In a recent case in Surrey, England, a man found a black bag in his garden one evening. He looked into the bag, and found that it contained a shotgun. He took the shotgun into his home, and the next day he called the police, and brought the shotgun to the police station. He was arrested for unlicensed possession of a firearm, convicted after a jury trial, and now faces a mandatory sentence of at least five years in prison.
I am asking for commenters who can point to similar cases in the U.K., United States, or elsewhere. For example, a student finds a knife on a playground at school; she picks it up and takes it directly to a teacher. She is expelled for possession of a weapon on school property. I’m not looking only for cases involving weapons.
Also fair game for inclusion are other cases in which the person’s possession of the weapon or other item was patently innocent and transitory. For example, a victim is attacked by someone with a gun. The victim snatches the gun away from the attacker. The victim is criminally prosecuted because he has a previous felony conviction, and therefore is not allowed to possess a gun.
For the cases you describe, please supply a cite, a link, or similar information. Thank you!
neurodoc says:
Isn’t there a mens rea problem here, since the intention wasn’t to possess the illegal object, but rather to dispose or “dispossess” said object?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:28 amRicardo says:
According to the judge and prosecutor in this case, possession of an illegal firearm in the UK is a strict liability crime, so no mens rea required. Like statutory rape in many places.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:35 amvepxistqaosani says:
I’m afraid all I have to offer is an anecdote, but one that might point to the policeman’s mindset.
In the early 80’s, my wife and I lived in a tenement on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, along with sundry prostitutes, drug dealers, layabouts, and voodoo priests. It was an interesting time....
One day, my wife found a piece of folded aluminum foil, about the size and shape of a stick of gum, on the staircase. She picked it up; it felt powdery. In our kitchen, she opened it up and found, well, powder. Having seen one or two police procedurals, and ignoring her husband’s advice (some things haven’t changed), she licked her finger, picked up a few grains of powder, and put them on her tongue.
It took several hours for the numbness to dissipate.
So she called the cops and asked what she should do. She was told — in, she said, a charming, old-fashioned Irish accent — that she should not even think of taking the stuff to the cops, but rather (and immediately) flush it down the toilet. (Wonder what that does to the alligator population?)
My guess would be that the police in NYC, as in the UK, do not have access to the category of ‘innocent purveyor of contraband’. If it’s in your possession, you’re guilty.
This doesn’t seem sensible — but we are talking law here, not philosophy (IANAL).
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:39 amOrin Kerr says:
ND, Ricardo,
Possession is a knowing offense, but the knowledge is only to the fact of the item and control over it. The reason for having possession is different from the mens rea; it’s more of a claim of a defense.
As to David’s question, statutes prohibiting possession sometimes have statutory exceptions for this sort of thing. For example, the federal crime of possession of child porn has an exception for this sort of thing.
As for how I would have litigated this if it came up in the U.S., I would try to argue that there is an implied exception to the possession laws for promptly bringing contraband to the police just as there is a recognized implied exception for law enforcement possession in the course of their official duties. But as for cases on this, I’m not aware off the top of my head: Any reasonable prosecutor wouldn’t bring such a case in the first place, so it doesn’t come up.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:41 amSoronel Haetir says:
On the topic of a reasonable prosecutor, could they simply have disbelieved the guy?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:47 amRicardo says:
It appears the State of Texas considers consumption or possession of alcohol by a minor to be a strict liability offense. This blog post suggests that a minor could even be convicted of unknowing possession of alcohol without any showing of negligence (e.g. sitting in a friend’s car with a case of beer in the back even if the minor never sees it or it is hidden somehow).
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:56 amSammy Finkelman says:
So, you’re relying on prosecutorial discretion (or as in the case of the powder) police discretion, rather than trying to find or to get something in thelaw that would prevent this?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:17 amPatHMV says:
Sammy... he didn’t say he was relying on that; he said simply that the matter rarely if ever comes up in the case law, because there aren’t many prosecutors in this country stupid enough to pursue a case like this. He’s not obligated to do exhaustive legal research before responding to blog comments, and he made it clear he was answering without having done such.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:30 amD.R.M. says:
Soronel Haetir: Okay, they don’t believe he just found it. Still, he’s handing the weapon over to the police. What reasonable prosecutor is going to go after the guy for getting an illegal weapon off the streets?
