Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 05-09-2019, 12:42 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
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.
Again, I'm not a lawyer but this is how I imagine it would go down.

If State A brought suit, the eyebrow (deceased I assume) is probably named as a victim. The persons involved with plucking would be named as defendants. Unless State B abetted the plucking through official state action, State B would not be a party of the lawsuit.

State A might assert jurisdiction because the defendant was a citizen of State A, and thus bring suit in A-court. The defense will say the act was performed in State B, and that appeal over jurisdiction is sent to the district court. The district court almost certainly awards jurisdiction to State B because that is where the act of plucking was performed. In B-court, defense files a motion to dismiss because no law was violated. Prosecution files counter-suit against State B, claiming the laws of State B failed to protect eyebrow's constitutional right, affirmed by the aforementioned Supreme Court case. Whatever B-court finds is appealed to district. The district court agrees and finds for prosecution. SCOTUS denies cert.

~Max
  #52  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:22 PM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,693
IANAL but it's my understanding that a conspiracy requires two people? So unless the pregnant lady (or bushy-eyebrowed lady) tells her chauffeur that she needs his help to get across state lines and why, there's no conspiracy.

I suspect the sex tourism law works because although it violates the spirit of how laws work, nobody is going to argue for the rights of pedophiles to travel unmolested. (sorry, couldn't resist) Plus, how does that apply to, for example, someone under a court order not to reveal certain information - can they be prosecuted for violating a court restraint if they do it in another country or state? Or does a legal gag order expire at the border?

In fact, I thought I read some news article that a while ago the "travel abroad with intent" for sex tourism had been changed so the feds no longer had to prove intent, just the act.
  #53  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:32 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
IANAL but it's my understanding that a conspiracy requires two people? So unless the pregnant lady (or bushy-eyebrowed lady) tells her chauffeur that she needs his help to get across state lines and why, there's no conspiracy.

I suspect the sex tourism law works because although it violates the spirit of how laws work, nobody is going to argue for the rights of pedophiles to travel unmolested. (sorry, couldn't resist) Plus, how does that apply to, for example, someone under a court order not to reveal certain information - can they be prosecuted for violating a court restraint if they do it in another country or state? Or does a legal gag order expire at the border?

In fact, I thought I read some news article that a while ago the "travel abroad with intent" for sex tourism had been changed so the feds no longer had to prove intent, just the act.
Right, it wouldn't be a conspiracy to go across the border yourself. But for example, making an appointment to pluck your eyebrows...

And feds have extrajurisdictional authority. With international treaties they can even enforce extrajurisdictional authority. States do not have this authority and attempts to enforce such will be shot down in court.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-09-2019 at 01:34 PM.
  #54  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:36 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 md2000 View Post
IANAL but it's my understanding that a conspiracy requires two people? So unless the pregnant lady (or bushy-eyebrowed lady) tells her chauffeur that she needs his help to get across state lines and why, there's no conspiracy.
I think the conspiracy part is mainly there to stop people in State-A from banding together and hiring a bus to take them to State-B for the purpose of having their eyebrows plucked.

I am interested if people in State-B (say the beauticians in an effort to get more business) arrange for a bus to enter State-A to bring people across the border for some eyebrow plucking are they guilty of conspiracy?
__________________
"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
  #55  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:44 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I think the conspiracy part is mainly there to stop people in State-A from banding together and hiring a bus to take them to State-B for the purpose of having their eyebrows plucked.

I am interested if people in State-B (say the beauticians in an effort to get more business) arrange for a bus to enter State-A to bring people across the border for some eyebrow plucking are they guilty of conspiracy?
If eyebrows are afforded full human rights and eyebrow-plucking is confirmed by the high court to be a deprivation of constitutional rights, the people of State-A and State-B are liable to the federal conspiracy against rights statute 18 U.S.C. 241 with a fine and up to ten years imprisonment.

State-A enters the picture if the agreement is made, in part, within the borders of State-A. For example two people could be standing on both sides of the border and committing a conspiracy according to the laws of State-A. State-A could then bring suit in A-court although jurisdiction will probably go to district court. If the person from State-B does this regularly they will have a hard time proving they don't know or shouldn't know the laws of State-A; on the other hand, the person from State-A has no excuse.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-09-2019 at 01:48 PM.
  #56  
Old 05-09-2019, 01:53 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
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?
Indeed, New York has done that very thing to people whose planes made a unscheduled stop in their city, confiscating the guns, etc. Now, whether or not that arrest and confiscation would hold legal all the way up to SCOTUS, - IANAL.
  #57  
Old 05-09-2019, 02:06 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 Max S. View Post
If eyebrows are afforded full human rights and eyebrow-plucking is confirmed by the high court to be a deprivation of constitutional rights, the people of State-A and State-B are liable to the federal conspiracy against rights statute 18 U.S.C. 241 with a fine and up to ten years imprisonment.

State-A enters the picture if the agreement is made, in part, within the borders of State-A. For example two people could be standing on both sides of the border and committing a conspiracy according to the laws of State-A. State-A could then bring suit in A-court although jurisdiction will probably go to district court. If the person from State-B does this regularly they will have a hard time proving they don't know or shouldn't know the laws of State-A; on the other hand, the person from State-A has no excuse.

~Max
So people offering group trips to Las Vegas to gamble can be considered a conspiracy to break the law in states where gambling is illegal?
__________________
"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
  #58  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:16 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
So people offering group trips to Las Vegas to gamble can be considered a conspiracy to break the law in states where gambling is illegal?
For the federal statute, gambling does not deprive anyone of constitutional rights. So no.

For the hypothetical state statute criminalizing conspiracy to gamble outside of state borders, the state can try and sue. I predict the case will get tossed and that conspiracy to gamble statute overturned. See post #46.

The post you quoted about eyebrows was different, because in that thread of discussion the Supreme Court found eyebrows to be full human beings with constitutional rights and such.

~Max
  #59  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:25 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 Max S. View Post
The post you quoted about eyebrows was different, because in that thread of discussion the Supreme Court found eyebrows to be full human beings with constitutional rights and such.
If that happens then it would seem to me eyebrow plucking would be instantly illegal in the entire United States regardless of state law to the contrary.
__________________
"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
  #60  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:29 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
If that happens then it would seem to me eyebrow plucking would be instantly illegal in the entire United States regardless of state law to the contrary.
Which is exactly why the district court admonishes State B, and why the legislative and executive branches have the respective honors of making it a federal crime or forcing State B to comply.

