ATF gets Black Eye for Abusive Conduct on Alaskan Highway

Gun Watch ^ | 28 May, 2016 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

On 19 May, 2016, a member of the ATF, or at least someone driving one of their vehicles at a time that it was supposed to be in service, may have engaged in abusive behavior on the Glenn Highway in Alaska.  From ktuu.com:

Police say that at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, a driver on the Glenn Highway said he pulled over for an unmarked white Ford SUV. The SUV flashed red and blue interior dash lights.

When the motorist stopped, police wrote that the driver, “sped past him, laughed, and flipped him the middle finger.”

The man called 911, and told police that he watched as the SUV did the same thing three other times with other drivers.

At the time that the incident was reported, the police checked the license plate of the vehicle, but could not find a match.  Four days later, investigation revealed that the vehicle was an unmarked  vehicle registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, (ATF).  The vehicle was not in the Department of Motor Vehicles data base.  It was an unmarked ATF vehicle whose official existence is shielded from ordinary police view.  This was discovered by a computer search though thousands of police reports. It happened that the ATF vehicle was at the scene of another investigation, and an investigating officer had noted the vehicle plate number in their report.

The person in the ATF vehicle had good reason to believe that they were immune from accountability in this case.  A few years ago, they would have escaped without consequences. From adn.com:

Police contacted the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives, a U.S. Justice Department agency, which confirmed that the SUV was theirs, Castro said.

The person driving the ATF owned Ford SUV has not been identified.  Initial reports describe the driver as a white male in their 30s with short hair.  ATF has a policy not to "comment on personnel matters".

This is not a mere "personnel matter".  If the allegations are true, this is an abuse of authority.  It is a blatant violation of law. It is a deprivation of rights under color of law. If it occured as alleged, it should be easy to ascertain the truth, and the ATF official should not be allowed to be shielded by the agency. 

Using police lights to pull someone over without cause is depriving them of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment. It is hard to believe, given the description of events, that the person in the vehicle had a legitimate reason to pull the vehicles over.  The abusive finger salute adds to the impression that this was a simple abuse of authority under the color of law. 

It was a minor abuse. Damages under 42 U.S.C.  § 1983 would likely be small. It is roughly the equivalent of the abuse of police officers using lights and sirens to go on a pizza run; or using their police identification to push to the head of a line for personal reasons. But it is exactly these sort of abuses that are very damaging to the rule of law. Citizens see the abuses. They see that nothing is done to correct them, and they conclude that officers consider themselves a special class, above the ordinary rules of society and the law. 

Such abuses make the allegations in more serious cases, such a the Fast and Furious gun running case, all the more believable. In that case, it is alleged that the Department of Justice conspired with the ATF to facilitate the illegal transfer of firearms to Mexican drug cartels, for the purpose of pushing the Obama Administration's policies on gun control.

Digital recording devices make these abuses of authority under color of law much easier to prove. At least two appellate courts have ruled that it is a First Amendment right to video/audio record public officials in the course of the public execution of their duties.  A U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania has refused to recognize recording as a First Amendment right, when there is no intention of criticising the police; that case is being appealed to the Third Circuit.

The case would not apply to those who record police with an intention to criticise their actions.

Criticism of police is at an all time high under the Obama administration. Many of the criticisms have not been justified by later investigations, such as in the Trevon Martin case or the Ferguson shooting case of Michael Brown.

That does not mean that abuses do not occur. It makes the case that recordings of altercations can help to absolve the innocent as well as convict the guilty.

The ubiquity of digital recording devises is helping to make all authorities more accountable for their actions. 

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.
Link to Gun Watch

[mad_as_he$$]

+1.

[Georgia Girl 2]

The ATF is a rogue agency to start with. They commit illegal acts all the time.

[gaijin]

What if your organization burned down a church KNOWN to be crowded with about 100 people and over 20 children on live television, with almost no legal or professional consequences?

You would feel you were working for an entity ABOVE THE LAW.

[marktwain]

ATF started the problem, but it was the FBI that burned down the Branch Davidian buildings, while shooting anyone trying to escape, and blocking exits before hand.

