Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-08-2019, 02:50 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886

Can a state punish you for doing something that is legal in another state but not in their state?


For example, let's say State-A passes a law making plucking your eyebrows illegal.

So, you go to State-B next door where eyebrow plucking is perfectly legal and you have your eyebrows plucked there.

Can State-A arrest you upon returning for having your eyebrows plucked? Can State-A arrest the person who drove you since that person abetted your crime? Or rather, can State-A expect these prosecutions to hold up on appeal?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #2  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:05 PM
Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Challenger Deep
Posts: 11,783
Don't think so. I've had some good strong beer in many states, and Utah never prosecuted me for doing so, despite its laws placing strict limits on the alcohol content of beer sold within Utah

AFAIK, one state doesn't have jurisdiction over what you do in another state.
  #3  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:08 PM
Sigene is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 2,344
Is this about pot?

I don't think State A can prosecute you for buying weed in State B; but they can prosecute you for possessing weed or driving while impaired.
  #4  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:10 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,743
They might not be able to arrest you for what you did in another state, but they could criminalize things done in their own state. For instance, they might pass a law that says that it's illegal to leave the state for the purpose of eyebrow-plucking, or to make an appointment for eyebrow-plucking.

Real-world example, there are US laws against traveling abroad for the purpose of having sex with minors. Even if you find some country where it's legal, the US can still arrest you.
  #5  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:14 PM
OldGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Very east of Foggybog, WI
Posts: 5,266
The US does prosecute citizens and residents for international sex tourism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism
  #6  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:18 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
Is this about pot?
No, although that works too.

This is about Georgia passing a new abortion law which would (among other things) punish women who get an abortion out of state.

Quote:
Even women who seek lawful abortions out of state may not escape punishment. If a Georgia resident plans to travel elsewhere to obtain an abortion, she may be charged with conspiracy to commit murder, punishable by 10 years’ imprisonment. An individual who helps a woman plan her trip to get an out-of-state abortion, or transports her to the clinic, may also be charged with conspiracy. These individuals, after all, are “conspiring” to end of the life of a “person” with “full legal recognition” under Georgia law.

SOURCE: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...in-prison.html
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-08-2019 at 03:21 PM.
  #7  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:19 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
They might not be able to arrest you for what you did in another state, but they could criminalize things done in their own state. For instance, they might pass a law that says that it's illegal to leave the state for the purpose of eyebrow-plucking, or to make an appointment for eyebrow-plucking.

Real-world example, there are US laws against traveling abroad for the purpose of having sex with minors. Even if you find some country where it's legal, the US can still arrest you.
Can they do that, though? Pass a law that says "it's illegal to leave the state for the purpose of eyebrow-plucking, or to make an appointment for eyebrow-plucking", that is. There are US laws against "sex tourism", but are there any precedents for an American state government seeking to apply that kind of jurisdiction, and would it even be legal/constitutional for an American state government to try to do so? (Especially for travel from one American state to another, to do something that is legal under the laws of the other American state.)
  #8  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:19 PM
EdelweissPirate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 400
That sex-tourism example is a good one, and well within the federal government’s aegis.

But let’s say that the great state of East Dakota outlawed eyebrow-plucking even while it remained legal in both South Dakota and at the federal level. If East Dakota passed a law criminalizing leaving the state for eyebrow-plucking purposes, wouldn’t that violate the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause?
  #9  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:19 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 28,158
I'm trying to remember how things were in the bad old days before Roe v. Wade when women with enough money would travel someplace like New York where it was legal to get an abortion then go back home to Kansas or Georgia or wherever...

I know women who did exactly that. Can't recall whether they had concerns about being arrested back home or not.
  #10  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:21 PM
SingleMalt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
They might not be able to arrest you for what you did in another state, but they could criminalize things done in their own state. For instance, they might pass a law that says that it's illegal to leave the state for the purpose of eyebrow-plucking, or to make an appointment for eyebrow-plucking.

Real-world example, there are US laws against traveling abroad for the purpose of having sex with minors. Even if you find some country where it's legal, the US can still arrest you.
I'm curious about an answer as well, but this example is of a Federal law, which over-arches state laws. Could Nevada pass a state law that would prosecute a person for traveling to Arizona for the purpose of eyebrow-plucking? Assuming there is no over-arching Federal law.


Wow. Severely ninja'd.

