Judiciary Committee - Senate

Ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna be just a couple of minutes late. We're waiting on a couple more members to get here. I appreciate it. I want to thank you for being here today and thank the members of the House Judiciary and Senate Judiciary for being here. Uh, for this meeting, you know, I know there's, there's nothing that, uh, We can do today in this meeting to bring back the life of Brian Malinowski. But I hope that we can shed some light on, on what happened. And uh Some of the questionable things that have not been answered. By the tobacco, alcohol and firearms. Harvest State Police, Little Rock Police Department. So that's what this meeting is all about. Uh, the first witness I want to bring up to testify is, uh, FBI, former FBI agent, Mark Bowling. Mr. Bowling, if you will state your name. And uh What you do for the record. Yeah, go ahead and go to the, yeah, you go ahead and go to the table. I apologize and turn that, turn that mic on right in front of you. Like My name is Mark Bowling. I was previously the assistant special agent in charge of the Little Rock Field Office of the FBI. I am currently the chief risk, security and information security officer for a multi-million dollar. Uh, cybersecurity corporation out of Seattle. Extra hot networks, multi-billion dollar, sorry. Mr. Bling, if you would stand. Raise your right hand. I'm gonna swear you in. Uh, just repeat after me. Do you solemnly swear I I'm Mark Boling. You solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God. Thank you, be seated. You're recognized for a statement, Mr. Bowling. Thank you very much, uh, Senator Stubblefield. Um, I come here voluntarily. Under No subpoena under no compulsion. I come here because I believe that the truth must be stood up for. And I believe the truth will show that Brian Malinowski died unnecessarily. And he died because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Uh, the specifically the Little Rock office. And the Office of the United States Attorney, Eastern District of Arkansas. And the Little Rock Police Department made errors. And that those errors led to the death. A Brian Malinowski. Now people will argue. That it was what they call a good shooting. And the ATF agent which participated in it will be scoped because it will be in the conduct of his. Assigned duties. As an ATF agent. But the simple fact is that it should never have gotten to this point. And so I'm going to rather than talking about everything that went wrong. I'm going to simply ask anybody in the room to tell me one thing that went right. With the investigation. The search warrant The execution of the search warrant and the investigation after that. Can, can I interrupt you just a second, sir. Mr. Bling, was that the reason the tape was put over the security camera. To prevent anything that went wrong from being videoed. Well, I. You are asking me to speculate and so, OK, understanding that this is speculation that I am under oath. I don't understand exactly why the tape was put over it. But under the conditions of this search warrant. That was absolutely the wrong thing to do. So this is a search warrant that you're executing for what is fundamentally unadministrative crime. And in fact, 4 months before, The search warrant was executed. This would not have been a crime. This was an administrative activity that was criminalized by unilateral decision made by the Bureau of Alcohol, tobacco and Firearms. And having criminalized. Mr. Malinowski's activity, they decided to engage in perhaps. One of the most aggressive executions of a search warrant that you can. Now, had I been in charge of these agents, I would have said knock on the door, hold your creds in one hand, the cup, the copy of the search warrant on the other hand and hold it right in front of the camera. That's what they should have done. That's not what they did. They made what was called a dynamic entry, dynamic entries are made when you have knowledge that there is somebody inside who has used violence in the past. Against law enforcement officers. Or violence in the past against family members. There, there's an exception there too. But this was a dynamic entry, the dynamic entry was completely unnecessary. Putting tape over the camera was completely unnecessary. Now I'm not going to subscribe nefarious intentions to why they did that. They made the argument. That it was for tactical purposes. I don't think under the circumstances of the search warrant. That the tactical purposes are justified. What that shows me is that they had premeditated that they were going to make what is called a dynamic entry. And I dynamic entry in this case is completely unjustified and was completely unnecessary and a result of let's not forget this, OK? Let's not make the politics more important than the person. It resulted in the death. Of an otherwise innocent Arkansan. And that is wrong. Whether we can find it justified under The law, it is still wrong. Whether we can find an excusable for other law enforcement officers, it was still wrong. That answer your question, sir. Yes, yes. Do you have any more to add to, I don't. No, no, sir. Uh, I have a couple of questions. Was it, was there a crime committed by Mr. Malinowski? Well, um, there are attorneys in the room. There are attorneys for the United States Attorney's Office perhaps. The defense attorneys. The civil rights attorneys. Um, I'm going to err on the side of civil rights because we are a nation of laws. We are a nation that guarantees our citizens certain rights. So what I'm going to simply say Is that 4 months prior. To this execution of the search warrant that resulted in the death of Brian Malinowski. This was not considered a crime. This was created as an administrative crime. By an administrative decision that I believe is extraconstitutional on behalf of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. So has the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms in the past ask Congress for the authority to call this a crime. Congress on multiple occasions has said no. So we have clear understanding that the people who make the law, the legislature can read Article 2 if you want. But the legislature did not give. The ATF, the authority. To call this a crime. And even the gun control adherence. The advocate for a much more. That this isn't even criminal activity under the clear text of the law. So the ATF made this a crime. And after they made it a crime, they opened up a criminal investigation. Now here's what they should have done, and I'm gonna take some liberties here, sir. Is that OK? That's OK What they should have done is they should have issued him an administrative citation at one of the gun shows. He's breaking the law. Treated as the same regulatory failure that you see at gun stores. When they have violations of ATF regulations. So they should have given him an administrative. Um, citation and then they could have served him, served him on what's known as an administrative summons where he has to come and talk about why he's doing this. And then at that administrative summons at hearing. They could have issued in the search warrant, but nobody in this room can say that they did things right. In fact, the ATF, Criminalized an activity that is commonly done at every gun show in the state of Arkansas. There are gun shows in Conway. There are gun shows in Ben. At the activity center, you know, Shane Broadway and I've been there. maybe not the gun shows, we've been at other things. And that activity center has gun shows. And they criminalize that because of the volume of the guns that they alleged. That he was trading, he was selling. Well then, good. Issue him a citation. For failure to get. A federal firearms license. Don't blow this artificially, and I would say. Perhaps not maliciously, but certainly they have their reasons. There was an agenda behind it. Don't create. Unnecessarily a huge criminal matter out of it. The state of Arkansas, and I know this from my experience here in law enforcement. State of Arkansas has a serious gun problem. It does. City of Little Rock has a gun problem. So why in the world was the ATF expanding the kind of resources on Brian Malinowski that they did. I, I cannot justify that under a threat risk reward. Analysis Now there are people who have said, I'm not going to argue with them. I'm not going to say this is why, but there are people, knowledgeable people, responsible people who have said that this was for political purposes. I'm gonna let the press, the politicians. Speculate on that. But what I can say Under no question. From anybody here or in the audience, whether or not The number of guns he may have been responsible for. Had any impact on crime and law enforcement in Little Rock, Pulaski County, Pine Bluff, Northwest Arkansas. No. So what you're saying, Mr. Balding, is there were dozens of ways. To deliver this this uh search warrant to Mr. Malinowski. Without putting his life in jeopardy. So Um, But I was A field executive with the FBI, we talk about it, a pyramid and up here at the very top is the most extreme. Type of law enforcement activity you can have. It is a dynamic entry, OK? I've done those, all right? At the bottom, it's when you. Just send somebody a search warrant in the mail and say, hey, we'd like to schedule when we can come by and execute the search warrant. Here's a copy of it. We'll bring the official copy when we actually execute the search warrant. It's my understanding that the ATF was prepared to execute the search warrant? A week ahead of time, but they chose not to because they wanted him on site. They wanted his car on site. So why didn't they execute it a week before? They had the paperwork, they had the operational plan. Was it because they wanted a high profile perp walk? For the media? No, they, if they had the original search warrant. They should have executed it. I don't know why they executed at 6:00 a.m. I don't know why they did a knock and announce. So if you think about that, that triangle again with the, an aggressive dynamic entry. What they did was one step below. They did a knock and announce. They did it at 6 a.m. Now, what's interesting in reading all the paperwork associated with this? Is that nobody had a clear idea how long they waited before they went in. The agents in the task force officers are all over the map. And if it wasn't so sad, it would have been comical. So did they wait 20 seconds, 27 seconds, I think, uh, some of the folks, uh, on the Malinowski, um, team have said it's 27 seconds. That's not long enough for 6 in the morning? Did the arrest or not the arrest, I'm sorry, excuse me, did the search plan they have operational plans usually a GS-15, a field project manager, a rack if you're DEA or ATF, it's a. AAC assistant special agent in charge if it's the FBI. They say 2 minutes. You will wait 2 minutes because it's 6 in the morning. People should be able to get up and put their clothes on. Which is apparently a luxury, which is a luxury that the ATF and the Little Rock PD did not afford. Brian Malinowski's widow, and that in itself is a disgrace. Mr. Bling, it's. And of this is speculation again. But would you say this is political? So I am generally in a political creature. Um, I'm moderate conservative, you know. I have friends here in Arkansas who call me a rhino. I have friends who think I'm part of the deep state, you know. Because I was, you know, an FBI program manager at headquarters and then I was one of the, an inspector general out of headquarters on IG and the simple fact is, is that things frequently become political. I would simply say that if I were to make a decision, I would make my decision based on the timing of this. And the timing of this search warrant. When you look at. Press releases by the Department of Justice and by the current administration. There is an appearance that that could have been a motivation. Well, with, with the amiss discussion about closing loopholes by this administration. In previous weeks before this. In almost seemed to me in this is speculation again. That this was to set an example. But Let me ask you this. Had the ATF come to me. Handed me the search warrant search warrant. It said, would you take this to Mr. Malinowski. Could I have taken it to Mr. Malinowski at the airport or anywhere else, handed him the search warrant. That way nobody's alive be in jeopardy. So search warrants have to be served by sworn officers. I had a sworn officer with me if you had the sworn officer would have had to actual actually deliver the search warrant. So to me, I, I would have thought that perhaps the best solution, the one that is way down here on that pyramid, OK? The de-escalates the situation that was already unnecessarily escalated. But I would say that perhaps the best place would have been to go with one of the TSA agents at the Little Rock Airport, deliver him the search warrant and say, hey, could you please ask, and remember, and I'm, I have some hindsight, OK? And the hindsight is that the ATF has tried to justify their dynamic entry apparently because they were worried about the destruction of evidence. Well, if you have, Mr. Malinowski at the airport. He can't destroy evidence, right? So all you do is serve him the search warrant or a copy of the search warrant, you say, could you please ask your wife to leave the premises and then we will, uh, leave the door unlocked so we don't have to break anything. And then we will go and execute the search warrant. I mean, how difficult would that have been? Is it, is it common for two different law enforcement agencies to not be wearing body cams and have them turned on. Well that's part of their policy that was one of the things that I found most troubling about the op plan, the operational plan, the operational plan because it was a knock in and out should have had a specific amount of time they're going to wait before they go in. Uh, the art plan planned for breach equipment. The plan planned for a shield. The plan put tactical members of the team on the, the back left and back right corners of the house, but the op plan strangely did not plan for body cameras, even though it is required by policy. Uh, am I the only one who's confused by that? No, you would, you would think if you're doing a knock and announce search warrant at 6 a.m. you would have a specific