Articles Posted in Federal Criminal Appeals

Published on:

Here is a recap of some recent victories from the Sixth Circuit. Good to see vigilant defense counsel using foresight to prevent undue restrictions resulting from sentencing conditions.

United States v. Arnold. Sixth Circuit: A jury convicted Appellant of being a felon in possession of a firearm. At sentencing, the district court departed upward, at least in part, because of its concern that a longer term of imprisonment was needed to ensure that Appellant received appropriate mental health treatment. Specifically, the district court found that Appellant’s “anger” warranted an upward departure to promote public safety, but also that Appellant so needed a “psychiatric intervention” that the Court felt compelled “to grant the government’s motion to go outside and above the sentencing guidelines” to ensure the Appellant would receive that treatment. The Sixth Circuit found that the district court abused its discretion.

United States v. Kelly. Sixth Circuit: Appellant violated his terms of supervised release by failing to register as a sex offender. As part of its Judgment, the district court imposed that district’s rote conditions of supervised release for sex offenders. But the Appellant’s last sex offense predated the revocation by 26 years. Moreover, the record demonstrated that Appellant had a low likelihood of recidivism (for sex offenses), had no mental disorder, had benefitted from previous therapy, and the age had lessened the risk of re-offending. Under such circumstances, the district court abused its discretion and the sentence was substantively unreasonable. The case further highlights the need for Counsel to be vigilant when Courts seek to impose “standard” conditions of supervised release.

United States v. Wilson. Sixth Circuit: A jury convicted Appellants of conspiracy to defraud the United States and providing false information to the Social Security Administration. Appellants sought to demonstrate their good faith reliance on the advice of their accountant, but the district court precluded that effort. Specifically, the district court found that Appellants had not sufficiently made an offer of proof sufficient for the defense to be presented to the jury. The Sixth Circuit, finding that the district court abused its discretion, found that an offer of proof unnecessary. Rather, Appellants needed only to inform the court of the substance of the evidence to be presented. As a second finding of error, the Sixth Court found that the district court failed to articulate its reasoning for a leadership enhancement, which required reversal.

Robert Dietrick represents criminal defendants in the federal Courts of Appeals.

Published on:

Bonifacio Toribio-Almonte was indicted on two counts: (1) conspiracy to import five kilos or more of cocaine and one or more kilos of heroin into the U.S., and (2) conspiracy to possess and distribute five kilos or more of cocaine and one or more kilos of heroin on board a vessel within U.S. customs waters.  On the morning his trial was set to begin, he pled guilty without a plea agreement.

Mr. Toribio-Almonte’s guideline range was 188-235 months in prison.  He requested a sentence below the guidelines, or at the very least, his minimum mandatory sentence, which was 120 months.  The Government requested a 235 month sentence.  To support its request for a sentence at the high end of the guideline range, the Government claimed Mr. Toribio-Almonte was a leader or organizer of the conspiracy.  The problem for the Government was that it had no evidence whatsoever to back up its claim.

Continue reading →

Published on:

On December 15th the D.C. Circuit overturned for plain procedural error a severe sentence in another of those child pornography sting operation cases that appear with some frequency in this jurisdiction.

In a split opinion that is somewhat remarkable for its composition (Senior Circuit Judge Edwards and Circuit Judge Henderson comprising the majority with Senior Circuit Judge Sentelle dissenting) the Circuit reversed the conviction of James Brown, a defendant with a seeming penchant for sexual relations with underage females, including his daughter and at least one granddaughter. The Court found that the district court had plainly erred in sentencing Mr. Brown to a 144-month prison term, which was 47 months in excess of a jointly-requested low end of the Guidelines range and 23 months above the high end. In finding procedural error, the court sidestepped the appellant’s alternative claim of substantive unreasonableness. In particular, the panel found that the lower court’s explanation for an above-Guidelines sentence was inadequate under United States v. Akhigbe, 642 F.3d 1078, 1085-86 (D.C. Cir. 2011)).