Last edited by SingleMalt; 05-08-2019 at 03:24 PM.
  #11  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:30 PM
EdelweissPirate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
This is about Georgia passing a new abortion law which would (among other things) punish women who get an abortion out of state.
The linked Slate article mentions that the law in question makes fetuses full individual people, and in doing so raises a huge issue: any woman who’s pregnant and in jail is carrying a full legal person inside of her, so by putting her in jail they’re imprisoning one wholly innocent person along with another, potentially non-innocent person—and without due process for the fetus.

I suspect this law wasn’t fully thought through on a number of levels. Again, I invite any lurking constitutional scholars (I’m looking at you, President Obama!) to weigh in on the commerce-clause issue I and others have asked about.
  #12  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:41 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 20,886
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate View Post
The linked Slate article mentions that the law in question makes fetuses full individual people, and in doing so raises a huge issue: any woman who’s pregnant and in jail is carrying a full legal person inside of her, so by putting her in jail they’re imprisoning one wholly innocent person along with another, potentially non-innocent person—and without due process for the fetus.
That problem is discussed in the article too.
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill
  #13  
Old 05-08-2019, 03:51 PM
EdelweissPirate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 400
Yes. That’s what I said.
  #14  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:07 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 82,743
[Moderating]

A reminder that this thread is about one particular question, of laws between different states. The Georgia abortion law in general is already under discussion in GD, which is where that discussion belongs. If a post can't apply to the hypothetical eyebrow-plucking law, then it's probably not a good fit for this thread.
  #15  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:29 PM
Peter Morris's Avatar
Peter Morris is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: The far canal
Posts: 12,430
What about cases where a teenage couple cross a state line to take advantage of a lower age of consent? Both are willing, and of legal age in the state where the deed takes place.
  #16  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:52 PM
excavating (for a mind) is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: In a canyon, in a cavern
Posts: 1,456
I would think it would really depend on the law. If the law says that it in not legal to pluck one's own or another person's eyebrows in the state of East Dakota, then going to Minnesota to get your eyebrows plucked would be perfectly legal, provided Minnesota has not outlawed eyebrow plucking. Even if Minnesota had outlawed eyebrow plucking, the state of East Dakota couldn't do anything about your getting your eyebrows plucked in Minnesota other than inform Minnesota law enforcement that they believe there are people violating their eyebrow plucking law.

If the law says that all people in the state of East Dakota must have un-plucked eyebrows, that would be different. But, eyebrow hairs, like all hairs, fall out on their own, and I suspect that there are some conditions that can make a person's eyebrows fall out naturally, so it might be difficult to craft such a law--that is, everyone has plucked eyebrows to one extent or another.
  #17  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:55 PM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,402
I had a long post eaten by gerbils. Short answer is that in Bigelow v. Virginia, the Supreme Court said that State A can't arrest a person for what happens in State B. Bigelow concerned New York abortion clinics advertising for clients in a Virginia newspaper. Virginia outlawed abortion ads. The court said that the ban was a violation of the first amendment, but it also said:

Quote:
Moreover, the placement services advertised in appellant's newspaper were legally provided in New York at that time.[8] The Virginia Legislature could not have regulated the advertiser's activity in New York, and obviously could not have proscribed the activity in that State.[9] Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U. S. 657, 669 (1892). Neither could Virginia prevent its residents from traveling to New York to obtain those services or, as the State conceded, Tr. of Oral Arg. 29, prosecute them for going there. See United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 757-759 (1966); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618, 629-631 (1969); Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S., at 200. Virginia possessed no authority to regulate the services provided in New York—the skills and credentials of the New York physicians and of the New York professionals who assisted them, the standards of the New York hospitals and clinics to which patients were referred, or the practices and charges of the New York referral services.

A State does not acquire power or supervision over the internal affairs of another State merely because the welfare and health of its own citizens may be affected when they travel to that State. It may seek to disseminate information so as to enable its citizens to make better informed decisions when they leave. But it may not, under the guise of exercising internal police powers, bar a citizen of another State from disseminating information about an activity that is legal in that State. [emphasis added]
There is a theory that the state can regulate conspiring within its border to travel to State B for these purposes but I disagree. However, it's really hard to predict what motivated reasoning will lead the Supreme Court to endorse when they hate plucked eyebrows so much.
  #18  
Old 05-08-2019, 04:56 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,054
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
They might not be able to arrest you for what you did in another state, but they could criminalize things done in their own state. For instance, they might pass a law that says that it's illegal to leave the state for the purpose of eyebrow-plucking, or to make an appointment for eyebrow-plucking.

