Mayowa Bonojo, a Deportation Officer for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was removed from federal service following a domestic altercation with his wife on February 19, 2017. Although not scheduled for duty, Bonojo was carrying a loaded, government-issued firearm concealed under his shirt. During a physical argument, Bonojo claimed his wife grabbed his belt, where the firearm was holstered, creating a risk of accidental discharge. To free himself, Bonojo bit his wife's arm. He later reported the incident to his supervisors, stating his wife had acted erratically and had bitten herself to frame him. DHS charged Bonojo with conduct unbecoming an officer and lack of candor. An Administrative Judge initially sustained the charges but mitigated the penalty from removal to reassignment to a non-law enforcement position. The Merit Systems Protection Board summarily affirmed the removal, and Bonojo appealed to the Federal Circuit.
The Federal Circuit addressed three primary arguments raised by Bonojo. First, regarding the charge of conduct unbecoming an officer, Bonojo argued the Board failed to assess whether his use of force was reasonably necessary under the self-defense standard established in Fuller v. Department of Navy. The court found that the Administrative Judge properly considered the issue of self-defense by concluding that even accepting Bonojo's version of events, biting was not a reasonable tactic for a trained law enforcement officer to deescalate a situation. The court clarified that the Administrative Judge did not create a per se rule requiring taught defensive tactics but rather determined that the force used was not reasonably necessary to resist immediate danger. Second, Bonojo argued that the lack of candor charge violated his Fifth Amendment rights because he was not given Kalkines or Garrity warnings. The court held that this argument was waived because Bonojo never explicitly raised a Fifth Amendment challenge before the Board; he had only argued that the conversations were informal and immaterial. Third, regarding the penalty, Bonojo contended the Board erred by relying on concerns of Giglio impairment without analyzing the actual impact on his duties. The court found the penalty was not clearly excessive. The Administrative Judge had weighed the factors and actually disagreed with the agency's view that Bonojo's testimony could be impeached, yet still found removal appropriate given the seriousness of the misconduct. The court affirmed that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not an abuse of discretion.
The decision affirms the termination of the federal employee and establishes that law enforcement officers may be removed for using force that is not reasonably necessary to deescalate a domestic situation, even when a firearm is involved. It reinforces the requirement that constitutional challenges regarding self-incrimination must be explicitly raised before the administrative body to be preserved for appellate review. The ruling also confirms that agencies may consider potential credibility issues (Giglio impairment) in penalty determinations without needing to prove the officer's specific testimony duties.
Podcast (federal-narrative-summaries): Play in new window | Download