PDA

View Full Version : People v. Saleem (felon w/ Body Armor)


hoffmang
12-17-2009, 7:43 PM
Here is an interesting case out of the California Court of Appeals:

Defendant and appellant, Ethan Saleem, appeals the judgment entered following his conviction for possession of body armor by a person previously convicted of a violent felony, with prior serious felony and prior prison term findings (Pen. Code, §§ 12370, 667, subd. (b)-(i), 667.5.)1 He was sentenced to state prison for a term of eight years.

We reverse Saleem‘s conviction. Section 12370 is unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it does not provide fair notice of which protective body vests constitute the body armor made illegal by the statute.

People v. Saleem (http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/B204646.PDF).

-Gene

wildhawker
12-17-2009, 8:02 PM
Heh. I guess we'll be seeing a list of banned vests soon?

ETA: I'm going to place a bet that we'll be creating a Vest Flowchart in the near future... :p

hoffmang
12-17-2009, 8:06 PM
Heh. I guess we'll be seeing a list of banned vests soon?

ETA: I'm going to place a bet that we'll be creating a Vest Flowchart in the near future... :p

I luckily think that the audience for a Flowchart for Felons is somewhat limited.

-Gene

RP1911
12-17-2009, 8:09 PM
That vagueness should play well with Theseus' appeal.

wilit
12-17-2009, 8:10 PM
Interesting.

wildhawker
12-17-2009, 8:13 PM
I luckily think that the audience for a Flowchart for Felons is somewhat limited.

-Gene

What's the trouble? It's not like we have anything else to do.
.
.
.
:chris:

M. Sage
12-17-2009, 9:33 PM
I luckily think that the audience for a Flowchart for Felons is somewhat limited.

-Gene

That is unless they try and ban it for everybody while they're busy "fixing" a law that arguably shouldn't exist in the first place.

Theseus
12-17-2009, 9:37 PM
That vagueness should play well with Theseus' appeal.

Don't think they are even slightly related. . . but I could be wrong.

RP1911
12-17-2009, 9:39 PM
Theseus:

I've been reading the other thread. If the definition of private property is vague; as in not properly defined, the vagueness defense on appeal may work.

Theseus
12-17-2009, 10:29 PM
Theseus:

I've been reading the other thread. If the definition of private property is vague; as in not properly defined, the vagueness defense on appeal may work.

Actually, in reading the case, I think this case might go in the. . . notable quote section for my appeal. Sweet!

RP1911
12-18-2009, 9:30 AM
You might even be able to invalidate the statute as unconstitutional since GFSZ is not defined properly. Think out of the box.

Flopper
12-18-2009, 6:02 PM
Theseus:

I've been reading the other thread. If the definition of private property is vague; as in not properly defined, the vagueness defense on appeal may work.

Nice catch!

Good luck Theseus!

grammaton76
12-18-2009, 6:37 PM
Personally, I'm of the opinion that felons should be able to own, possess, and wear armor. If they're caught with any weapons in addition to the armor though, the armor ought to carry an enhancement to their sentence or prove intent, etc.

Good to see this though.

ilbob
12-18-2009, 6:44 PM
unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it does not provide fair notice
a lot of laws would qualify under that theory.

grammaton76
12-18-2009, 6:53 PM
a lot of laws would qualify under that theory.

On the other side of the coin though, the antis will trot out the idea that if we toss out rules on the grounds of vagueness, convicted child molesters could live one street over from schools because they "never knew it was there".

I think at the end of it all, the only route the .gov will have to maintain such laws is to either start maintaining publicly available "no-go maps" to various folks, or cease enforcing 'vague' laws unless they start putting up signs on all the streets saying things like "1000' from school".

I could see it now - new government iphone app called, "Is this legal for me to have?" Take a picture of the item, it attempts to recognize it, and tells you whether or not you can own it. In a world where that worked perfectly, maybe they could keep all the laws on the books...

RP1911
12-18-2009, 6:57 PM
Entering a GFSZ sign should be at least mandatory.

Consider DUI checkpoints. The Court has ruled that signs must be up and an 'escape' route must be provided.

I think GFSZ could be challenged with a multi prong attack. Hopefully one will stick.

markw
12-18-2009, 7:21 PM
Hey, I like the escape routes. I don't drink and it's a flipping hassle to be stopped, or to wait in line. If they dropped the hammer after one DUI, maybe people would get the message. Oh wait, expected punishment for a crime, what am I thinking of???