Misguided Prosecution. In the last couple of days, I have seen some pretty harsh emotional critique about 31-year-old Alycia Neely’s arrest. I need not over litigate the details because Kimberly Morin has done a great job where she asks, Was Manchester Mom Wrongfully Arrested for Daring to Protect her Family? The details are contained therein.
Looking at this case, however, I am reminded of State V. Oriol Dor, an opinion issued by the N.H. Supreme Court on August 7, 2013. On May 8, 2012, Manchester Police searched Dor’s vehicle, finding a .40 caliber semi-automatic pistol located in the glove compartment. Proximal to the pistol, Officers also found a loaded magazine The pistol was not loaded in that the pistol did not have a cartridge in the chamber, or a magazine in the magazine well. Police arrested Dor charging him with knowingly carrying a “loaded” pistol without a valid license, a class A Misdemeanor, in reliance on N.H. RSA 159:4.
In court, however, Dor moved to dismiss the charge further arguing that the firearm was not in fact loaded so no license was required and no crime was committed. Judge Gregory Michael sent the case up to the Supreme Court on interlocutory transfer without ruling on the definition of loaded.
The state argued,
The State argues that the meaning of “loaded” should be expanded further to include a pistol or revolver that does not contain any cartridges but that is located near a detachable magazine or clip that contains cartridges. Those jurisdictions that have defined “loaded” more broadly than the common meaning–i.e., as encompassing firearms “near” ammunition–have done so explicitly.
The court disagreed and stated,
[W]e hold that in order for a pistol or revolver to be considered “loaded” within the meaning of RSA 159:4, the pistol or revolver must contain a cartridge in the chamber or must contain a magazine, cylinder, or clip inserted in or otherwise adjoined to the firearm such that the firearm can be discharged through normal operation. Of course, if the legislature disagrees with our interpretation of RSA 159:4, it is free, subject to constitutional limitations, to amend the statute.
While the fact patterns in the two case are dissimilar, what is similar is the legal overreach. Reasonable people are hard-pressed to find a specific statute to best apply here. And the reason is, “Its not a crime.” Instead, it is a personal value judgment exerted under color of authority. That is merely an opinion. Mine. Looking all around it, however, I find no other place to intellectually land on this issue. It certainly happens. And we roll this same old boring tape of having it go to the Supreme Court.
Lets look at this from another angle…IT COULD BE YOU.
In a civil society, Police don’t get to write their own laws. We have a legislature to do that. In the meantime, I would implore people to assist this poor mother You can help by donating $5…or $10….or more to assist with her legal defense. Click here to Donate: DON’T LET THIS INJUSTICE STAND