Real-world example, there are US laws against traveling abroad for the purpose of having sex with minors. Even if you find some country where it's legal, the US can still arrest you.
Does this come down to a matter of intention? Suppose you were in another state and you incidentally decide on a whim to get those eyebrows plucked, but you didn't travel out of state for that specific purpose, does that still count?
  #19  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:31 PM
EdelweissPirate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
[Moderating]

A reminder that this thread is about one particular question, of laws between different states. The Georgia abortion law in general is already under discussion in GD, which is where that discussion belongs. If a post can't apply to the hypothetical eyebrow-plucking law, then it's probably not a good fit for this thread.
I only mentioned that point in the Slate article because, if the Georgia law wasn’t very well-thought-out with in one way (due process) it might not be well-thought-out with regard to the commerce clause either—and the applicability of the commerce clause is still an outstanding question (at least for me).

In retrospect, maybe I could have raised that point without going into the somewhat-charged details of Georgia’s law. Sorry.
  #20  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:36 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Does this come down to a matter of intention? Suppose you were in another state and you incidentally decide on a whim to get those eyebrows plucked, but you didn't travel out of state for that specific purpose, does that still count?
That would make for a creative defense against the international sex tourism laws mentioned previously: "No, your honor, when I left the country I had no intention of having sex with a minor. Once I got to _____ (I don't even know where people go for that sort of thing - Thailand maybe?) I decided on a whim that I wanted to have sex with a minor."
  #21  
Old 05-08-2019, 05:52 PM
Hari Seldon is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Trantor
Posts: 12,707
I am fairly certain that congress could pass a law making it illegal to cross a state line for the purpose of plucking eyebrows. I don't know if the Mann act is still in force, but it forbade crossing a state line for an immoral purpose (fornication) and when I was in HS, we were specifically warned against going to Jersey to screw even though it wouldn't have been illegal under either NJ nor PA law.
  #22  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:36 PM
clairobscur is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,881
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That would make for a creative defense against the international sex tourism laws mentioned previously: "No, your honor, when I left the country I had no intention of having sex with a minor. Once I got to _____ (I don't even know where people go for that sort of thing - Thailand maybe?) I decided on a whim that I wanted to have sex with a minor."
Why creative? Wouldn't it be a very straightforward defense against a charge of having traveled "for the purpose of"?

Let's say that the culprit was sent there on a business trip by his employer. Wouldn't disputing the charge on the basis that the purpose of the trip was demonstrably not having sex with a minor be an obvious move by the defense?
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #23  
Old 05-08-2019, 06:44 PM
Northern Piper is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: The snow is gone. For now
Posts: 28,849
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
That would make for a creative defense against the international sex tourism laws mentioned previously: "No, your honor, when I left the country I had no intention of having sex with a minor. Once I got to _____ (I don't even know where people go for that sort of thing - Thailand maybe?) I decided on a whim that I wanted to have sex with a minor."


According to this info-sheet from the US DOJ, there are two different offences: having sexual relations with a child in a foreign country, and travelling to a foreign country for the purpose of sex with a child. Someone who does it on sudden impulse (?) would be guilty of the first but not the second.

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceo...ation-children
__________________
"I don't like to make plans for the day. If I do, that's when words like 'premeditated' start getting thrown around in the courtroom."
  #24  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:17 PM
Kent Clark's Avatar
Kent Clark is offline
You mean he's STILL here?
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 25,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
Is this about pot?
Or abortion?
  #25  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:20 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,231
This is the rule:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 31 S.Ct. 558, 55 L.Ed. 735 (1911)
Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a State in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the State should succeed in getting ... [the accused] within its power.... [T]he criminal need not do within the State every act necessary to complete the crime. If he does there an overt act which is and is intended to be a material step toward accomplishing the crime, and then absents himself from the State and does the rest elsewhere, he becomes a fugitive from justice....
There was a West Virginia case where a man abducted his girlfriend from her workplace in West Virginia and transported her to Ohio where he raped her. West Virginia ruled it had jurisdiction to prosecute the rape (clearly it had jurisdiction for kidnapping) because a substantial amount of an element of the crime: fear or forcible compulsion, occurred in the State of West Virginia.