Writing for the majority, Judge Edwards found that the district court had plainly failed to provide adequate in-court and written explanations for imposing a sentence that neither the prosecution nor the defendant had sought. Describing the Trial Judge’s in-court characterization of Brown’s conduct “spare and unparticularized,” the panel pointed out that the lower court’s explanation for the above-Guidelines sentence to have been a “‘mere recitation of . . . § 3553(a) factor[s] without application to the defendant being sentenced [which] does not demonstrate reasoned decisionmaking or provide an adequate basis for appellate review.’” (slip op. at 12) (quoting Akhigbe, 642 F.3d at 1086). Nor did the trial judge’s “unparticularized references to “actual abuse of children’ and ‘predatory conduct’ provide [any] basis for suggesting why the conduct described was more harmful or egregious than that accounted for in the Guidelines calculation, let alone why that conduct merited a sentence 23 months in excess of the applicable Guidelines range.” (slip op. at 12-13). In a similar vein, the Court found “unenlightening” the trial judge’s comment that “the combination of behaviors to which Brown pled is ‘not conduct we normally get around here,’” for that comment failed to explain why Brow’s behavior “was more egregious or harmful than that accounted for by the applicable Guidelines calculation.” (Id. at 3-14).

Continue reading →

Published on:

Gregory McLeod pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. The Government sought an enhanced penalty under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), arguing that Mr. McLeod had at least three prior violent felony convictions, all of which were South Carolina second-degree burglaries. If the Government was right, and the District Court believed it was, Mr. McLeod faced a prison term of fifteen years to life. If Mr. McLeod was right, he faced no more than ten years in prison. The Fourth Circuit doesn’t tell us more about the facts of his offense because what we really care about is what happened in South Carolina state court in 1998.[1]

Mr. McLeod had a total of five convictions for second degree burglary. The District Court found that all five convictions were violent felonies. The indictments in “those cases charged McLeod with breaking and entering a commercial building with the intent to commit a crime.” Seems simple enough, right? But sometimes a state burglary isn’t a federal burglary.

Continue reading →

Published on:

There have not been many decisions from the D.C. Circuit in recent months – criminal or otherwise. But a rare reversal in an unusual coram nobis proceeding is worth mentioning as we swing into those grey winter months.

In an opinion remarkable for its turnaround – announced only 45 days after oral argument – the Circuit concluded that Kerry Newman, a permanent resident alien since 1980, had established one viable ground on which to claim that his defense counsel might have rendered ineffective assistance by providing erroneous advice at sentencing about the potential consequences of a guilty plea to a felony offense. United States v. Newman, _ F.3d _, 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 1988 (D.C. Cir., Oct. 2, 2015).

Continue reading →

Published on:

The United States government thought that Lonnell Glover was a drug dealer. They tapped his phone, but he spoke in code so they couldn’t get any evidence on him that way.

The government knew that Mr. Glover liked to talk in his truck, as so many Americans do. So they decided to get authorization from a judge to put a bug – a little microphone – in his truck.

The bug was authorized by a federal judge in Washington, D.C. The truck, at the time, was at Baltimore Washington International Airport (or, more accurately, Thurgood Marshall Baltimore Washington International Airport).

bug-1411396-m.jpgThe bug picked up some conversations, not in code, that strongly suggested Mr. Glover is a drug dealer. He was convicted, and, on appeal, challenged the validity of the wire tap because it was authorized by a federal judge in D.C. for a car in Maryland.

The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion by Senior Judge Silberman, reversed, in United States v. Glover.

Eighteen U.S.C. section 2518(3) allows a federal district judge to:

“authoriz[e] or approv[e] interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications within the territorial jurisdiction of the court in which the judge is sitting (and outside that jurisdiction but within the United States in the case of a mobile interception device authorized by a Federal court within such jurisdiction).”

Does this language let a federal judge in Washington, D.C. authorize a wire tape for a wire that’s not in Washington, D.C.?

That parenthetical is not a model of clarity. Here’s how the D.C. Circuit parses it:

To be sure, the parenthetical phrase is somewhat ambiguous. It seems reasonable to read the words “such jurisdiction” in the phrase as referring back to the jurisdiction in which the judge is sitting; i.e., in this case, the District of Columbia, since the provision mentions no other jurisdiction. It is also possible that the phrase, by implication, refers to the jurisdiction in which the mobile interception device is installed.

So, could the parenthetical be read to say that a federal judge in D.C. could authorize the interception of conversations in Maryland for an investigation being run by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in DC? The D.C. Circuit says no – it doesn’t work with the rest of the language of the section:

Under either reading, the parenthetical makes clear that a judge cannot authorize the interception of communications if the mobile interception device was not validly authorized, and a device cannot be validly authorized if, at the time the warrant is issued, the property on which the device is to be installed is not located in the authorizing judge’s jurisdiction. A contrary reading would render the phrase “authorized by a Federal court within such jurisdiction” completely superfluous.