amount of time that you wait. Understanding that people may have to get dressed. And you would think that if you work for an agency that has a requirement. To have body cameras on any kind of operational entry. That that would be part of the, the operational plan, but somehow that both of those elements got left off the plan, but The ATF did have breaching tools and a shield as part of the plan. All right, any members have questions? Uh, Senator Tucker, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here and for your service. Absolutely. I just wanted to follow up. And, and try to get a better understanding of of what you were referencing about the ATF decision from 4 months ago. You know, I, my questions are, what, what, what was it that they administratively made illegal at that time. ambiguity about who is required to have what's known as an FFL, Federal firearms license, OK? And there has been a lot of talk in, uh, Uh Network television. News organizations about how that they call it the gun show loophole. How that's such a horrible thing. OK. And so what they did is the ATF. Understanding that the Congress, remember they're the people who make the laws. Article 2, the Congress refused to give the ATF that authority. And so the ATF took that authority and criminalized administratively, the Federal firearms license requirement for people who sell a certain number of firearms, OK? Now, So when I say that. Before You know, several months before, and I don't have an actual timeline and Senator, I will get you that timeline if you want it. I wanna make sure that everything I'm saying under oath is 100% accurate. I understand. I, I really care more about the substance than the timing. So the, but the excuse me, the substance is that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Gave themselves that authority. But they, they changed the requirements for who needed an FFA administrative requirements, yes. And what's the administrative process through which they did that? I don't understand that. I, I, I, I understand it. I don't have it before me. I don't know what the process they did was. I, I'm sure I can find that out and deliver that to your office, Senator. Thank you, sir. Senator Rice should recognize. Thank you for being here today, Mr. Boland. uh, this may be speculation too because you weren't. Uh, previously in charge of the ATF or or even locally but in your past. What would be your speculation on the chain of command for this type operation. Was it at a local level or was it at a DC level? Now you've already laid out. Some of the uh things that might have been a driver on that, but who actually might have made the call on this. You would have a local supervisory agent and I don't know how big the the field office here is now. Uh, but I'll just go by. Levels. So you have a GS 14 who's usually what's known as a rack and the FBI, we call them squad supervisors or supervisory senior resident agent, and I've been both of those roles. And then if it's a larger. Organization like the ATF, I don't know how many of you know Bill Bryant. Bill Bryant was the rack, the resident agent in charge, at a 15 level, a GS-15 level. So it wasn't senior executive service. He was a GS-15 level. So in the FBI, What would happen is the squad supervisor would develop the operational plan and the squad supervisor would develop a piece of paperwork. We call it a warrant application that would have the affidavit that was sworn to by the agents attached. And then The assistant special agent in charge once again GS 15 level would approve. Both the operational plan and the warrant. Application and then the warrant application goes to the Office of the United States Attorney. Now, generally, it's not like. The Office of the United States Attorney is surprised by getting this warrant application. The United States attorney is generally part of this investigation. So let me tell you a little bit about one of the things I was part of in the past, and that's in 2005, I had an operation called Operation Broken Loan. You can actually still find it on the FBI website. And that operation we did multiple search warrants that I had to, uh, I had to help with the creation of the affidavit as a supervisor, and we engaged in multiple searches, 18 searches, simultaneous, I think October 10th of 2005. That was part of. A national strategy by the United States Department of Justice. And they called it the mortgage fraud takedown or the there was a lot of mortgage fraud at the time. So things like this don't happen. In a vacuum. In fact, Understanding what was happening politically with the decision by the ATF. And, um And I would actually, I think there was something else that was happening also there was a Loper decision. Uh, the Loper decision overturned what was known as the Chevron decision. And the Loper decision. was going to be issued sometime in June, so I wonder if. The, uh, current administration was trying to get these rules in place prior. To the Loper decision may be removing the administrative authority of the ATF to change their own rules. And and once again, that's speculation. And I believe I remember from the congressional hearings that they're. was a an attempt to. I have this like a week or two. Previous were, uh, this task force or this these agents gathered I think in a parking lot. And then they found out Mr. Malikowski wasn't home. He had gone on official business, I think to DC and it left early that day, so rather than go ahead and do it. Then which they could have gone into the house then. They called it off and came back later. Is that your understanding? That is my understanding, yes, sir. That's all I have right now, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Bowling, you In your opinion, was the Fourth Amendment and the 14th Amendment violated here. Let me read to you what the Fourth Amendment says. The right of people to secure in the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. It protects Americans against arbitrary arbitrary arrest is the basis for law concerning search warrants. That is the 4th Amendment. I believe. That Mr. Malinowski's rights. To life And liberty were violated. I don't think anybody can walk away from this without that conclusion. Should he Have maybe been more judicious in his sales of Firearm perhaps. But What The ATF. And the task force officers assigned to ATF did. And this was not done. In a vacuum. Let's not just throw the law enforcement officers under the bus, OK, I've got a ring, it's a black ring with a, a blue. Stripe on it. I am ridiculously pro-law enforcement, OK? My heart goes out to the ATF agents who were put in this position. By bad policies and bad leadership. My heart goes out to the Little Rock police officers who were put in this position because they were part of. A task force, OK? And I have been known. To tell and. I have probably overseen as a supervisor or as an assistant special agent in charge over 100. Operation and every single time I would tell everybody going out on the operation. Your job is to come back. OK. They have, they had a wife and children, I would say your job is to come back, especially for your wife and children. So I don't want anybody here to feel that I'm trying to throw the individual. Agents under the bus. But it is absolutely wrong that the ATF And the United States Department of Justice put those agents. And those task force officers in that position. That was a search warrant that did not need to be. Anan can announce. I'm not even sure. That If this If, if Brian Malinowski had been arrested. I'm not even sure. That the indictment would have gotten out of grand jury. At worst, once again, this is administrative citation. He's selling guns. He should have been cited administratively. For not having a federal firearms license, and yet the ATF for some reason. And candidly, I believe that the tendrils go back to Washington DC. But the ATF blew this up. In almost a fantastical ridiculous manner into that he was involved in gun trafficking and that he was arming drug drug gangs. And that's just ludicrous. So yes. Brian Malinowski's 4th Amendment rights were violated. Where they violated by? Individual officers. I pray not. I was not there. I did not do the investigation. I've done 2 shooting investigations, as is an inspector with the FBI. I did 2 shooting investigations. And as an ASAP I had a shooting up in, um, Jonesboro near Jonesboro, as a child porn issue. So I've been there and I know that shooting investigations are hard. Tell you what, when I read the Arkansas State Police and no disrespect. To anybody in the Arkansas State Police, I was when I read that shooting investigation report, I was disappointed. I expected more. So I would say. Quite simply, That a combination Of errors, bad judgment. Bad decisions. And political decisions that come from Washington DC combined. Violated Brian Malinowski's 4th Amendment rights to life. Senator Johnson, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for allowing me to question the witness. I'm not a member of the Judiciary Committee. Mr. Balding, thank you for your candor and your courage to come here and speak to us. I have some I think simple but maybe tough questions. Uh, I want to start with, uh, Uh, Are you an attorney? I know most, many FBI agents are. Were you an attorney? No sir, I'm an engineer. OK. Well, I know there's accountants and attorneys, a lot of them in there, but uh, but you're familiar with the Bill of Rights, 1st 10 amendments to the Constitution, uh, would you agree that the Bill of Rights exists to protect the people from the government, not the government from the people. I think if you read. Federalist Papers, that is clearly the case. uh, so. We put these things in the Constitution and you mentioned the Federalist Papers, which was sort of the the campaign plan to get it, uh, get the Constitution ratified and uh it was not as simple as we look back, people pay attention to it, no, it was not easy to get all the 13 states to to ratify the Constitution, but, uh, there were concerns of too much power in the central government and the uh the proposed Bill of Rights was sort of the answer. And hopefully solution to that concern, would you agree? I agree that it was one of the concerns I think specifically the 10th Amendment though. So the 10th Amendment reserved powers to the state that are not explicitly given to the federal government. In the United States Constitution. I think we forget the, uh, 10th Amendment. I, I would agree with that, sir, and it's those of us in state government bump up against that all the time, um. The 2nd Amendment, which we haven't quite mentioned here today yet, uh, guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms and, and after some, uh, decisions in the last 25, 30 years that may have weakened that we've recently seen a uh an increase I would say, going the other direction to where a court decisions have ruled that, for example, that the Second Amendment is an individual right and not anything vested in an organized militia or anything, is that along that line, would you agree with that statement? I would, I would simply state that that is settled law that the Amendment It is an is an individual right to the individual people. OK, um. You brought up the, uh, Loper Bright decision and I already had made a note about that before you brought it up, but, uh, uh, basically if I understood that correctly, it said that while Congress can change the laws that agencies can't and there was had been an implication under Chevron that, uh, Opened the I I would call it the, the Chevron loophole that basically would in many cases let agencies if it was a gray area, agencies could do whatever they pleased, but, uh, you, you mentioned that, uh, you, you observed that there was perhaps a feeling in Washington that what he ultimately became the Lower Bright decision to overturn Chevron, uh, was pending and that this could have been a contributory factor to. Uh, this incident that happened in Little Rock and resulted in the death of Mr. Malinowski. Did I hear you say that correctly? Did I interpret that correctly? who's worked in Washington DC 4 times. And I was on the staff of Director Mueller. I worked out the director's office in 2002 through 2004. You get a feel for these things. You get to understanding for these things. And if you understood or heard any of the arguments. Before the Supreme Court, before the Loer Bright decision. You could see the direction. The 5 or 6 of the justices were going. OK. So for anybody to say, oh, we didn't know that Loper was going to be announced in June? Or that it would be something negative for the federal agencies. That's just silly. People knew this was coming. Now, do I think that the ATF did something premeditated knowing that Loper was coming. I don't know. You know, I, I would, I would like to see Jim Jordan maybe subpoena some of those emails, but. The the simple fact is that. It's Unquestionable. That prior to the Loper decision, the ATF did something that in retrospect, is clearly contraveneous to the spirit. Of the Loper decision. Which was what? they gave themselves. Increased administrative authority by changing The requirements that are for a federal firearms license without going to Congress, without going to Congress, yes. OK, and I'll be quick here, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your indulgence. Um, the final thing I wanted to, to ask you about, you mentioned, uh, the 10th Amendment and of course we in the General Assembly, we, we deal with this all the time, uh, and I, I recognize our limited authority in trying to do anything about this, but, uh, uh, we have passed legislation Mr. Chairman, I think you were involved in some of it about uh putting some limits on what local authorities would be forced to do if it came to, uh, uh, Abrogating citizens' rights under the Bill of Rights as far as uh cooperating with the federal agencies that appeared to be violating those rights, uh, so I'm concerned and I, uh, Colonel Hager is going to be a witness. I'm gonna be able to ask him about some of these issues, but, uh. Are you concerned when uh state actors or local actors, uh, uh, facilitate something that it ends up being, uh, a tragedy in this case, but maybe even if it didn't rise to that to be uh somewhat abusive of citizens' rights. Is that a concern for you