’s Assistant 

Director for Field Operations. 

25
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

relying upon cover memoranda prepared by Criminal Division staff attorneys. 

We concluded from our review of the wiretap affidavits in both Operations Fast 

and Furious and Wide Receiver that they contained information that would have 

caused an experienced prosecutor who was focused on the question of 

investigative tactics to have questions about ATF’s tactics. We found that none 

of the DAAGs assigned to review the wiretap applications and affidavits in the 

two operations raised any concerns about them. 

The Department’s status update in December 2012 described efforts that 

the Criminal Division has taken to implement Recommendation Six. 

Approximately 2 months following issuance of the OIG report, the Assistant 

Attorney General for the Criminal Division issued a memorandum directing all 

Criminal Division DAAGs to consult the wiretap application and affidavit and “not 

rely solely on the cover memoranda prepared by OEO in making [their] wiretap 

determinations.” The Department provided the OIG with a copy of the 

memorandum. It reminded the DAAGs that, in the week after the OIG issued its 

report on Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver, the Assistant Attorney 

General met with them “and directed that we immediately implement [the OIG] 

recommendation.” 

We believe that the Criminal Division has taken steps sufficient to ensure 

that DAAGs in the Criminal Division perform an independent assessment of 

wiretap applications and affidavits. Recommendation Six is closed. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

We believe that the Department and ATF have made significant progress 

to implement the recommendations from our report on Operations Fast and 

Furious and Wide Receiver that apply to ATF and the Criminal Division. We are 

able to close four of the six recommendations. However, we found that the 

Department’s law enforcement components other than ATF had not taken 

sufficient steps to institute policies to avoid repetition of the errors we identified 

in our report. In response to our concerns DEA added a policy that addresses 

firearms transfers and, according to the Department, the FBI and USMS will do 

the same in the near future. We also found that DEA failed to address our 

concerns regarding informant otherwise illegal activity and informants who are 

also regulated by DEA, which were two issues we highlighted in our report. We 

believe that the Department needs to better ensure that lessons learned as a 

result of OIG reports are evaluated by other Department components when they 

have relevance to them, and we have made a new recommendation that the 

Department develop new procedures to attain this outcome. The Department 

agreed with the new recommendation and has instituted procedures to 

implement it. 

26
 
ATTACHMENT 
u.s. Department of Justice 

Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

Associate Deputy Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 

February 10,2016 

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Michael Horowitz 

Inspector General 

Office of the Inspector General 

FROM: Heather Childs 

Chief of Staff and Associate Deputy Attorney etal 

Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

SUBJECT: Department's Response to Report of the Office of the Inspector General: 

A Review ofthe Department ofJustice's and ATF's Implementation of 

Recommendations Contained in the OIG's Report on Operations Fast and 

Furious and Wide Receiver 

We appreciate the review undertaken by the Department of Justice (Department) Office 

of the Inspector General (OIG) entitled A Review ofthe Department ofJustice 's and ATF's 

Implementation ofRecommendations Contained in the OIG 's Report on Operations Fast and 

Furious and Wide Receiver. The OIG report primarily addresses the six recommendations that 

OIG made to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (A TF) and the 

Department in its previous report entitled A Review ofATF's Operation Fast and Furious and 

Related Matters. After a thorough review, you have closed four of the six recommendations and 

designated two as resolved. As detailed more fully below, the Department is gratified that four 

recommendations have now been closed and is committed to working with OIG to close the two 

resolved recommendations. 