As far as a law against eyebrow plucking, it would be difficult for a state to argue that out of state eyebrow plucking was both intended to produce and actually produces "detrimental effects" within the state. Even if it were to argue that eyebrow plucking was against the public health, morals, and decency or that eyebrow plucking parlors invited crime and debauchery, these effects would be borne by the state that has made it legal.

For the same reason, conspiracy to commit eyebrow plucking would not work as well. The root of conspiracy is an agreement to commit a crime against the state. As eyebrow plucking in State B is not a crime against State A, State A could not allege that anyone conspired to commit a crime against it.
  #26  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:36 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,231
Missed the edit window. There is not much case law because throughout U.S. history states have not attempted to punish extrajudicial crimes except in those fringe cases were someone is attempting to evade the law or because where a technical interpretation would cause injustice, like an old WV case where a guy was shot in the middle of the river between West Virginia and Kentucky, by a man standing on the Kentucky side, and the victim then crawled and/or swam to the West Virginia side and died.

In the first post, I failed to discuss the substantial elements of eyebrow plucking. It would be difficult to say that meeting up at a friends house, packing your clothes, and driving or flying to the other state for the purposes of eyebrow plucking would be a "substantial element" of eyebrow plucking. That portion sounds like "mere preparation" which would not be illegal even if someone did those things and went to an illegal eye plucking joint in State A.

Even before the proliferation of casino gambling, there were bus tours from West Virginia to Atlantic City and the religious right was fervently against gambling. Even then, nobody made mention of possible criminal charges.

There is also a Dormant Commerce Clause argument that a state preventing people from travelling for legal activity in another state is an indirect regulation of interstate commerce that only Congress has the power to regulate.

But the bottom line is that people don't generally care. We don't want the degenerate eyebrow pluckers in our state, but if you want to join those freaks over there in State B with their eyebrow plucking and other loose morals, then have at it; just don't bring it here.

All of this notwithstanding, I would not put it past an overzealous prosecutor to try.
  #27  
Old 05-08-2019, 07:56 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,213
I'm not at all sure that State A has any jurisdiction over me when I am physically in state B - although the 14th Amendment states that citizen are also citizens of the state in which they reside, as far as I can tell 1) state citizenship doesn't seem to matter except to "sovereign citizen" types and for determining whether a Federal court has jurisdiction in dispute between entities from two different states. 2) There doesn't seem to be any bright-line test for when I cease to be a resident/citizen of State A and become instead a resident/citizen of State B. In fact, a state may consider me a resident for the purpose of requiring my vehicle to be registered at the very same time as it considers me a non-resident regarding how much I am charged to attend the state university.

Some (maybe most) states limit their jurisdiction in conspiracy cases - for example, an agreement made in NY to engage in conduct in another state can only be prosecuted in NY if the conduct constitutes a crime in both states.


About the Mann act- it's still in effect, but has been amended and now only covers the interstate or foreign transport of any person for the purposes of sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense. Which is pretty much what is was meant to do to begin with - it was meant to address prostitution and human trafficking, not consensual activity between those able to consent.
  #28  
Old 05-08-2019, 08:43 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate View Post
The linked Slate article mentions that the law in question makes fetuses full individual people, and in doing so raises a huge issue: any woman who’s pregnant and in jail is carrying a full legal person inside of her, so by putting her in jail they’re imprisoning one wholly innocent person along with another, potentially non-innocent person—and without due process for the fetus.

I suspect this law wasn’t fully thought through on a number of levels. Again, I invite any lurking constitutional scholars (I’m looking at you, President Obama!) to weigh in on the commerce-clause issue I and others have asked about.
Wait, Barack Obama lurks here? Or is Barack Obama actually Barack Obama? Or do you just want Mr. Obama to respond to the Slate article?

~Max
  #29  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:17 PM
manson1972's Avatar
manson1972 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern Piper View Post
According to this info-sheet from the US DOJ, there are two different offences: having sexual relations with a child in a foreign country, and travelling to a foreign country for the purpose of sex with a child. Someone who does it on sudden impulse (?) would be guilty of the first but not the second.