Well, maybe a prosecutor’s office looking for revenge. Checking the history of Mr. Clarke and the authorities, it sure looks like this was a deliberate setup involving a planted weapon. Even if it wasn’t a deliberate setup, it’s clear why the police and prosecutor were so eager to jump on Mr. Clarke with both feet; he dared get acquitted on a charge of attacking a cop.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:45 amOrin Kerr says:
Orin Kerr:
Sammy FInkelman responds, after quoting only the last phrase in the paragraph above:
Orin Kerr responds: If you read the entire paragraph, rather than just the last phrase of the last sentence, you’ll see that the point of the paragraph is to try to find something in the law that would prevent this. Given that, I believe the answer to your question is “no.”
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:57 amOrder of the Coif says:
It’s stupid. It’s terrible public policy. It is bound to backfire.
But it happens occasionally, usually perpetrated by an experienced prosecutor who never had any sense of proportion and now has lost his ability to recognize innocence. His experience lets him get away with it. His DOJ superiors find disciplining him more distasteful that a miscarrage of justice (after all the defendant isn’t someone they know).
The US Attorney’s Office here used to have such a guy on its staff. I suspect that he believed everyone outside of the police/prosecution industrial complex was a criminal. It just saddened him that so many of us went undiscovered, untried, and free of our deserved punishment. He was a very sad man. If he had a dog, I’m sure it didn’t love him.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:58 amOrin Kerr says:
I don’t see it quite so clearly. The blogger assumes that the absence of mens rea makes the offense strict liability. I don’t know Texas law on this issue, but normally the absence of mens rea is filled in by a statutory default or judicial construction: It isn’t necessarily the case that the absence of mens rea means the offense is strict liability. So for example, in Staples v. United States, the Supreme Court interpreted a federal ban on possessing an unregistered automatic weapon. No mens rea was mentioned on whether the gun was an automatic weapon, and Staples argued that he thought the gun (a modified AR-15) was not an automatic weapon. The Supreme Court held that in context, the Court would read in a Congressional intent to make the mens rea “knowing” as to whether the gun was an automatic weapon, even though Congress didn’t say so.
More broadly, possession is often defined as knowing control, so the mens rea as to whether the item is there at all (as opposed to whether it is the item that the law prohibits) may be implicit in the ban on possession.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:05 amBill Poser says:
In those cases in which the prosecutor doesn’t have the sense to decline to prosecute, how does he get it past the jury? I would think that these are exactly the sort of cases in which jurors would refuse to convict an obviously “guilty” defendant.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:22 amPablo says:
For what it’s worth, I went camping with some friends some years ago in a state park in Pennsylvania. One friend lived in an apartment in Queens, NY and stored his charcoal in a common stairwell. We got a campfire going, and when he began dumping some coal into the fire, a shiny, loaded .380 Sig Sauer tumbled out. We successfully fished the gun out of the fire and, my friend having vehemently denied ownership, turned it in to a state cop the next morning. We clearly ruined his day, but weren’t questioned or otherwise troubled beyond a few obvious questions, like “where did you find the gun?”
So I’m happy to report that there is no State of Pennsylvania v. Me to cite, and hope and trust that the outcome of my little adventure was the same as that of others who have had similar experiences, at least here in the US.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:57 amvinnie says:
Through voir dire. Please tell me of ANY sitting judge who favors or even allows jury nullification.( but IMNAL)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:58 amNathanM says:
There is a line of authority in Canada that “innocent possession” does not give rise to criminal liability.
R. v. Chalk, 2007 ONCA 815, 88 O.R. (3d) 448
I did not come across a recent case in Canada where an accused was convicted based on innocent possession.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 3:49 amjccamp says:
I would only add to the thread that, in my experience, the “I was on the way to bring this to the police station” defense is not uncommon. Over the years, I may have heard this explanation hundreds of times, regarding someone’s untoward possession of another’s car, firearm, money, credit card, wallet, chicken, etc.
Having said that, experiencing someone actually bringing the specified object to a police station, as in the cite, is pretty unusual.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:24 amFantasiaWHT says:
DK — There is a documentary about a trial in Wisconsin that videotaped jury deliberations and resulted in jury nullification. The guy was mentally retarded, and had a felony conviction. I forgot where he found the gun or where it came from, but he brought it back to the police station because he knew he wasn’t supposed to have it. I really wish I could remember the name of it. I’ll try to contact my Trial Ad 1 professor, who showed it to us.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:48 amSebastian the Ibis says:
There is a DC case where a member of a congressional security detail, who was I believe a retired police officer, went to DC to escort a congressman abroad. He asked to check his firearm with the police at the congressional office building and was arrested and convicted.
