I still have questions about why Bryan Malinowski is dead.

I know the simple answer--the reductive answer--is that he shot at ATF agents, who justifiably returned fire. Because if you are a law enforcement agent and someone is shooting at you and you have the means to shoot back, it's understood that you are allowed to defend yourself.

But most people would also argue that if you are awakened early by a bunch of noisy armed people who have congregated in your living room, you would be justified in firing your personal defense weapon at them. What else are personal defense weapons for?

So the real question is how did these armed people--we know they were ATF agents, but did Malinowski?--come to be in his front room at one minute past 6 a.m. March 19?

They were serving a search warrant, because they suspected Malinowski had overstepped some theoretical line between firearms hobbyist and gun runner. They wanted to catch him with his computers and his guns.

And both Bud Cummins, the former U.S. attorney who is representing Malinowski's family, and sources in federal law enforcement have told me that one of the reasons to bust into a suspect's house early in the morning is to catch them before they've had their coffee, when they might be groggy and liable to make statements against their own interest without their attorney present. There are practical reasons for conducting raids this way that have nothing to do with the safety of the suspect or officers involved.

This might be a sound policy. Police officers must be willing to assume a certain amount of risk. When they don't, we get situations like the botched response to the Robb Elementary School shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where police waited to confront the shooter, costing the lives of several children. We want police officers to be brave and bold and willing to run into dangerous situations. When they have to.

But did they have to in this instance? I'm not convinced there was any great need for ATF officers to break down Malinowski's door and enter with weapons drawn. I think that was theatrical; someone might have wanted to emphasize that Malinowski was not getting any preferential treatment because of his social standing. Someone might have wanted to demonstrate that a middle-class white guy with a high-profile job was subject to the law the same as anyone else. While not everything is political, it's not inconceivable that someone wanted to make an example of Bryan Malinowski.

Who I think was engaged in illegal activity.

But while I can tell you what I think because this is an opinion piece, it's not relevant to the question of whether the raid that occurred on March 19 made sense. I have heard from people who have pointedly asked me if I want to be seen as defending Malinowski, who may have been responsible for arming dangerous criminals. I do not. At the very least, Malinowski knew, or should have known, he was operating in a shadowy precinct, and that he had a moral if not legal responsibility to better vet his customers.

I believe the so-called "gun show loophole," which allows for the argument that Malinowski was operating within the letter of the law, is disingenuous and, as the Malinowski case

demonstrates, dangerous both for law enforcement and those who would test its limits.

On the other hand, I don't think Malinowski was executed.

I think the ATF expected him to surrender without fuss, to search his house and carry off the evidence they seized. A lot of similar raids went off without firefights; I'm sure the executive director of Bill and Hillary Clinton National Airport/Adams Field was not considered more dangerous than any of the other suspects whose homes were raided by the ATF in the weeks leading up to March 19. This wasn't intricately planned wet work; this was a bungled raid.

Which didn't have to happen. I can imagine any number of scenarios where Malinowski could have been approached and detained in a environment--like his office at the airport--presented with a search warrant, and transported to the residence while officers searched. And while I'm no lawyer, it's my understanding that the warrant didn't have to be presented to Malinowksi personally, but to any person in apparent control of the premises to be searched.

According to Arkansas' rules of criminal procedure, "[i]f the premises are unoccupied by anyone in apparent and responsible control, the officer shall leave a copy of the warrant suitably affixed to the premises." Federal rules only require officers to make "reasonable efforts" to serve a copy of the warrant on the person whose property was searched and whose property was seized or, in the case of digital information, copied. Federal rules say "service may be accomplished by any means, including electronic means, reasonably calculated to reach that person."

So was this raid necessary?

No one has convinced me it was, and the arguments I've heard from people defending the ATF lean heavily on the seriousness of the crimes Malinowski allegedly committed. Which is irrelevant to my question.

Conversely, a lot of people who would not have batted an eye had this scenario played out in one of the city's poorer quarters with an alleged gang member the decedent, are attacking the ATF as a Gestapo-like agency targeting "real" gun-loving Americans. One of our legislators even said the quiet part out loud by seeming to allow that these kinds of "no-knock" before-daylight raids are justified when going after drug dealers in bad neighborhoods, but were a step too far in genteel Chenal.

Was the raid in fact "no knock"? The ATF says it wasn't; but whether they technically announced themselves is beside the point. We can't know what Malinowski thought when he popped out of his bedroom with a handgun; he's not around to say what he heard and when he heard it. If a wrongful death suit ever makes it to trial, we may hear from his eyewitness wife (who, if this was a government-sponsored hit, would no doubt have been taken out as well), but raids like this are meant to induce confusion, and it would be difficult to completely trust even the most earnest witness.

Body cams might have helped provide clarity; but rules requiring ATF officers to wear them apparently didn't apply to these particular officers yet.

Call it the body cam loophole.

pmartin@adgnewsroom.com

QOSHE - The body cam loophole - Philip Martin
menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

The body cam loophole

17 0
06.05.2024

I still have questions about why Bryan Malinowski is dead.

I know the simple answer--the reductive answer--is that he shot at ATF agents, who justifiably returned fire. Because if you are a law enforcement agent and someone is shooting at you and you have the means to shoot back, it's understood that you are allowed to defend yourself.

But most people would also argue that if you are awakened early by a bunch of noisy armed people who have congregated in your living room, you would be justified in firing your personal defense weapon at them. What else are personal defense weapons for?

So the real question is how did these armed people--we know they were ATF agents, but did Malinowski?--come to be in his front room at one minute past 6 a.m. March 19?

They were serving a search warrant, because they suspected Malinowski had overstepped some theoretical line between firearms hobbyist and gun runner. They wanted to catch him with his computers and his guns.

And both Bud Cummins, the former U.S. attorney who is representing Malinowski's family, and sources in federal law enforcement have told me that one of the reasons to bust into a suspect's house early in the morning is to catch them before they've had their coffee, when they might be groggy and liable to make statements against their own interest without their attorney present. There are practical reasons for conducting raids this way that have nothing to do with the safety of the suspect or officers involved.

This might be a sound policy. Police officers must be willing to assume a certain amount of risk.........

© El Dorado News Times


Get it on Google Play