News You Can Use: SCOTUS holds officers have reasonable suspicion to stop a car if the owner has a revoked license

In Kansas v. Glover, the Supreme Court considered the narrow question “whether a police officer violates the Fourth Amendment by initiating an investigative traffic stop after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner has a revoked license.”  Kansas v. Glover, No. 18-556, 2020 WL 1668283, at *2 (U.S. April 6, 2020). The Court held that “the stop is reasonable,” unless the officer learns “information negating an inference that the owner is the driver of the vehicle.” Id.

The case essentially came down to whether, in the context of an investigative detention based on reasonable suspicion, an officer can infer that the owner is the person driving the car, even though their license has been revoked.  An eight-judge majority concluded that inference was reasonable.

The majority began with the premise that it is reasonable to infer that a car’s owner is the one driving, and under the circumstances here, no evidence rebutted that reasonable inference.  “The fact that the registered owner of a vehicle is not always the driver of the vehicle does not negate” that inference because the “reasonable suspicion inquiry ‘falls considerably short’ of 51% accuracy.”  Id. at *3.  Neither does the fact that the owner’s license was revoked negate it because, according to the Court, common sense and statistics demonstrate that drivers with revoked licenses often continue to drive.  Moreover, under Oklahoma’s license revocation scheme, only “drivers who have already demonstrated a disregard for the law or are categorically unfit to drive” may have their license’s revoked. Id. at *4. Thus, it is not unreasonable to infer that they may continue to drive in violation of the law.

The majority rejected Justice Sotomayor’s concerns in her dissent that the Court was doing away with the requirement that reasonable suspicion be based an officer’s training and experience rather than data and probabilities.  The majority countered that officers may apply common sense, not only expertise, and that reliance on data-driven probabilities is wholly appropriate (although, relying “exclusively” on probabilities might not be).

Finally, the Court “emphasize[d] the narrow scope of [its] holding.”  Id. at *5. Not only is the holding limited to revoked licenses (as opposed to suspended licenses), but the inference that the owner is driving can be easily rebutted.  “For example, if an officer knows that the registered owner of the vehicle is in his mid-sixties but observes that the driver is in her mid-twenties, then the totality of the circumstances would not ‘raise a suspicion that the particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing.’” Id.

TAKEAWAYS

  • This decision does not change Tenth Circuit law.  The Tenth Circuit, in a decision by then-circuit-judge Gorsuch, has already held that an officer has reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle where a database indicates the owner does not have insurance, notwithstanding that the non-owner driver might be independently insured.  See United States v Cortez-Galaviz, 495 F.3d 1203, 1207-08 (10th Cir. 2007) (“[C]ommon sense and ordinary experience suggest that a vehicle’s owner is, while surely not always, very often the driver of his or her own car.”).  And, at least one district court has relied on Cortez-Galaviz to find reasonable suspicion to stop a car where the owner had their license revoked, which was the fact pattern in GloverSee United States v Wissiup,2013 WL 4430872, at *4 (D. Utah Aug. 16, 2013).
  • The holding is narrow.  Officers may stop cars if the owner has a revoked license, unless they have reason to believe that someone other than the owner is driving (for example they look different, or the non-owner driver shows their ID).
  • And the result appears to depend on the state’s particular statutory scheme. The holding is at least somewhat dependent on Oklahoma’s scheme allowing revocation for only relatively serious offenses.  Thus, in another state where revocation could be based on more minor conduct, an officer may not be able to infer that the owner is driving on a revoked license.

News You Can Use: Recent developments in home confinement in the age of COVID-19

The number of positive-COVID-19 cases in the BOP continues to rise.

As of this morning the BOP reports  138 inmates and 59 staff have tested positive for the virus. The BOP updates this data every afternoon.

On March 26, 2020, Attorney General Barr issued a memorandum to the Director of BOP, outlining a new policy by the United States Department of Justice to deal with confined inmates who are most vulnerable to the COVID-19 virus.  Barr directed BOP to use home confinement “where appropriate, to protect the health and safety of BOP personnel and the people in our custody.” 