I’ve read an appellate decision on the case somewhere.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 7:56 amAlan Gunn says:
I don’t have a real case, but there’s an amusing made-up one in the South African Law Review, sometime pre-1972, in which a veteran of the Boer war, who had been shot in the buttocks and still had the shell fragments in his body, goes to jail for possession of ammunition without a permit.
At least it used to be amusing.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:05 amPositroll says:
§ 37 of the German Waffengesetz (weapons law) states that innocent finders (including heirs) of forbidden weapons have a duty to inform the competent authorities (i.e. the police or the local administration) without undue delay (unverzueglich) about the find. If they do so, they are not criminally liable, despite having possession of the weapon.
Besides, the German constitution (substantive due process) wouldn’t allow for criminal punishment in such cases ...
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:10 amrbj says:
David,
There is a case of a fifth grader in South Carolina who had braces and brought a butter knife to school to cut his banana. He faced expulsion:
November 1, 1998
Section: METRO/REGION
DISCIPLINE POLICY FACES PETITION IN DISTRICT 5 SOME PARENTS WANT TO OUST ZERO TOLERANCE
LORI D. ROBERTS, Staff Writer
Newspaper is The State (Columbia, SC)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:20 amHouston Lawyer says:
As far as the Texas alcohol cases go, I believe the poster is correct. I have heard of teenagers being prosecuted as a minor in possession for merely attending a party at which alcohol was served to minors. Cases have been prosecuted where there is no evidence that the minor procured or drank alcohol, but was merely in the company of those who did. Sorry, no cites.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:01 amFantasiaWHT says:
Thank you to my Trial Ad 1 instructor providing me the information:
“Inside the Jury Room”, a documentary which appeared on PBS Frontline on April 8, 1986
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/programs/info/410.html
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:24 amSeaDrive says:
I believe the enforcement of state gun control laws in apparent violation of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), or at least contrary to spirit of FOPA, has given rise to some cases in this regard. The FOPA was meant to give a safe harbor for the transportation of guns from state to state by car. States have adopted interpretations of the law that leave citizens vulnerable to state gun control law through no fault of their own. For example, an accident or sudden illness could force them to break their journey. These states say the protection of FOPA disappears, and charge them with violation of state law. I believe that NY is the worst, with MA close behind. In a recent case in MA, a man who was in an accident surrendered his gun to the police, and had trouble recovering it in a timely manner.
There have also been airline-related cases, e.g. an airline flight diverted to a NY airport.
I believe a review of the legal forums at Northeastshooters.com could turn up some examples.
(Mr. Kopel knows all this, of course.)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:34 amstashy says:
New York state has a defense known as “temporary innocent possession” of a weapon, and is usually litigated in the context of proposed jury instructions.. This defense is available when there is evidence showing a legal excuse for the possession along with a showing that the weapon was not used in a dangerous manner. People v. Banks, 76 NY2d 799 (1990); People v Snyder, 73 NY2d 900 (1989);People v. Williams, 50 NY2d 1043 (1980); Dickson,58 AD3d 1016 (3 Dept.(2009); People v. Aracil, 45 AD3d 401 (1 Dept 2007); People v. Thomas, 172 AD2d 572 (2 Dept.1991). The jury should be instructed that the prosecution must disprove this defense beyond a reasonable doubt. People v.Russell, 47 AD3d732 (2 Dept.2008); People v. Sterling, 151 AD2d 522 (2 Dept.1989). This defense does not apply to carrying a weapon in anticipation of a future need to use it in self-defense. People v.Almodovar, 62 NY2d 126, 130 (1984). The equivalent defense in federal court is considerably narrower US v. White, 552 F.3d 240 (2 Cir. 2009).
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:40 amAbdul says:
Orin,
I searched in vain on westlaw for this, but I remember that a few years ago, a felon successfully challenged his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922 (prohibiting felons from possessing firearms) with a habeas petition. It stuck out because successful habeas petitions are pretty rare.