The Department took very seriously the misconduct uncovered in Operations Fast and 

Furious and Wide Receiver, and we are pleased OIG has recognized the significant changes we 

have made in both our law enforcement and litigating components to address public safety risks 

that may arise during law enforcement investigations and operations. As you know, the Attorney 

General promptly moved to form a Risk Assessment Working Group (RA WG) to evaluate and 

recommend enhancements to the Department's procedures for assessing such risks. The RA WG 

was comprised of representatives of the Department's law enforcement components, members of 

the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys, 

the Criminal Division, the Office of the Attorney General, and the Office of the Deputy Attorney 

General. The working group was tasked with addressing the difficult issues law enforcement 

agents face when making operational decisions, with a particular focus on the use of sensitive 

investigative techniques. As part of this process, the RA WG carefully reviewed the various tools 
Memorandum for the Inspector General Page 2 

Subject: Department's Response to Report of the Office of the Inspector General 

and techniques utilized by the Department in pursuit of federal criminal investigations and 

prosecutions, including the Department's guidelines and procedures for risk assessment and 

decision making in law-enforcement investigations and operations. 

The working group met on a monthly basis for over a year. During these meetings, 

senior leaders from the law enforcement agencies and experienced prosecutors discussed real-life 

examples of risks encountered in the field as well as broader policy issues related to risk 

assessment and mitigation. As a result of the working group's efforts, in March 2013, thenDeputy Attorney General (DAG) James Cole issued guidance for United States Attorneys and 

the heads of the criminal litigating components clarifying the prosecutor's role in reviewing law 

enforcement operations that involve sensitive investigative techniques. 1 

In December 2013, the work of the RA WG culminated in a memorandum (RA WG 

Directives) to the Department's criminal litigating and law enforcement components setting out 

baseline risk assessment policies and principles that apply to all criminal investigations and 

operations. As noted in your report, the memorandum established 55 protocols in the following 

areas: assessment of risk during the course of an investigation; initiation and oversight of 

sensitive investigative activities; use of confidential informants; authorization of otherwise 

illegal activity (OIA) by undercover agents or informants; and investigations in which project 

generated income is contemplated. Additionally, the memorandum directed the criminal 

litigating and law enforcement components to review their own policies and procedures relevant 

to operations, investigations, and prosecutions to ensure that those policies reflected the baseline 

principles outlined in the memorandum. 2 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to respond to the OIG's review and is 

committed to working with the OIG to close out the two resolved recommendations, both of 

which are addressed below. 

Recommendation Two: The Department should examine ATF's case review procedures to 

verify that they are consistent with procedures adopted in other Department law 

enforcement components to ensure that matters involving "sensitive circumstances," 

"special requirements," and "otherwise illegal activity," are sufficiently evaluated. The 

Department should assess ATF's implementation of these procedures to ensure that they 

are effective and consistently applied. 

The Department is pleased that the report recognizes the significant progress A TF has 

made with respect to Recommendation Two, which involves ensuring that A TF's case review 

procedures are consistent with other Department components and assessing the challenges 

unique to ATF's specialized mission. We understand that your office is satisfied that ATF's core 

case review policies are consistent with Department-wide policies, but that you will continue to 

I Memorandum from James M, Cole, Deputy Attorney General to All United States Attorneys, et. seq., 

Sensitive Investigative Techniques Requiring Committee Review (March 11,2013). 

2 Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General to All United States Attorneys, et. seq., 

Baseline Risk Assessment and Mitigation Policies for Law Enforcement Operations in Criminal Matters (December 

7,2013). 
Memorandum for the Inspector General Page 3 

Subject: Department's Response to Report of the Office ofthe Inspector General 

monitor implementation of certain A TF case review procedures, particularly with respect to 

challenges unique to ATF. We understand that ATF looks forward to continued coordination 

with your office to ensure the effectiveness of current policies, and to further enhance case 

review policies and procedures when necessary. 

Recommendation Four: Policy Review of Other Law Enforcement Components to Account 

for Lessons from Operations Fast and Furious and Wide Receiver. 

As explained in your report, in order to close this recommendation, the Department 

should take four steps. We address each of these in turn below. 

