Posted on 03/25/2008 12:45:59 PM PDT by neverdem
Associated Press
A domestic-violence convict's rifle and police lacking a warrant are at issue.
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court stepped yesterday into two criminal cases, one that will help define the limits of police searches without warrants and the other interpreting a law on guns and domestic violence. Five police officers from Utah asked the court to consider whether officers may enter a home without a search warrant when an informant is already inside and sees evidence of a crime.
The case against Afton Callahan of Millard County, Utah, will test whether the officers who conducted the search may be sued by the person they arrested.
Six years ago, an informant contacted police to tell them he had arranged to buy drugs from Callahan at Callahan's trailer home.
Wearing a microphone provided by police, the informant entered the trailer, made the deal, and signaled police. They entered without a warrant and arrested Callahan for possession of methamphetamines.
Utah courts ruled the evidence seized from Callahan's home could not be used against him. Other courts have allowed prosecutions to go forward under similar circumstances.
Callahan sued the officers for violating his constitutional rights. A federal judge ruled the officers could not be sued because courts disagree over whether such a search is illegal.
The Denver-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit said the lawsuit could proceed because the officers should have known people have a right in their home to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
Under a 2001 ruling by the Supreme Court, courts must first determine whether an action violates a constitutional right and then decide whether the public official, often a police officer, should be immune from the lawsuit.
Justice Stephen G. Breyer has been trying to get his colleagues to abandon the rigid two-step test. He has said judges should sometimes go right to the immunity question. The case is Pearson v. Callahan.
In the second case, the court will consider Randy Edward Hayes' argument that the government was wrong to charge him with violating a federal law barring people convicted in domestic-violence cases from possessing firearms.
In 1994, he pleaded guilty in Marion County, W.Va., to the minor crime of battery after an incident in which his wife was the victim. In 2004, police responded to a domestic-violence call from Hayes' home and found a Winchester rifle. They later found he had possessed at least four other rifles following his 1994 guilty plea.
Hayes was indicted on federal charges of possessing firearms following conviction of misdemeanor domestic violence, a reference to the 1994 case.
Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., agreed with Hayes' argument that the language of the West Virginia law on battery in the 1994 case needed to contain specific wording about a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim.
In the Justice Department brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, U.S. v. Hayes, the solicitor general said nine other appeals courts had rejected the interpretation adopted by the appeals court in Richmond.
With reference to the domestic abuse case, it would seem to me that some time limit should be required for such a law to be valid. The same should hold true for persons convicted of a felony. A person can commit a crime in their early years and still be a fine upstanding citizen some ten to twenty years later. Any laws that deny second ammendment rights should be struck down at this point for being overly broad.
If a guy is convicted of domestic abuse, shoule he lose his second ammendment rights for life? How about another conviction for a non-firearms violation?
It would depend on the infraction, but most lifetime bans are unconstitutional IMO.
I agree. Folks have gone plain nuts haven’t they.
Possibly, if, before the crime was committed, the legislature of the accusing state defined the sentence for the crime to include such loss of liberty.
Since the Lautenberg Abomination forbids mere possession of a firearm by select individuals (rather than any particular means of acquisition), the focus is clearly on the individuals rather than on "interstate commerce". Where, then, would be Congress' authority to pass such a thing even absent the Bill of Rights?
Related to that is the refusal of many states to allow jurors to know the penalty for the crime they're evaluating. States claim that knowledge of the penalty shouldn't affect whether someone is innocent or guilty, but there are times when even an impartial fact finder should consider the penalty in assessing guilt.
For example, suppose someone is accused of performing some task without a license; the person had filled out the licensing paperwork, but had failed to update the address at the licensing bureau when he moved. The person's license was revoked when, unbeknownst to the person, mail to the old address was returned undeliverable.