The facts were that the felon worked in a bar. Returning to his girlffirend after work one night, she grew angry and threatened him with a gun. He was able to wrestle the gun away from her. He walked 10 blocks back to the bar with the gun and asked his boss what he should do. The boss called the police with the intent of getting them to arrest the girlfriend. However, upon discovering a felon in possession of a firearm, the police arrested him.
Hope you can find a reference to that case.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 9:46 amSeaDrive says:
Charleston Gazette ; June 3, 2006 ; 277 words ... Charleston police arrested a man Friday night who told them he was trying to turn in a gun he found. About 7 p.m., Jay Pennington was spotted with a gun near the Roosevelt Neighborhood Center on the city’s East End, said Sgt. C.E. Sisson.
(Of course, they all say that...)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:49 amAbdul Abulbul Amir says:
The problem here is that emotion is not the issue. In no reasonable context is a butter knife a weapon. More than likely principal Hill would not find a common claw hammer a weapon. However, an attack with a hammer would be very much more dangerous than an attack with a butter knife.
The bottom line is that the word “weapon” really describes the use of an object, or the intended use of an object, or the likely use of an object. One wonders if principal Hill allows baseball or softball games with aluminum or wooden bats. Bats swinging at balls are not weapons, but bats swinging at heads are weapons. The differentiating the two cases has nothing to do with emotion.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 10:50 amHans Bader says:
This unbelievably vicious prosecution — putting a man in prison for at least 5 years for safeguarding public safety by removing a weapon from a public place where a minor or criminal could pick it up — is a classic example of the British Labour Party’s misrule of Britain. This reflects the narrow mindedness of people like the dour, sanctimonious Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.
The United Kingdom’s contempt for civil liberties manifests itself in other ways as well.
Local governments in the United Kingdom seize newborns from their parents for ridiculous reasons, such as the fact that the mother suffered from eating disorders 6 years earlier after being raped.
In England, social workers seize children in order to receive adoption bonuses. English children are taken from their parents based on mere speculation that they may abuse them in the future, even if the government concedes the child has never been abused.
In England, as is sometimes the case in the United States, local governments receive cash incentives from the national government for adopting out children. In England, this has led to the seizure of thousands of children from their natural parents by social workers hoping to receive bonuses.
The Daily Mail, one of England’s principal newspapers had a frightening story on June 8, 2007 about this. You have to read it to believe it.
The idea behind the incentives was to give social workers an incentive to do their best to ensure that children already in orphanages or foster care will be adopted.
But children already in foster care tend to be older, less desireable, and harder to find adoptive parents for. For a social worker that wants to receive an adoption bonus, it’s much easier to snatch cute, well-adjusted babies and toddlers who already have loving parents, than to do the hard work of adopting out an older child who has no parents and may have behavioral problems or disabilities that make him less adoptable.
So social workers in England have been seizing cute babies and toddlers from loving families based on trivial or unproven allegations (or in some cases, no allegation of wrongdoing at all), and then giving them to adoptive parents to reap the cash incentives.
One child was seized after a social worker told the child’s mother that she feared the mother might yell at her child in the future. Another was seized because of an injury to her half-brother years earlier, which the child’s parents insisted was accidental, but which social workers, without any proof whatsoever, suspected resulted from baby-shaking.
The British government continues to seize newborns from their mothers, including a rape victim, according to an August 26, 2007 story in the London Telegraph.
Hexham Children’s Services in Northumberland County plans to seize the newborn of 22-year-old Fran Lyon, who suffered eating disorders after being raped at age 16. The government claims that it is therefore possible that she will subject her yet-to-be-born child to “emotional abuse.” (She is a gainfully employed charity worker who recovered from her emotional problems sufficiently to earn a degree in neuroscience).
In Britain, local governments receive financial incentives to adopt out children. These incentives are provided by national governments to encourage local governments to find homes for children already in foster care or orphanages.
But it hasn’t worked out as planned. It is much easier for local governments to get members of the public to adopt newborns (seized from parents) than it is to get them to adopt older children who have already spent years in foster care and who may have behavioral problems as a result. So local governments have an incentive to seize children from loving homes in order to reap adoption bonuses.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:01 amKirk Parker says:
Pablo,
I’m missing something: of course there’s no “Pennsylvania v. Pablo” to cite because Pennsylvania, like the rest of the United States and unlike NYC, doesn’t criminalize the mere possession of firearms.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:07 amMartyA says:
Won’t you also have to estimate the potential (incidents?) where the risk of punishment/cost for temporary possession is likely to result in the object being passed on and not taken from circulation. The guy who tossed the shotgun into the garden in the first place understood this concept.