The NRA thought they had a handle on things for the Senate investigatory hearings, but they, and everyone else, where blindsided when everything that had been scheduled in advance was overturned at the last minute, and the hearings turned into a sideshow on David Koresh instead of investigating the FBI.

It was clear, at that moment, that the Senate feared the FBI and the Media enough to cover up mass murder. The Clintons were in the White House, and you can bet a lot of pressure was brought to bear.

[marktwain]

where blindsided should be were blindsided

[gaijin]

Yes, exactly correct.

Thank you.

[NorthMountain]

Only those functions that are critical to perating govt should be retained and given to other agencies.

That would be accountants collecting excise taxes on booze and butts. The rest, I agree: completely disband and abolish.

[556x45]

Exactly, if there are taxes to collect let another agency do that...like the IRS or some such. The ATF should not exist in any form, it should be entirely disbanded.

[Celtic Conservative]

There is party store up by me that sells firearms. I’ve told the owner he should change the name to “alcohol, tobacco &firearms”

CC

[ExSoldier]

The very existence of the BATFE is an abuse of law. They have literally been getting away with murder since the 1920's. Since the Prohibition era. Back then, the mission was primarily busting moonshine makers. They really got their modern rep for Waco, Ruby Ridge and of course the Fast & Furious operations. They need to be disbanded and their firearms confiscated.

[ExSoldier]

Their are always individuals that will abuse the authority granted them by law.

True, but it seems the BATFE is really full of those types. I think that to have an application accepted for employment, one must have a prior record of such behavior.

Most tellingly is the comment that the serving US Marshal had during the Bush (#41) administration when it was suggested that they be folded into the Marshal service.

This was how that Marshal answered the question: "Q: What do you get when you mix dirty water into clean water? A: DIRTY WATER! We don't want them.

Other federal agencies have known about our modern versions of the Gestapo for a long time. So has the Congress. One of the more conservative of congress-critters once referred to them as the JACK BOOTED THUGS of the U.S. Government.

[sailor76]

Even if the BATFags were the best behaved bureaucrats in the entire Fedzilla, the bureau should still be abolished. It should be no more than the alcohol and tobacco tax division at the Treasury Department.

Exactly. Why should there even be a Federal police force if the 2nd Amendment was a "Right", not a privilege?

Where is the Bureau of Free Speech, Fee Assembly and Religion?

NO, the 2nd Amendment is a privilege and you need gov approval to exercise it, or the BATFags will kick in your door and take you away.

[hadit2here]

Can anyone point out to me anywhere in the US Constitution where the fed gov, congress or any other federal body is given the legal, legitimate authority to do anything regarding alcohol? Including taxing it, unless it’s a tariff duty on imports being brought into the country?

Is there any authorization in the Constitution for the fed gov to ANY authority over arms, explosives or even tobacco? Please, I’d really like to see such legal authority provided to the executive, legislative or judicial branches. I haven’t found it.

[NorthMountain]

Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

[hadit2here]

Thanks. Had forgotten about that taxing thing in my livid distaste for all things federal gargantuan. Just remembered that it took a Constitutional amendment for the authority to “regulate” alcohol by making it “illegal”. Still don’t think they should have the power to create bureaucracies like the ATF to “regulate” those things that they only have authority to just “tax”. ;^)

[NorthMountain]

BATFE as it exists today is massive overreach and unconstitutional. The underlying tax authority is what the Founding Fathers intended as the means by which Fedgov would raise funds to, for example, maintain an army and a navy.

[Cowgirl]

Just a little note about Glenallen. Think deep south, 1930s, beyond poor, and a little scary. This guy is playing with matches. Even some of the women there would make mincemeat of an average Joe.

[NorthMountain]

Justice comes in many forms.

[Spitzensparkin1]

Hmmm, makes me wonder what BATF needs these under cover op’s for in Alaska? I would also wager there are more of them than just this rouge. Wonder what they are up to that they need this “caliber” of individual? Bet it stinks to high Heaven, whatever it is.

FRegards,
SS1

[sig226]

"It is a deprivation of rights under color of law."

"Using police lights to pull someone over without cause is depriving them of their constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment."

I have no love for the ATF, but this author is a nut. I'm surprised he wasn't listed as Tyler Durden. The driver of the ATF vehicle was a jerk, but this article is black lives matter and gold fringed flag stuff.