If the sole penalty in such a case was a $25 fine, a juror might reasonably find the person guilty. The person did, after all, fail a reasonable and legally-required duty. If, however, the penalty was 20 years in prison, then absent evidence of deliberate malfeasance any sane juror should acquit.
Unfortunately, many states like to keep jurors in the dark about the penalties for crimes--most likely to get convictions in cases where there isn't adequate criminal intent to justify a felony conviction.
I’m not convinced that constitutional rights should be denied to a person who has been sentenced, fulfilled their sentence and resumed a reasoned productive life.
Stipulate a period of time and I believe some reason can be applied to the infringement.
Let’s remember that the left believes that everyone can be rehabilitated. Why don’t they agree here?
Look, if a guy is still considered an iminent threat, I don’t believe he should be armed, but I would want a review to make that determination rather than see folks thirty and forty years past any wrong-doing still denied second amendment rights.
I did not address the Lautenberg issue because I am not familiar enough with it to discuss it. Thanks for the mention. I’ll try to get up to speed on it.
Do you know anything about this Hayes case?
Whether or not it would be prudent for the legislature to decide that somebody who committed a particular crime should be allowed to ever resume a reasoned productive live, legislative authority in such matters is, and should remain, quite broad. On the other hand, it should be bound by ex-post-facto constraints.
Currently any citizen that commits a felony is forbidden to own firearms for life.
I may be completely off base, but that law would seem to be inherently unconstitutional. I don't necessarily have a problem with a law preventing gun ownership for a reasoned period of time, but to rule him never again eligible to own a weapons seems overly broad and unconstitutional.
States can't simply nullify a persons constitutional rights arbitrarily.
That happens in NH, get a Misdameanor domestic violence charge (which they stack four or five on you) you settle for one charge of pushing the wife back after she cold cocks you and then you can’t own a gun until your record is expunged, about a four year process. Oh yeah, don’t live here if you have an abusive wife and kids. The Libs have set up permanent posts of women marital masters without a complete law education to act as judges on such cases. You will be forced to pay child support based on how your female spouse feels about the issue and the it’s about how the marital master feels about the issue. To them, we are all fascist Republican *ssholes who don’t want to share and that is just not right! I now live in Maine but grieve I will never move back to NH, my home State. Live Free or Die! Yeah right, just like Taxachussets and ‘taxation without representation.
Law and justice have nothing to do with one another these days. Wonder why anarchy is forming? Might have something to do with our justice system, just maybe.
Nope, heard the first hints of it yesterday.
That SCOTUS is taking the case is very interesting in light of them currently contemplating _Heller_. The connection is not immediately apparent, but surely there is a connection in their minds.
"Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Richmond, Va., agreed with Hayes' argument that the language of the West Virginia law on battery in the 1994 case needed to contain specific wording about a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim.
"In the Justice Department brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the case, U.S. v. Hayes, the solicitor general said nine other appeals courts had rejected the interpretation adopted by the appeals court in Richmond."
It appears that the solicitor general wants to defend an ex post facto statute.
Domestic Violence Offender Gun Ban
Correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Good. That's the primary problem with the Lautenburg law: it references an emotionally-charged term, but sets no standards for differentiating actual harm from mere label-tossing.
The the case will probably be about clarity of definitions, not RKBA.
Couldn't it develop into an argument about its ex post facto provision? The S.G. is defending it for the 1994 domestic violence misdemeanor for a statute that took effect in 1997.
Too many potential paths, not enough information. Will have to dig out the prior rulings.
07-608 UNITED STATES V. HAYESNot an RKBA issue.
DECISION BELOW:482 F3d 749
CERT. GRANTED 3/24/2008
QUESTIONS PRESENTED:Section 922(g)(9) of Title 18, United States Code, makes it a crime for any person convicted of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" to possess a firearm.
The question presented is whether, to qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(33)(A), an offense must have as an element a domestic relationship between the offender and the victim. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-4087
Thank you. Where did you find it? I looked around scotusblog twice to no avail yesterday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.