it's a concern. Let me answer that in 3 ways, OK? And I'm, I'm going to play games and I'm not an attorney, so it's gonna be tough. Dancing without being an attorney. As the supervisory resident agent, uh, up in Macomb County, Michigan. I had two task forces that reported to me. County McComb enforcement team. It was a hiDA task force. And Um, mace, McComa area computer and I benefited greatly and our law enforcement mission benefited greatly from the relationship between the federal, state and local partners. That was invaluable. It is not in the best interests. Of law enforcement either on a national level or state level to just take that away without a judicious evaluation of all of the facts. OK. So I firmly believe in task forces. When I was the assistant special agent in charge here in Little Rock. I had the joint joint terrorism task force that reported to me. We had a cybercrime task force. We had all of these task forces, and we benefited from the relationships with the Little Rock Police Department with the Arkansas State Police. Once again, That reinforced in my mind the value of of the very important federal, state, and local relations. And I, I presume in that you're you're speaking of of in effect going after criminals and not ordinary citizens doing becomes apparent. That this relationship is now being abused. By the federal partners then there needs to be once I, once again, that judicious evaluation of all of the facts. I hope that's what we're doing here. I would say this is part of that process, Mr. Bling, thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Johnson. Mr. Bowles, I just have one question and we'll go to uh. Representative Matt, I definitely hope Ment definitely. Did the Arkansas law enforcement have to participate in the raid when there was a questionable, a lot of questionable allegations and vague and, uh, insufficient evidence. Do they have to participate with the feds in this race? So This is where you have to make tough decisions as a law enforcement officer. And if you don't want to make tough decisions, don't go into law enforcement. Just don't. And this is where two things should have happened. One is the local and state agencies should Assign people who are mature and knowledgeable to these task forces. And they should know from their bosses. From the precinct. And you know, the Uh, it was Cleeve Barfield was the, the CID. Um, had when I was the ASAC here in Little Rock. And I hope Cleave told every one of his detectives. ASP detectives. That if something happens that you're uncomfortable with, you need to let me know. So that I can call Mark and say, hey, let's not do it this way. So if there was silence, remember the maxim of the law is silence gives consent. If there was silence on behalf. Of the Little Rock PD or North Little Rock Police Department. Detectives who were assigned to this task force. Then maybe they didn't exercise the discretion that they should have and maybe their bosses didn't give them. The ability to exercise that discretion. But somewhere along the line. If you are a federal law enforcement officer. Can I have another water, please, bud? Fewer federal law enforcement officer? Then guess what? are not a federal law, but you're a federal task force officer. Acting as a federal law enforcement officer, then you have to exercise discretion. And you should raise your hand and say maybe this isn't such a great idea. Because we carry guns. And those guns can do harm to people. And when those guns can do harm to people, we need to be assiduous about the protection. Of their Fourth Amendment right to life. That answer your question. Representative Duffy, will you recognized? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bowling for your courage to come forward here today. I would like, uh, to go back to something that Senator Rice mentioned earlier, and just to clarify, um. Everything was in place. To go and execute this search warrant a week before this happened, is that correct? That is correct. And when I was reviewing all of the documents, the operational plan, which I'm very. Critical of The all the way to the Arkansas State Police shooting report. And when I reviewed all of this, OK? The what stunned me the most is like, are you kidding me? That they Delayed the execution of the search warrant a week just because they wanted Brian Malinowski at the house and you want to tell me they were not intentionally escalating this. That just boggles my imagination. What is the justification? Is the justification to preserve evidence? Well, if he's not there, he can't destroy evidence. You have him exactly where you want them. Well, maybe we wanted to do. An adversarial interrogation, which I've done. I've done a lot of interrogations, OK? I did interrogations in Baghdad. Thank you very much. All right. Uh, Mr. Bling, just to clarify for, for everyone in attendance here and everybody listening, can you go through which agencies were involved. I may miss some. I will do my best to recall all of them. I do know that Little Rock Police Department provided on-site traffic control. I believe there were Little Rock Police Department detectives. On this task force, I believe that North Little Rock. Police department had Detectives on the task force. I hate to say it. I, I hate to say it in 2011, 2012, 2013, I ran the torch run with the chief. The North Little Rock Police Department, OK? And then of course, the ATF were part of it. I don't know if there were any other federal agencies that were part of this. When the ATF comes to town to do something like this, and they enlist the help of, of state police and local agencies. Is there anything that prevents any of these agencies from saying, no, we're not going to participate with this. We don't feel comfortable. No, there is not. That's, that's the point. The point when I was answering one of the previous questions, sir, and I'm not trying to. Uh, be responsible in my response, but the whole point was if we're going to give people guns. And we're gonna assign him to a task force. Their supervisors. Sure as heck better make sure. They have the ability to say, I do not want to participate. In a law enforcement activity that is either. Ineffective or does not. Promote good, uh, the best practices of good law enforcement. To answer your question, sir. Thank you, Senator Clark. You're Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Bowling for being here. Uh, a knock and announce is that the The correct name for the warrant that's what you would call it, but even even calling this a knock and announce, I think. Unfortunately, stretches the definition of knock and announce this was appeared to be a knock and announced with a premeditated dynamic entry which. It's clearly for a crime that was just recently criminalized by an administrative decision. That could have been addressed through an administrative citation. That is an excessive. Means of executing a search warrant. The what? I appreciate that explanation. I don't think it clears it up completely for me, uh, no, uh, it's not. Uh, I think it's just a longer answer because I was not at all familiar with the knock and announce. I had thought it was, uh, no knock. And interestingly I talked to several law enforcement, uh. Friends and law enforcement people who I trust and asked how they felt about no knock warrants. Every single one of them referred to without knowing that we had anything coming up here and me not mention it referred to the Malinowski shooting as a bad case. Uh, a no knock warrant. So it's not a no knock warrant, it's a knock and announce. And so that's what I'm trying to figure out is in your experience, what is the normally the reason for serving a search warrant? An hour before daylight. With what I count 13 agents. Uh, that I know of with a plan. To breach the door. What kind of circumstances normally brings up that that type of warrant. The circumstances that bring up that type of warrant. Generally Involve Things like drugs. And you know you have a violent. Gang So, uh, we had an investigation, uh, I'm not even to do some of the stuff here in Little Rock. We had a great investigation in Michigan. Devil's disciples. OK. There are an affiliate of the, uh, Hells Angels. Very active in eastern Michigan. We did at 6 a.m. Knock and announce, OK? We and we did it because we knew these people were very bad individuals. All right. That is when it is justified. So we can, we can either try the process of elimination or we can say this is when it's justified and if it's not that, Then all the rest is unjustified. That is when it is justified. I do not believe that administrative criminalization of. The Federal firearms license statute justifies this type of entry. I don't think so either, uh. And the consequences. Certainly, uh. Seemed like at some point this is going to happen. You if you wake me up an hour before daylight, uh, And breached my door. I think I'm gonna come out shooting. Uh, I think lots of Arkansans are. Uh, but at the very foundation of this I'm bothered. Because it appears to me in what I've read of the investigation. That They wanted him to be guilty. I mean, investigation. You're going in coming to conclusions, uh, uh, sometimes you watch them on, uh, law enforcement TV shows and we're just trying to eliminate you and so some things as you investigate should eliminate some things should lead you to other conclusions, but I'm looking just to uh excerpt. Uh, of From one of the officers we learned that Malinowski was some sort of high stakes poker player. OK. There was a lot of weird financial stuff. We didn't know if he had a drug habit. Now, how long have they been investigating him? Uh, I do not know when they open the investigation they've been tracking his car for. Yes, they were using intrusive. They were using intrusive electronic surveillance techniques against somebody who failed to get a firearms license tracking his car, they were tailing him, and they say, day of the shooting or day after we didn't know if he had a drug habit. I guess they don't know if I have a drug habit either. Uh We still don't know if it's Monday money laundering. That I guess they don't know about money laundering either, but, uh, so I'm trying to even find the justification. For a warrant at all. Once again, When I just Started describing this and I said that this was a Not just a failed. Search warrant execution. This was a failed investigation. This was failed predication for an investigation. Because it could have been fundamentally political. So this whole series of activities. I dubious. Well, we And because of a dubious series of activities. A man Who is arguably, and I would say the vast preponderance of the evidence. He's arguably innocent of any crime other than being woken up and defending his property. is now dead. And he's dead because there was a case that was open that never should have been opened. And using that opened case. A search warrant was predicated to the Office of United States Attorneys. And the Office of the United States Attorney failed to exercise prosecutorial discretion. And then there were I believe Miss representations made to the judge. I'm not going to call out any federal magistrates. I respect them. I respect their office. But perhaps this, perhaps this is a warrant that never should have been signed. And if you look at all of the volume. Of information. In many of the documents? One thing that is missing is what we call the element of the crime. You have to meet the elements of the crime. And almost universally through this other than him not having a federal firearms license, everything else is is aspersions. Well, we didn't know we didn't have a, well, you don't know that, I mean, I was, you know, federal agent for 21 years and. Nobody here knows that I didn't have a drug problem. Right? I'm a good Southern Baptist. I don't gamble, but nobody here knows that I don't gamble. So for the fact that that was part. Of the investigative logic. shows the poverty. The absolute intellectual poverty of this investigation. Thank you. You brought that up very well. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Tucker, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sorry to get back in the queue. I'm just curious, um, are, are you testifying in your capacity as a, just a former FBI agent who with experience in, in executing search warrants. I'm testifying because I was asked by a friend to testify, and I respect that man. Tremendously. OK. I'm, I'm, I'm testifying because he said, Mark, you have experience. That is relevant to this, he said, Mark, you have understanding. That is relevant to this. And I'm testifying because I believe in the truth. Yes, sir, yeah I'm testifying because I believe law enforcement should do better. I'm testifying because I have high expectations. Federal law enforcement officers. Yes, sir, and I appreciate all that. Uh, I, I, I, I'm just trying to understand because we're an hour into the meeting and I don't know if you had a direct role in any part of this or if you're working with any related party, um, but, you know, just, we're asking a lot of questions, which is all fair and good, but we're an hour into the agenda, and we haven't even gotten to the folks who, who have a direct role in this and I was, I was just trying to clarify from my own understanding, you're good. It's a, it's a valid question. I hope I answered it. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Tucker. Uh. Representative Long, is to be the last question for Mr. B. