230 F. Supp. 3d 232
S.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Plaintiffs (Copeland, Perez, and Native Leather) brought an as-applied vagueness challenge to New York Penal Law §§ 265.00(5) and 265.01(1), which prohibit possession of a “gravity knife” (blade released by gravity or centrifugal force and locks in place).
- New York enforcement uses a functional “Wrist‑Flick” test (one‑handed flick of the wrist) to assess whether a knife opens by centrifugal force; prosecution occurs when a knife opens and locks under that test.
- Plaintiffs contend the Wrist‑Flick test is subjective and indeterminate (outcomes vary with tester strength, dexterity, knife specimen, wear), so ordinary people cannot know which common folding knives are illegal.
- Evidence included plaintiff and expert declarations, NYPD/DA declarations, a live hearing with demonstrations, and testing of Native Leather’s inventory (some folding knives were retained by the D.A.’s Office after opening under the Wrist‑Flick test).
- The court found each plaintiff’s challenged knife met the statutory elements (opened and locked via the Wrist‑Flick test), found NYPD/DA training and consistent application of the test, and found plaintiffs failed to show the hypotheticals of arbitrary or unpredictable enforcement were likely as to them.
- Judgment was entered for defendants: the as‑applied vagueness challenge fails because the statute gave adequate notice and did not permit arbitrary enforcement in these plaintiffs’ circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gravity Knife Statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to Common Folding Knives | The Wrist‑Flick test is subjective/indeterminate so owners cannot know if their folding knife is illegal; variability (tester skill, knife specimen, wear) makes notice impossible | The statute is functional and clear: Wrist‑Flick measures centrifugal force; NY courts and NYPD practice give notice and produce consistent results; prosecutions occur only when knife opens/locks | Statute is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to these plaintiffs; notice adequate and enforcement not arbitrary in their cases |
| Whether the Wrist‑Flick test measures the statutory element (centrifugal force) properly | Plaintiffs’ experts argue the test does not measure centrifugal force as engineers define it and that only classic gravity/paratrooper knives should be covered | Defendants and precedent treat the Wrist‑Flick as measuring centrifugal force; historical practice and NY case law support that test | Court held Wrist‑Flick appropriately measures centrifugal force for statutory purposes; plaintiffs forfeited argument that centrifugal force element was absent |
| Whether enforcement practices permit arbitrary/discriminatory enforcement | Plaintiffs argue the test permits officers unfettered discretion and inconsistent outcomes (different outcomes by different officers or over time) | Defendants point to training, consistent historical application, lack of record evidence of inconsistent outcomes, and prosecution only when knife opens | Court found no record evidence of arbitrary enforcement as applied here; officers trained and applied a consistent test; plaintiffs’ hypotheticals insufficient |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing and proper scope (facial vs as‑applied) | Plaintiffs framed a broad as‑applied challenge to “Common Folding Knives,” but pressed hypotheticals akin to a facial/pre‑enforcement challenge | Defendants argue plaintiffs must prove unconstitutionality as to their specific conduct/knives | Court treated challenge as as‑applied to these plaintiffs’ knives (which met the statute) and rejected vagueness; also held plaintiffs failed to show facial invalidity |
Key Cases Cited
- Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385 (statute cannot be so vague that men of common intelligence must guess at its meaning)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (higher specificity required when criminal penalties or constitutional rights are implicated)
- United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87 (upheld a vagueness‑challenged statute by applying a commonsense interpretation; assumed‑risk notion)
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (vagueness doctrine: statutes that encourage arbitrary enforcement violate due process)
- Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470 (as‑applied vagueness framework and burden to show notice or arbitrary enforcement)
- People v. Sans, 26 N.Y.3d 13 (N.Y. Court of Appeals treating a "flick of the wrist" as conveying centrifugal force for gravity‑knife definition)