Investigating Explosive Devices Sent to Financial Institutions
Post Offices on High Alert for Suspicious Packages

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10 The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is working with law enforcement agents from the FBI and ATF, as well as local and state agencies, to investigate two explosivedevices sent to financial institutions since Jan. 31.

While the investigation continues, Postal Inspectors are encouraging the financial industry to re-examine their procedures for handling correspondence and packages. Any business can download a poster for their staff that includes information on identifying suspicious packages and reporting them to authorities. Companies may also request copies of the poster by contacting their local Post Office or by calling 1-800 ASK-USPS.

The U.S. Postal Service has its employees nationwide on high alert to identify suspicious packages; they receive training in the identification and proper handling procedures for packages that may be hazardous or dangerous.

Keeping the mail safe is and will continue to be the highest priority of the U.S. Postal Service and U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

Do postal employees have the right to remain silent when questioned by members of the Inspection Service, or agents of the USPS Inspector General? No. That’s the surprising assertion made by IG David C. Williams in a letter to APWU Director of Industrial Relations Greg Bell.

Williams was responding to an article by Bell in the November/December 2005 issue of the APWU’s American Postal Worker magazine, entitled ‘What’s Behind the Changes in Internal Investigations?’. Bell wrote that “You have the right to remain silent. A historic Supreme Court ruling (Miranda v. Arizona, 1966) holds that not only must a law enforcement officer advise an individual of certain rights, the officer must be sure that these rights are understood.”

In his letter, Williams responds “I am concerned that the article incorrectly states that APWU members have an unequivocal right to remain silent during an interview by the Office of the Inspector General by virtue of Miranda v. Arizona. The article suggests that OIG agents must provide Miranda warnings to all employees prior to their interview, and that the employee may always refuse to answer questions absent a grant of immunity. This is incorrect.”

Which, not surprisingly, provoked a response from Bell.

‘What’s Behind the Changes in Internal Investigations?’

Letter from IG David Williams to the APWU’s Greg Bell

Letter from Greg Bell to David Williams