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Boeing, uh, you mentioned earlier that the ATF had justified using the knock and announce type of um, of entry because they were, uh, afraid of destruction of evidence. Um, I was wondering if you could tell me how could a suspect destroy firearms evidence in a few minutes' time. It's my understanding that they were concerned. And I don't have first, so this is. This is hearsay for me, but it's my understanding, and I want that to be clear to the. To the committee. It's my understanding that they were concerned that he may have had evidence on his computer. That he might otherwise delete. Now If that's the predication. Then why didn't they execute the search warrant a week before. So you, you have the ATF apparently talking out both sides of their mouth. What we had to do a dynamic entry to preserve evidence. But we didn't do the arrest or the search warrant. When he was away from home when we originally planned to do it. Am I the only person that that seems a little bit disingenuous too. So if the predication for using a knock and announce at 6 a.m. Is preservation of evidence. Then what I just don't get it. And anyway, I, I, I was one of the first CAT team members computer analysis response team members in the FBI back in 1995. You can recover deleted evidence. Let's not be silly. Do you know any evidence was found on his computer? I do not know. I, I'm not privy to the investigation. Thank you, sir. Any other, uh, Mr. Bling, we, we appreciate you coming today and testifying. Thank you. Thank you very much. Col hanger, if you and whoever's with you would come. To the front If you would go ahead and state your name. What you do, what your role is for the record. My name is Mike Hager, turn your mics on and pull them up too close. And it was Mike Agra, secretary of Department of Public Safety and Director of State Police. Hugh Finkelstein, chief of staff of the Department of Public Safety. I'm Stacey Rhodes. I'm a major and I oversee the criminal investigation division. All right, thank you. Now, if you would stand up and hold your right hand up. And repeat after me. I State your name, do solemnly swear or firm. To where that the testimony you're I'm about to give will be the truth, the whole truth. And nothing but the truth, so help you God. All right, thank you. You may be seated. All right, Colonel, Colonel Hanger, what role did the state police play in this raid? I was notified on the morning of March 19th, uh, by Chief Helton of Little Rock PD first, that's the first you heard of it? Yes, sir, that's correct. He contacted me that morning and said that there had been an officer involved shooting, involving, uh, ATF at a residence in Little Rock. And he further stated that the, uh, The person involved, the subject of the investigation was not a city employee, but he had Connections to the city of Little Rock work closely with the city of Little Rock and wanted to Or he asked if we would conduct the investigation, um, just for the fear of it looking like there was any conflict of interest on behalf of the city of Little Rock, so, uh, we agreed to that. And I contacted, uh, Lieutenant Colonel Jason Aaron and Major Stacy Rhodes, and we sent our investigators to the scene. Was it, was that entire investigation, uh, files turned over to the prosecutor's office. Yes, sir, it was. Uh, have you, have you reviewed the files since testifying? I have reviewed the case summary, and I've been briefed by Major Rhodes. In the state police file, Sergeant Ryan Jacks writes the case is complete and ready to be submitted to the Pulaski County prosecutor's office for review. Uh, did you instruct Sergeant Ryan Jack's assessment. I'm sorry, can you say that again? Did I did you instruct him to say that? No, sir, I did not. OK. Do you believe the files submitted to the Pulaski County prosecutor's office was thorough and complete investigation of the matter. Yes, so according to the brief, I've been given, I do. Uh, in the course of regular responsibilities of the state police. Is it normal for your law enforcement officers to conduct felony investigations. Yes, sir, it is. All right. You have detectives To conduct those investigations, don't you? Yes, sir. Do your detectives have offices from which they conduct these investigations? Yes, sir, they do. Is it common for your detectives to interview witnesses and suspects? Yes, sir. Is it common to interview those witnesses, suspects in the detective's office? Yes, sir. So you have rooms, uh, that are designated for those interviews. We do. Are those rooms typically equipped with a video and audio recording device to record the interviews of the felony investigation. I believe that's correct. I would. Deferred to major roads on specifics on that, but yes, sir, I believe that's correct. Is there any reason to treat the and investigation of a law enforcement officer any different than from a standard felony investigation. Yes, so I would defer to major Rhodes to answer that. So, repeat the question, please. Is there any reason to treat an investigation of a law enforcement officer any different? From a standard felony investigation. felony investigation. There's no reason to treat an officer different. An officer involved shooting is not a standard investigation. All right, where, where are the video recordings of the interviews of the suspects and witnesses, uh, in the shooting death of Brian Malinowski. I'll answer that. There are no videos of suspects. There were no identified suspects for the purposes of our, um, officer-involved shooting, we don't label, uh, either Mr. Malinowski or the officers as suspects. They're listed as a subject or they're listed as law enforcement officers. We don't make that determination of who's victims and who's suspects and an officer-involved shooting. And that's how they differ from a normal investigation. A normal. Any investigation, you would have a victim, say, of a of a theft or or a sexual assault, and then you would have a suspect. These are not handled that way. Do you know why the cars that, uh, pulled up. We're told to hit their sirens for 1.5 seconds, which nobody heard even the neighbors testified they didn't hear it. And yet when they hit those, The Dashcam recorder and the audio automatically come on. They had left the window down. And yet the cars were pointed away from the house. The dash cams were, were pointed away from the actual scene. Why was that? I can't formulate an opinion as to what they did or didn't do. I can just tell you what they did do. When your detectives conducted homicide investigation. Does your office train them to interrupt suspects to provide justifications for their actions? Interrupt suspects that can happen on occasion. Yes, sir. All right, when it comes to important pieces of information related to a homicide during the interview, are your detectives supposed to ask the questions or provide the answers? Typically were to ask the questions. You're where there, there is a video of the ATF entry team approaching the home that was captured on the home, uh, ring doorbell. Camera, you're, you're familiar with that. Have you seen that video? Yes sir, I have. In that video, ATF has seen pleasing tape over the doorbell camera in order to disable the video feature of it. Are you aware that your detectives interviewed 8 ATF agents, 2 task force officers, and 3. Little Rock police officer? Yes, sir, I'm aware. Are you aware that in all the interviews, your detectives never wants to ask a question about the entry team placing a tape. Over that camera I'm aware that, um, ATF agent Bass. gave a gave the answer for that, so there was no need to ask anyone else in our opinion. Well, the only time it was brought up was when Agent Bass, uh, in an interview volunteered that they had talked about it beforehand and wanted to cover it up because he said something could go wrong. What could possibly go wrong? Bass. I don't know that. I just know that he told us it was for, um, For tactical and officer safety. Well, your detective did not follow up, uh, Mr. Bass's statement with a single question. Instead, Arkansas State police agent Travis May responded, yeah, just to conceal y'all approach and tactical movement to the resonance. ATF agent responded, yeah, in case anything to the actual audio recording of that, that was a question posed by Travis May. That wasn't a statement because Agent Bass responds with yeah, as meaning an affirmative. why is agent May testifying in the interview of an ATF. He wasn't testifying. He was asking a clarifying question. Why was he interrupting the witness who was speaking on critical aspects of the investigation. So if you listen to the audio in its entirety, he was doing what is considered a cognitive interview. So, the 1st, 0, 20 minutes of that interview, it is an uninterrupted and only at the end when Travis May is asking clarifying questions, he's asking so that he has an understanding in his mind of what transpired. Do you know that? The Arkansas State Police agent made summary of his interview with ATF. Agent Bass, Agent May recounts the statement about placing the tape over the ring doorbell camera, but leaves out why Adam Bass said they covered it up in case something goes wrong. You remember that? Yes, sir. OK. Considering that something went catastrophically wrong, that the ATF agent was shot in the foot and Brian Malinowski lost his life. Why was this information left out of the interview summary? The, uh, interview summary is not a verbatim account, and we begin every report with an interview that that's the case, not everything is a verbatim. Of the entire interview. Um, we also know that everything in there is going to be reviewed by the prosecutor's office. How many residents of that area did you interview? So we did not conduct interviews, but we did canvas and there was nobody that had any information to provide. What do you mean canvas? So that's when we go door to door to ask them if they saw or heard anything and those in the remote area are right there on that. It was a cul-de-sac. There was no one in that area that could provide any information. Therefore, no interviews were conducted. What about the wife? We did conduct an interview of the wife. Yes, sir. Do you know if neighbors were home on a Tuesday morning at 6:02 a.m. believe that there were a few home, but none that uh admitted to seeing or hearing the, the incident. Was there any video of a neighbor, uh, video camera on the not on the cul-de-sac. No, sir. So, so none of your, uh, none of your investigators ever talked to the neighbor to just, uh, authenticate the video. What video are you referring to? The one, the one on the neighbor's house. Oh, the one that was, OK, so that. I'm sorry, I got confused. So that video that was, uh, uh, obtained from the ring doorbell was not on that cul-de-sac. It was on the adjacent street. So, we did not, we didn't see a a reason to authenticate because it really added no, it added no, um, I guess validity to the investigation. So he never talked to anyone independent who possibly Could have corroborated or disputed the statements made by the law enforcement officers. We didn't find anyone else who had witnessed it. Why didn't Arkansas State Police Analyze the legality of ATF's forced entry into a home, a mere seconds after knocking. Senator The unfortunately, I'm envious that Mr. Bowling has the opportunity to express opinion and. It kind of openon on his. His perception of this entire incident unfortunately, With us it's very focused, um, with our agency's involvement, the investigation was very focused, and that was simply to conduct a criminal investigation into the shooting, not the investigation. That led up to the search warrant or any of that. It was simply the shooting itself. So, Our agents. The all the information was provided to the prosecuting attorney's office regarding the search warrant? That was, uh, reviewed by federal prosecutors signed by a federal judge. And executed. So when the team members made entry, They receive fire, they returned fire. All that information was documented and it was provided to the prosecutor's office. There's no place in our investigation. To offer our opinion of any of the tactics that are involved. That's simply the state police's role in this incident was to simply document the facts. Of the The actual shooting itself. To uh, process the crime scene. And to turn all of that evidence over to the prosecutor's office who would make a charging decision. Do you know how much time elapsed during the time of the first knock. With the storm door. Yes, sir, we do. Until agents first started forcibly breaking down the, the other doors. Yes, sir. How much was it? I believe 27 seconds. 27 seconds. Yes sir. And then And then the ATF began to knock the doors down. Yes, sir. You know, 27 seconds is not very long when you wake somebody up at 6 o'clock in the morning. Word extendent means emergency. So was there emergency? Circumstances surrounding the execution of this search warrant? I don't think this was this an emergency? Yeah, I don't think that would the ATF would have to answer that question. We provided that timeline to the prosecutor's office, would you say it was an emergency to get this search warrant in the hands of Mr. Malinowski. It's 6 o'clock in the morning. When they could have done it a week earlier. Right, I'm, I'm sorry, but I'm not in a position where I can speculate, as you know, this is under active investigation with the Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. It's also actively being pursued in, in civil court. And all we can do is, is answer questions on the criminal investigation that state police did, but I can't speculate or give my opinion. All right, Mrs. Malinowski was detained in a Little Rock police vehicle. For several hours, 4 or 5 from what I've been told. Put in the back seat with just her nightgown on. After her husband was fatally shot right in front of her. Just inches away from her. Was Arkansas State Police responsible for this detention? No, not initially we were not. What do you mean by that? So when, when, when we arrived, we didn't know that she was in the back of the patrol car. Um, we were under the impression that she had been taken to a substation. Or we would have, have, obviously, I, I, you know, and. That was probably one of the things that, um, that if we did have a misstep, that was it and, and is in our handling of her we did not communicate well and when we found out that she was in her night clothes, we immediately interviewed her right there on site and then allowed her to, to go to a neighbor's house and also got her clothes. And Ms. Malinowski asked if she could go to the restroom for I don't have that information, but I know once denied that. I can't testify to any of that. I can only tell you once we, once we recognized what was happening at the scene, we, we took care of getting her interviewed so that she could go and, um, you know, get some clothes and after, after reading the report, she was taken to a local fire station and paraded in front of firemen with their. Clothes on and a blanket around her to use the restroom. We had no involvement in that, um, but. That, that is unfortunate, and we do owe her an apology. Uh Mr. Representative Duffield, is that your lap? Ren Duffield you recognize thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Few questions primarily for, uh, for Captain Hagar. Um, Colonel, apologies. Um, Does the state police organization, do you guys currently receive money from the ATF? Not that I'm aware of, no, sir. Um, You've been in law enforcement a long time. How many years? 