The government has a response to this.

It argues that:

The government points to a handful of cases in which courts have found that an “interception” under Title III takes place at both the location of the listening post and at the location of a tapped phone. The government argues that in light of these cases, we should recognize that an issuing court has the power to authorize covert, trespassory entries onto private property, anywhere in the country, for purposes of placing surveillance equipment. The only jurisdictional limitation the government acknowledges is that the listening post must be located in the issuing court’s jurisdiction.

It’s like the argument the government frequently makes about wire fraud venue – any place that the wire goes through is an appropriate location for venue. If you email from California to Nevada, but the email goes through a server in Virginia, the government has argued that you can be tried in Virginia. Though it’s a little odder here – the government, of course, controls where the listening post sits.

The D.C. Circuit doesn’t go along with the government here – noting that the “listening post” language is just not in the statute.

Finally, the government asks the Court to ignore the jurisdictional problem because of the “good faith” exception to the warrant requirement. The D.C. Circuit gives this argument short shrift:

The government’s last refuge is a plea that we recognize the government’s “good faith” and, therefore, import a good faith exception to Title III’s remedy of suppression. The Supreme Court has done so regarding Fourth Amendment violations, see United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 911 (1984), where there is no explicit textual remedy. Here, of course, Congress has spoken: The statute requires suppression of evidence gathered pursuant to a facially insufficient warrant.

The convictions were reversed, and the wiretapped conversations are suppressed.

Published on:

When you go to a restaurant, you have to pay for the meal – there’s a quid pro quo. But you don’t have to leave a tip (we’re leaving aside situations where you have a large party and they automatically add 18%). A tip you leave because you want to note and appreciate the service you received. Maybe a tip is expected, but a waiter can’t sue you for not leaving one.

So too with bribes, gratutities, and law makers. If a member of Congress makes a deal with you where you’ll give him $10,000 in exchange for voting for your favorite bill, that’s a bribe. But if he votes for your favorite bill and then you send him $10,000 because you’re excited about his vote, that’s a gratuity.

As the Supreme Court has said,

for bribery there must be a quid pro quo — a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act. An illegal gratuity, on the other hand, may constitute merely a reward for some future act that the public official will take (and may already have determined to take), or for a past act that he has already taken.

A high-profile case in Puerto Rico highlights the difference – and establishes that, in the First Circuit at least – a gratuity is not a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666.

Section 666 is the federal statute that prohibits corrupt acts with state and local government actors. It says that any one who is an agent of a state or local government and “corruptly solicits or demands for the benefit of any person, or accepts or agrees to accept, anything of value from any person, intending to be influenced or rewarded in connection with” that person’s work as an agent of the government, has violated section 666(a)(1).

Similarly, anyone who “corruptly gives, offers, or agrees to give anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward” any one who is an agent of a state or local government violates section 666(a)(2).

The First Circuit held that this language doesn’t prohibit mere gratuities.

What Happens In Vegas

Juan Bravo Fernandez – or Mr. Bravo – was the President of Ranger American, a private security firm.

Hector Martinez Maldondad – Mr. Martinez – was a member of the Senate of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Martinez was the chair of the Public Safety Committee. In 2005, it was considering some legislation that would have been very favorable to Mr. Fernandez – Senate Projects 410 and 471.

As the First Circuit tells it in United States v. Martinez:

muai-thai-fighting-1-385141-m.jpg

On May 14, 2005, prominent Puerto Rican boxer Felix “Tito” Trinidad was scheduled to fight Ronald Lamont “Winky” Wright at the MGM Grand Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. On March 2, Bravo purchased four tickets to the fight at a cost of $1,000 per ticket. The same day, Martinez submitted Senate Project 410 for consideration by the Puerto Rico Senate. On April 20, Martinez presided over a Public Safety Committee hearing on Senate Project 471 at which Bravo testified. The next day, Bravo booked one room at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. On May 11, Martinez issued a Committee report in support of Senate Project 471.

I suppose it goes without saying that the trips were really nice.

Both men were charged with a number of things – including charges involving the giving or receiving of a bribe in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666.

The Jury Instructions

Here’s part of how the jury was instructed:

I instruct you that a defendant is not required to have given, offered, or agreed to give a thing of value before the business, transaction, or series of transactions. Rather, the Government may prove that defendant Bravo gave, offered, or agreed to give the thing of value before, after, or at the same time as the business, transaction, or series of transactions. Therefore, the government does not need to prove that defendant Bravo gave, offered, or agreed to offer the trip to Las Vegas before defendant Martínez performed any official action or series of acts.