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceo...ation-children
That seems like the US could pass a law that makes it illegal for a US citizen to smoke marijuana in other countries where it is legal. Is that right?
  #30  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:20 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 591
I'm no judge so take my opinion with as much salt as you wish. First, a state has no jurisdiction to criminalize an act performed entirely in another state. The state where the act is performed has jurisdiction, and so too might the federal government if the act is a federal crime.

Second, it is nonsensical to suggest that a state can unilaterally pass a statute which criminalizes conspiracy to commit a specific act outside the state's jurisdiction, unless such act is qualified only as being criminal in the jurisdiction it would have occurred in. The federal government of course may not be held to such a strict standard due to the commerce and necessary and proper clauses as well as the due process clause.

States can pass laws against using state property to commit certain acts, no matter if the property is taken across state lines where said acts would be legal. States can also regulate official actions of state employees however they see fit, so long as no federal laws or individual rights are trampled.

~Max
  #31  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:36 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 56
Mole, your legal question is based on "Criminal Law Jurisdiction". Here is Ohio's as an example.

http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2901.11


I seem to recall a case many years ago, of a woman who lived in Georgia, went to Arizona I think, and called a person in GA and told them she kidnapped someone and had them there. I believe the facts are correct, even if not, assume they are.

GA charged her with kidnapping due to the fact she transmitted (telephoned) the person
in GA and admitted to kidnapping even though the crime or any element of did not originate in GA. That was an element of their Criminal law Jurisdiction, transmission of a crime into that state.
  #32  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:39 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 591

A law to protect West Virginia from the horrors of eyebrow-less people


Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Missed the edit window. There is not much case law because throughout U.S. history states have not attempted to punish extrajudicial crimes except in those fringe cases were someone is attempting to evade the law or because where a technical interpretation would cause injustice, like an old WV case where a guy was shot in the middle of the river between West Virginia and Kentucky, by a man standing on the Kentucky side, and the victim then crawled and/or swam to the West Virginia side and died.

In the first post, I failed to discuss the substantial elements of eyebrow plucking. It would be difficult to say that meeting up at a friends house, packing your clothes, and driving or flying to the other state for the purposes of eyebrow plucking would be a "substantial element" of eyebrow plucking. That portion sounds like "mere preparation" which would not be illegal even if someone did those things and went to an illegal eye plucking joint in State A.

Even before the proliferation of casino gambling, there were bus tours from West Virginia to Atlantic City and the religious right was fervently against gambling. Even then, nobody made mention of possible criminal charges.

There is also a Dormant Commerce Clause argument that a state preventing people from travelling for legal activity in another state is an indirect regulation of interstate commerce that only Congress has the power to regulate.

But the bottom line is that people don't generally care. We don't want the degenerate eyebrow pluckers in our state, but if you want to join those freaks over there in State B with their eyebrow plucking and other loose morals, then have at it; just don't bring it here.

All of this notwithstanding, I would not put it past an overzealous prosecutor to try.
What would be your opinion if the good people of West Virginia passed a law like this:

A law to protect West Virginia from the horrors of eyebrow-less people
  1. It shall be a felony to pluck one's eyebrows in the state of West Virginia, or to aid or abet such an act, or to conspire to pluck one's eyebrows in the state of West Virginia, without the recommendation of a doctor certified by the West Virginia medical board. Violations of this section are subject to a $50 fine.
  2. It shall be a misdemeanor to conspire within the state of West Virginia to pluck one's eyebrows in another territory where plucking one's eyebrows is a criminal act. Violations of this section are subject to a $25 fine.
  3. It shall be a misdemeanor to use state property to pluck one's eyebrows, or to aid or abet such an act, or to conspire to pluck one's eyebrows. Violations of this section are subject to a $25 fine.

Which sections should be struck down, if any?

~Max
  #33  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:58 PM
Asuka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,154
A real example here I don't think anyone has brought up yet involves guns.

If you're transporting a gun between two states, and happen to pass through a state that has much stricter gun control laws to get to the other state, and your car gets pulled over and searched by police for something unrelated, can you be arrested for that?
  #34  
Old 05-08-2019, 09:58 PM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigene View Post
Is this about pot?

I don't think State A can prosecute you for buying weed in State B; but they can prosecute you for possessing weed or driving while impaired.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
Or abortion?
Pretty sure that it's about eyebrow plucking.

The moderator said so.
  #35  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:06 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
A real example here I don't think anyone has brought up yet involves guns.