~Max
  #61  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:31 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 Max S. View Post
Which is exactly why the district court admonishes State B, and why the legislative and executive branches have the respective honors of making it a federal crime or forcing State B to comply.

~Max
As of now the Supreme Court has found eyebrow plucking to be legal. That may change but for now the question is what happens when a state makes it illegal to have your eyebrows plucked in another state where it is legal.
__________________
"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
  #62  
Old 05-09-2019, 03:33 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Indeed, New York has done that very thing to people whose planes made a unscheduled stop in their city, confiscating the guns, etc. Now, whether or not that arrest and confiscation would hold legal all the way up to SCOTUS, - IANAL.

I've had more than one discussion about this very issue- and it's inaccurate to say that NY has done that to people whose planes simply made an unscheduled stop in NYC. They all left the airport with the firearm that they could not legally carry in NY. In every case I've found ( either through news reports or court decisions like the one I linked earlier ) the confiscation/arrest happened when people went to the airport to leave the city. In some cases, they were scheduled to fly in and out of NY while spending multiple days in either NY or New Jersey. In others, their flights were diverted or delayed and they retrieved their luggage and spent a night in a hotel. The problem they had is that while they were in NY/NJ whether at a friend/relatives/their own house or a hotel, they were not protected by FOPA - the firearm is not being transported and both the firearm and ammo were readily accessible.


Two decisions

https://www.leagle.com/decision/2008...supp2d63211105

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092029p.pdf


And the Supreme Court denied cert in Revell

Last edited by doreen; 05-09-2019 at 03:34 PM.
  #63  
Old 05-09-2019, 05:21 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
I've had more than one discussion about this very issue- and it's inaccurate to say that NY has done that to people whose planes simply made an unscheduled stop in NYC. They all left the airport with the firearm that they could not legally carry in NY. In every case I've found ( either through news reports or court decisions like the one I linked earlier ) the confiscation/arrest happened when people went to the airport to leave the city. In some cases, they were scheduled to fly in and out of NY while spending multiple days in either NY or New Jersey. In others, their flights were diverted or delayed and they retrieved their luggage and spent a night in a hotel. The problem they had is that while they were in NY/NJ whether at a friend/relatives/their own house or a hotel, they were not protected by FOPA - the firearm is not being transported and both the firearm and ammo were readily accessible.


Two decisions

https://www.leagle.com/decision/2008...supp2d63211105

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/092029p.pdf


And the Supreme Court denied cert in Revell
I dont see how Revell had any choice in the matter. He was going from one state to another. But he missed his connecting flight thru no fault of his own. What was he supposed to do?
  #64  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:02 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I dont see how Revell had any choice in the matter. He was going from one state to another. But he missed his connecting flight thru no fault of his own. What was he supposed to do?
As the decision said ,
Quote:
Stranded gun owners
like Revell have the option of going to law enforcement
representatives at an airport or to airport personnel before they
retrieve their luggage. The careful owner will do so and explain his situation, requesting that his firearm and ammunition be held
for him overnight. While this no doubt adds to the
inconvenience imposed upon the unfortunate traveler when his
transportation plans go awry, it offers a reasonable means for a
responsible gun owner to maintain the protection of Section 926
and prevent unexpected exposure to state and local gun
regulations
Which is what I would have done if by some chance I decided to bring along my firearm on personal travel and missed a flight/was diverted to a jurisdiction where I wasn't certain I could possess my firearm. I don't think I've ever been to an airport without a police presence. ( and some of them even have holding pens) Revell, on the other hand, didn't even check to see if he could legally possess firearm at his destination in Pennsylvania.



Revell didn't end up being convicted- the charges were dismissed. Torraco's charges were also dismissed. But these cases were about whether the arrests themselves were legal or whether they were unlawful. And the Federal courts decided they were legal.

Last edited by doreen; 05-09-2019 at 06:04 PM.
  #65  
Old 05-09-2019, 06:46 PM
DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 40,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
As the decision said ,
Which is what I would have done if by some chance I decided to bring along my firearm on personal travel and missed a flight/was diverted to a jurisdiction where I wasn't certain I could possess my firearm. I don't think I've ever been to an airport without a police presence. ( and some of them even have holding pens) Revell, on the other hand, didn't even check to see if he could legally possess firearm at his destination in Pennsylvania.



Revell didn't end up being convicted- the charges were dismissed. Torraco's charges were also dismissed. But these cases were about whether the arrests themselves were legal or whether they were unlawful. And the Federal courts decided they were legal.
No, The courts said there was no basis for damages. Which is not the same thing.

And there's no way I would trust my guns to the Port authority police after they have shown their gross ignorance of the law.

Last edited by DrDeth; 05-09-2019 at 06:47 PM.
  #66  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:31 PM
Asuka is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 1,147
Didn't a state recently pass some law making it Illegal to hunt endangered animals outside the state?
  #67  
Old 05-09-2019, 07:37 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
No, The courts said there was no basis for damages. Which is not the same thing.
From Torraco
Quote:
That assumption, in turn, rests on a further one — that a reasonable police officer would take Mr. Torraco at his word `when he explained that his possession was legal under federal law. However, as discussed above, a police officer who finds someone carrying a gun in New York City, with no documentation, is not legally obligated to simply take the suspect's word that his possession is legal when New York law says that it is not. If the suspect can offer nothing to confirm his defense to what appears to be a clear violation of New
York law, the officer is entitled to make the arrest and allow a judge or jury to determine the sufficiency of the suspect's story.
Quote:
Plaintiffs have difficulty accepting this because from their perspective, § 926A covered Mr. Torraco with a bulletproof umbrella the moment he crossed the New York border from New Jersey. But a reasonable officer would not, and did not have to, see it from that perspective. Based on Mr. Torraco's possession of a firearm in a manner that, absent extraneous facts, violated New York law, and Mr. Torraco's inability to corroborate the facts behind his defense, probable cause existed for the arrest.
Quote:
First, since the individual defendants did not violate plaintiffs' rights, there can be no liability against the Port Authority. See Wray v. City of New York, 490, F.3d 189 (2d Cir.2007).




