U.S. marshals lose track of radios worth millions
WASHINGTON —The U.S. Marshals Service has lost track of about 2,000 encrypted two-way radios worth millions of dollars, the Wall Street Journal reported, citing internal records it had obtained through a public records request.
The problems date to at least 2011, when the marshals were deploying new versions of the radios to communicate in the field.
An internal technology office had warned about the issue, but the problems tracking the equipment persisted.
“It is apparent that negligence and incompetence has resulted in a grievous mismanagement of millions of dollars of USMS property,” the paper quoted a 2011 presentation by the agency's Office of Strategic Technology as saying.
“Simply put, the entire system is broken, and drastic measures need to be taken to address the issues ... The 800-pound elephant in the room needs to finally be acknowledged.”
Marshals protect federal courts and judges. It administers the witness protection program and tracks down fugitives.
In interviews, marshals told the Wall Street Journal they were worried not only about the wasted money, but about the prospect of criminals getting hold of the radios and using them to gain access to privileged law enforcement activities.
Marshals service spokesman Drew Wade confirmed the paper's report late Sunday and said the agency is doing a “complete review” of the radio inventory.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- EPA works on algae rules to protect from toxins found in lakes, rivers
- Washington project ensures long-term carbon storage
- Sex offender checks in with stolen boarding pass, authorities say
- Red tape blamed for lack of domestic fish farms
- Democrats face long odds in battle for lost congressional seats
- Hawaii confronts dengue fever cases
- Former police officer who was indicted found dead in Massachusetts home
- LA prostitution deterrent runs afoul of rights group
- Prescription skin drug costs skyrocket
- Foreign policy expert: Obama administration should create Syria safe areas
- U.S. has urged legal reforms abroad to block Islamic State recruits