STATE v. STEVENS

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

D901370M; CA A66794

Attorney(S)

John J. Tyner III and Tyner Associates, Hillsboro, filed the brief for appellant. Thomas H. Denney, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Dave Frohnmayer, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On March 27, 1990, officers executed an arrest warrant at defendant Donald August Stevens's residence. His wife consented to a search, and Stevens was found hiding under clothes in an upstairs bedroom. After being frisked, handcuffed, and taken outside to a patrol car, a second search revealed a concealed switchblade knife in his back pocket. Stevens had not informed officers of the knife. He was charged under ORS 166.240 with carrying a concealed weapon. At trial, the prosecution relied on evidence that Stevens carried the switchblade both inside and outside the home. Stevens moved for acquittal, arguing that the statute did not apply to carrying a concealed switchblade within one's own home and that applying it in such a manner violated Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution. The trial court denied the motion, and Stevens was convicted. This appeal followed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether a person can be convicted under ORS 166.240 for carrying a concealed switchblade within the confines of their own home.
Whether the application of ORS 166.240 to the defendant’s possession of a concealed switchblade inside his home violates Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms for self-defense.
Whether carrying a concealed switchblade outside the home under involuntary removal by law enforcement constitutes a violation of ORS 166.240.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 371 (1980)	Possession of a billy club inside one's home is protected by the constitutional right to bear arms for defense.	Supported the principle that possession of defensive arms inside the home is constitutionally protected.
State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, 260 (1981)	"Mere possession" of a billy club, even outside the home, is protected by Article I, section 27; the right to bear arms is not qualified by location.	Reinforced that constitutional protection applies regardless of place, but distinguished from this case focusing on concealed carrying inside the home.
State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 400 (1984)	A switchblade qualifies as "arms" under Article I, section 27; mere possession or carrying cannot be absolutely prohibited.	Established that switchblades fall within constitutional protection, limiting legislative prohibition.
State v. Boyce, 61 Or. App. 662, 666 (1983)	The state may regulate the right to bear arms when unrestricted exercise poses a clear threat to public welfare and regulations do not unreasonably interfere with the right.	Used to analyze whether carrying a concealed switchblade inside the home poses a clear threat justifying regulation.
State v. Smoot, 97 Or. App. 255, 258 (1989)	Prohibition on carrying a concealed switchblade in public does not violate the constitutional right to possess such a weapon.	Supported the distinction between public carrying and possession inside the home.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by framing the central question as whether a person can be convicted for carrying a concealed switchblade within their own home. It concluded that such a conviction is impermissible under the Oregon Constitution's right to bear arms.

The court reviewed ORS 166.240, which prohibits carrying concealed switchblades, and Article I, section 27, affirming the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. It relied on precedents establishing that possession of defensive weapons inside the home is constitutionally protected and that switchblades are included within "arms."

While acknowledging the state's authority to regulate the manner of bearing arms when public safety is clearly threatened, the court found that carrying a concealed switchblade within one's home does not pose such a threat. The statute’s application inside the home would unreasonably interfere with the constitutional right to possess and carry arms for self-defense.

Regarding the defendant’s possession of the switchblade outside the home, the court rejected the state's argument that the statute applies when the person is involuntarily removed from their home by law enforcement. It reasoned that the state's entry and removal of the defendant cannot convert a lawful private act inside the home into a public offense, as that would permit oppressive governmental intrusion.

Consequently, the trial court erred in denying the motion for acquittal, and the defendant's conviction was reversed.

Holding and Implications

The court reversed the defendant's conviction.

The court held that ORS 166.240 does not apply to carrying a concealed switchblade within one's own home, as such an application violates the constitutional right to bear arms under Article I, section 27. Furthermore, the statute does not apply to a person involuntarily removed from their home by law enforcement, preventing governmental overreach into private homes. The direct effect is the reversal of the defendant's conviction, and no new precedent beyond the constitutional protection of carrying arms inside the home was established.

Show full summary ...

STATE OF OREGON, Respondent, v. DONALD AUGUST STEVENS, Appellant.

ROSSMAN, J.

Reversed.

ROSSMAN, J.

The question presented by this case is whether one can be convicted for carrying a concealed switchblade within one's own home. We conclude that the answer is "no."