From Revell

Quote:
According to Revell, his
arrest was unlawful because he was in compliance with a
provision of the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (“FOPA”), 18
U.S.C. § 926A, which allows gun owners licensed in one state
to carry firearms through another state under certain
circumstances. Because we conclude that, at the time of his
arrest, Revell's conduct did not bring him within the protection
of that statute, we will affirm both the dismissal of his § 926A based claim and the grant of summary judgment to the Port
Authority and Erickson on Revell’s closely related Fourth
Amendment claim. We will likewise affirm the grant of
summary judgment against Revell on his due process claim
under the Fourteenth Amendment
Quote:
Accordingly, Revell was
subject to arrest for violating New Jersey’s gun laws. We will
therefore affirm the District Court’s grant of summary judgment
on his Fourth Amendment claim.
If "probable cause existed for the arrest" , and "the officer is entitled to make the arrest and allow a judge or jury to determine the sufficiency of the suspect's story" and "since the individual defendants did not violate plaintiffs' rights, there can be no liability against the Port Authority" and "Revell was subject to arrest for violating New Jersey’s gun laws" , that's a lot more than saying there's no basis for damages. If the arrest were unlawful, someone's rights would have been violated.
  #68  
Old 05-09-2019, 09:04 PM
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
If eyebrows are afforded full human rights and eyebrow-plucking is confirmed by the high court to be a deprivation of constitutional rights, the people of State-A and State-B are liable to the federal conspiracy against rights statute 18 U.S.C. 241 with a fine and up to ten years imprisonment.

State-A enters the picture if the agreement is made, in part, within the borders of State-A. For example two people could be standing on both sides of the border and committing a conspiracy according to the laws of State-A. State-A could then bring suit in A-court although jurisdiction will probably go to district court. If the person from State-B does this regularly they will have a hard time proving they don't know or shouldn't know the laws of State-A; on the other hand, the person from State-A has no excuse.

~Max
State criminal laws are not enforced by bringing suit, and federal district courts have no role in it whatsoever.
  #69  
Old 05-10-2019, 01:08 AM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen's cite
Stranded gun owners
like Revell have the option of going to law enforcement
representatives at an airport or to airport personnel before they
retrieve their luggage. The careful owner will do so and explain his situation, requesting that his firearm and ammunition be held
for him overnight. While this no doubt adds to the
inconvenience imposed upon the unfortunate traveler when his
transportation plans go awry, it offers a reasonable means for a
responsible gun owner to maintain the protection of Section 926
and prevent unexpected exposure to state and local gun
regulations
I have a problem with that. That's one possible action he could have taken, but there is nothing in FOPA that requires such an action and as the court holds that the officers are not required to know the law anyways, a person could find themselves arrested for doing just that. It is inconceivable that the traveler should know the policies of the Port Authority that are unwritten yet at the same time the professionals who are tasked with enforcing the law cannot be bothered to learn it.

I think it a basic right that a person should be able to go about their business and conduct themselves in a way that does not subject them to arrest. Planes getting rerouted are a normal part of travel and should not be viewed as some sort of frolic or detour from uninterrupted travel.

I also don't accept this idea that officers cannot be bothered to know gun laws. As the case noted the Port Authority regularly does these types of checks when passengers board with guns. THAT particular officer should familiarize himself with gun laws. If a patrol officer in Buffalo doesn't know gun laws, then maybe I could understand, but not the Port Authority police who will regularly come into contact with people travelling under FOPA.

Further, they don't need to know the gun laws of all 50 states, but the laws of only those very few in the United States that require a permit or some other document to possess a gun.

I agree with the statement that probable cause is all that is needed for an arrest, but I think the sole fact that he has a gun at the airport checking it in should not be enough given the positive right under federal law to possess under these circumstances. Requiring the traveler to show a permit or bill of sale is not required by the law and is an absurd requirement given that nobody carries the bill of sale with their firearm and most states do not issue or require permits to possess. The officer is asking for a unicorn.

Given these days of extensive employer background checks and computer databases, it is little comfort that an arrest resulted in a dismissal. He will have to explain that arrest forever, and many employers will treat him like a gun smuggler. No more innocent until proven guilty in the United States.
  #70  
Old 05-10-2019, 07:03 AM
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 UltraVires View Post
I have a problem with that. That's one possible action he could have taken, but there is nothing in FOPA that requires such an action and as the court holds that the officers are not required to know the law anyways, a person could find themselves arrested for doing just that. It is inconceivable that the traveler should know the policies of the Port Authority that are unwritten yet at the same time the professionals who are tasked with enforcing the law cannot be bothered to learn it.
I would be absolutely floored if a person got arrested for approaching a Port Authority officer and tapped them on the shoulder and explained that they were transporting guns legally but their plane got unexpectedly rerouted, what should they do?

IIRC that gives a person positive legal cover. You can't then be arrested for following the directives law enforcement gave you.
__________________
"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
  #71  
Old 05-10-2019, 09:53 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I would be absolutely floored if a person got arrested for approaching a Port Authority officer and tapped them on the shoulder and explained that they were transporting guns legally but their plane got unexpectedly rerouted, what should they do?

IIRC that gives a person positive legal cover. You can't then be arrested for following the directives law enforcement gave you.
I think the best option is for Congress to amend FOPA to add a section outlining this process for this situation, perhaps with a per-day fee from the aircraft carrier who caused the delay. Alternatively, maybe the FAA, ATF, or TSA could promulgate regulations to that effect - if they can find the authority.

~Max
  #72  
Old 05-10-2019, 10:02 AM
Tired and Cranky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I would be absolutely floored if a person got arrested for approaching a Port Authority officer and tapped them on the shoulder and explained that they were transporting guns legally but their plane got unexpectedly rerouted, what should they do?

IIRC that gives a person positive legal cover. You can't then be arrested for following the directives law enforcement gave you.
I would not be surprised in the least if the Port Authority officer just arrested the person. They have a person with a gun in New Jersey and no license for it. It's not the cop's job to secure travelers' firearms. FOPA is drafted in many ways more narrowly than it was probably intended. Even in there were a FOPA defense, that would be sorted out later.