Of course, if you give someone cash after they perform a service, instead of before, that’s a tip, rather than a bribe.

Another part of the instruction makes it a little clearer:

the Government does not need to prove that defendant Martinez solicited, demanded, accepted or agreed to accept the trip to Las Vegas before defendant Martinez performed any official act or series of acts.

Again, this looks a whole lot like the government can get a conviction if there’s just some relationship between the money and the official act, rather than that the money caused the official act – which you’d need for bribery.

The government’s closing argument didn’t walk back from this. The government said:

These instructions clarify that — that it doesn’t matter if the trip was offered before official acts were taken, at the same time official acts were taken, or after official acts were taken, because the crime is offering or accepting the trip with intent to influence or reward.

These instructions, on these facts, allowed the First Circuit to conclude that the jury was instructed that Mr. Martinez or Mr. Bravo could be convicted if they merely received a gratuity, rather than a bribe.

Does section 666 criminalize gratuities?

The First Circuit said yes.

The statute criminalizes anyone who gives something to a state legislator (and others) with an intent to “influence or reward” that person. A number of circuits have held that the “or reward” bit of this includes gratuities. United States v. Anderson, 517 F.3d 953 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v. Ganim, 510 F.3d 134, 150 (2d Cir. 2007); United States v. Zimmerman, 509 F.3d 920, 927 (8th Cir. 2007).

The other way to read this is that the “or reward” applies to situations where the agreement was made before the official action, but the payment came later. If that’s the case – and the deal was hatched, and “reward” just means paying off the previously agreed on sum in exchange for the official act – then this applies to bribes. It doesn’t additionally criminalize bribery.

So, if you go into a restaurant and tell the waiter “I’ll give you a $20 tip if you never let my iced tea glass get empty” then, because there’s a qui pro quo, you’ve converted the tip from a gratuity to a bribe (except that it’s completely legal to refill an iced tea glass frequently).

The First Circuit thought this was a plausible reading – and also noted that if you don’t read it this way, it gets odd.

There are different punishments for bribes and gratuities if you’re bribing a federal official. If it’s a bribe of a federal official, the statutory maximum is 15 years. If it’s just a gratuity, then the max is two years.

But for section 666 applying to state officials, any violation has a statutory maximum of 10 years.

The First Circuit thought it would be pretty odd to have such a high statutory maximum if Congress intended section 666 to apply to gratuities, that are normally capped at 2 years for federal officials.

For these reasons, and others, the convictions were vacated.

Published on:

Placido Mendoza drove a truck from North Carolina to Tennessee. His passenger was Abel Tavera.

Tavera was a roofer. He later said (to a jury) that he thought he was going to Tennessee to see a construction project.

23.jpgThe truck had construction equipment in it. And a bucket containing nails.

Under the nails was a large quantity of methamphetamine.

Mr. Tavera went to trial and was convicted. His defense was that he didn’t know that the truck had meth in it.

The driver, Mr. Mendoza, pled guilty before Mr. Tavera’s trial.

Mr. Tavera was convicted and sentenced to 15 years and six months in prison.

After Mr. Tavera’s trial, he learned that Mr. Mendoza told the AUSA – Donald Taylor – that Mr. Tavera had no knowledge of the drug conspiracy he was charged with.

AUSA Taylor never told Mr. Tavera’s lawyer that Mr. Mendoza said Mr. Tavera isn’t guilty.

And, as a result, the jury never heard that the only other guy in the car told the prosecutor that Mr. Tavera didn’t know about the drugs.

As the Sixth Circuit said, “Mendoza’s statements to Taylor were plainly exculpatory.”

The Supreme Court has said that the government has to hand over all information that is exculpatory and that if it fails to do that, the prosecution is fundamentally unfair.

Yet, despite that the law is crystal clear on this, the Sixth Circuit notes that “nondisclosure of Brady material is still a perennial problem, as multiple scholarly accounts attest.”

The procedural history is interesting – Mr. Tavera’s motion for a new trial based on the Brady failure was still pending when the Sixth Circuit decided, in United States v. Tavera, that the Brady violation was so clear that the case had to go to a new trial.

The government did not think that it had to disclose this information. As the Sixth Circuit frames their argument:

the government argues, and the dissent agrees, that Tavera (although confined to his prison cell) or his lawyer should have exercised “due diligence” and discovered the statements by asking Mendoza if he had talked to the prosecutor.