When things are criminalized for mere possession, there must also be a mechanism for a no-penalty turn over to authorities. I think of two things. One, if I dispose of old paint or chemicals in my household garbage or dump them down a storm drain, I’m in trouble. But, if I turn them over to the designated county agency, I’m a good citizen.
Two, how about infants? Here, a new born can be turned over to a firehouse or police station within hours (don’t know how many) of birth with no penalty/questions asked as opposed to dumpster disposal.
As I understand this law, if I find an infant in a dumpster but do not want to get “involved,” I can take it to the firehouse and disappear without any consequence.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:08 amHans Bader says:
This is an absurdly cruel prosecution. It makes no sense to imprison someone for a minimum of five years for safeguarding public safety by removing a weapon from a public place where a minor or criminal could pick it up. But it is a classic illustration of the British Labour Party’s politically-correct misrule of Britain.
The British government’s contempt for individual freedom manifests itself in other ways as well.
Local governments in the United Kingdom seize newborns from their parents for ridiculous reasons, such as the fact that the mother suffered from eating disorders 6 years earlier after being raped.
The Daily Mail, one of England’s principal newspapers had a frightening story on June 8, 2007 about this. You have to read it to believe it.
Social workers in England have been seizing cute babies and toddlers from loving families based on trivial or unproven allegations (or in some cases, no allegation of wrongdoing at all), and then giving them to adoptive parents to reap the cash incentives.
One child was seized after a social worker told the child’s mother that she feared the mother might yell at her child in the future. Another was seized because of an injury to her half-brother years earlier, which the child’s parents insisted was accidental, but which social workers, without any proof whatsoever, suspected resulted from baby-shaking.
The British government continues to seize newborns from their mothers, including a rape victim, according to an August 26, 2007 story in the London Telegraph.
Hexham Children’s Services in Northumberland County plans to seize the newborn of 22-year-old Fran Lyon, who suffered eating disorders after being raped at age 16. The government claims that it is therefore possible that she will subject her yet-to-be-born child to “emotional abuse.” (She is a gainfully employed charity worker who recovered from her emotional problems sufficiently to earn a degree in neuroscience).
In Britain, local governments receive financial incentives to adopt out children. These incentives are provided by national governments to encourage local governments to find homes for children already in foster care or orphanages.
But it hasn’t worked out as planned. It is much easier for local governments to get members of the public to adopt newborns (seized from parents) than it is to get them to adopt older children who have already spent years in foster care and who may have behavioral problems as a result. So local governments have an incentive to seize newborns and infants from loving homes in order to reap adoption bonuses.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:26 amanonymous says:
There’s a case almost exactly like the knife example you site that happened in 1998 at Twin Peaks Charter Academy in Longmont, Colorado. A 5th grader accidentally picked up her mother’s lunchbox, found a pairing knife, turned it in and was expelled.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:33 amgasman says:
The jury had the deliberative power to decide otherwise. Once the general populace has bought into this whole nutty notion then even a reasonable man must begin to act not as a reasonable man, but as a jury of his peers might potentially like him to act.
The offshoot of this is that the police are going to get a lot more calls reporting mysterious bags, boxes, and other containers or objects, most quite ordinary and containing ordinary things, that one cannot risk personally opening lest one meet the standard of possession of contraband.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:47 amTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Bleg on criminal prosecution of people for transient possession of illegal objects they want to give to the police -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by overlawyered, andrew. andrew said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Bleg on criminal ...: The Volokh Conspiracy · Home · About · E-Mail Poli.. http://bit.ly/2gil8C [...]
mischief says:
Look at on bright side, Hans.
At least they’re not being paid to keep the children in foster care until they are unadoptable.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:39 pmFred2 says:
About a decade or so ago I was shocked to read in the popular press of a couple that had bought a “Drug House” at a police auction.
Eventually they started to remodel their bargain house and found a package that had been plastered into the wall. They called the police and were arrested for possession. I think it was cocaine. I also seem to remember the prosecutor eventually let them go for obvious reasons.