1. Controlled and uncontrolledfirearms transfers are expressly addressed in FBI and USMS 

policies. Similar to the policies implemented by A TF and DEA, the FBI and USMS, policies 

should pro vide for sufficient supervisory input and approval before a decision is made not to 

seize firearms in an uncontrolled transfer. The Department may wish to consider integrating 

firearms transfers into policies that address other dangerous commodities and items, such as 

explosives, though we believe it is important that applicable policy expressly reference 

"firearms" given the issues wefound in our Fast and Furious report. 

The Department has taken a number of steps to both clarify our position that federal 

agents and prosecutors should not knowingly allow firearms to illegally cross the border and to 

ensure that the Department's law enforcement agents have clear guidance on the necessary steps 

to take when they encounter potentially illegal firearms transfers. Through the RA WG, the 

Department worked with the federal law enforcement components to ensure that federal agents 

have guidance on the necessary steps to take when they encounter potentially illegal firearm 

transfers, or the transfer of other potentially dangerous items. It is important to note that, 

although the RA WG was organized in part as a response to the misconduct in Operations Fast 

and Furious and Wide Receiver, the RA WG's charge was broader: to address risk - both 

operational and public safety risk - in the law enforcement agencies' policies and training. 

Given the complexity of federal criminal investigations, the Department determined that it was 

crucial to give law enforcement agents the tools necessary to mitigate risk throughout the entirety 

of a criminal investigation, and not just with regard to firearms transfers. 

As such, the RA WG Directives - which were issued by DAG Cole to all law enforcement 

components and published in USABook - specifically direct the law enforcement components to 

ensure that their policies include the following principle: 

A mechanism to ensure that agents understand how to properly identify public 

safety risks and to undergo steps that can be undertaken to mitigate those risks. 

Specifically, agencies should ensure that case agents and first-line supervisors 

have received training to ... [e]nsure that any dangerous commodity or item 

(such as a firearm, body armor, explosives, etc.) does not leave law enforcement 

control and, with respect to drugs, ensure drugs do not leave law enforcement 

control absent specific approval from the appropriate headquarters' official. 3 

3 Memorandum from James M. Cole, Deputy Attorney General to All United States Attorneys, et. seq., 
Memorandum for the Inspector General Page 4 

Subject: Department's Response to Report of the Office of the Inspector General 

In addition, to address the specific instance encountered in Operation Fast and Furious - where 

agents may hear of potentially dangerous situations involving firearms while listening to a 

wiretap - the Department issued instructions for law enforcement personnel monitoring wiretaps: 

If the investigative agency concludes that a threat exists and the government is in 

possession of information that could potentially interrupt or prevent an act of 

violence from occurring, agents should make reasonable efforts to prevent the act 

of violence from taking place. 4 

The guidance continues by explicitly discussing an example involving firearms transfers: 

This T-III investigation targets an organization whose members are believed to 

possesses and traffic in firearms. In the event that there is a legal basis to make an 

arrest or seize firearms and the T -III intercepts provide sufficient actionable 

intelligence concerning the possession or transfer of firearms, the investigative 

agency should take reasonable efforts to prevent the firearm ' s criminal misuse. 5 

In addition to the two directives described above, the RA WG examined each law 

enforcement agency's policies to ensure that they have specific policies on spotting and 

addressing risk management related to the transfer of dangerous items. As noted in your report, 

ATF established a policy on firearms transfers in November 2Q 11 that addresses both 

"controlled" and "uncontrolled" transfers. Since then, the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) has published an interim-policy on Enforcement Risk Assessment and Mitigation 

Guidelines that will be incorporated into the Agents' Manual. This policy specifically addresses 

firearms and directs Special Agents and Task Force Officers to consult their supervisors when 

determining what investigative methods to use when deciding whether to seize or prevent the 

transfer of firearms. 