The court of appeals held that the Supreme Court rejected the “due diligence” exception to Brady in Banks v. Dretke, 540 U.S. 668 (2004) when it noted that “[a] rule thus declaring “prosecutor may hide, defendant must seek,” is not tenable in a system constitutionally bound to accord defendants due process.”

Moreover, a rule that a Brady violation is excusable if the defendant or defense lawyer just does more work is kind of stupid. As the Sixth Circuit explained:

The Supreme Court’s rejection of the idea that the “prisoner still has the burden to discover the evidence” is based in part on the fact that the prosecution has the advantage of a large staff of investigators, prosecutors and grand jurors, as well as new technology such as wiretaps of cell phones. That is one of the reasons that these investigators must assist the defendant who normally lacks this assistance and may wrongfully lose his liberty for years if the information they uncover remains undisclosed. The superior prosecutorial investigatory apparatus must turn over exculpatory information.

My favorite part is the suggestion that Mr. Tavera’s lawyer should have interviewed Mr. Mendoza – because there is just about exactly zero chance that any competent lawyer would let his client talk to a co-defendant about the facts of the case while he’s trying to work out a deal with the government.

Because “[t]his case shows once again how prosecutors substitute their own judgment of the defendant’s guilt for that of the jury” the court of appeals reversed and recommended that “the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Tennessee conduct an investigation of why this prosecutorial error occurred and make sure that such Brady violations do not continue.”

Published on:

Does marriage fraud happen in the marriage, or at the wedding? As it happens, marriage fraud, at least according to the Eleventh Circuit, is a bit of a misnomer – it’s really better thought of as wedding fraud.

The statute is 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c). It says that it’s a marriage fraud whenever “[a]ny individual who knowingly enters into a marriage for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws.” The case is United States v. Rojas.

2.jpgYunier Rojas and Soledad Marino were friends. Good friends, but just friends. Apparently not even friends with benefits. Just friends.

Ms. Marino is an Argentinian who had overstayed her nonimmigrant visa. Mr. Rojas, as a friend, married her so that she could stay in the country.

The happy day was April 23, 2007.

Two years later, Ms. Marino sent in an application to adjust her status, as a result of her marriage. She sent in a marriage license from April 2007, as well as a list of addresses where she had lived with Mr. Rojas as a married couple.

Folks from Immigration and Customs Enforcement – ICE – interviewed the couple, together.

The interview didn’t go well. As a result of discrepancies between what they said, the interviewers decided to interview the couple separately. The two gave different answers about their marriage. One suspects that they were more substantive than whether her favorite flavor of ice cream was really pistachio.

Finally, the ICE agents told the couple that they thought the marriage was a fraud. Both Mr. Rojas and Ms. Marino admitted that it was.

Mr. Rojas signed a statement saying that he and Ms. Marino were just friends – and that he married her so she could stay in the country.

As often happens when folks volunteer information about their own criminal conduct, law enforcement responded charitably – the government indicted Mr. Rojas.

The indictment came on April 27, 2012.

This was, of course, five years and four days after April 23, 2007 – the day the couple were married.

Mr. Rojas filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, which was denied.

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit, per curiam, in an opinion that didn’t require argument, held that the crime of marriage fraud is completed on the day that the couple enters into the marriage.

This is because the criminal conduct is “knowingly enter[ing] into a marriage” that’s a sham to defeat immigration laws.

The government argued that the crime of immigration fraud was not complete until the couple lied to the government about the purpose of the marriage. That, after all, is when the government first learned that a crime had happened.

Since the purpose of entering in a sham marriage – according to the government – is to lie to immigration, the couple has to actually finish lying to immigration for the crime to be done.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument.

To prove marriage fraud, the government must show that (1) the defendant knowingly entered into a marriage (2) for the purpose of evading any provision of the immigration laws.2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c). It is undisputed that Rojas and Marino married on April 23, 2007. It is likewise undisputed that Rojas, at the time he entered into the marriage, did so for the purpose of violating the immigration laws–namely, using the marriage to adjust Marino’s immigration status. Filing for immigration benefits may serve as circumstantial evidence of the defendant’s unlawful purpose and may lead, as it did in this case, to charges and prosecution for making a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement to DHS, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). The plain language of the marriage fraud statute, however, cannot plausibly be read to require that a defendant take the additional step of filing for immigration benefits in order for the crime to be complete.