29, 29 years. In your 29 years. Have you seen a search warrant executed in a manner such as this where tape would be placed to cover up a ring doorbell camera and the execution of a search warrant for someone with no criminal history. This is a new ring doorbells. Did not exist. So this goes back to my age when I was Working in the field and during my time on our tactical team, we did not have ring doorbells. I can tell you that there were times that there was counter surveillance equipment or surveillance equipment that was employed that we would try to limit that, the ability of a suspect to see our movements moving up. But as far as specifically a ring doorbell being taped over. I've. No, sir. I'm not. Um, in executing search warrants. Would you have executed this search warrant in this manner? You know, again, that. Please understand, uh, I probably have a lot of the same questions and maybe even a lot of the same opinions of this committee, unfortunately I'm not testifying as Mike. I'm testifying on in our role as a department here for the state police, and I don't think it would be fair for me to offer that opinion or the speculation. Yes, sir, um. When, when, uh, I myself look at this as as a legislator and look at the state police and we work with you guys on a number, a number of things. And I think since your time. I, I think you've done a really good job in your role. And so my concern in this is essentially. A black eye that has been placed on the state police. And so I guess my question is, in hindsight, What was accomplished positively for the state police being involved with this. Well, we don't choose our investigations in this situation we were requested to come and and handle the investigation because of the potential conflict with Little Rock Police Department. Our agents, uh, investigated this officer-involved shooting just like they have more than 20 this year alone. And the role of their investigation is simply that to compile the information. And present that to the prosecuting attorney for a charging decision, um, just this year, we've had officers that were criminally charged as a result of the criminal investigation that was done. By our agents But having said that, you know, again. It is not our role, even though sometimes we would like to, it is not our role to offer an opinion. It's not our role in this situation to judge their tactics. The only thing that our agents could look at. Was that there was a lawful search warrant signed by federal prosecutor and a federal judge. They were layered lawfully. They were working within the parameters of that warrant, although some of that may be. Questionable as far as the amount of time that was given before they breached the door, but once again, all that information, our agents went to great detail to outline the time down to the 2nd of when they arrived, when they announced themselves, when they breached the door. We do believe all that information is significant, and they documented down to the 2nd, all of that information and presented that to the prosecutor. But once that information is presented, we are not in a position to Offer an opinion or a or a recommendation. We simply compile the information and present it to the prosecutor. I do believe that There will be a great deal. Of oversight into not only this investigation, the warrant how it was served, but that is not the role of the state police as it pertains to this investigation. And honestly, I don't consider it a black guy. I think our investigators did a great job. They did a thorough investigation. They presented it to the prosecutor. Again, we On a personal level. We likely have some of the same questions about things that this committee does. But unfortunately, that is not our role. I think unfortunately, it's just not our role. It's not our role to speculate about why they did what they did, and it's not our role to make a recommendation to the prosecutor. We just compile the information and present it. Mr. Chair, one more question. We can't change what's happened. And Mr. Malinowski. It is no longer with us. Due to what happened. In the future, if the ATF comes to the state of Arkansas again. And they attempt to, in my view, impose their will on the citizens of this state. Will the state police at least consider saying no and standing up against the ATF. So we frequently. Are requested by our federal city, county. All of our law enforcement partners to assist in certain capacities. Um, we, Actively Tell Our agents, our troopers that are assigned specifically to task force, we do not have anyone assigned to ATF, but we do exactly what Mr. Bowling referred to in that we tell them if you're ever put in a position where you find that the, either the tactical decisions being made are unethical. They're immoral, they're illegal, or they're unsafe. They absolutely have the authority to stand down. And we encourage that daily as far as this investigation is concerned. Uh, we were simply asked to perform the investigation into the shooting. I don't know that we could have done anything differently on this one. Thank you for the question, sir. Senator McKee. The, uh. Alright Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you for all the work that you do on a daily basis. We take for granted to a great extent, the work that you do every day and I just want you to know how much we appreciate you. Thanks. Uh, just for some clarification, um, when you speak about the investigation that you were asked to complete. And you say it was the end to investigate the shooting. I guess I'm curious was did that investigation look at the ATF agents who were involved in the raid, or did it just look at the circumstances. Uh, I'm trying to understand what we mean by investigation. What, what were, what was the scope of that investigation. So in this investigation specifically, And I don't want to speak for Major Rhodes or her investigators. She's forgotten more about investigations than I will ever know. But in this specifically. They are looking at were they there lawfully? Doesn't matter our opinion of the investigation, but were they there lawfully? And they were working within the parameters of a warrant that have been signed by a federal judge. They were there lawfully and they were working within those parameters. Again, some of the questions that you guys have about the time frame. On between the knock and the breach or the announcement and the breach, we wanted to make sure that that information was available. That's why Major Roses investigators went to great detail down to the second to include that information to make sure it was presented not only to a prosecutor, but for future reference, as the investigation unfolds now with the Department of Justice, we know that that's gonna be a very critical component and that's the reason that that information was included. I appreciate that and I appreciate your answer and just And I, I wanna make sure that we're all on the same page because I think you understand why the people that we represent are concerned by events like this in Arkansas, uh, you know, who is charged with protecting the rights of the people in Arkansas. It's not only the police, it's the legislative branch, it's a judicial branch, but we're all responsible. And after the fact, I mean, these events don't happen a lot, we hope, but we don't want to ever see them happen, right? It's, it's unacceptable to whoever it happens to. And I think that you understand that and I appreciate that. But moving forward, I, I would always, I always hope that our officers are being educated on those, on those constitutional principles and the rights that not only us, but they as, as officers have. We want them coming home every night. to their families. Uh, but we also want to make sure that the people we represent that are just average ordinary people whether they run an airport or they're picking up your trash in the morning or whatever they're doing, and they're exercising their constitutional rights, they shouldn't have anything to fear, especially from the government. And so that's why the people that we represent are concerned by this. And so I hope that you'll take those things. I know that you will take those things very seriously moving forward. So thank you. Yes, sir. Thank you, Senator McKee. Senator Rash you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, current, you made, uh, a point that you knew the amount of time 27 seconds. Yet I had testimony read to me. From individuals. That they were one of them said. He wasn't for sure, could have been 20 seconds, one of them said, I, I think. There was, was varying. Information Do you agree with that? Have you, have you? Listen to read to the testimony from the individual officers that were there. Yes, yes, sir, uh, limited. I know that there was a question mark about how much time that elapse between when they knock and announced versus when they actually breached the door. I can say. Being in that situation in the past personally. It seems like forever. I've executed search warrants where we had trouble. Getting in a door that was, that was barricaded, you know, for instance. And if you ask me after the fact, I may have told you it took us 3 or 4 minutes to get in the door when it actually only took 30 seconds because of a variety of reasons, you know, just adrenaline that's flowing, things like that. So I can't say that I'm necessarily surprised that there was discrepancy between the amount of time that they thought that they were at the door after they knocked and announced versus the time that they breached, but we felt comfortable as a result of the investigation based on the audio. And the video of that time frame, I think Major Rhodes' team felt very comfortable and very certain that it was 27 seconds. Would you agree that Brian Malinowski. was not charged or convicted with any crime. Yes, sir. And I think Retired Agent Boland did a good job of describing and I think being very fair. To both sides But are you familiar that? With all the speculation in the press. And the uh quotes that the press is used. Has led the life insurance. Company that Oh The winner, Mayor Malinowski. I feel Uh, payment on his policy. That they are At least for now, refusing to pay a life insurance policy. Because of the accusations of criminal activity. No, sir, I was not aware of not aware of that. No, sir. I hope the public understands. Uh Speculation. Can be very damaging and and. I, I feel like. And I'll go back to Mr. Boland again because. He just said what I've, I've tried to stay involved in knowing as much about this as I can. And I hope anytime your agency. Partners with any federal agency. That all of your members. Know that they have the right that was described. When they know it's not right they back out. I can assure you they do of tape on the doorbell. Camera To start off with. When you Know somebody in the back part of the house may not. Hear you. And you've got everything there to breach it. It's known what you're there for. And again, y'all didn't do this, and I'm thankful y'all didn't do it. We've got a serious problem because it's been done in a life is lost in a widow. He's got to live with this for the rest of her life. And the family too. But people it could be anyone sitting in this room. There was no justification. For this type of activity. This man was not charged or are convicted of anything. And it shouldn't be put up with. And I, I'm. I want to know. Are your officers unduly influenced. By federal dollars. In addition to the pay that they get. From the state police for being on a task force. No, sir, they are not. Do they get extra federal dollars. I believe we have some, some federal overtime that is. Available to our troopers that are assigned a task force. I don't know. Specifically, uh, I, I can't speak to the specifics of that and you know I respect you greatly. Really do If you don't know that, you need to know that. I do know that they are, they receive federal overtime, but I can tell you with excuse me, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but I can tell you that. They received federal overtime because they are assigned to a task force just like our troopers receive state overtime for working overtime. But that in no way. They know how it would influence their decision. To do something that They perceived to be immoral, illegal, unethical or unsafe, and we are, we are abundantly clear with anyone assigned to a task force. Mr. Bowling said that very, very well. And that, that hasn't changed from the time of Major Barfield when he was running the criminal investigations division that's been the same from then until now under major roads. That's, that's made very clear to our task force officers and that wouldn't surprise me for your agency to make that very clear and to do a good job of it. But I, I, I have concern when not all agencies are maybe under the same. Uh, training that you have, uh, would you be surprised if some may maybe, uh, up to $20,000 extra a year. From being on a task force. No, sir, I would not be surprised. So you've got sometimes. County or city. That are making extra dollars of that magnitude and you don't think the, the federal guidelines or the federal say so weighs any heavier than their what they should realize their duty is. I would hope not. And if we ever saw any evidence of that with state police personnel, they would be removed immediately. And I, and I do not mean to disparage law enforcement in any way because I think this legislature has shown you have support of law enforcement. But this is one of the most egregious things I think I've ever seen, maybe because it's right here in Arkansas. But it, it, it really bothers me and again we've got a widow gonna live with this for the rest of her life. Thank you. Thank you sir. Thanks S R S Clark, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I have several questions, so if you need to break in