If you're transporting a gun between two states, and happen to pass through a state that has much stricter gun control laws to get to the other state, and your car gets pulled over and searched by police for something unrelated, can you be arrested for that?
Yes, because the transportation of a weapon does not fall under the "Interstate Commerce" FFC exception. Example, you can drive in any state in the Union on your state's driver license, as that affects IC if denied.
  #36  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:12 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
A real example here I don't think anyone has brought up yet involves guns.

If you're transporting a gun between two states, and happen to pass through a state that has much stricter gun control laws to get to the other state, and your car gets pulled over and searched by police for something unrelated, can you be arrested for that?
Well, there's a Federal law that affects that. But, absent the provisions of FOPA, in a case of State B seeking to enforce laws against (for example) unlicensed possession of loaded guns in a motor vehicle, State B isn't trying to impose its laws on State A (where the gun is coming from) or State C (where the gun is headed to), but is in fact regulating behavior--carrying loaded guns in a motor vehicle on a public road--that's taking place entirely within the territory of State B. Without getting too bogged down in a map of the U.S., the gun owner in State A presumably had other options for getting to State C that didn't involve driving through State B's territory (going the long way around, or even shipping the firearm via Federal Firearms License holders in States A and C). (This is without us getting into hypothetical future SCOTUS decisions as to what the word "bear" means in the context of the right to keep and bear arms.)

The (hypothetical) abortion restrictions that gave rise to this thread would be more like if your state had laws completely banning its citizens from having possession (even temporarily) of fully automatic weapons, and then trying to prosecute people who travel to some other state where they can rent machine guns and shoot up bowling pins or whatever.
  #37  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:20 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 56
Seems I am wrong about my gun post after reading Buckner's link.
  #38  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:27 PM
MEBuckner's Avatar
MEBuckner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 12,020
Quote:
Originally Posted by LTU2 View Post
Yes, because the transportation of a weapon does not fall under the "Interstate Commerce" FFC exception. Example, you can drive in any state in the Union on your state's driver license, as that affects IC if denied.
It's not actually clear if driver's license interstate reciprocity or recognition is actually a matter of "interstate commerce" at all. My understanding is that the universal acceptance of a driver's license from any of the states in all of the other 49 states is entirely due to state legislative action in each of the 50 states. Such recognition is universal, even though different states may have at least somewhat different standards for driver's licenses, because there would be nigh-universal howls of outrage from the driving public if it were not so. ("OK, I have a Georgia driver's license, so I can get us as far as El Paso, but you'll have to do all the driving once we cross the state line into New Mexico, 'cause you're from Florida and New Mexico will take a Florida driver's license but they won't recognize a Georgia driver's license. And once we get to California, we'll have to hire a professional California-licensed driver, 'cause California don't recognize any driver's licenses but their own.") "Americans who drive cars" is a pretty big interest group.
  #39  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:28 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 56
Caution though:

https://www.concealedcarry.com/law/i...-926a-of-fopa/
  #40  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:33 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
A real example here I don't think anyone has brought up yet involves guns.

If you're transporting a gun between two states, and happen to pass through a state that has much stricter gun control laws to get to the other state, and your car gets pulled over and searched by police for something unrelated, can you be arrested for that?
That's a different question - you're not asking whether NY can arrest a NY resident who possesses a firearm in Texas. You're asking whether NY can arrest someone for illegally possessing a firearm in NY if they are just passing through NY. And the answer is almost certainly going to be yes, they can arrest you. You might later get the case dismissed if you could legally possess the firearm in the state where you started your travel and in the state where you planned to end your travel if you were in compliance with a particular Federal law while transporting the firearm - but the police who searched your car are not required to determine that on the side of the road.



Torracco v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
  #41  
Old 05-08-2019, 10:47 PM
LTU2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Ohio
Posts: 56
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
It's not actually clear if driver's license interstate reciprocity or recognition is actually a matter of "interstate commerce" at all.
I always refer to this case on such, although it concerns interstate travel with tinted windows, it states that the ICC permits tinted windows state to state, as it affects IC if denied. It also discusses the Freedom to travel unfettered State to State.

Of course, as noted, that does not mean an arrest can never happen since I am sure police always say they know the law that applies.

https://law.justia.com/cases/califor...68/supp15.html

That was a good citation Doreen in your post 40.

