Opinion ID: 516104
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Shooting Incident

Text: 8 As petitioner was not charged with a crime for his actions during the shooting incident, and as there is no evidence that his actions were criminal, the AJ based her conclusion that petitioner had inappropriately discharged a firearm on her finding that agency policy prohibits the firing of warning shots and prohibits any shooting unless an agent is threatened with immediate death or serious physical bodily harm. The agency policy referred to by the AJ is apparently ATF Order 3000.1D, Chapter C, Sec. 32 (Dec. 13, 1984) entitled Firearms. The problem with the AJ's reasoning is that the terms of that section establish that it applies only to the use of firearms in connection with the performance of official duties. 9 For example, subsection (a) of the section, entitled Carrying of Firearms, states that [a] special agent shall be armed at all times when actively engaged in law enforcement work and at all other times the agent deems it necessary in connection with official duties. (Emphasis added.) Although part (1) of subsection (b) of the section, entitled Use of Firearms, does state that firearms are to be used only if there is a danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury and that warning shots will not be fired, part (2) of that subsection provides that [w]hen firearms are fired by a special agent of [sic] any other participating officer in the performance of duty (other than a training exercise), such incident will be reported verbally to the [special agent in charge] as soon as possible. (Emphasis added.) If part (1) of subsection (b) had been intended to apply to the off-duty use of firearms, part (2) of that subsection would logically have required the reporting of that off-duty use, not simply the reporting of use in the performance of duty. 10 In addition, if part (1)'s limitation on the use of firearms to situations in which there is a danger of loss of life or serious bodily injury was applied broadly to the off-duty use of firearms, as the AJ concluded it did, special agents would be prevented from using firearms for activities such as hunting and target shooting. There is no indication that it was intended to so apply, however. 11 In sum, we conclude that the AJ erred as a matter of law in interpreting ATF Order 3000.1D, Chapter C, Sec. 32 (Dec. 13, 1984), as applying to the off-duty use of firearms. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(c) (1982). We therefore set aside her decision sustaining the charge that petitioner improperly used a firearm. 12 We also set aside the AJ's decision sustaining the charge that petitioner acted outside the official scope of his authority as that charge is unsupported by substantial evidence. See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 7703(c) (1982). There is simply no evidence that petitioner was either acting during the incident in his official capacity as a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms criminal investigator or that he represented himself as acting in that capacity. The fact that no charges were brought against him by law enforcement authorities indicates that his actions were lawful.