Despite that step, barriers remained to release.

On April 1, 2020, the Federal Public & Community Defenders Legislative Committee wrote a letter to AG Barr and urged him to exercise his authority under the CARES Act to allow the BOP to transfer more people to the “relative safety of home confinement.”

On April 3, 2020 (after 7 deaths in BOP custody and uncontained spread in multiple facilities), AG Barr made a CARES-Act finding that “emergency conditions are materially affecting the functioning of the Bureau of Prisons.” He told the BOP to review all inmates with COVID-19 risk factors, starting with FCI Oakdale, FCI Danbury, and FCI Oakton (and “similarly situated” facilities), and to transfer “suitable candidates for home confinement” to home confinement.

The memo directs the BOP to “be guided by the factors in [Barr’s] March 26 Memorandum,” which drastically limits the number of people prioritized for home confinement.  But it also says all inmates with “a suitable confinement plan will generally be appropriate candidates for home confinement rather than continued detention at institutions in which COVID-19 is materially affecting their operations.”

On April 5, 2020, the BOP issued a press release responding to AG Barr’s April 3 memorandum.  BOP says it is reviewing all inmates to determine which ones meet the criteria established by the Attorney General.  While inmates do not need to apply to be considered for home confinement, any inmate who believes they are eligible may request to be referred to Home Confinement and provide a release plan to their Case Manager.

TAKEAWAYS

If you have a client who might be a candidate for home confinement, don’t wait for the BOP to identify them.  Now is the time to figure out a release plan and bring eligibility to the attention of the Case Manager.

The BOP is using the eligibility criteria established by AG Barr as a benchmark for home-confinement determinations:

(1) The age and vulnerability of the inmate to COVID-19;

(2) The security level of the facility;

(3) The inmate’s conduct in prison;

(4) The inmate’s score under PATTERN;

(5) The inmate’s release plan; and

(6) The inmate’s crime of conviction and assessment of danger posed to the community.

But remember that list of criteria is not exhaustive; the BOP must consider the “totality of the circumstances.”

Inmates deemed suitable for home confinement must be immediately processed for transfer out of BOP, but there is still a required 14-day quarantine before the transfer can happen.  Note that AG Barr (in the April 3 memorandum) gave the BOP discretion “on a case-by-case” basis to allow an inmate to quarantine outside the BOP facility “in the residence to which the inmate is being transferred.”

 

 

News You Can Use: SCOTUS clarifies ACCA’s “serious drug offense” definition

In Shular v. United States, the Supreme Court held that “serious drug offense” in 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(A)(ii) requires only that the state offense involve the conduct specified in the statute; it does not require that the state offense match generic offenses. A prior state law conviction qualifies so long as, under the categorical approach, it necessarily “involves manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute” a federally controlled substance. Therefore, the defendant’s prior conviction was a “serious drug offense” notwithstanding his assertion it was broader than the generic definition because it did not require knowledge that the substance possessed was illicit. Shular v. United States, No. 18-6662, 2020 WL 908904 (U.S. Feb. 26, 2020).

Background on ACCA and the categorical approach

Felon in possession of a firearm usually carries a statutory maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). However, the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) provides a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence where the defendant has three previous convictions for a “violent felony” or “serious drug offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). To determine whether a defendant’s prior conviction qualifies as an ACCA predicate, courts must apply the “categorical approach.” That is, they look only at the elements of the prior offense (not the defendant’s actual conduct) and determine whether those elements categorically qualify as a violent felony or serious drug offense. See generally Mathis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2243 (2016).

Most of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on predicate offenses and the categorical approach involves ACCA’s definition of “violent felony,” which can be satisfied in one of two ways: (1) under the “force” or “elements” clause, it means any offense that “has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force,” or (2) under the “enumerated offenses” clause, it means any offense that “is burglary, arson, or extortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B). A “serious drug offense” includes most federal drug offenses and any state offense “involving manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute” a federally controlled substance. Id. § 924(e)(2)(A) (it also must be punishably by at least 10 years in prison).