Last edited by LTU2; 05-08-2019 at 10:48 PM.
  #42  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:17 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,231
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
What would be your opinion if the good people of West Virginia passed a law like this:

A law to protect West Virginia from the horrors of eyebrow-less people
  1. It shall be a felony to pluck one's eyebrows in the state of West Virginia, or to aid or abet such an act, or to conspire to pluck one's eyebrows in the state of West Virginia, without the recommendation of a doctor certified by the West Virginia medical board. Violations of this section are subject to a $50 fine.
  2. It shall be a misdemeanor to conspire within the state of West Virginia to pluck one's eyebrows in another territory where plucking one's eyebrows is a criminal act. Violations of this section are subject to a $25 fine.
  3. It shall be a misdemeanor to use state property to pluck one's eyebrows, or to aid or abet such an act, or to conspire to pluck one's eyebrows. Violations of this section are subject to a $25 fine.

Which sections should be struck down, if any?

~Max
Off the cuff:

a) I think that would be fine (provided there is a rational basis for outlawing eyebrow plucking).

b) I think that would be fine. Conspiracy under the law is a separate evil. And I could see an argument that an agreement to commit an illegal act, even if the illegal act occurs in another state, is an evil that the State of West Virginia may prosecute as the illicit agreement occurs within its borders.

c) I don't see the issue with that either. Where is the extra-jurisdictional element we are complaining about? Maybe I am missing something.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MEBuckner View Post
The (hypothetical) abortion restrictions that gave rise to this thread would be more like if your state had laws completely banning its citizens from having possession (even temporarily) of fully automatic weapons, and then trying to prosecute people who travel to some other state where they can rent machine guns and shoot up bowling pins or whatever.
I think such a law would be struck down. Assuming, arguendo, that State A has a legitimate governmental interest that passes Second Amendment muster to prohibit its citizens from possessing automatic weapons, even for a second, within its own borders, the reasons for that would be the typical danger associated with those weapons.

A State A citizen legally firing automatic weapons in State B would pose no harm on State A because any danger is confined to State B.
  #43  
Old 05-08-2019, 11:31 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 13,490
Quote:
Originally Posted by Asuka View Post
A real example here I don't think anyone has brought up yet involves guns.

If you're transporting a gun between two states, and happen to pass through a state that has much stricter gun control laws to get to the other state, and your car gets pulled over and searched by police for something unrelated, can you be arrested for that?
FOPA explicitly protects you in that scenario, provided you've got it properly stored.
  #44  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:54 AM
EdelweissPirate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Portland, OR USA
Posts: 400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Wait, Barack Obama lurks here? Or is Barack Obama actually Barack Obama? Or do you just want Mr. Obama to respond to the Slate article?

~Max
It was a not-very-funny riff on the fact that President Obama had a constitutional-scholar gig prior to his legislative and presidential gigs. I happen to be a fan of the guy, but this is GQ, so it was probably ill-considered in addition to not being very funny.

I was aware that we have a poster whose username is Barack Obama, but I was hoping that addressing “President Obama” would make it clear that I didn’t mean to address that poster but rather the public figure.

See? The more you explain a joke, the funnier it gets!
  #45  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:19 AM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 5,144
well my parents couldn't get married in Indiana or Michigan legally so they drove to Memphis Tenn and got married when dad was on leave ..... mom even took a pic of Graceland in 71 but Elvis was away that week... no one stopped them when they went back to Indiana

Last edited by nightshadea; 05-09-2019 at 03:21 AM.
  #46  
Old 05-09-2019, 08:27 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 591

Re: Re: A law to protect West Virginia from the horrors of eyebrow-less people


Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
What would be your opinion if the good people of West Virginia passed a law like this:

A law to protect West Virginia from the horrors of eyebrow-less people
  1. It shall be a felony to pluck one's eyebrows in the state of West Virginia, or to aid or abet such an act, or to conspire to pluck one's eyebrows in the state of West Virginia, without the recommendation of a doctor certified by the West Virginia medical board. Violations of this section are subject to a $50 fine.
  2. It shall be a misdemeanor to conspire within the state of West Virginia to pluck one's eyebrows in another territory where plucking one's eyebrows is a criminal act. Violations of this section are subject to a $25 fine.
  3. It shall be a misdemeanor to use state property to pluck one's eyebrows, or to aid or abet such an act, or to conspire to pluck one's eyebrows. Violations of this section are subject to a $25 fine.