and put me back in the queue, just let me know. Uh Colonel, appreciate you being here. Uh, we don't know each other. Uh, we've met, but I hear good things. And uh offline if you would, I need your number, uh, because I was gonna get hold of you back in June and I. Somehow couldn't and didn't, uh, and you had an officer at, uh, Western Arkansas at. Ozark truck stop. It'll give some idea of who it is because I can't find his name right now that I was gonna call you and commend you, uh, because he was a lifesaver to me that night. I didn't know I was a state senator. He just, whoever was there, he would have helped and uh, I just want to let you know, uh, because we get too many complaints and not enough. We're just real quick on that if you'll allow me, uh, for any of the members in attendance. I have a state cell phone. That is completely unreliable. I've been told that many times. Um, I have a personal cell phone that my wife and son use and I always answer that phone. So if, uh, if you'll give me a number, I'll do that that. Oh From what I have observed, I don't know this to be the case, but from what I've observed. And I observe it too often. Uh, the state police are very serious about body cams and dash cams, would I be incorrect and in that observation cams, we do not use body cams, so dash cams which accomplishes the. The same thing y'all take that very seriously that there's a record of interaction. That being the case, I actually don't have a problem with them covering up the. What kind of camera worked on the house. It's confusing. Because I read the officer's statements, we expected he'd come to the door. We had never thought we'd have a shootout with this guy, blah, blah, blah. But If there's a chance you're gonna have a shootout with somebody. You would, you may not be able to get back to the ports. To cover the camera and, and so they can be inside and have observation. So I, I get it, but it just doesn't the statements and the actions as Cinto Ross said don't equal each other. I suspect because I've talked to a lot of law enforcement officers about this, and they've all had the same opinion. And so I suspect that you and I privately have a lot of the same opinions. Uh, but. That being the case, that y'all take these cameras so seriously. Are you not perturbed? That we don't have a record? On camera? Of what happened? You know, again, I've, it's safe to say I have a personal opinion of a lot of the things that were. since, you know, you have to understand our agents didn't know. At the time Some of the information that we know sitting here today. But all they can do is just. Take the information that they have documented and presented, I'm not talking about the investigation yet. I'm talking about you as the head of the agency. And I have a, a, a little bit different view of things than you. You have a job to do, I have a job to do and the You know, I'm sitting here as a senator, but what sometimes we forget, and I don't think you've forgotten this, but sometimes we forget, is it's not Cent Clark. It's 90,000 people that have the same questions I have, that have the same concerns that I have and where would they look to except our top law enforcement. For answers to those questions. The Hm There's It is certainly perturbing to them and to me. And so when I talked to these law enforcement officers that's part of, you know, what is your opinion? And of course, privately is different from publicly, but, uh. We'd really like to know. And The And we'd really like to know because we have what appears to be an innocent. Arkansan Did Uh And shot by law enforcement of all things and and you know we see all kinds of things after officer involved shootings that that it'd be hard to Monday morning quarterback and a lot of times that the officers just completely rotten and you would pray that you are never put in such a situation, but this is not that situation. I mean for the officers that are inside the house, they're being shot at, get it, but that why are they there? uh. The uh because you Come to my house. An hour before daylight. Now some people are up at that point. I'm not. But you come at some point where you're. Planning on me being asleep. And officers who do these type things have trained and trained and trained because they know. How unclear things can get. But I'm just a citizen who's fast asleep. Who just woke up and it's me and my wife, and if it were just me, if there's a way to run. I might run But we all get this, but it's not just me, so I ain't running. And so a big part of us. How the firearm close. I don't know of anything I've done wrong. I don't know that I'm under investigation. What would you expect from me? Even maybe more than a criminal who might expect the police to bust their door now. What would you expect from me? But to come out defending myself. That's I can't disagree with anything you've said, you know, again, that's, that's a question that ATF is going to have to answer for. The And I read here the officers this excerpt from the officer's statements, we thought this would be an easy search warrant. He'd cooperate and everything it was supposed to be easy. Same officer. I figured he'd come to the door. Another officer, I never would have fathomed that this guy would have fired at law enforcement. Same officer, we normally go after violent armed career criminals, drug dealers. Same officer again, Malinowski is the last person I would have imagined that we would have been in an armed confrontation with. But yet, That's the case. I don't understand why we're there at 6 in the morning. Ready to breach the door. And according to them, they all thought there was 20 seconds or so between 3 knocks. And like you said, I can understand what because I think you've been patient. I think if I'm there ready to reach the door. I'm nervous and impatient. Because that decision has been made in planning. Uh So I'm thankful that it's. That it's not Arkansas law enforcement. I've been known to criticize the judiciary once in a while, uh. And, but one of the interesting things in talking to law enforcement officers and head law enforcement officers as they told me, uh, so, uh, Gold Star for our judges, our judges and our county would never allow us to do the search warrant under these circumstances. And I say, well, thank God for our judges then, uh, and thank God for our law enforcement that know better, uh, but. Again, I'm gonna come back to the question. Would you be surprised? If somebody busted my door down that I come out with a gun? No, sir. OK, I, I think that'll do it for now. Thank you, Colonel so much thank all of you for being here. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Clark. Senator Johnson, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And uh. Colonel Hager and and Major, thank you for coming. My question is actually from Mr. Finkelstein. Thank you. Yeah. You're not off the hook yet, Colonel, but, but I do need to ask you some, uh, Hugh, you're an attorney. You're by all my accounts, a very good one. And I'm grateful you're serving the people of Arkansas. I want to ask you some things about. How we do things and maybe it would lead to how things could have maybe been done a little better in this case, um. Arkansas constitution have a thing called grand juries? Yes, sir, they do. Uh, we don't hear about that much anymore. What would be necessary for this to be considered. And I'm gonna call it a deep dive by a grand jury made up of citizens where, uh, evidence could be presented to see what was going on. What, what, what would that require to happen? Well, the, the prosecuting attorney's office has the ability to either call a grand jury into session or make a decision and file cases through information, which is, you know, just a written, uh, charging document. So ultimately, the decision would with the prosecuting attorney to determine whether or not a case should be sent to the grand jury or, uh, or make that decision independent by themselves. So because this happened in Pulaski County, it would be the sole discretion of the Pulaski County prosecuting attorney of whether or not there could be a grand jury investigation of this particular incident. That would be Will Jones's decision. Yes, sir. So that the attorney general or no other, uh, either prosecutorial or or judicial authority, uh, could cause that to happen, is that correct? I believe that is correct, sir. OK. That was what I feared. I was hoping you'd tell me I was wrong when I thought that, but, uh, I think you told me what I tend to have read in the Constitution, uh, Mr. Chairman, I've never seen anything in my life that cried out for a grand jury investigation like this incident and I have said so. Uh, privately and in a, in a public place but to Mr. Jones and I would reiterate that now. I think that there needs to be a grand jury look at this. This is too horrible. We have too many citizens around the state, including, uh, a couple that I've talked to in the last week when I'm out knocking doors in my district and, uh, some of your neighbors, Colonel. The Colonel is my constituent as well that say how in the heck did this happen? And I would responded exactly like Mr. Malinowski did. So, uh, I will leave it at that. I know we can't. Twist arms of prosecutors, but maybe I can let the prosecutor coordinator's office know the buyer dismay and certain things. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, panel. Thank you, Senator Johnson S McGee. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Couple more. Yes, sir. Uh, were violations of ATF policy or civil rights violations. Part of the scope of your investigation? No, sir, they were not. That was, that was kind of what I got from everything else you've said. So If an ATF agent, whether it's a supervisor or one of the guys busting down the door, breaks the law, or ATF policy. Who would you say is in the best position or statutorily responsible, uh, for prosecution or disciplinary action of that individual. If he breaks the law, the prosecuting attorney's office if he breaks a policy, it would be the Bureau of ATF or the Department of Justice oversight. OK. Thank you. Yes, sir. Sister Gilmore, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I, I apologize because I, I know I've missed some of this, but I was driving up from South Arkansas and that's quite the drive and certainly believe in falling the speed limit, so, uh. I didn't quite expect that much of a chuckle. Now, again, I don't mean to make a joke in a serious setting like this, because this does give us all pause and it's very concerning when we see something like this happen. Um, and, and I admit I don't know all the facts. I wasn't there, I wasn't party to, you know, what brought about, uh, the search warrant and all those things, but nonetheless, it gives great pause, um, and concerns me. I guess there's been a lot of conversation here today about the role of state police in this. And so, I guess my question and, and if it's been asked, I apologize, I may have missed it, but I'm gonna ask maybe directly. Um, Federal law enforcement does, uh, a lot of things in the state of Arkansas, I presume, some of which may be state police is involved in, many of which state police is not involved in. Is that a fair statement? Yes, sir. That's correct. So in this particular instance, state police was not engaged in this, uh, in this until after the fact, correct? That's correct. Yes, sir. Had state police been involved in this, is it safe to say that you would probably have advised or at least. Done things a lot differently. We, we would have almost certainly been briefed by the task force officer assigned. And We would have Yes, sir, we, we would have. Become more involved. And, and that decision process as far as the, you know, we, again, the ATF hard hard question for you to answer it right, given the circumstances and after the fact. But I, I think it's safe to say knowing you guys and understanding state police and the role that they have and who they are, you would probably have cautioned about doing things maybe a little bit more appropriate given the setting and and how to exercise this particular search warrant. Yes, sir. From a state police standpoint and from a former position that I held within the state police SWAT team. We always worked each warrant, whether it be a search warrant, arrest warrant backwards. And we would look at it. From the day of or the day after. And we lost either a trooper, we had a trooper injured, or we, we were put in the situation of Harming or taking the life of a suspect, and we would simply look at that and say, what do we know right now that would have mitigated that circumstance. And that's what we did years ago when I was a team leader on SWAT. That's what our team continues to do today. So if knowing what we know right now. Before that warrant was executed, have we had personnel? Involved I, I feel comfortable in saying that we would have. They probably would not have been involved in the execution of the warrant. But again, the ATF. Does not report to us. No, and I understand and follow, Mr. Chair. Yes, thank you. And, and, and I recognize that, and I understand the difficult question that is for you to answer, given the circumstances you're in now. I think it is good to hear though. From my standpoint, it makes me feel a little bit better knowing that state police maybe isn't going to act like the ATF in this particular instance, um, I, so I guess it is safe to say that you're goal in law enforcement when planning something like this out is to always mitigate risk. That's correct. And Go ahead. I'm sorry. I do need to add one thing on that though, um, we've read, and I'm sure you have all read the affidavit that led to the judge signing the search warrant, but what we are not privy to is all the information the ATF knew when they decided on this. Method of executing that warrant. I have no way of knowing what led to that decision for the ops plan and for the supervisor to sign off on it. I'm not, I'm not privy to that information. I can only testify to when I was in that role, the information that we have, we would make those decisions accordingly. So I do not know what led up to their decision to execute the warrant the way they did. They may be able to testify and at some point when this is all said and done, you know, and they go through their