The Supreme Court has held that the enumerated offenses clause refers to the contemporary, generic version of that offense; that is, the definition used by most state codes. Thus, for example, after analyzing state codes and criminal treatises, the Supreme Court determined that the generic definition of burglary is “an unlawful or unprivileged entry into, or remaining in, a building or other structure, with intent to commit a crime.” Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 598 (1990).

Shular

In Shular, the defendant argued that the definition of “serious drug offense” referred to the names of drug-related crimes in the same way that the definition of violent felony refers to burglary, arson, and extortion. For example, “possession with intent to distribute,” while descriptive, is also just the shorthand name of that offense. Mr. Shular also argued, most states’ drug offenses require a mens rea element that the defendant must know that the substances involved are illicit; therefore, that mens rea must be part of the generic definition implicitly referenced in the ACCA’s definition of “serious drug offense.” Mr. Shular’s offense of conviction, however, did not have that mens rea. It was therefore broader than the generic definition and did not qualify as a “serious drug offense.”

The government argued that the definition of “serious drug offense” was not referring to the names of offenses; rather it was describing what conduct must be proscribed by the state statutes to qualify as a predicate. In other words, it was more like the violent felony definition’s “elements” clause than the “enumerated offenses” clause. Under this interpretation, no inquiry into the mens rea of the generic definition of any drug offense is required—Mr. Shular’s prior conviction qualified because it necessarily involved: (1) manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture or distribute; and (2) a federally controlled substance.

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court agreed with the government. It found compelling two features of the definition, particularly when compared against the definition of “violent felony.” First, the Court thought that the definition of “serious drug offense” was more descriptive and would be “unlikely names for generic offenses.” Burglary, arson, and extortion, on the other hand, unambiguously name offenses and therefore refer to the generic definitions of those offenses. Second, the “serious drug offense” definition spoke of offenses that involve manufacturing or distribution, which again suggested that they were descriptive terms identifying conduct, not generic offenses. Had Congress intended to refer to generic offenses, it would have used the term “is,” not “involving,” as it did in the violent felony definition. Because the statute uses the term “involving” followed by descriptive conduct, it is not referring to the generic definition of, for example, a “manufacturing” offense.

Basic Takeaways

  • The categorical approach applies to the ACCA’s definition of “serious drug offense.”
  • “Serious drug offense” does not enumerate offenses that must be given their generic definitions.
  • A prior conviction is a “serious drug offense” so long as it necessarily involves manufacturing, distributing, or possessing with intent to manufacture a federally controlled substance—regardless of any potential overbreadth with another element of the generic definition, such as mens rea.
  • It is more like the “force” clause in violent felony than it is the enumerated offenses clause.

Other Implications; Potential Future Arguments

  • A “serious drug offense” still must categorically involve a federally controlled substance, so arguments that state schedules are overbroad are still valid. Cf. Mellouli v. Lynch, 135 S. Ct. 1980, 1989-91 (2015)
  • Arguments that a statute is overbroad because it applies to “offers to sell” should likewise still be valid because they do not categorically involve distributing or possessing with intent to distribute. See United States v. Madkins, 866 F.3d 1136 (10th Cir. 2017); United States v. McKibbon, 878 F.3d 967 (10th Cir. 2017).
  • Inchoate crimes might be ripe to challenge again. The Tenth Circuit’s prior justification for including inchoate crimes is that it “read[s] the ‘involving manufacturing’ language broadly to include attempts to manufacture or conspiracy to manufacture.” United States v. Trent, 767 F.3d 1046, 1057 (10th Cir. 2014). However, in Shular, the parties agreed “that ‘involve’ means ‘necessarily require.’” Shular, 2020 WL 908904, at *5. This narrower definition potentially undermines the Tenth Circuit’s justification for expanding the definition of “serious drug offense” to inchoate crimes.
  • More arguments may come to light as the impact of Shular becomes more clear in the coming months, so be on the lookout for updates.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

News You Can Use: Tenth Circuit reaffirms that restitution must be based on the offense of conviction, not relevant conduct.

