United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 17-474, Document 28, 06/01/2017, 2048740, Page1 of 108 17-0474-cv United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit JOHN COPELAND, PEDRO PEREZ, NATIVE LEATHER, LIMITED, Plaintiffs-Appellants, KNIFE RIGHTS, INC., KNIFE RIGHTS FOUNDATION, INC., Plaintiffs, – v. – CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., in his Official as the New York County District Attorney, CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants-Appellees, ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN, in his Official Capacity as Attorney General of the State of New York, Defendant. –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIEF AND SPECIAL APPENDIX OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS DANIEL L. SCHMUTTER HARTMAN & WINNICKI, P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellants 74 Passaic Street Ridgewood, New Jersey 07450 (201) 967-8040 Case 17-474, Document 28, 06/01/2017, 2048740, Page2 of 108 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 26.1, Appellant Native Leather, Ltd. hereby certifies that it has no parent corporation and that there is no publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more of its stock. i Case 17-474, Document 28, 06/01/2017, 2048740, Page3 of 108 TABLE OF CONTENTS CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT .......................................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .......................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED................................................................ 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................................................................. 8 A. Introduction ........................................................................................... 8 B. Switchblade Knives, Gravity Knives, Common Folding Knives .................................................................................................... 9 C. The Statutory Framework .................................................................... 14 D. The Parties ........................................................................................... 18 E. Defendants’ Recent Enforcement of the Gravity Knife Law ...................................................................................................... 19 F. Inherent Variability and Indeterminacy of the Wrist Flick Test when Applied to Common Folding Knives. ............................... 29 G. The Live Knife Demonstration Illustrates the Inherent Variability and Indeterminacy of the Wrist Flick Test when Applied to Common Folding Knives. ....................................... 34 H. Defendants’ Approach to the Functional Test/Wrist Flick Test ...................................................................................................... 38 1. The City ..................................................................................... 38 2. The DA ...................................................................................... 41 I. Defendants’ Admission before this Court on the Prior Appeal.................................................................................................. 43 J. Defendants’ Devastating Admission at Trial before the District Court. ...................................................................................... 44 ii Case 17-474, Document 28, 06/01/2017, 2048740, Page4 of 108 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...................................................................... 45 STANDARD OF REVIEW ..................................................................................... 47 ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 48 I. The District Court Erred in Entering Judgment for Defendants because the Court Ignored the Essential Thrust of Plaintiffs’ Claim by Focusing Entirely on Past Events Rather than the Inability of Plaintiffs to Conform Their Future Conduct to the Law ............................................................................................................. 48 II. The District Court Erred in Entering Judgment for Defendants because the Court Ignored Critical Evidence in the Record Which Demonstrates that a Person Cannot Determine with any Reasonable Degree of Certainty which Common Folding Knives are Legal to Possess and/or Sell, and Thus Defendants’ Application of the Gravity Knife Law to Common Folding Knives is Unconstitutionally Vague .............................................................. 52 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 63 iii Case 17-474, Document 28, 06/01/2017, 2048740, Page5 of 108 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., 466 U.S. 485 (1984).......................48 Carter v. McKoy, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83246 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) .........................17 Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) ................................................48 Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470 (2d Cir. 2006) .........................................................48 First Nat. Bank of Cincinnati v. Pepper, 547 F.2d 708 (2d. Cir. 1976) ..................47 Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489 (1982) ............49 Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2015) ....................................1, 51 People v Neal, 913 N.Y.S.2d 192 (1st Dep’t 2010) .................................................16 People v. Brannon, 16 N.Y.3d 596 ..........................................................................14 People v. Dreyden, 15 N.Y.3d 100 (2010) ....................................................... 14, 61 People v. Herbin, 927 N.Y.S2d 54 (1st Dep’t 2011) ................................................16 People v. Trowells, Ind. No. 3015/2013 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Bronx County July 11, 2014) ........................................................................................................58 United States v. Irizarry, 509 F. Supp. 2d 198 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) ......... 14, 15, 16, 58 Statutes 15 U.S.C. §1244(5) ..................................................................................................17 28 U.S.C. § 1291 ........................................................................................................ 1 28 U.S.C. § 1294 ........................................................................................................ 1 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 1 42 U.S.C. § 1983 ....................................................................................................1, 9 iv Case 17-474, Document 28, 06/01/2017, 2048740, Page6 of 108 N.Y. Penal L. § 265.00 (5) ...................................................................... 8, 14, 18, 63 N.Y. Penal L. § 265.01 ........................................................................... 8, 14, 18, 63 1958 N.Y. Laws ch. 107, sec. 1, § 1896 ..................................................................14 Other Authorities U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1 ....................................................................................48 v Case 17-474, Document 28, 06/01/2017, 2048740, Page7 of 108 JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT This case was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York June 9, 2011. A3.1 The court had subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as it involves claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Constitution. On January 27, 2017, the court issued its opinion, entering final judgment on all claims. SPA1. Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal February 16, 2017. A1198. This Court has appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 & 1294. STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED This is the second appeal in this litigation. Previously, the district court dismissed the lawsuit on standing. This Court reversed and remanded the matter for trial.2 The current appeal arises as a result of judgment below entered in favor of Defendants after a trial on papers, supplemented by limited live testimony and a live demonstration ordered by the court of the functionality of various knives. A1197. Plaintiffs bring this action as an as-applied Constitutional Fourteenth Amendment vagueness challenge to the novel and unprecedented expansion of the 1 Citations to the Joint Appendix are designated “A__,” Citations to the Special Appendix are designated “SPA__.” 2 Knife Rights, Inc. v. Vance, 802 F.3d 377 (2d Cir. 2015). 1 Case 17-474, Document 28, 06/01/2017, 2048740, Page8 of 108 manner in which Defendants apply New York’s gravity knife law – a law which had been uncontroversial for its first 50 years. After decades of enforcing this law with clarity and predictability, Defendants now choose to treat nearly any ordinary folding knife as an illegal “gravity knife.” Regular, law-abiding, tradesmen (among others) must now guess if the tools of their trade, used freely throughout the state, will result in their arrest and prosecution in New York City. Under New York law there are three basic categories of knives: A “switchblade knife,” which opens automatically upon the pressing of a button in the handle. These are not at issue here. A “gravity knife,” which opens readily by the force of gravity or the application of centrifugal force. A “pocket knife,” which is a folding