What would I do in this situation? I would ask the airline to secure the guns and ammo until I completed my journey. I checked the bag through to my final destination and whether they want it to be or not, the bags should be the airline's responsibility until they are delivered where they and I belong.
  #73  
Old 05-10-2019, 12:22 PM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,095
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.
It isn't. It's a matter of comity. A state has the authority to regulate who can drive on its roads. Federal law requires states to recognize each others' commercial drivers' licenses, but a state could permissibly require any noncommercial driver to meet its own licensing requirements. They don't because it would be terrible for business.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #74  
Old 05-10-2019, 02:01 PM
TimfromNapa is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 39
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.
I wonder, then, if any Georgia woman who has a miscarriage after 6 weeks becomes a murder suspect. If a pregnant Georgia woman drinks a glass of wine or, heaven forbid, smokes a cigarette can she be prosecuted for reckless endangerment?
  #75  
Old 05-10-2019, 05:27 PM
rbroome is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 3,360
[QUOTE=DrDeth;21634191<snip>
And there's no way I would trust my guns to the Port authority police after they have shown their gross ignorance of the law.[/QUOTE]

I guess your other option is to sit in the airport terminal all night guarding your luggage. So you do have options. Courts generally don't look at law enforcement as having a gross ignorance of the law and so I don't think that defense would work in court. But you are free to try-in some sense of the word free.
  #76  
Old 05-11-2019, 07:13 AM
md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 14,693
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbroome View Post
I guess your other option is to sit in the airport terminal all night guarding your luggage. So you do have options. Courts generally don't look at law enforcement as having a gross ignorance of the law and so I don't think that defense would work in court. But you are free to try-in some sense of the word free.
Or not claim your luggage. Presumably it was tagged straight through.
  #77  
Old 05-11-2019, 04:03 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
I would be absolutely floored if a person got arrested for approaching a Port Authority officer and tapped them on the shoulder and explained that they were transporting guns legally but their plane got unexpectedly rerouted, what should they do?

IIRC that gives a person positive legal cover. You can't then be arrested for following the directives law enforcement gave you.
Why? The same dance could happen. You now have a gun in New Jersey without a New Jersey permit. Oh, you are traveling under FOPA, you say? Do you have a bill of sale or a permit from Vermont? Vermont doesn't issue or require permits, you say, but I don't know that. I had better arrest you and you can tell it to the judge.

Also, presumably you need your bag with your clothes, toiletries, and medication in it. Pack a carry on with those items? Again, nothing in FOPA requires that. Police in these states keep adding new requirements to FOPA.

The court also mentioned that the one traveler was in violation of FOPA for visiting a relative (a "social visit" they called it), but that seems an absurd exception. If I am driving from Ohio to New Hampshire where I can legally own guns in both places, and drive through New Jersey (didn't read a map so bear with me) I am okay, but if I stop to see my mother for a few hours then that makes my transit so much more dangerous to the good people of New Jersey that I have to leave my gun at home? Makes no sense at all.

What if it was 10pm and I was tired and wanted to stop at a hotel in New Jersey? Violation?
  #78  
Old 05-11-2019, 04:26 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 UltraVires View Post
Why?
It is my understanding that if you follow the directives of law enforcement you cannot be prosecuted for following those directions.

So, unless you think you will be arrested for even asking local law enforcement (which is, frankly, crazy) you should be fine.
__________________
"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
  #79  
Old 05-11-2019, 05:27 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
It is my understanding that if you follow the directives of law enforcement you cannot be prosecuted for following those directions.

So, unless you think you will be arrested for even asking local law enforcement (which is, frankly, crazy) you should be fine.
Passenger: Excuse me, officer. I have a gun in my checked baggage [explain unintentional rerouting of flight]. I would like to be in compliance with the law and I was wondering if you could hold my gun for me overnight until I catch my flight in the morning or otherwise advise me how to proceed.

Officer: I see. So you have a gun in your baggage here in New York. May I see your New York State Pistol Possession License?

Passenger: I don't have one. I am not from New York, see I am travelling under the protection of FOPA. I live in Arizona and was travelling to Florida, places where it is both legal to have a gun without a permit.

Officer: One second, sir. Let me get my supervisor.

Supervisor: Hello, sir. May I see your New York Pistol Possession License?

Passenger: As I was telling this fine officer [repeat story].

Supervisor: Sir, do you have proof that you have never been convicted of a felony in your life?

Passenger: I have never been convicted of a felony.

Supervisor: So I am just supposed to take your word for it? Tell it to the judge. Hands behind your back.

---

Is that "crazy"? Perhaps, but no more crazy that arresting a guy at the airport who is following the procedure for checking a gun and not being bothered enough to know the law.
  #80  
Old 05-11-2019, 05:48 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Why? The same dance could happen. You now have a gun in New Jersey without a New Jersey permit. Oh, you are traveling under FOPA, you say? Do you have a bill of sale or a permit from Vermont? Vermont doesn't issue or require permits, you say, but I don't know that. I had better arrest you and you can tell it to the judge.

Also, presumably you need your bag with your clothes, toiletries, and medication in it. Pack a carry on with those items? Again, nothing in FOPA requires that. Police in these states keep adding new requirements to FOPA.

The court also mentioned that the one traveler was in violation of FOPA for visiting a relative (a "social visit" they called it), but that seems an absurd exception. If I am driving from Ohio to New Hampshire where I can legally own guns in both places, and drive through New Jersey (didn't read a map so bear with me) I am okay, but if I stop to see my mother for a few hours then that makes my transit so much more dangerous to the good people of New Jersey that I have to leave my gun at home? Makes no sense at all.

What if it was 10pm and I was tired and wanted to stop at a hotel in New Jersey? Violation?

I do not disagree at all that the whole thing is absurd- however, that's the fault of the people who wrote FOPA, not the judges and cops. And the problem is not that your stop to see your mother makes your transit "so much more dangerous to the good people of New Jersey that I have to leave my gun at home". The problem is that courts deciding in any way other than the way these ones go means that no state can enforce their gun laws. When I am stopped with a gun that I am not permitted to carry in New York , I can simply claim that I was driving from Ohio to New Hampshire , both places where I can legally possess a firearm even if in fact I live in NY and the firearm has always been with me in NY and the only connection I have to Ohio and New Hampshire is that I could legally possess a firearm in those places. Because, after all, I don't need to show the police any paperwork regarding the legality of my possession in Ohio or New Hampshire. FOPA doesn't say I have to be a resident of either the state of origin or the destination state, so the fact that my ID gives a NY address doesn't matter.