The Mandatory Victim Restitution Act authorizes restitution only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction.  United States v. Mendenhall, 945 F.3d 1264 (10th Cir. 2019).

Restitution can be an afterthought at sentencing.  The parties are, understandably, far more concerned with incarceration.  However, appropriately limiting restitution is important because a large restitution order can follow a client for 20 years and make it difficult for them to get back on their feet, and stay there.  See 18 U.S.C. § 3613.

As the Tenth Circuit has recognized, “The most important thing at sentencing is determining whether the defendant will be incarcerated and, if so, for how long. Other matters, such as restitution and conditions of supervised release, are, appropriately, of secondary concern. But they are not inconsequential and deserve focused attention.” United States v. Martinez-Torres, 795 F.3d 1233, 1234 (10th Cir. 2015)

Recently, in United States v. Mendenhall, the Tenth Circuit reiterated a fundamental aspect of restitution under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA): a district court can order restitution only to a victim of an offense of conviction, and “only for loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction.”  Mendenhall, 945 F.3d at 1267.

In Mendenhall, an indictment charged the defendant with unlawful possession of three specific stolen firearms, each identified by serial number.  The firearms were stolen from a pawnshop during a burglary in which a total of 62 firearms were stolen, and substantial evidence implicated Mendenhall in the burglary.  Only a dozen or so firearms, including the three identified in the indictment, were recovered and returned to the pawnshop.

The district court ordered Mendenhall to pay the pawnshop restitution in the amount of $33,763.23 for “the loss of firearms not recovered, wages for employees to conduct inventory, loss of revenue for closing of business . . . and cleanup/repairs.”  Id. at 1266.  Mendenhall did not object to the restitution order.  On plain error, the Tenth Circuit reversed.

The Tenth Circuit explained that “[d]istrict courts lack inherent powers to order restitution.”  Id.  They may only do so as authorized by statute, and the MVRA authorizes restitution only to “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense.”  Id. (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(2)).  Moreover, the Supreme Court has interpreted this language as limiting restitution “only for losses caused by the conduct underlying the offense of conviction.”  Id. at 1267 (quoting Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411, 416 (1990)).  Based on these limitations, Mendenhall did not owe any restitution at all.

The elements of Mr. Mendenhall’s offense of conviction were: (1) knowing possession of the firearms; (2) interstate commerce; and (3) knowing or having reasonable cause to believe the firearms were stolen.  “None of these elements caused the losses cited as the basis for the restitution order” because the “three firearms listed in the indictment were recovered and returned.”  Id. at 1268.  That Mendehall did not object to the PSR’s assertion that he was involved in the burglary was irrelevant: “Restitution must be based on the offense of conviction, not relevant conduct.”  Id. (quoting United States v. Frith, 461 F.3d 914, 916 (7th Cir. 2006)).

Finally, the Tenth Circuit panel was reluctant to find that the fourth prong of the plain error test was met—that is, whether the error “seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings”—calling it “not an easy question in a case like this one where everybody knows that Mendenhall stole the firearms and pocketed the cash from the theft.”  Id. at 1270.  However, it acknowledged that a restitution order that exceeds the amount authorized by statute “amounts to an illegal sentence,” just as a term of imprisonment above the stat max does.  Accordingly, the Tenth Circuit was bound by precedent to conclude that all four prongs of plain error were met, and it reversed the order of restitution.

Takeaways

  • Restitution can be very burdensome for our clients.
  • Because restitution is a secondary concern for everyone—the defense, the government, probation, and the court—the orders often contain errors.
  • Restitution can be ordered only for loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction. In other words, restitution must be based on the offense of conviction, not relevant conduct.
    • Caveat: in a plea agreement, a defendant can agree to restitution beyond what is otherwise authorized by statute.
  • An excessive restitution order is an illegal sentence

News You Can Use: Tenth Circuit limits the unit of prosecution for child pornography possession offenses

Holding: Multiple devices ≠ multiple counts: child pornography discovered at the same time, and in the same place, is a single offense, regardless of how many devices that material is stored on.

