The Stop and Search of a Car for Using Their High Beams Considered Unreasonable

A traffic stop of a car for using high beam headlights in a residential area, although reasonable, was mistaken, making the stop and subsequent search without cause.

State v. Scriven, 2016 BL 232318, N.J., No. A-11, 7/20/16.

   A police officer’s stop and search of a vehicle driving with their high beams on in a residential neighborhood was not reasonable, the New Jersey Supreme Court held. During the search, the officer found an unlicensed firearm in the possession of the driver. The language of the high beam law under the New Jersey law requires drivers to “dim their high beams only when approaching an oncoming vehicle.” The court further elaborated by saying “The statute does not state that high beams may be used only on rural or unlit suburban roads at night, but not on a seemingly well-lit deserted city street at 3:30 a.m. Neither a car parked on a perpendicular street nor an on-foot police officer count as an oncoming vehicle.”

   Prosecutors in the case argued that the initial stop and discovery of an unlicensed handgun was justified according to a North Carolina decision, which provides that a reasonable mistake of law that forms the basis for a finding of reasonable suspicion justifies a stop. The New Jersey court disagreed. Prosecutors also argued that the officer appropriately acted under the community-caretaker doctrine because “something could have been wrong with the driver” or the high beams created a public safety hazard. This argument, like the other, was also rejected. The officer’s only purpose in stopping in the driver was because he thought he was breaking the law, which was a mistake.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/State_v_Scriven_No_A11_September_Term_2015_2016_BL_232318_NJ_July.

Harder to 'Aid and Abet' in 1st Circuit.

Prosecutors are required to show that the defendant knew that the situation was such that the principal's conduct was illegal.

United States v. Ford, 2016 BL 115513, 1st Cir., No. 15-1303, 4/13/16

     The First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that just because a woman had "reason to know" that her husband was convicted of a felony years earlier, she cannot be convicted of aiding and abetting her husband's illegal possession of a firearm.

     Other Circuits have applied a lower level of mens rea to prove aiding and abetting, but the First Circuit said that the government must prove "actual knowledge." The court looked at the language in 18 U.S.C. § 2, which uses the words "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures," suggesting that a person can only violate the statute with full knowledge and choice.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Ford_No_151303_2016_BL_115513_1st_Cir_Apr_13_2016?1463410334

Court Strikes Down 'No More Tattoos' Release Condition

A special condition of supervised release that a man could get no more tattoos for three years, after being convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, exceeded the authority of the federal judge.

 

United States v. Campos, 2016 BL 86842., No. 15-1346, 3/22/16

     The court rejected the government's "excessive cost" argument, saying that preventing the man from paying for "this one particular expenditure" would not advance his educational, vocational, medicinal or other correctional needs and bears no connection to any of the other sentencing factors set out in 18 U.S.S. §3553(a).

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_of_America_Plaintiff__Appellee_v_Reyes_O_Campos_Def?1459441482

Second Amendment Does Not Protect Paring Knives

Very divided Washington Supreme Court rules that carrying a kitchen knife in public is not covered by the Second Amendment.

 

City of Seattle v. Evans, 2015 BL 435678, Wash., No. 90608-4, 12/31/15

    The Washington Supreme Court characterized the knife in this case as a "utility tool" and as such, allowed no more protection than a frying pan, rolling pin, or other culinary utensil that may be used as an instrument of self-defense.

    The court said that "[w]hile almost any common object may be used as a weapon, that does not necessarily mean that possession of otherwise innocuous objects that could be wielded with malice will trigger the constitutional protections afforded to 'arms'."

    The court recognized and agreed with most modern decisions which have held that the right to bear arms is not limited to firearms, but includes less lethal weapons as well. In this case, however, the court added that to receive Second Amendment protections the "weapons" must be of the type that law-abiding citizens traditionally turn to for self-defense.

    Here, the defendant's knife was a culinary tool and he went too far when arguing that a utensil that is customarily used to cut fruit and vegetables fits within the traditional definition of "weapon." The court said that "[w]ere we to adopt [the defendant]'s analysis and hold that a kitchen knife was a protected arm because it could be used as self-defense, there would be no end to the extent of utensils arguably constitutionally protected as arms."

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/City_of_Seattle_v_Evans_No_906084_2015_BL_435678_Wash_Dec_31_2015?1452972030

Sentence Enhanced Even With Unclaimed Gun

Even though there was no evidence directly tying the defendant to the weapon found in the same house as he, he was eligible for a two-level sentencing enhancement for possession of a shotgun.

 

United States v. Rodriguez-Guerrero, 2015 BL 357884, 5th Cir., No. 14-41289, 10/10/15

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the trial judge's determination that there was enough of a "temporal and special relationship" between the weapon, the drug trafficking, and the defendant. The court said that, because the weapon was found along with bundles of marijuana, it was more likely that the weapon would be used by the defendant.

    The house where the arrest was made was a "stash house" and the only purpose for the defendant to be there was to protect the drug stash. The court ruled that "[b]ecause the only purpose of the house was for drugs, it was plausible to find that the only purpose of the weapon was to support the drug business."

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_RodriguezGuerrero_No_1441289_2015_BL_357884_5th_C?1450714340

Peace Officer's Qualified Immunity Reinstated by SCOTUS

Assumption that the police officer acted unreasonably is not 'beyond debate.'

 

Mullenix v. Luna, U.S., No 14-1143, cert. granted, reversed 11/9/15, per curiam

    During a late-night high-speed chase, a police officer shot and killed the driver of the escaping vehicle. The driver was shot four times. The police officer, shooting from an overpass, claimed to have been aiming for the engine block of the speeding vehicle.

    The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the officer's actions were not proper because the threat was not great enough to justify deadly force.

    The Supreme Court held that "whatever can be said of the wisdom of Mullenix's choice, this Court's precedents do not place the conclusion that he acted reasonably in these circumstances 'beyond debate.'"