Additionally, the USMS and FBI currently have policies that give specific guidance to 

agents on how to mitigate risk when they encounter situations that may pose a risk to public 

safety during law enforcement operations. The USMS has mitigation procedures specific to 

fugitive apprehension and arrests, which are the USMS's two main areas of operation. The FBI 

Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) has a robust section dedicated to the 

affirmative duty to act on evidence of illegal activity; the DIOG also contains a comprehensive 

chart that assists agents in navigating the amount of predication necessary and supervisory 

approval required before undertaking various investigative techniques. While these policies do 

not uniquely address firearms, they do provide agents with important risk mitigation guidance, 

consistent with the FBI's broad law enforcement mission. 

Baseline Risk Assessment and Mitigation Policies for Law Enforcement Operations in Criminal Matters, at pg. 2 

(December 7,2013). 

4 Guidance Regarding Risk Mitigation for Law Enforcement Officers Engaged in Investigations that 

Involve Wiretaps, Office of Enforcement Operations, Criminal Division (January 2014). 

5 Id. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Memorandum for the Inspector General Page 5 

Subject: Department’s Response to Report of the Office of the Inspector General 

The Department believes that these policies adequately address the Department’s risk 

mitigation principles in light of each law enforcement component’s mission and in light of the 

fact-specific complexities presented when an agent learns of information that could possibly 

result in an illegal or dangerous firearm transfer. However, the Department appreciates OIG’s 

efforts to ensure that the specific mistakes made in Operations Fast and Furious and Wide 

Receiver are addressed, including uncontrolled firearms transfers. Accordingly, the Department 

is committed to working closely with the FBI and the USMS to ensure that their policies provide 

such specific guidance to the field. To this end, the USMS has already begun drafting and 

adopting a policy similar in form and substance to the policy implemented by DEA. This 

process should be completed in the coming weeks. Because the FBI’s mission is more varied 

and their policies more complex, the FBI is working on a way to address firearms specifically 

without undermining the robust risk assessment policies already in place in the DIOG. When 

this process is complete, we expect it will address OIG’s concerns related to “uncontrolled 

firearm transfers” as articulated in the report. 

2. The DEA and USMS have established policies that address when to contact ATF about 

uncontrolled firearms transfers. 

The Department is committed to working with OIG as well as DEA and USMS to ensure 

that both components have policies that explicitly address when to contact ATF about criminal 

activity within ATF’s jurisdiction. As noted above, the USMS is already in the process of 

updating its policies to address uncontrolled firearms transfers, which will include language 

specifically directing agents to contact ATF regarding discovered criminal activity within ATF’s 

jurisdiction. 

3 & 4. The Department completes its review of DEA’s informant policies; and DEA has 

amended its Agent’s Manual to address the use of registrants as confidential informants. 

Consistent with the roles and responsibilities established by the Attorney General 

Guidelines, in December 2014, then-DAG Cole directed DEA and the Criminal Division to 

conduct a comprehensive process to review and revise the DEA Agents’ Manual to ensure that 

DEA’s policies comply with the AG Guidelines and are presented in a manner that is consistent 

with the AG Guidelines in both form and function. This review is ongoing, and when 

completed, the revised policies will include provisions governing the registration of high level, 

privileged, and media-related confidential sources. The revised policies will also clarify the 

requirements necessary to approve OIA and will require agents to document the information 

necessary to apply the principles of risk assessment and mitigation when authorizing and 

executing OIA. 

When this process is complete, it will also address OIG’s recommendation that DEA 

amend the Agent’s Manual to address the use of registrants as confidential informants. 

*** 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to respond to the OIG’s review and is 

committed to working with the OIG to close out the two resolved recommendations. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General 

(DOJ OIG) is a statutorily created independent entity 

whose mission is to detect and deter waste, fraud, 

abuse, and misconduct in the Department of Justice, and 

to promote economy and efficiency in the Department’s 

operations. Information may be reported to the DOJ 

OIG’s hotline at www.justice.gov/oig/hotline or 

(800) 869-4499. 

Office of the Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

www.justice.gov/oig