This fall, the Tenth Circuit limited the number of charges the government can bring for possessing child pornography, at least where that material is discovered at the same time and same place.

In United States v. Elliott, 937 F.3d 1310 (10th Cir. 2019), the defendant was charged with four possession counts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B), which penalizes “possess[ing]” . . . any . . . material that contains an image of child pornography.”  The charges were based on child pornography discovered on a computer, external hard drive, phone, and cloud storage account linked to the phone.  All the items were located in the defendant’s bedroom during execution of a search warrant.

The government’s theory was that it could charge on a “per device” basis, i.e., that every device on which child pornography was located constituted a separate offense.  The defendant argued that this charging theory was multiplicitous: that it imposed multiple punishments for the same offense of simply possessing child pornography.

To answer the question, the court of appeals had to determine what the unit of prosecution was for § 2252A.  This is an inquiry of statutory interpretation—the unit of prosecution is the minimum amount of activity a defendant must undertake to commit each new and independent violation of a criminal statute. 

Ultimately, the Tenth Circuit held that § 2252A(a)(5)(B) does not permit multiple possession charges based solely on the number of electronic devices a defendant simultaneously possessed. That means that child pornography discovered at the same time, and in the same place, is a single offense, regardless of how many devices that material is stored on.  And because multiplicity is never harmless error, the Elliott court vacated all but one the defendant’s possession convictions.

Open question: whether the government might be able to sustain multiple possession charges with proof that a defendant received the child pornography at different times, or stored it in entirely separate locations.

Key takeaways.

  • Be on the lookout for multiplicity.  Whenever an indictment charges multiple violations of the same statute, be sure to ask what the unit of prosecution is for that statute.  If it is unclear, query whether lenity may apply.  Elliott and the Tenth Circuit’s en banc decision in United States v. Rentz, 777 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir. 2015) are good places to start your research.
  • Don’t let other circuits’ decisions prevent you from making novel arguments.  Here, the Fifth Circuit previously had accepted the government’s “per device” charging theory, and at least four other circuits had suggested in dicta that such charging might be permissible.  The Tenth Circuit found none of this authority persuasive in ruling the other way.
  • The unit of prosecution for child pornography possession under § 2252 is an open question, but it should be the same as § 2252A.  There are two federal statutes that independently criminalize possessing child pornography:  18 U.S.C. § 2252A(a)(5)(B) and § 2252(a)(4)(B).  And while § 2252 is charged less frequently, it still shows up from time to time.  Elliott’s analysis applies only to § 2252A, but its discussion of § 2252 and the slight difference in wording between the two statutes should be helpful in arguing that the unit of prosecution under of § 2252 is the same as § 2252A.

News You Can Use: Tenth Circuit issues helpful decision limiting restitution in conspiracy cases

The Tenth Circuit recently issued an important decision in United States v Anthony concerning restitution in conspiracy cases. The facts are unlikely to reoccur very often, but the opinion contains some broadly applicable and helpful points of law.

Background

Mr. Anthony was convicted after trial of conspiracy to entice a child.  The evidence showed that he called an “escort service” which sent two minors to his place of business. He touched them both and had sex with one of them.  The girls had been ensnared by a pimp, and Mr. Anthony was one of over a hundred customers they had seen.

In ordering restitution, the district court held Mr. Anthony accountable for all the harm the girls suffered during the time they spent working for the pimp.  One of the girls had earlier been involved with another pimp in an enterprise wholly unrelated to the later one.  The court made no attempt to disaggregate the harm caused during the girl’s involvement with the first pimp from the harm caused during her involvement with the second.

The Decision

18 U.S.C. § 2259 generally requires proof of “but for” causation

Mr. Anthony’s first claim on appeal was that the district court should have disaggregated the harm caused during the first enterprise.  The circuit agreed.  And along the way, it ruled that 18 USC 2259, the statute governing restitution for most federal sex crimes, requires a showing of “but for” causation.  In doing so, the court rejected the government’s claim that the statute allowed liability based on a theory of multiple independent causes, which would have greatly expanded restitution liability.  Using but for causation–a familiar concept in restitution analysis generally–resolution of the claim was easy.  Mr. Anthony was obviously not a but for cause of the harms that were caused before his crime was even committed.