There are really only two ways to interpret the law as it's currently written. Either strictly - which means that once I have retrieved it from the airline and am no longer in the situation where FOPA * applies ,there is probable cause to believe I am in violation of the NY or NJ laws that prohibit me from possessing a firearm. Or alternatively, it can be interpreted to require the cops at the airline counter or on the side of the road to only arrest people if they know for certain that they can't legally possess the firearm in one of those states ( which requires those cops to know the firearms laws of all 50 states plus other US territories and also the laws of individual counties or municipalities which may be more restrictive - for example, a NYS pistol license isn't valid in NYC ). Which essentially means that all state permit laws go out the window.


The "social visit" thing was a little confusing - but it was just an illustration of the problems with the law, not really a basis for the decision. Torraco was in NY as part of his travel from NJ to Florida. He claimed to be legally able to possess his firearm in both NJ and Florida - but according to NJ law , a gun owner may keep a firearm at his business or residence. Torraco neither owned nor resided at his mother's house and the defendants argued that since his possession at his mother's house was in violation of NJ law, he was not entitled to protection under FOPA.






* Even you take the position that an overnight stay doesn't mean you are no longer transporting the firearm , there is still the issue of accessibility. Once you solve that, there is the issue of how long does the stay have to be before the transportation has ended - a few hours, overnight, a week, a month?

Last edited by doreen; 05-11-2019 at 05:52 PM.
  #81  
Old 05-11-2019, 05:51 PM
doreen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Woodhaven,Queens, NY
Posts: 6,207
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Passenger: Excuse me, officer. I have a gun in my checked baggage [explain unintentional rerouting of flight]. I would like to be in compliance with the law and I was wondering if you could hold my gun for me overnight until I catch my flight in the morning or otherwise advise me how to proceed.

Officer: I see. So you have a gun in your baggage here in New York. May I see your New York State Pistol Possession License?

Passenger: I don't have one. I am not from New York, see I am travelling under the protection of FOPA. I live in Arizona and was travelling to Florida, places where it is both legal to have a gun without a permit.

Officer: One second, sir. Let me get my supervisor.

Supervisor: Hello, sir. May I see your New York Pistol Possession License?

Passenger: As I was telling this fine officer [repeat story].

Supervisor: Sir, do you have proof that you have never been convicted of a felony in your life?

Passenger: I have never been convicted of a felony.

Supervisor: So I am just supposed to take your word for it? Tell it to the judge. Hands behind your back.

---

Is that "crazy"? Perhaps, but no more crazy that arresting a guy at the airport who is following the procedure for checking a gun and not being bothered enough to know the law.

Except of course if this conversation happens prior to retrieving the checked baggage ( which I assume is not placed on the carousel), the passenger isn't in possession of the firearm.
  #82  
Old 05-11-2019, 06:22 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
I do not disagree at all that the whole thing is absurd- however, that's the fault of the people who wrote FOPA, not the judges and cops. And the problem is not that your stop to see your mother makes your transit "so much more dangerous to the good people of New Jersey that I have to leave my gun at home". The problem is that courts deciding in any way other than the way these ones go means that no state can enforce their gun laws. When I am stopped with a gun that I am not permitted to carry in New York , I can simply claim that I was driving from Ohio to New Hampshire , both places where I can legally possess a firearm even if in fact I live in NY and the firearm has always been with me in NY and the only connection I have to Ohio and New Hampshire is that I could legally possess a firearm in those places. Because, after all, I don't need to show the police any paperwork regarding the legality of my possession in Ohio or New Hampshire. FOPA doesn't say I have to be a resident of either the state of origin or the destination state, so the fact that my ID gives a NY address doesn't matter.

There are really only two ways to interpret the law as it's currently written. Either strictly - which means that once I have retrieved it from the airline and am no longer in the situation where FOPA * applies ,there is probable cause to believe I am in violation of the NY or NJ laws that prohibit me from possessing a firearm. Or alternatively, it can be interpreted to require the cops at the airline counter or on the side of the road to only arrest people if they know for certain that they can't legally possess the firearm in one of those states ( which requires those cops to know the firearms laws of all 50 states plus other US territories and also the laws of individual counties or municipalities which may be more restrictive - for example, a NYS pistol license isn't valid in NYC ). Which essentially means that all state permit laws go out the window.


The "social visit" thing was a little confusing - but it was just an illustration of the problems with the law, not really a basis for the decision. Torraco was in NY as part of his travel from NJ to Florida. He claimed to be legally able to possess his firearm in both NJ and Florida - but according to NJ law , a gun owner may keep a firearm at his business or residence. Torraco neither owned nor resided at his mother's house and the defendants argued that since his possession at his mother's house was in violation of NJ law, he was not entitled to protection under FOPA.






* Even you take the position that an overnight stay doesn't mean you are no longer transporting the firearm , there is still the issue of accessibility. Once you solve that, there is the issue of how long does the stay have to be before the transportation has ended - a few hours, overnight, a week, a month?
Quote:
Originally Posted by doreen View Post
Except of course if this conversation happens prior to retrieving the checked baggage ( which I assume is not placed on the carousel), the passenger isn't in possession of the firearm.
I disagree. In almost all instances states can enforce their gun laws. I agree that the standard is probable cause and not putting aside every explanation of innocence.

So, in your example, if you are a New York resident and are pulled over and found with a gun without a New York license, maybe you could lie and say that you were on your way to Florida. Where in Florida? How are you getting there? Do you have any luggage with you? How long are you staying in Florida? Why are you on I-43 when you live in Yonkers and about 40 miles outside of the direct way to where you say you are going?

But an airport is a place where people travel to and from and these destinations can be verified by the boarding passes. The fact that the previous plane was re-routed can be easily verified by the airline.

As far as Torraco, he could legally possess his firearm in NJ. If he was not on an trip out of state, he could not have taken the gun to his mother's house. We agree with that. But the stop at his mother's house was one on the way to the airport and part of his journey outside of New Jersey. It makes no sense to say that he has to either leave his gun at home for his travel, or refuse to visit his mother. Is it not part of a normal and customary trip to stop by and see relatives for a few hours? I agree that if he stayed for a week, then we can argue that it wasn't really a trip out of state.