Which sections should be struck down, if any?

~Max
Off the cuff:

a) I think that would be fine (provided there is a rational basis for outlawing eyebrow plucking).

b) I think that would be fine. Conspiracy under the law is a separate evil. And I could see an argument that an agreement to commit an illegal act, even if the illegal act occurs in another state, is an evil that the State of West Virginia may prosecute as the illicit agreement occurs within its borders.

c) I don't see the issue with that either. Where is the extra-jurisdictional element we are complaining about? Maybe I am missing something.
I don't think the eyebrow law as I wrote it has an extra-jurisdictional element. I'm more interested in whether the state can prosecute conspiracy to commit an act in another state. The act of conspiracy itself takes place within the state, so they have jurisdiction, however the state does not have jurisdiction to criminalize the act being agreed to. What would you say if I amended the eyebrow law's section b like this:
  1. ...
  2. It shall be a misdemeanor to conspire within the state of West Virginia to pluck one's eyebrows in another territory, without the recommendation of a doctor certified by the West Virginia medical board. Violations of this section are subject to a $25 fine.

I am of the opinion that West Virginia, in passing this hypothetical law, has overstepped its authority. West Virginia hasn't necessarily exercised extrajudicial authority, since the act of conspiracy took place within the state of West Virginia; however, it goes against reason to criminalize conspiracy to commit a legal act by legal means.

~Max
  #47  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:12 AM
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 53
The limitations of the metaphor make this a bit hard to express, but I'll give it a shot. If the state asserting jurisdiction has said that it recognizes eyebrows as separate humans with full individual rights, and the US Supreme Court upholds that concept in related cases, then I think there would be little doubt that State A could criminalize in a variety of ways the taking of helpless eyebrows from State A to another state to have them plucked, even if it's legal there.
  #48  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:09 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 591
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
The limitations of the metaphor make this a bit hard to express, but I'll give it a shot. If the state asserting jurisdiction has said that it recognizes eyebrows as separate humans with full individual rights, and the US Supreme Court upholds that concept in related cases, then I think there would be little doubt that State A could criminalize in a variety of ways the taking of helpless eyebrows from State A to another state to have them plucked, even if it's legal there.
Assuming the eyebrow brought suit, State B would appeal up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would probably admonish State B for violating the equal protection cause by allowing eyebrows to be plucked. The Supreme Court would probably demand State B starts protecting eyebrows like the humans they are, and if State B refuses it falls on the legislative branch to criminalize the practice nationwide, or the executive branch to force State B into line.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-09-2019 at 10:10 AM.
  #49  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:29 AM
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
Assuming the eyebrow brought suit, State B would appeal up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would probably admonish State B for violating the equal protection cause by allowing eyebrows to be plucked. The Supreme Court would probably demand State B starts protecting eyebrows like the humans they are, and if State B refuses it falls on the legislative branch to criminalize the practice nationwide, or the executive branch to force State B into line.

~Max
I think we're just talking about criminal proceedings by State A for eyebrow plucking in State B where it is legal. I think lawsuits by eyebrows is outside the scope. But the criminalization could not happen if the US Supreme Court rules that everyone has a right to have their eyebrows plucked as a matter of personal privacy and autonomy, subject to certain reasonable limitations like ensuring hygienic conditions and requiring licences for professional eyebrow pluckers.

Incidentally, an often overlooked source of law might get a boost in these uncertain times: state constitutions. Take a look at the recent Kansas case interpreting its own constitution. And a state's own court system has the last say on what its own constitution means, if they interpret it independently of the US Constitution. So if a state's courts say that the state constitution does not allow the criminalization of eyebrow plucking, or does not allow the state government to reach out to punish eyebrow plucking occurring legally in another state, that is another limitation, and that issue could not be appealed to the US Supreme Court.
  #50  
Old 05-09-2019, 10:52 AM
CookingWithGas's Avatar
CookingWithGas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Tysons Corner, VA, USA
Posts: 13,018
States pass laws that they enforce, and then sometimes go to the Supreme Court and are found unconstitutional. In direct response to the OP, the state could pass such a law, arrest you, and convict you, but the law could be overturned on appeal in federal court. I think. IANAL so I don't know the legal mechanics. But there are many examples of this.
__________________
Making the world a better place one fret at a time.
| | |·| |·| |·| |·| | |:| | |·| |·|
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:50 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017