On March 27, 1990, officers went to defendant's residence to execute an arrest warrant. Defendant's wife answered the door and indicated that he was not at home. The officers asked if they could search the residence, and she consented. Defendant was found hiding under a pile of clothes in an upstairs bedroom. He was frisked, then handcuffed and taken outside to a patrol car. Before placing him in the car, another search was conducted, and a switchblade knife was found in his back pocket. He had not told the officers that he was carrying the knife.

Defendant was charged with carrying a concealed weapon. ORS 166.240. At trial, an officer testified that the arrest for that offense was predicated on defendant's having carried the switchblade in his pocket both inside and outside the house. Defendant moved for acquittal on the grounds that ORS 166.240 is not applicable to a person who carries a concealed switchblade within the confines of his own home and that any other reading of the statute would violate Article I, section 27, of the Oregon Constitution. The motion was denied, and defendant was convicted.

ORS 166.240 provides, in part:

"(1) * * * [A]ny person who carries concealed upon the person any knife having a blade that projects or swings into position by force of a spring or by centrifugal force and commonly known as a switchblade knife, any dirk, dagger, ice pick, slung shot, metal knuckles, or any similar instrument by the use of which injury could be inflicted upon the person or property of any other person, commits a Class B misdemeanor."

Article I, section 27, provides, in part:

"The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [ sic] of themselves * * *."

In State v. Kessler, 289 Or. 359, 371, 614 P.2d 94 (1980), the Supreme Court held that possession of a billy club inside one's home is protected by the constitutional right to bear arms in defense of one's person and property. In State v. Blocker, 291 Or. 255, 260, 630 P.2d 824 (1981), the court determined that "mere possession" of a billy club, even outside the home, is protected by Article I, section 27. It noted that the language of that constitutional provision is "not qualified as to place * * *." 291 Or at 259. In State v. Delgado, 298 Or. 395, 400, 692 P.2d 610 (1984), the court held that a switchblade is the type of weapon that comes within the meaning of "arms" in Article I, section 27, and, accordingly, that the "mere possession or carrying of" a switchblade cannot be absolutely proscribed by the legislature.

On the other hand, the state may regulate the manner in which persons exercise their right to bear arms

"when the unrestricted exercise of th[at] right poses a clear threat to the `interests and welfare of the public in general,' and the means chosen by the government body do not unreasonably interfere with the right." State v. Boyce, 61 Or. App. 662, 666, 658 P.2d 577, rev den 295 Or. 122 (1983). (Citation omitted; emphasis supplied.)

Indeed, to the extent that ORS 166.240 prohibits an individual from carrying a concealed switchblade in public, we have held that it does not violate Article I, section 27, because that prohibition "does not impinge on the constitutional right to possess a switchblade knife." State v. Smoot, 97 Or. App. 255, 258, 775 P.2d 344 (1989).

Nonetheless, we conclude that, in the case at bar, ORS 166.240 was applied unconstitutionally. First, the simple act of carrying a concealed switchblade within one's own home is not the type of unrestrained rights-exercising that "poses a clear threat" to public safety and that can therefore be regulated. State v. Boyce, supra, 61 Or App at 666. Second, the state's interpretation would restrict the manner in which one could carry a legal weapon from room to room within one's home and would inhibit an act that is so intrinsic to ownership and self-defense that it would unreasonably interfere with the exercise of one's constitutional right to possess the switchblade. We therefore hold that ORS 166.240 applies only to the carrying of concealed weapons outside one's own home.

Having decided that the statute is inapplicable to defendant's possession and concealment of the knife within the confines of his home, we turn to whether defendant committed the crime of carrying a concealed weapon once he went outside in custody. The state argues that ORS 166.240 is applicable to "a person whose involuntary removal from his or her own premises is lawfully attempted or accomplished — as * * * in this case." Given the state's acknowledgement and the undisputed evidence that defendant was handcuffed and removed from his home by officers executing an arrest warrant, he did not voluntarily leave his home. By entering a home and taking a person outside, the state cannot transform a lawful private act into a public offense. To hold otherwise would allow oppressive governmental invasion of citizens' privacy and personal security. The trial court erred in denying the motion for acquittal.