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.
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?
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.
Or abortion?
This is the rule:
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.
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.
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.
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
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’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
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.
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
[LIST=a][li]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.[/li]
[li]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.[/li]
[li]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.[/LIST][/li]
Which sections should be struck down, if any?
~Max
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?
Pretty sure that it’s about eyebrow plucking.
The moderator said so.
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.
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.
Seems I am wrong about my gun post after reading Buckner’s link.
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.
Caution though:
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.