I further disagree with this idea that these poor officers cannot be tasked to know the law. If they don't know the law, then why do they have arrest powers or are arresting me? They should admit that they do not know the law and not be arresting anyone for that particular topic of which they are ignorant.

As far as not having possession of the gun because it is in your checked bag, I disagree. Imagine if a pound of black tar heroin was in your bag. You think you could get out of the possession charge in New York because the airport had it?

Last edited by UltraVires; 05-11-2019 at 06:22 PM.
  #83  
Old 05-11-2019, 08:10 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Passenger: Excuse me, officer. I have a gun in my checked baggage [explain unintentional rerouting of flight]. I would like to be in compliance with the law and I was wondering if you could hold my gun for me overnight until I catch my flight in the morning or otherwise advise me how to proceed.

Officer: I see. So you have a gun in your baggage here in New York. May I see your New York State Pistol Possession License?

Passenger: I don't have one. I am not from New York, see I am travelling under the protection of FOPA. I live in Arizona and was travelling to Florida, places where it is both legal to have a gun without a permit.

Officer: One second, sir. Let me get my supervisor.

Supervisor: Hello, sir. May I see your New York Pistol Possession License?

Passenger: As I was telling this fine officer [repeat story].

Supervisor: Sir, do you have proof that you have never been convicted of a felony in your life?

Passenger: I have never been convicted of a felony.

Supervisor: So I am just supposed to take your word for it? Tell it to the judge. Hands behind your back.

---

Is that "crazy"? Perhaps, but no more crazy that arresting a guy at the airport who is following the procedure for checking a gun and not being bothered enough to know the law.
He could be arrested and would probably released as soon as someone looked at his case. If the passenger then sued he would probably win on appeal, and depending on how much the penalty is you can bet airport security won't let that happen again.

~Max
  #84  
Old 05-11-2019, 09:58 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
If I may ask a tangential question, does there need to be a separate trial in one state/nation for something that was convicted in another state/nation?

Say, America has a law that bans Americans from using LSD anywhere on the planet, and an American tourist gets convicted in Egypt, under Egyptian law, of using LSD - would that be enough to get the American automatically convicted of breaking American law as well, due to having broken American law?

(and since the OP is about states, suppose the eyebrow-plucking is illegal for Oklahomans no matter where, then if someone is convicted of breaking California law by plucking eyebrows in California, does Oklahoma get to automatically slap on a charge for violation of Oklahoman law?)
  #85  
Old 05-11-2019, 10:29 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If I may ask a tangential question, does there need to be a separate trial in one state/nation for something that was convicted in another state/nation?

Say, America has a law that bans Americans from using LSD anywhere on the planet, and an American tourist gets convicted in Egypt, under Egyptian law, of using LSD - would that be enough to get the American automatically convicted of breaking American law as well, due to having broken American law?

(and since the OP is about states, suppose the eyebrow-plucking is illegal for Oklahomans no matter where, then if someone is convicted of breaking California law by plucking eyebrows in California, does Oklahoma get to automatically slap on a charge for violation of Oklahoman law?)
I don't think we assert extrajurisdictional authority for drug use in Egypt, unlike say taxes. But if it was determined that the American brought LSD from America, thereby breaking an American law by exporting controlled substances, we might resort to extradition for breaking the American law. Especially if Egypt has a penchant for letting LSD users off the hook.

ETA: He would not be automatically convicted. It is extremely unusual for an American court to convict in absentia. This is because a trial in absentia directly contradicts the accused's rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth amendments.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-11-2019 at 10:32 PM.
  #86  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:10 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
I don't think we assert extrajurisdictional authority for drug use in Egypt, unlike say taxes. But if it was determined that the American brought LSD from America, thereby breaking an American law by exporting controlled substances, we might resort to extradition for breaking the American law. Especially if Egypt has a penchant for letting LSD users off the hook.

ETA: He would not be automatically convicted. It is extremely unusual for an American court to convict in absentia. This is because a trial in absentia directly contradicts the accused's rights under the Fourth, Sixth, and Fourteenth amendments.

~Max
I see. Does the Constitution require that all evidence be produced or discovered independently, anew, for a U.S. trial of the matter, or could it use foreign-derived evidence? Say, for instance, that John Doe was convicted of using LSD in Egypt because an Egyptian testified in Egyptian court against him. If a U.S. court were to try Doe for the use of LSD, would that Egyptian's testimony be inadmissible since it wasn't testimony given in a U.S. court?
  #87  
Old 05-11-2019, 11:32 PM
UltraVires is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 15,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
If I may ask a tangential question, does there need to be a separate trial in one state/nation for something that was convicted in another state/nation?

Say, America has a law that bans Americans from using LSD anywhere on the planet, and an American tourist gets convicted in Egypt, under Egyptian law, of using LSD - would that be enough to get the American automatically convicted of breaking American law as well, due to having broken American law?

(and since the OP is about states, suppose the eyebrow-plucking is illegal for Oklahomans no matter where, then if someone is convicted of breaking California law by plucking eyebrows in California, does Oklahoma get to automatically slap on a charge for violation of Oklahoman law?)
Laws that are extraterritorial to the United States are above my pay grade. However, as the United States is a sovereign country with no earthly higher power that could stop it from doing what it wanted, if it wanted to punish you for spitting on the sidewalk in Tunisia, it could do so, only subject to its own power.

States, as I'm sure you know, are cabined by the authority of the federal government, not only with the federal power in its own right, but its willingness to enforce the powers of the other states. So if New York wants to have legal abortion up to whatever number of weeks, the federal government would be very reluctant to allow Georgia to enforce a law that prohibits its citizens from going to New York and enjoying the privileges and immunities of New York while present in that state.

And vice versa. If citizens from New York want to carry handguns legally in other states that permit it, and New York tries to stop it, that would be very much frowned upon by the feds.
  #88  
Old 05-13-2019, 10:38 AM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I see. Does the Constitution require that all evidence be produced or discovered independently, anew, for a U.S. trial of the matter, or could it use foreign-derived evidence? Say, for instance, that John Doe was convicted of using LSD in Egypt because an Egyptian testified in Egyptian court against him. If a U.S. court were to try Doe for the use of LSD, would that Egyptian's testimony be inadmissible since it wasn't testimony given in a U.S. court?
According to Rule 28(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, foreign depositions may taken under an applicable treaty or convention, under a letter of request, on notice in eg: the US consulate under oath in the foreign country, or by a foreign minister presenting the evidence in person.