The obvious web searches have turned up nothing on the case.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:40 pmCarl Donath says:
In the US, both parties are seeking to win. ’tis acceptable to acquit a guilty party who has the better argument.
In the UK, both parties are seeking the truth. ’tis acceptable to convict the innocent who is in strict violation.
(OK, that’s a generalization — but it’s my understanding of the basic axioms.)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 12:54 pmPintler says:
At least some some principals apparently do.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:08 pmDjDiverDan says:
So all I have to do to punish an enemy in Great Britain is to sneak an illegal weapon into his home, then anonomously report him or her to the police?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 1:43 pmDave Kopel Bleg on Transient Possession | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] Dave Kopel is looking for some information: I am asking for commenters who can point to similar cases in the U.K., United States, or elsewhere. For example, a student finds a knife on a playground at school; she picks it up and takes it directly to a teacher. She is expelled for possession of a weapon on school property. I’m not looking only for cases involving weapons. [...]
zippypinhead says:
This sort of defense is sometimes raised when a defendant is charged with illegal firearms possession, and claims he “found” and was “going to” turn in the firearm to the authorities. But most often it’s a pretty transparently weak defense on the facts.
For example, this fact basic pattern came up in a very recent case before the D.C. Court of Appeals (the District’s equivalent of state Supreme Court, not the D.C. Circuit) in an opinion that has an interesting holding post–Heller — i.e., that Heller should be applied retroactively, and requires a remand to see if the defendant might have qualified for a D.C. firearms license that would have been impossible to get prior to the 2008 Supreme Court Second Amendment decision.
The facts, however, aren’t atypical: The police responded to investigate a report of an armed person banging on a door, and encountered the defendant, who matched the description given in the 911 call. After initial noncompliance with police orders and furtive gestures by the defendant, the police did a Terry frisk and discovered a handgun in the defendant’s pocket. He claimed to have just found it and intended to turn it in to police. He testified at trial in his own defense that:
Plummer v. United States No. 04-CF-857 (D.C. Court of Appeals, Nov. 12, 2009), slip op at 9–10. The defendant was convicted in a jury trial of what was in essence simple possession of an unlicensed firearm. I’m not entirely sure from the opinion how the Constitutional inquiry on remand and the facts mesh, since given the tendered defense at trial, the license issue doesn’t seem terribly relevant.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:24 pmSeaDrive says:
http://forums.somd.com/archive/t-90037.html
CBS) PLAINFIELD, Ill. A 13-year-old Plainfield boy and his parents are stunned and outraged after the teen found a gun in school and turned it in to authorities, who then expelled him.
CBS 2’s Dana Kozlov reports Ryan Morgan’s parents and supporters attended the school board meeting Wednesday evening to try to fight the expulsion. They believe the punishment, and the subsequent alternative school option, are not the proper responses to a mistake made by a teenage boy.
Ryan Morgan, 13, says he pocketed a pellet gun he and a friend found in their school’s bathroom to keep people safe. Morgan’s mother says a short time later Morgan gave the gun to the Troy Middle School assistant principal.
“I told him maybe that wasn’t the best decision, to remove that gun, but it did lead to you finding the culprit, he was arrested and to put my son in alternative school — he has no behavior problems,” Audrey Morgan, Ryan’s mother, said.
The Morgans say there was no reasoning with the principal or with the school superintendent.
“He said, ‘The board can give your son full two-year expulsion, I’m asking you not to go before them,’” Audrey Morgan said.
They went anyway, saying they had nothing to lose, only to see the meeting minutes already recommend expulsion.
Roy Morgan says he can’t accept that, but accepts his son’s decision.
“He said ‘I’m going to turn this in’ and you know what, I commend my son for making that decision. It was the right decision,” he said.
School board officials issued a statement Wednesday night saying due to confidentiality reasons they can’t discuss the specifics of this case, but that “purposeful possession of weapons is a serious offense and deserves careful consideration by the administration and the school board.”
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:34 pmDan says:
http://www.thisissurreytoday.co.uk/news/Ex-soldier-faces-jail-handing-gun/article-1509082-detail/article.html
Recently in England a soldier was prosecuted for turning in a firearm he found in the alley behind his house. To make it worse, the prosecutors completely believe his story, they just don’t care.