The district court abused its discretion by holding otherwise.

So, Mr. Rojas is free to go. Though I suspect that the statute of limitations on lying to the ICE investigators may not have run yet.

Published on:

John Doe (not his real name – but the guy shouldn’t be singled out any more than he already has been. If you really want to see his name, it’s on the opinion from the Fourth Circuit) wanted to have gay sex with a stranger.

Instead of going online like a normal person, he went to a national park in North Carolina. Mr. Doe was in his sixties – apparently baby boomers don’t use Grindr.

Mr. Doe was not the only person in the park looking for men who were looking to have sex with strangers. In response to a complete absence of real crime anywhere in North Carolina, law enforcement was there too.

The law enforcement officer Joseph Darling was on patrol. Darling saw Mr. Doe on a trail hiking toward him. As they passed each other, Darling said hello. Doe grabbed his groin.

1426349_balanced_rock.jpgA few minutes later, Darling saw Doe again on an unofficial trial. They talked about the weather for a few minutes. Then Darling told Doe that Asheville – which they were near – was an open community that is accepting of gay folks.

Mr. Doe said that he “wanted to be F’ed.”

Darling indicated that he would be into that. (the record says that Darling said that he replied “okay or yes, or something to that affirmative”)

As Darling described it later, he “gave [Doe] every reason to believe that [Darling] was good to go.”

Mr. Doe then turned around – they were three feet or so away from each other – and backed into Darling.

With his left hand, Darling reached back and “very briefly” touched Darling’s fully-clothed crotch.

Darling responded, “Police officer, you’re under arrest.”

Mr. Doe was charged with disorderly conduct. He was convicted by a magistrate judge and sentenced to 15 days in jail, along with a fine and a bar on going in a national park for two years.

Disorderly conduct for these purposes is defined by 36 C.F.R. § 2.34(a)(2) (some CFR provisions establish federal crimes in national parks – see 16 USC § 3) and has three elements:

(1) using language, an utterance, or a gesture, or engaging in a display or act;
(2) that is obscene, physically threatening or menacing, or done in a manner likely to inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace; and
(3) having the intent to cause or knowingly or recklessly creating a risk of public alarm, nuisance, jeopardy, or violence.

The Fourth Circuit vacated this conviction, holding that there’s no notice to Mr. Doe, or anyone else, that brief clothed touching of someone’s body who says that they want to have sex with you is obscene.

Which is fair enough. The Fourth Circuit made two other great points though.

First, in response to an argument from the government that really this was a prosecution for Mr. Doe wanting to have sex right there on the unofficial trail, the court of appeals noted:

Defendant’s conviction was for disorderly conduct–not disorderly thoughts or desires. And it is undisputed that Defendant’s actual conduct never went further than his backing up to Darling and very briefly grabbing Darling’s clothed crotch. Moreover, even Darling agreed that, “for all [he] knew, [Defendant] could have very well intended for [the intercourse] to happen at [Defendant’s] house.” J.A. 88. And such private sexual conduct would, of course, have been perfectly legal. As the Supreme Court pronounced a decade ago, “[l]iberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct” and “allows homosexual persons the right to” engage in consensual intimate conduct in the privacy of their homes. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 567 (2003).

Finally, the Fourth Circuit said the whole point of the notice requirement was so that the government can’t just make up crimes to punish people for. (for an excellent National Law Journal article on this, go here)

Yet this looks like exactly what you’d expect can happen from government enforcement of loosely defined laws – the government uses them to bully unpopular groups.

the facts of this case illustrate the real risk that the provision may be “arbitrar[ily] and discriminator[ily] enforce[d].” Hill, 530 U.S. at 732. The sting operation that resulted in Defendant’s arrest was aimed not generally at sexual activity in the Blue Ridge Parkway; rather, it specifically targeted gay men. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, the all-male undercover rangers arrested only men on the basis of disorderly homosexual conduct.

The Fourth Circuit also shot down a government argument that this was motivated not by hatred of gay people, but by citizen complaints:

If the public is . . . not similarly troubled by a woman propositioning her boyfriend for sex and then briefly touching his clothed crotch, there would exist no citizen complaint and no related sting, even for otherwise identical heterosexual conduct. Simply enforcing the disorderly conduct regulation on the basis of citizen complaints therefore presents a real threat of anti-gay discrimination.

Also the Fourth Circuit determined that touching someone who says they want to have sex with you is not physically menacing – the other prong of the disorderly conduct regulation.