SPOILER:
Rule 28. Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken
  1. WITHIN THE UNITED STATES...
  2. IN A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
    1. In General. A deposition may be taken in a foreign country:
      1. under an applicable treaty or convention;
      2. under a letter of request, whether or not captioned a "letter rogatory";
      3. on notice, before a person authorized to administer oaths either by federal law or by the law in the place of examination; or
      4. before a person commissioned by the court to administer any necessary oath and take testimony.
    2. Issuing a Letter of Request or a Commission. A letter of request, a commission, or both may be issued:
      1. on appropriate terms after an application and notice of it; and
      2. without a showing that taking the deposition in another manner is impracticable or inconvenient.
    3. Form of a Request, Notice, or Commission. When a letter of request or any other device is used according to a treaty or convention, it must be captioned in the form prescribed by that treaty or convention. A letter of request may be addressed "To the Appropriate Authority in [name of country]." A deposition notice or a commission must designate by name or descriptive title the person before whom the deposition is to be taken.
    4. [I]Letter of Request - Admitting Evidence[I]. Evidence obtained in response to a letter of request need not be excluded merely because it is not a verbatim transcript, because the testimony was not taken under oath, or because of any similar departure from the requirements for depositions taken within the United States.
  3. DISQUALIFICATION. A deposition must not be taken before a person who is any party's relative, employee, or attorney; who is related to or employed by any party's attorney; or who is financially interested in the action.

(As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. Mar. 19, 1948; Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963; Apr. 29, 1980, eff. Aug. 1, 1980; Mar. 2, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993; Apr. 1, 2007, eff. Dec. 1, 2007.)


Egypt and the United States are signatories to the 1965 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, also known as the Hague Service Convention. This convention provides a procedure for servicing legal documents via letters rogatory.

That is not to say foreign evidence cannot be thrown out on other grounds. But foreign evidence will not be thrown out on the basis of a foreign deposition, provided the correct procedure is followed.

~Max
  #89  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:30 AM
Alley Dweller's Avatar
Alley Dweller is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
(and since the OP is about states, suppose the eyebrow-plucking is illegal for Oklahomans no matter where, then if someone is convicted of breaking California law by plucking eyebrows in California, does Oklahoma get to automatically slap on a charge for violation of Oklahoman law?)
I don't think the responses to this question so far have actually addressed your point, so let me rephrase the question slightly to (possibly) make it clearer:

Suppose Oklahoma has a law making it illegal for a citizen (or resident) of Oklahoma to get their eyebrows plucked anywhere in the world. The elements of the crime are (1) the pluckee is a citizen or resident of Oklahoma and (2) the pluckee had their eyebrows plucked.

John Smith is convicted of getting his eyebrows plucked in a California court, in violation of a California law. When John Smith returns home to Oklahoma and is charged with violation of the Oklahoma law, does the prosecution have to prove de novo that John Smith had his eyebrows plucked in California? Or can the Oklahoma prosecutor simply present the California guilty verdict to the Oklahoma court and claim res judicata?
  #90  
Old 05-13-2019, 11:48 AM
ftg's Avatar
ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 18,990
Bonus twist: Lawyer for the eye-brow pluckee argues that the defendant left the state, was a resident of the other state, got plucked, decided to return to the first state and became a resident there again.

Maybe that's a lost cause, but then you get into situations were the defendant had only been in the anti-plucking state a few weeks before traveling for the pluck of it and then coming back.

How far can a state go in trying to restrict "residents" when, legally, it's always been something of a mash up? (Different rules regarding voting eligibility, driver's licenses, in-state tuition, etc.)
  #91  
Old 05-13-2019, 12:13 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alley Dweller View Post
I don't think the responses to this question so far have actually addressed your point, so let me rephrase the question slightly to (possibly) make it clearer:

Suppose Oklahoma has a law making it illegal for a citizen (or resident) of Oklahoma to get their eyebrows plucked anywhere in the world. The elements of the crime are (1) the pluckee is a citizen or resident of Oklahoma and (2) the pluckee had their eyebrows plucked.

John Smith is convicted of getting his eyebrows plucked in a California court, in violation of a California law. When John Smith returns home to Oklahoma and is charged with violation of the Oklahoma law, does the prosecution have to prove de novo that John Smith had his eyebrows plucked in California? Or can the Oklahoma prosecutor simply present the California guilty verdict to the Oklahoma court and claim res judicata?

Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. If an American uses LSD in Egypt and is convicted under Egypt law, would the Constitution ban U.S. courts from simply "regurgitating" the evidence, data etc. from that Egyptian court hearing and using it to slap on an additional punishment on the U.S. citizen?

Does U.S. law require evidence to always be freshly and newly derived on its own? i.e,. witnesses, forensic evidence, all would have to be sought out and discovered anew.
  #92  
Old 05-13-2019, 02:57 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alley Dweller View Post
I don't think the responses to this question so far have actually addressed your point, so let me rephrase the question slightly to (possibly) make it clearer:

Suppose Oklahoma has a law making it illegal for a citizen (or resident) of Oklahoma to get their eyebrows plucked anywhere in the world. The elements of the crime are (1) the pluckee is a citizen or resident of Oklahoma and (2) the pluckee had their eyebrows plucked.

John Smith is convicted of getting his eyebrows plucked in a California court, in violation of a California law. When John Smith returns home to Oklahoma and is charged with violation of the Oklahoma law, does the prosecution have to prove de novo that John Smith had his eyebrows plucked in California? Or can the Oklahoma prosecutor simply present the California guilty verdict to the Oklahoma court and claim res judicata?
State sovereignty ends at the state border. The state of Oklahoma has no inherent jurisdiction over acts performed in California and therefore has no inherent right to criminalize such extra-jurisdictional acts. The defendant, Mr. Smith, need only point out that Oklahoma has no jurisdiction and move to dismiss. There is no issue with the evidence as a federal court would have jurisdiction on appeal and the federal rules for depositions do not distinguish between one state court and another, so long as the oath is taken. They shouldn't even reach the point of admitting evidence.