“The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant.”
Quote
November 16, 2009, 2:41 pmLior says:
Abdul: You are thinking of US v. Mooney.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 3:16 pmEric Rasmusen says:
This class of cases is a strong argument for electing public prosecutors.
Prof. Orr, I think,said that there is only an implicit exception for police possession of illegal objects. Is that right? If so, it seems a prosecutor could get revenge on a police department by going after it for possession of weapons, drugs, burglar tools, etc.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 3:46 pmMilhouse says:
My question is where legislatures imagine they got the right to create strict-liability crimes. The requirement for mens rea is inherent in the definition of a crime; if someone did not intend to do wrong then they cannot have committed a crime, no matter what a legislature says, and any conviction under such a law is by definition null. Legislatures who say otherwise are ultra vires, and such laws are inherently invalid.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 3:52 pmKirk Parker says:
SeaDrive,
Did I read your excerpt correctly that this was a pellet gun? Good grief...
Quote
November 16, 2009, 4:20 pmSeaDrive says:
Kirk Parker: Don’t take modern pellet guns lightly. They are MUCH more dangerous than a butter knife.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 4:25 pmPatHMV says:
Milhouse, you say that such laws (convictions based on such laws, at any rate) are null “by definition.” In which dictionary can I look up that definition? What is the source of your authority to deem them “inherently invalid” and “ultra vires”?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 4:30 pmKirk Parker says:
SeaDrive,
I own some modern pellet guns, and do not take them lightly. But I still stand by my “good grief”.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 5:33 pmjccamp says:
From reading a number of blog posts in England about this case, there is at least some weight of opinion that the average English citizen would know that mere possession of a firearm was a serious offense, and that the proper response would have been to call the cops and ask them to respond to retrieve the shotgun. Many posters obviously did not believe what the defendant claimed — that he found the shotgun and was turning it in — and further, that his actions, even if believed, represented a threat to innocent persons. There appears to be a minority that thinks the defendant feared he would be somehow connected to the shotgun, and was turning it in to deflect suspicion away from himself, if and when the shotgun was determined to be involved in some other crime. The defendant’s failure to inform the police about the shotgun prior to his visit seemed counter-intuitive.
The defendant stood accused of beating up a male parking meter enforcement person with a broom handle in 2007, but beat those charges when the judge refused to allow the Crown to amend the charges to a lower inclusive when trial testimony about the meter-reader’s injuries could not establish the higher level of assault/battery.
The lesson here may be a cautionary rebuke for taking a newspaper article at face value, as difficult as that may be to believe.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:12 pmPersonFromPorlock says:
This is a vague memory from long ago, but isn’t it, or wasn’t it, possible for someone who took a suspect note to the bank to find out if it was counterfeit, to be charged with possession of a counterfeit note if it was?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:32 pmPintler says:
That’s OK if it’s in your yard, perhaps, but if you see it in the public park, you should leave it for kids to find while you walk to a distant pay phone? Also, if he had, what’s to stop them from still charging him?
Given the choice between encouraging crooks to bring crime guns to the station, where the police can ask lots of awkward questions if desired, and encouraging them to toss the gun in the river (or over someone else’s garden wall), I think the first offers some advantages. I also don’t think many crooks will try to bring in the murder weapon to try to deflect suspicion, but maybe I don’t think like a crook :-)
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:55 pmHarryEagar says:
OTOH, about 10 years ago I bought a storage room at an abandoned property auction and found I had acquired a sawed off 20-gauge shotgun.
Took it to the receiving desk at the police station and had no problem.
Maybe it depends on the IQ of the cops.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 6:56 pmjccamp says:
Pintler —
I took the meaning to be that the defendant had been seen or otherwise discovered by someone with the weapon in his possession, so he dreamed up a story to explain such, as opposed to pitching the thing into a river and denying it ever touched his hands. Something like that.
As for your first, no, of course not, a reasonable person wouldn’t leave it lying about, but then, a reasonable person would probably call the police as soon as practical and tell them what he had found, instead of waiting, keeping it in his house, and carrying the thing into the stationhouse and handing it over. Doesn’t this guy watch CSI?
