John Doe #2
Doe #2 is an Ivy League-educated attorney who currently works for an undisclosed U.S. Government agency. He and I processed out of the San Francisco field office at the same time-- Spring 2009. We even had the same Physical Fitness Test! Our polygraph examinations were conducted around the same time, and our files went to the Special Agent Clearance Unit at the same time-- June 2009.
At his polygraph examination, Doe #2 was asked whether he had ever committed a serious crime. Doe #2 disclosed that, while he had not committed a serious crime, there was one incident that might be relevant. Doe #2 reported that on two occasions, he accidentally walked out of Costco with a box of laundry detergent underneath his shopping cart, which the checker had forgotten to scan. The door-checker also missed the error. By the time Doe #2 got to his car and realized the clerk's error, it was getting late, Doe #2 was tired, and Doe #2 chose not to return to the store with the detergent. Doe #2 figured that he shopped often enough at Costco that the store would more than recoup the accidental loss of a single box of laundry detergent.
The polygraph examiner passed Doe #2, as did the Special Agent Applicant Unit. Doe #2 received a full background investigation. At the end of the background investigation, Doe #2 received a call from Special Agent Christopher Penn at SACU. SA Penn acted "nasty and manipulative" and gave Doe #2 the third degree about the laundry detergent. Doe #2 could not recall precisely what he told the polygraph examiner, and so he was not sure how to answer SA Penn's questions. Doe #2 admitted walking out of the store without paying for the detergent, but was adamant that it was an honest mistake.
SA Penn then accused Doe #2 of not showing total candor about the incidents, because Doe #2 could not remember exactly when they occurred. Doe #2 just wanted to be consistent with what he said in the Personnel Security Interview three months prior.
Doe #2 was rejected. When he got his FOIPA packet, Doe #2 was shocked to see that SA Penn had written in his FD-302 that Doe #2 "shoplifted" on "at least two occasions."
Shoplifting is the intentional taking of goods from a merchant with the intent not to pay for them. Under California law, the offense of shoplifting occurs when the shoplifter takes the item from the shelf with the intent not to pay for it-- not when the shoplifter leaves the store with the item (this is so people who think they are going to be caught can't just ditch the items and walk out). Here, Doe #2 took the detergent from the shelf with the intent to pay for it, and the checker simply missed it. Accidentally walking out of a store without paying for something that the cashier forgot to scan is not a crime. Special Agent Christopher Penn of the FBI falsified an FD-302 and libeled Doe #2 by falsely accusing him of shoplifting, a crime.
Personally I think Doe #2 has a better case than I do. Doe #2 also has better judgment; he moved on with his life and is now happy with his job at an undisclosed U.S. Government agency. That's one happy ending so far; I'm working on mine.