process internally. They may be able to articulate that we are not privy to that information. Yeah, and we, uh, I feel confident saying we'll probably never know. We'll probably never have access to all that information, um, which again, concerns me considering that, you know, this could be any number of people and, and, you know, I don't. I, I don't want to sit here and, and say that, you know, he was a perfect man. We were all flawed. We all make mistakes, but certainly what happened, I don't think was warranted in this case. And I'm thankful that state police was not involved until after the fact, but it is also comforting to know that maybe state police wouldn't act in such a, um, Uh, you know, Aggressive manner. Um, and, and that gives me pause that we have an entity like the ATF that that perhaps does act that way. So, thank you. C Clark, you recognized. Thank you. Mr. Chair. The Colonel, I would. Agree with you that we don't know other than what was in the affidavit. And that's why I said we believe an innocent man and I very much believe that with the information that I have and no one's offered anything else. But I also Though the statements that I read a while ago and what I believe was their interviews with the state police. Uh And these are Just part of their statement, but we thought this would be an easy search warrant. He'd cooperate and everything it was supposed to be easy. Those don't add up with having some information. That would justify. What we saw. I won't go and read the rest of them. But I have y'all were put in a tough place from the time that you were asked. To investigate this, but You took the job. Just like we took the job. I have a problem with the conclusion. That y'all came to y'all, your, your job is often tell people about myself is to call balls and strikes. A lot of times people like me 90% of the time, but then there's when I don't call things the way they want me to call on a certain task and my job's called balls and strikes, not to, not to be somebody's friend, not is say this is right and this is wrong. And I don't know All of your investigation. But let me tell you why I have a problem because I think it's a fair criticism doesn't mean you're wrong, but I think it's a fair criticism. What I get from that conclusion. Is that tomorrow morning. Law enforcement can break into my house. And shooting me because I don't, from what I know I'm just as suspicious as he is. And the And it's gonna be justifiable. And that's why I and others, not because you're wrong. You very well may be right, but the conclusion I get is tomorrow, the next day, the next day, law enforcement can break into somebody's house. And here's where not knowing all the facts that y'all know where I have a problem. It was reckless. And reckless as manslaughter. Uh, that's where I, and I'm sure you're, you've talked to your attorneys and, you know, I've and I since I've been here, I've been in meetings with multiple attorneys and when they say you got 5 attorneys, you got 5 different opinions that you may have 10 different opinions with 5 different attorneys, but excuse me, Clark for saying that, but it's true, uh. So What can you say to Make me feel better. About the fact that your conclusion doesn't say. That law enforcement. can knock my door down tomorrow. And shoot me because. They're the last people I expect to be there. Right. Well, Senator, we do not. Hm The conclusion in the investigative report, Major Rhodes could probably speak better to what goes into that, but again, our job, From in this case was just to compile the information and give to the prosecuting attorney. It's not our job to To again, give a, a recommendation or an opinion. At the end of the day. The agents there, you know, regardless of what any of our opinions are, they did have a search warrant that had very specific parameters, and they were working within those parameters, whether we agree with it or not, they were. And they within those parameters of that search warrant. Unfortunately, they execute the warrant and this happened. We went to great detail to Document everything that occurred there down to the timeline of the knock and announce versus the breach. But at the end of the day, that is not up to us to decide. It's not for us to give an opinion or to make a conclusion on whether or not we charge. It's simply our job to give that to the prosecuting attorney and let him make that decision. Well, thank you. I, I hope we make enough noise here. That this and I know this is pie in the sky, but it's not, it, but it's reality that this never happens again because this isn't happen in a vacuum. You know, I've got to where I can't watch TV news anymore, but back when I was watching TV news, I was watching. High political figures in this country that we knew there was no chance that they were going to be violent in any way, and we did the same thing. And this bothers me. This is America. And this bothers me that we even consider it in such a case, uh, you know, we want you to be able. With hardened criminals. You know, to do the things that you have to do, but if we can't recognize the difference. Then we have to, we have to put some restraint. Uh, you know, I'm talking, uh, I'm talking to Congress, I'm talking to, to everybody this this can't, you know, maybe, maybe it can happen in Pennsylvania, maybe it can happen in Delaware, but this can't ever happen in Arkansas again. Do you agree? Yes, sir. Thank you. Senator Rice, you're right, you know. Colonel or the other ones there are federal employees. Subject to Arkansas law. Yes sir, they are. You don't think there's any laws broken in this case. Now, so that would be my opinion. And again, we, all we can do is just compile the evidence and give it to the prosecutor. He ultimately is the one that makes that decision, and I'll reiterate again what's been said here. And I, I don't know Mr. Jones. One person One person It is between justice. Doing what's right And turning their back on this. Because I don't think you're gonna see the federal government do anything about it. This is in in in Mr. Boland said it very well. This is an administrative decision. On enforcing policy. Not law. He may not have said that just exactly that way. But it's been staying for anybody that's unclear. It's not a law. That Mr. Malinowski had to have A dealer's license to sell guns. There's other people probably selling more guns than he he is right now. He was just a figurehead. That somebody decided to take down and what I don't want is anybody in Arkansas law enforcement. To give any room for that type. Activity It happens places, bad things happen places. But let's all Do what we can to stop it in Arkansas. This world is going crazy. This government is going crazy. From what I was taught was right and wrong, and I still believe I know what's right and wrong and what happened here. Is totally wrong. But again, I appreciate you I appreciate your integrity. And I hope you do everything you can to make sure our state police and other law enforcement are not put in this type. But I action again. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator Rice. Colonel Hager, do you believe, do you believe that Arkansas State Police, uh, should be privy. Uh, To federal law enforcement activities in the state. Sort of to act as a check. To ensure the safety of Arkansas? Should we not be, should you not be privy to that information whenever they come into the state. As a matter of. Safe practicality. I don't know how we would go about doing that. They, you know, of course, they're enforcing federal law. That sometimes mirrors state law, but I'm not, I, I don't know as a matter of practical application, how we would do that. Well, there's a session coming up. We might figure something out, you know, uh. Representative Wong. Thank you, Mr. Chair and, uh, Colonel Hager, uh, I was wondering if you could tell us what the Rock PD's participation was in the raid. My understanding is they were, uh, providing, uh, marked units. Uh, just for a, a visible presence of it being a law enforcement operation, but beyond that, uh, no, sir, I, I could not. So you don't think they were involved in the actual breach in entering the house during the my understanding is that they were not major roads may have a better idea of that than I do, but I don't believe so. My recollection is that they were on perimeter. So basically they were there just. assist. That's correct. Yes, sir. Um, are you familiar with, uh, Act 10-12 of 2021, basically, it, it. It was in the 93rd General Assembly that says that, uh, uh, state and local law enforcement wouldn't help participate in any, uh, A federal government Enforcement of laws that balls rules, um. Presidential edicts, whatever that took place after January 1, 2021. Yes sir, I'm vaguely familiar with that. Uh, does it look like to y'all that, uh, North Rock and ATF both may have broken this law. So, uh, honestly, I'm not familiar familiar enough with their involvement to To give an opinion on that. I appreciate you y'all kind of look into that it's kind of obvious to me. Thank you, sir. Yes, sir. Thank you. All I see no more questions. Yeah I appreciate y'all being here, Colonel Hager, and I thank you for all you do. Thank you, Senator. Next we have uh. Head of the chief police of Little Rock? Mr. Heath Hilton Telling if you will identify yourself with the record. detailed, Mr. Chair, Chief of Little Rock Police Department, if you were stand and raise your right hand. Just take your name again, uh, Heath Hilton. You have it memorized by now. All right, Mr. Hill, You solemnly swear a firm. The the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I help you, God. Is you made me see. Hilton, can you tell us what, what role if the Little Rock Police Department played in this, in this race. Uh, Mr. Chair, members of the committee, I had a conversation with the, the Little Rock City attorney prior to coming here, uh, for this hearing and due to ongoing, uh, litigation and active uh investigation. I will not be making any comments in reference to the Little Police Department's participation. OK, any members got any questions? So rice Thank you, Mr. Hilton, are you familiar? With how many people that are on the Little Rock PD. That are involved in any federal task force. Again, sir, just as my previous statement, um. In conversation with the city attorney about a specific case. I'm asking you how many of your officers. Are involved with federal task force. I didn't say ATF. Anybody else serve with all due respect, trust me, I, I, I respect the committee. I respect every person in this room, uh, but unfortunately, I've, I've, Provided my statement at the opening. Are you familiar that? That Officers make up to. $20,000 or possibly more per year. Then their salary for working on task force? Again, sir, due to potential litigation ongoing investigation, I'm not making any comments that you're, you're not doing a public service. I'm not asking about a specific case. I mean asking you in general for what you're. Your office and your, your policy is. Our, our stance is no different than the the echo the sentiments that Colonel Hager stated earlier. OK, but you cannot, you cannot give any statements about what your agency does in the way, I, I've been instructed to convey what I've conveyed. This is the reason that the public does not trust. Some agencies and again I'm not slandering law enforcement. I'm saying this is exactly what's the matter in our country right now. We can't get answers. You ought to at least be able to give, give. A a level without going into a specific case. But you're not gonna do it, are you? Sir, I've provided my, my statement at the beginning. Well, let me just tell you, when you took an oath of service, I think you just broke it. City attorney here? No, sir, he's not. Uh, you do realize all your records are liable. Yes, sir. I, I understand all this will come out sooner or later. For, yes, or for what questions you all may have at Little Rock PDs participate. Yes, sir. I'm aware of that. OK, uh, Can you explain your uh Body cameras Policy All due respect, Mr. Chairman, I've provided a statement in the beginning. Mr. Hilton, that has nothing to do with this case. Do your officers wear body cameras and what's your policy? The LaRo Police Department does have body cams. Yes, sir. And the policy for those cameras is what? Again, sir, uh, I, I've provided a statement in the beginning. You're making this worse, you know what? I completely understand, sir. Represent I feel you were recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So We've heard your statement that You will not comment anything about the LRPD today. Is that correct? It's in reference to what the hearings about. I, I, I've been instructed to. Not make any comments due to pending litigation and ongoing investigation. OK. Have you, what about Your discussions with Mayor Scott in regards to this incident. Um, would you be willing to address some questions in regards to. Your discussion with the mayor who I do not believe is in attendance today. No, the mayor's not here. I think he made it, uh, known that he had another engagement prior to this being scheduled. I was not aware of that, um. Do you know when the mayor's office? First learned that the ATF was investigating Brian Malinowski. I have no knowledge of that, sir. No knowledge of that. OK. That's all we're gonna get. Mr. Elton, do you You do know, you know, our country is in a mess. Wearing a mask. We've allowed 50,000. Known, not counting the Godaways, murders, convicted murderers into this country that's come across our border, 50,000. We've lost contact with 300,000 children. Who are either either have been human trafficked or dead. And then we have Millions Of, of felons that have come across our border into this country right now. And you're not willing to answer a few of these questions to help? Sir, I again, I completely. Understand what you said, Don't disagree with what you said, but unfortunately, I've been instructed to understand, do you understand why the American people and the people of Arkansas do not trust the justice system anymore. Because the weapon is. Because if the weaponization of the justice system and the politicalization of the justice system. We have become a third world country, a dictatorship, basically. And it's because of we're going to have for