Restitution is limited to the harm established by the trial evidence

Mr. Anthony’s second claim was that the court shouldn’t have held him accountable for all the harm that happened during the time the girls were involved with the second pimp.  This argument rested on conspiracy law.  Conspiracy, of course, is an agreement, and he argued that his only agreement, if any, was to have sex with the girls on that one night.  The circuit also agreed with this argument (although Mr. Anthony ultimately lost because the claim wasn’t preserved).  The circuit had long held that a conspiracy conviction makes a defendant “liable in restitution for all losses that proximately result from the conspiracy itself, including losses attributable to coconspirators.”  And historically, the court had looked to the indictment to define the scope of the conspiracy and hence a defendant’s restitution liability.   But here the court held, at least in the case of a trial, that restitution has to be limited to what the evidence actually proved, not what was alleged in the indictment. 

Conspiracy liability is limited to the defendant’s own agreement

Here, the evidence only showed, at most, that Mr. Anthony joined a conspiracy to obtain the girls for sex on the night he met with them.  The reason?  Mr. Anthony’s sole purpose was to “have sex.”  Although he likely knew that his decision to pay for sex furthered the overall enterprise, that knowledge was not enough to make him a conspirator in that enterprise.  As the circuit put it, “mere knowledge” that his actions furthered an illegal enterprise, even in conjunction with his participation in a small part of the enterprise, doesn’t by itself establish that Anthony “joined in the grand conspiracy.”  Id. 

Key Takeaways

  • Be sure to take a careful look at restitution in sex offense cases.  Except child pornography crimes, Anthony teaches that restitution in the sex offense context is limited to harm that would not have occurred but for the defendant’s offense.
  • The evidence, not the indictment, controls, at least when there’s a trial. Restitution is limited to harm established by the evidence at trial, even if the indictment’s allegations are broader.
  • Traditional concepts of conspiracy liability apply in the restitution context. Conspiracy liability (including for restitution) is limited to the defendant’s own agreement, even if she knows of the wider conspiracy.

News You Can Use: Tenth Circuit holds mandating medication on supervised release requires particularized findings and compelling circumstances

Earlier this fall, in United States v Malone the Tenth Circuit confronted a special condition of supervised release that directed the defendant to participate in mental health treatment while on supervision.   Conditions of this sort are fairly routine, but this condition included a particularly problematic feature – it required Mr. Malone to “take prescribed medication as directed.”  In imposing the condition, the trial court gave no justification for it.

There was no objection to the condition in the district court, but the Tenth Circuit reversed for plain error.  The court explained that requiring a person to take psychotropic drugs – which this requirement, as part of a mental health condition, plainly did – intrudes on a significant liberty interest.  And when a court wants to impose a condition of supervised release that “invades a fundamental right or liberty interest,” it must make particularized findings that set out “compelling circumstances” that justify the condition.  The district court didn’t do so here, and because the record would not have supported the necessary findings in any event, the court directed the district court to strike the “offending language” from the judgment.

Key Takeaways:

  • Keep an eye out for conditions like this in PSRs that come your way.  As the circuit recognized, this condition was being “broadly imposed as a ‘stock’ special condition” in Kansas.  Similar conditions have also cropped up in other judicial districts.
    • To that end, take note of this language in Malone:

      “When “stock” special conditions are proposed and the defendant does not object, it is easy to overlook the constitutional implications at stake. But even when the defendant does not object, the district court must ensure that its conditions conform to the Constitution.”

  • Carefully review proposed conditions to see whether they infringe on fundamental rights or liberty interests.  Lots of conditions fit this description.  Examples include: occupational restrictions, restrictions on familial association, and possessing of legal, sexually explicit material.
  • Develop your record at sentencing.  Ask the district court to make the requisite findings and establish the compelling reasons to justify the condition.