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:13 pmjccamp says:
“Maybe it depends on the IQ of the
copscrook.”Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:14 pmdcperson says:
United States v. Mason, 233 F.3d 619 (D.C. Cir. 2000) allegedly describes D.C.‘s acceptance of the innocent possession of a firearm for return to police. I don’t have access to my Westlaw account right now, but it’s cited in a Utah State case (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/ut/cases/supopin/miller5082908.pdf) and is a defense for which I know that there is a jury instruction.
Not sure if this helps–it’s the opposite of what you’re looking for, but would support an argument that the practice of what you’re seeking doesn’t make sense, according to some courts.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:36 pmdcperson says:
additionally, this is the DC case that was referred to above:
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/bardwell/bieder_v_us.txt
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:37 pmYankev says:
Sorry, don’t have the cite, but I remember coming across a similar case in 1976 (which means it was a 1976 case at latests) from the intermediate level appellate court in Illinois, upholding a similar conviction. Illinois already had a statute prohibiting being in possession of a firearm without a state-issued firearm certificate. The defendant lived in a public housing project in Chicago and had turned her husband’s handgun in to a Chicago Housing Authority guard or a Chicago police officer, I forget which.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 8:45 pmchris says:
1996, My junior year of high school in FL. On a Monday after a Boy Scout camping trip, a fillet knife fell out of my backpack that had been used on the camping trip the previous weekend. I was expelled and forced to go to an alternate school where my peers were kids that had mostly been expelled for drugs, gang activity and other violent crimes.
That there was no intent didn’t matter in the least.
I was also criminally charged as a juvenile and sent to a pre-trial diversion program for possession of a weapon on a school campus. Keep in mind, this was BEFORE columbine, had it been after, I would have most likely gone to jail.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:01 pmRicardo says:
Considering the fact that he was arrested at the police station after having produced said shotgun in front of a police officer, this makes no sense. Do people believe instead that he went to the police station carrying the shotgun to complain about a noisy neighbor and that the shotgun fell out of his jacket while filing the complaint? The second possibility — that the gun actually belonged to him and he wanted to turn it in to absolve himself of responsibility for illegal possession — is at least plausible. Thanks to the UK’s laws, the prosecution never had to actually prove this theory in court, though.
Frankly, the message that Crown Prosecution Service is sending is that if you find a shotgun in your backyard, chuck it over the fence and let someone else deal with it. Surely a great lesson in responsible citizenship.
Quote
November 16, 2009, 11:10 pmrc says:
So what happens to armored car employees in the UK? Imagine: You’re going about your business, walking into the bank with sacks of cash. Then you get thrown to the ground and arrested for possession of someone else’s money. In other words, you’re a thief.
How about fire hazmat teams? A first responder gets out his kitty litter and swabs to contain an illegal toxic spill. As soon as he sweeps them up, he’s arrested and charged with environmental crimes against humanity.
A heart surgeon is arrested for possession of illegal contraband organs, in the middle of surgery. After all, he had someone else’s heart literally in his hands.
I bet if a Brit soldier fell on a grenade in Afghanistan to save his colleagues, he’d be posthumously scrubbed from the service for illegal posession of an explosive device, attempted murder, and soiling his uniform. Talk about conduct unbecoming!
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:30 ampublic_defender says:
This American Life aired a story on November 6 about a Texas man who called the police about an abandoned car in his neighborhood. He got no help. When the car remained, he went through it to find the owner fearing that the owner might have been a crime victim. It tuns out that the car was a police decoy and he got charged criminally for breaking into the car.
You can stream the episode for free.
Quote
November 17, 2009, 4:46 amJohn U. says:
U.S. v. Gilbert, 430 F.3d 215 (4th Cir. 2005)
Quote
November 17, 2009, 12:55 pmneurodoc says:
OK, at the risk of sounding silly...suppose a male experiences an “unprovocked” erection while asleep and an underage female mounts him, can he be found guilty of the “strict liability” crime of statutory rape? Or, he is awake but thinks he is having relations with the older woman who was in the room in bed with him before the lights were turned off and he went to the bathroom? (I am aware that in some places the male will be found guilty of statutory rape even if he truly believed that the girl was beyond the age of consent.) That would be very strict liability, about as strict as convicting someone for bringing the gun they found in their yard to the police station to turn it over.
Quote
November 18, 2009, 1:02 amRobert Goodman says:
The scariest part of the article was the mention at the end that comments were disabled for legal reasons!
Quote
November 18, 2009, 2:17 am