Illinois v. Diggins

[ilbob]

A case before the Illinois Supreme Court. Oral argument is on the ILSC website.

A rather strange argument by the state that a center console is not a case because a cop would know a gun was in a "gun" case sitting on the front seat but would not think a gun could be stored in a center console.

 

[Phatty]

Thanks for the heads up, bob. I'll take a look and share my thoughts.

 

[Phatty]

A rather strange argument by the state that a center console is not a case because a cop would know a gun was in a "gun" case sitting on the front seat but would not think a gun could be stored in a center console.

Agreed, especially considering that there is no prohibition in the statute about concealing the container.

 

[ilbob]

If the state's argument is sustained it would be legal to put the unloaded gun in a gun sock with a fastened snap fastener and set it up above the visor, or put it under your coat, but not legal to put the same unloaded gun in the center console because somehow that makes it cop unsafe.

It seems to me the console was locked. Would it not be a good argument beyond the case/container argument that a locked console is "not immediately accessible"?

Another contention by the state is that the phrase "case, firearm carrying box, shipping box, or other container" is so vague that the court should decide that the phrase really means a "case" as defined by an unrelated piece of legislation (the wildlife code) that specifically defines case for the purposes of that unrelated legislation.

One of the state's other arguments was that a gun case can't be fixed in position like a center console because that adds risk to the cop. One of the judges pursued this a little and asked would it be legal to permanently affix a case that otherwise complied with the wildlife code gun case definitions and store the gun there? She danced away from that one.

This ought to be a slam dunk win for Diggins, just on the basis that the law ought to mean what it actually says and not something that can only be determined after 5 years of court cases and deliberately twisting the meaning of commonly used words.

 

[Phatty]

I watched the video of the oral argument, and based on the judges questions and reactions, I agree that Diggins should easily win this one.

The best question by a judge was one of the first asked. The state's attorney was asked, "If there is an ambiguity in the statute, shouldn't the ambiguity be decided in favor of the criminal defendant?"

If I was writing this opinion, I would say the statute is not ambiguous and the center console qualifies as a case or other container. But, even if we accept the state's argument that the statute is ambiguous, the ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the defendant. Due process is not observed where a defendant is held criminally liable for a statute whose ambiguous meaning must be ascertained by reading the legislative history or unrelated wildlife code. If the legislature meant for a "case" to mean a "case specifically designed to hold a firearm" it could have included that language in the statute like it did in the wildlife code. But it didn't, and we are not going to find the defendant guilty of a crime for violating nonexistent language in a statute.

 

[damien]

"If there is an ambiguity in the statute, shouldn't the ambiguity be decided in favor of the criminal defendant?"

I wonder why he even asked. This is first-year law student stuff. It seems the question is to try to see how credible the attorney is.

Any links to any of this stuff?

 

[Phatty]

Here is a link where you can find video of the oral argument (there's also an audio only file).

http://www.state.il.us/court/Media/On_Demand.asp

Prepare yourself to be completely unimpressed by the attorneys.

 

[si vis pacem]

Appellant counsel's argument and presentation were sub-par even when measured against a 1L standard. If I had presented that argument, I would be embarrassed. I'm confident all of the other law students on THR concur.

 

[ilbob]

I was unimpressed with either of them, but it would have taken a really stellar performance by the state to even have a chance with this dog of a case.