It makes no difference if the perpetrator of such acts is a resident of California or a resident of Oklahoma. Consider if California passed a law requiring all people in the state to pluck their eyebrows. According to Article IV Section 2, Amendment V, and Amendment XIV (plain reading, without incorporation), California is not allowed to make or enforce a law that selectively excludes residents of Oklahoma. A resident of Oklahoma is a citizen of the United States, and by virtue of Article IV section 2 and Amendment XIV is subject to the laws of California while in that territory. Therefore, if Oklahoma also has jurisdiction in California, Mr. Smith is unable to legally travel to California, effectively contradicting the fundamental right to freedom of movement. The right to freedom of movement is not explicitly listed in the United States Constitution, but it is incorporated through Amendment XIV and has a clear legal history including enumeration in Article IV of the Articles of Confederation.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-13-2019 at 02:59 PM.
  #93  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:29 AM
Really Not All That Bright is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Florida
Posts: 68,095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
That is not to say foreign evidence cannot be thrown out on other grounds. But foreign evidence will not be thrown out on the basis of a foreign deposition, provided the correct procedure is followed.
That has almost nothing to do with the question asked. The deposition itself is hearsay and it generally would not be admitted at a US trial due to to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
I see. Does the Constitution require that all evidence be produced or discovered independently, anew, for a U.S. trial of the matter, or could it use foreign-derived evidence? Say, for instance, that John Doe was convicted of using LSD in Egypt because an Egyptian testified in Egyptian court against him. If a U.S. court were to try Doe for the use of LSD, would that Egyptian's testimony be inadmissible since it wasn't testimony given in a U.S. court?
Yes, a separate trial would be required. The evidence would not all need to be "discovered" independently, but it would all need to be admitted into the U.S. trial. In the criminal context, witnesses' testimony from the previous trial (e.g., video footage or a transcript) would not be admissible because of the Confrontation Clause. The prosecution could not, for example, say, "Steve Egyptianguy testified at a trial in Cairo that the defendant was arrested with six ounces of LSD in his pocket," but it could have Steve come and testify in the US.
__________________
This can only end in tears.
  #94  
Old 05-14-2019, 01:39 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by Really Not All That Bright View Post
That has almost nothing to do with the question asked. The deposition itself is hearsay and it generally would not be admitted at a US trial due to to the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause.
If the Egyptian's testimony was the smoking gun, and the Egyptian cannot come to the US for whatever reason (eg: is dead), prosecution can (will) still try for a hearsay exception under Rule 804 or 807. Defense might raise a constitutional objection over the confrontation clause, resting on Crawford v. Washington 541 U.S. 36 (2004). Prosecution would then have to argue that defense did have an opportunity to cross-examine the Egyptian witness, during the Egyptian trial, and that this satisfies Crawford v. Washington's requirement for previous cross-examination. In order to back that up the prosecution would move to admit records of the Egyptian trial under Rule 803(8), not for jury review but for the judges on appeal to determine whether Mr. Smith had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in Egypt.

I can't say that I am aware of any case law for such an unusual situation, the closest I can find is U.S. v. Garland, 991 F.2d 328 (6th Cir. 1993) where the defense won a new trial after a foreign witness who testified in a foreign trial became available; or Mike's Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, LLC, 472 F.3d 398, 412 (6th Cir. 2007) where Korean witness statements and interrogation transcripts were admitted under rule FRE 804 and Korean indictments admitted under FRE 803. The Sixth Amendment didn't apply in Garland where the defense moved to admit the evidence, and I did not see a Sixth Amendment objection in Mike's Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, LLC.

~Max

Last edited by Max S.; 05-14-2019 at 01:40 PM. Reason: Italicized case names
  #95  
Old 05-14-2019, 04:35 PM
eschrodinger is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Posts: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max S. View Post
The Sixth Amendment didn't apply in Garland where the defense moved to admit the evidence, and I did not see a Sixth Amendment objection in Mike's Train House, Inc. v. Lionel, LLC.

~Max
Why would there be an objection based on the Sixth Amendment, which applies "In all criminal prosecutions . . . " in a civil case like Mike's Train House?
  #96  
Old 05-14-2019, 05:12 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschrodinger View Post
Why would there be an objection based on the Sixth Amendment, which applies "In all criminal prosecutions . . . " in a civil case like Mike's Train House?
Doh. That would explain it. But the FRE is common so in theory the same exception could be used in a criminal case.

~Max
  #97  
Old 05-14-2019, 08:38 PM
clairobscur is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Paris
Posts: 17,843
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velocity View Post
Thanks, that's exactly what I meant. If an American uses LSD in Egypt and is convicted under Egypt law, would the Constitution ban U.S. courts from simply "regurgitating" the evidence, data etc. from that Egyptian court hearing and using it to slap on an additional punishment on the U.S. citizen?

Does U.S. law require evidence to always be freshly and newly derived on its own? i.e,. witnesses, forensic evidence, all would have to be sought out and discovered anew.
Could the US court sentence him again if he has already been sentenced in Egypt for this crime? I know that under French law, this wouldn't be possible. And since American law is much stricter than French law wrt double jeopardy, I would expect a prosecution to be impossible there too in this case.
__________________
S'en vai la memoria, e tornara pu.
  #98  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:06 PM
Max S. is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Florida, USA
Posts: 528
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Could the US court sentence him again if he has already been sentenced in Egypt for this crime? I know that under French law, this wouldn't be possible. And since American law is much stricter than French law wrt double jeopardy, I would expect a prosecution to be impossible there too in this case.
Egypt and the United States constitute two separate sovereigns. Thus one act would cause two distinct crimes, a crime against Egypt and a crime against the United States.

~Max
  #99  
Old 05-14-2019, 09:57 PM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 14,033
Quote:
Originally Posted by clairobscur View Post
Could the US court sentence him again if he has already been sentenced in Egypt for this crime? I know that under French law, this wouldn't be possible. And since American law is much stricter than French law wrt double jeopardy, I would expect a prosecution to be impossible there too in this case.
I think double jeopardy only applies for the same charge in the same nation.
  #100  
Old 05-14-2019, 10:25 PM
Nars Glinley is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by manson1972 View Post
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?
I don’t see why not. Until recently, it was illegal for American citizens to smoke Cuban cigars anywhere in the world.
__________________
I've decided to spend more time criticizing things I don't understand. - Dogbert
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 04:06 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