893 F.3d 101
2d Cir.2018Background
- New York Penal Law bans "gravity knives," defined functionally as knives whose blade is released by gravity or centrifugal force and locks in place; enforcement uses a one-handed "wrist-flick" test.
- Plaintiffs: Copeland and Perez (individuals arrested after their folding knives opened on a wrist-flick) and Native Leather (retailer whose inventory was subpoenaed and some knives retained after D.A. testing).
- Plaintiffs sued claiming the statute is void for vagueness as applied to common folding knives that resist opening (not the rare "true gravity" knives). They sought a declaration and injunction against enforcement.
- District court held the law constitutionally applied in the 2010 enforcement actions and rejected the vagueness claim; plaintiffs appealed.
- Second Circuit treated plaintiffs’ claim as a facial challenge (because it would broadly disable enforcement and plaintiffs relied on hypotheticals) and required plaintiffs to show the statute was vague in all applications or as applied to their prior prosecutions.
- Court concluded at least one plaintiff (Native Leather) failed to show insufficient notice or arbitrary enforcement; accordingly the facial challenge failed and district judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether challenge is as-applied or facial | Plaintiffs framed relief "as-applied" to common folding knives and sought prospective relief | Defendants argued plaintiffs must show prior enforcement against them was unconstitutional | Court: plaintiffs’ claim is effectively facial because it would invalidate enforcement broadly; must show statute invalid in all applications or unconstitutional as applied to them |
| Whether statute is unconstitutionally vague for lack of notice (wrist-flick indeterminacy) | Wrist-flick is indeterminate; ordinary persons cannot reliably know which folding knives are illegal | Law, judicial decisions, and longstanding enforcement gave notice that wrist-flick/centrifugal force measures illegality | Held: statutory text plus state court practice and consistent use of wrist-flick gave constitutionally sufficient notice as applied to Native Leather |
| Whether statute authorizes arbitrary/discriminatory enforcement | Plaintiffs point to variable test results and selective enforcement against certain retailers/persons | Defendants say objective operability test (knife opens/locks) provides clear standard; prosecutions target operable knives | Held: objective instant of operability prevents a totally subjective standard; plaintiffs did not show vagueness based on arbitrary enforcement as applied to them |
| Whether lack of mens rea renders statute unconstitutional | Plaintiffs/amici argue strict liability for possession of common items can violate due process | Defendants rely on precedent allowing strict liability in many regulatory/criminal contexts | Held: absence of scienter may exacerbate concerns but is not per se unconstitutional here; no established constitutional rule requires mens rea for such possession statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983) (void-for-vagueness standard; prohibits laws that encourage arbitrary enforcement)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000) (vagueness doctrine elements: notice and arbitrary enforcement)
- United States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (facial challenges are difficult; challenger must show no valid applications)
- Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, 455 U.S. 489 (1982) (facial vagueness principles; businesses held to greater scrutiny)
- Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 137 S. Ct. 1144 (2017) (prospective as-applied vagueness challenge limited to challenger’s intended conduct)
- United States v. Powell, 423 U.S. 87 (1975) (functional statutory definitions can be upheld; courts may adopt limiting constructions)
- United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008) (vagueness focuses on indeterminacy of the prohibited fact)
- City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999) (invalidated ordinance for encouraging arbitrary enforcement)
- People v. Parrilla, 27 N.Y.3d 400 (2016) (mens rea for gravity knife is knowing possession, not knowledge that an item meets the statutory definition)
- People v. Dreyden, 15 N.Y.3d 100 (2010) (discussion of "readily" responding language in context of notice in accusatory instruments)