your records and find out. This does not help the, the Little Rock Police Department, your statements here today, and I know what you were instructed to do by your attorney. Uh, But The people of this country are tired, they're fed up. They're tired Uh, they're tired of, uh, the unquestionable allegations and the vague, uh, In sufficient evidence that was used in this particular case, to kill a man. And to put his wife in a car for 4 hours. And when she asked how her husband's doing. They failed to tell her that his brains were scattered in his skull fragments were all over the wall in the house. Senator Johnson, you recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm somewhat frustrated as you are of the Uh, city attorney instructing the chief not to, uh, respond, which is not surprising to me because I've known the city attorney. For Gosh, almost 50 years. Um, but, uh, uh, I respect the chief and he is a hierarchy he's dealing with, but, uh, I also think perhaps, and I'm not a member of the committee and I don't want to speak out of turn, and you call me down if I am Mr. Chairman, but, uh, uh, as part of the General Assembly, I think perhaps, uh, we need to look at, uh, the options that the General Assembly has to compel testimony, uh, municipal corporations are Subject to jurisdiction of the state as a matter of fact, they have a charter from the state and, uh, then this General Assembly by vote with assigned by the governor could, could revoke a charter of a municipality, so we expect them to follow the law and I would ask again as a non-member of the committee but as a senator that, uh, you speak with our council and I said no, Ms. Garrett's in the room, but, uh, see what options that we would have to compel the testimony that would. Allow your committee and all of us in the General Assembly to complete our job of getting to the bottom of this, so I that's all I just wanted to say is just more of a, of a comment and and a bit of advice to the chair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to say that. Uh Uh, Senator Clark, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The ATF had some nonsense about although their policy. Was that they use body cameras that somehow they hadn't got theirs yet. Does the Little Rock Police Department have their body cameras? Our agency has body cameras. Good, we got an answer. Uh, were the officers there that day? Did they have body cameras? That again. I stand in my previous statement that I made, sir. I know it's frustrating, but no, I'm not frustrated at all. I'm playing chess. Um, The, uh, and you're City attorney puts you in a really bad position. Um So you can't tell us either while Mrs. Malinowski in her night clothes. woken up by all of this. Was put in the back of a Little Rock police car by Little Rock police officer for 5 hours? Against her in the 32 degree weather again, sir, I'm not gonna make any comments pending litigation and and and an ongoing investigation. That's OK. That's all right now. Does the city attorney just run the police department, or does he run the mayor's office too? Again sir, I'm not going to make any comments related to pending litigation and investigation ongoing because I would like to see a subpoena the mayor and the city attorney. Uh, because surely. The mayor can speak. Surely the city attorney doesn't tell him what to do, uh, you would think, you would think the voters do, uh, and I think the voters want to know, uh. Could you get, get with the city attorney and get us a date because we're not gonna forget this. I understand, sir. I I assure you we are not going to forget this. I want a date when you can talk. Can you get that for us? I'm sure if this committee makes a recommendation to, to the appropriate channels in City Hall. I'm sure they'll make something available. I think you can be sure we will. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Thank you, Senator Clark. Let me remind the audience. Uh I remind the audience there can be no clapping in here, uh. That's just the rule of committee. Ms. Chan, let me ask you another question, uh, you take an oath, did you take an oath when you. Swore in, got sworn in. You took an oath. Is that oath that you took more important to you then. What some lawyers tell you say? Sir, the oath that I took not only represents my ability to serve this police department, which I've proudly done for almost 29 years, and I've served my country as well. So, uh, those means extremely important. That flag that sits behind you means extremely important to me. But I also have, uh, instructions that I've I've told and, uh, been told to, you know, we, we're not going to provide a comment at this time. Would you agree that just because we make a law, that law is not always just. Potentially Huh? I said yes sir, potentially. Should, should we obey laws that are not just? Sir, I understand where you're trying to take me, but again, I, I've, I've made my statement as far as comments this time related to this and uh. Um, I'm going to stand with what I've, I've been told. All right, Senator Clark, you're, you're Tucker, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make it a short comment that, you know, Chief Helton. We put a lot on him and his time in that table that is unfair to him. Crimes elsewhere, that is not on Chief Hill. His integrity being questioned is not fair to Chief Eelton. He's Served in the military and in the Little Rock Police Department honorably for his entire career. Whether you agree with the advice of Little Rock City Attorney or not, and you're entitled to have your own opinion. He's following the advice as instructed by Little Rock City Attorney's office and asking him more questions about what happened that day when we know the answer in order to make light of the situation or question his integrity is not fair to this man right here. And I, I think he deserves better than he's been treated by this committee. And if we want to bring him back and Little Rock City attorney, you know, so be it. But the situation is what it is today. And I just want to stand up, uh, for this honorable public servant right here. Senator Gilmore, you're recognized. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And, and I just, I do want to echo the comments made by my colleague, Senator Tucker, um, please understand, Chief, um, we understand the untenable position you're in. I recognize that. We want answers, we owe it to the people of Arkansas to get answers. I hope you can appreciate the role we're in, um, and so I don't think there's anyone in this room is, uh, going to try to, to disparage or impugn your honor, your integrity in that matter. Um, It is incredibly frustrating, as I know you are aware, you've stated as much. Um, and so maybe we can have you back, uh, when you were, uh, have more liberty to speak, and I think we should, uh, as was already pointed out, have, have the mayor have the city attorney, um, so that all of that is not put on you. So I appreciate what you do in law enforcement. That being said, is, is there anything that you can speak to related to this issue at all? I, I think, personally, what I'll say is just some of the sentiments that were echoed by, uh, or made by Colonel Hager or things that I echo as well. But, and I'll just leave it at that. OK, that's fair. I, I do have, uh, another question that I, I would like to pose based on Colonel Hager's testimony or, or, or perhaps the major's testimony that said that Arkansas, uh, that Little Rock PD was working perimeter. Can you affirm or deny that statement? I think it's been very well established what our purpose was in this, in this deal. So you, you won't refute that statement? OK. Thank you, Chief. You're welcome, sir. Senator Clark. Yes, uh, in deference to my colleague and colleagues, the It is the elected. Arkansas legislature. And no less than the judiciary Committee, which has always been considered one of the most serious committees here. That If, if anybody has been disrespected. It is the people of Arkansas. And we did not rush into this. We waited We've waited months. It's the end of September and people wondering if any and so it's not like we rushed in the next day or the next month and started asking questions, uh. And certainly the people of Arkansas expect us to answer, ask questions, and not only do they expect us to ask questions. They expect us to get answers and you get answers however you can get answers, uh. And the, so no one meant any disrespect to this gentleman. He's, he's got a job and he's chosen the route that he's going to go the city attorney's chosen the route that they're going to go and the Arkansas legislature not only has the right. To show That they are unhappy with that. I think we have a duty to show that we're unhappy with that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. S Uh, uh, Representative right you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I, Chief, I understand, um, everything that's been said regarding the advice that you've received from from council. So I want to ask something that is just very general and not specific to this case, uh, by itself. Does the Little Rock Police Department have a written policy related to the use of body cameras. We do. Would you be willing to go ahead and have someone in your office just provide that written policy to the committee staff so that they can share it with everyone here. Yes, sir, I'll make sure it's sent over. Thank you. Representative Beatty, you recognize? Thank, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Chief, um, over here kind of hiding behind the pole. Um, Appreciate you being here today. Appreciate the position that you're in and the fact that under advice of council, you sit through this committee, and you've known the entire time what your statement was gonna be and what the fallout from this committee was going to be for you. My question is, the city attorney, is he here with you today to support his, his statement and instructions to you. No, sir. And, and just for the record, can you give us the city attorney's name? Is it Mr. Carpenter? Yes, sir. That's him. Carpenter. So Tom Carpenter couldn't come today to sit through this committee with you to follow the instructions that he gave you in answering and addressing this, this body. Yeah, I don't, I don't know what was on his schedule today, sir, what he had obviously it was not the respect, uh, afforded to this committee and, and, and this, uh, subject matter, nor a level of respect for the Little Rock Police Department that he should afford you, sir. So, again, I want to say thank you for being here. I appreciate the job you have to do. And I'm sorry that you were put in the position not to be able to speak and answer questions that as you saw fit. So, thank you, sir, but I want folks to know it was Tom Carpenter and the folks that have issue should take the opportunity to express their displeasure with the city attorney. So thank you. Sent to Gilber you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, I'm not gonna ask you any questions because I know we're not going to get those answers, and that's already been stated. So I, I recognize that, um. As my colleague here, Senator. Clark so eloquently stated, we have a role as a legislature to make sure that we are advocating for the people of Arkansas. And within that, we have to hold, um, agencies accountable as, as it may come to it. Hopefully not, but, but we have that role, especially as it relates to the state to make sure that we're operating within the bounds given to us by the law. So, I'm not gonna ask you any questions related to that. One thing I will ask and, And perhaps we, this will need to go through the chair. But since the city attorney has advised you to, to not answer the questions. Whether we agree or disagree, we understand. Is it possible for, uh, you to request the city attorney to offer a statement. As to the role of the Little Rock Police Department with, um, this operation in ATF. I, I will make that request to him and see what he says. Because I, I think it would be helpful for this committee just to hear from your agency and the city of Little Rock. Um, if you, if you're not at liberty to speak here today, then let's get something in writing from the attorney who gave you that advice. Is that, is that fair? Yes, that's fair. I'll make that request. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Senator Gilmore. Any other question from committee? Mr. He, no, I too want to thank you for your service, not only in the military, but in the police and we appreciate you. Appreciate you being here today. Uh, With that being said, no more questions? We're adjourned. Oh, hang on a second. We're opening again. We have a, we have a we have a motion. Senator Clark, you recognize. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that authority be granted to the chair of the Senate Committee on Judiciary to exercise the subpoena power of the committee to issue subpoenas for persons, documents and records related to the ATF raid of the home of Brian Malinowski on March 19, 2024. I've, I have a motion and second all those in favor say aye any discussion? Senator Gilmore, and, and perhaps I missed it or to whom are we issuing subpoenas. It gives the power to the chair to issue subpoenas. OK. All right. That, that's what I was just trying to clarify. any other discussion Senator Tucker. Senator Tucker, it's the chair's discretion who the subpoenas are directed to at that point. It actually by rules of the legislature, uh, pro tem and, uh, speaker have to approve. In this case, since it's a Senate committee, it may just be the pro tem, but. And the Pro Tem approves the committee chair's discretion or it's, it's then the pro Tems discretion once this committee issues subpoenas, the pro tem has to sign off on it and Sorry, I, I just want to make sure I'm clear. Committee chair will determine who a subpoena goes to. And then the Pro Tim will sign off on it before it goes unless you want to amend the motion. I just want to the committee, but yes, as, as the motion is presented, the chair will have the freedom to. Decide what subpoenas need to be issued. I'm sure he will be glad to consult with us. OK. Thank you. Any more discussion? Motion 6 has been made all those in favor say aye, all opposed. Motion passes. Thank you, gentlemen. We are adjourned.