on June 29, 2007, dismissing the Complainant’s complaint. However, the F. D. & O. contains an erroneous date of
September “4” at page 17, third paragraph, second sentence, and an erroneous sentence at page 19, first full paragraph, third sentence.
Accordingly, we issue this Errata to correct the erroneous date at page 17 by correcting it to September “9,” and to correct the erroneous
sentence at page 19 by replacing it as follows:
OIG considered setting up a night vision camera near Overall’s home and installing a recording device on his telephone. T. 1480-82,
1563-65; CX 258; R. D. & O. at 46, 90. OIG ultimately decided against installing a camera because it could not be installed surreptitiously;
it would have had to have been situated on a neighbor’s property after OIG obtained his or her permission; and its recording tape would
require frequent changes, which would be obvious to anyone watching. T. 1565-66. OIG also decided that they did not need to install a
recording device on Overall’s telephone because his caller identification
[Page 2]
system was sufficient and he was providing OIG with the recorded
information and a description of the call. T. 1566-67, 1704.
We reissue the F. D. & O. as corrected. In all other respects, the ARB’s June 29, 2007 F. D. & O. remains the same.
SO ORDERED.
OLIVER M. TRANSUE
Administrative Appeals Judge
M. CYNTHIA DOUGLASS
Chief Administrative Appeals Judge
[ENDNOTES]
1 42 U.S.C.A. § 5851 (West 2003).
