State v. Webb
144 So. 3d 971
| La. | 2014Background
- Weimer, J. grants writ to assess if a 2012 Louisiana firearm amendment (La. Const. Art. I, § 11) makes La. R.S. 14:95(E) unconstitutional on its face.
- Defendant Rico Webb was charged under La. R.S. 14:95(E) for possessing a firearm while in possession of illegal drugs after a traffic stop in New Orleans.
- The officers smelled marijuana, found a marijuana blunt, and observed a handgun; Webb claimed ownership and had legal firearm paperwork.
- Webb had no prior felony convictions and was not charged with misdemeanor marijuana possession.
- The district court denied the motion to quash La. R.S. 14:95(E); this Court granted review to address the statute’s constitutionality in light of the new amendment.
- The case is framed around whether the statute’s penalty enhancement for firearm possession with drugs passes strict scrutiny.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether La. R.S. 14:95(E) is facially unconstitutional under the amended Art. I, § 11. | Webb concedes facial challenge; argues firearm aspect cannot survive strict scrutiny. | State contends the statute targets drug-firearm nexus and is narrowly tailored. | No, statute survives strict scrutiny; facial challenge fails. |
| Whether La. R.S. 14:95(E) serves a compelling state interest. | Webb disputes any compelling public-safety justification. | The statute advances public safety by restricting firearm possession with drugs. | Yes, there is a compelling public-safety interest. |
| Whether La. R.S. 14:95(E) is narrowly tailored to serve the interest. | Webb argues overbreadth; the law criminalizes innocent conduct. | Statutory structure uses firearm possession as an enhancement, not a blanket ban; nexus can be shown. | Yes, the statute is narrowly tailored and enhances a misdemeanor to a felony where appropriate. |
| Whether the enhancement mechanism constitutes a permissible use of a fundamental right. | Webb asserts enhancement improperly restricts the right to bear arms. | Enhancement is permissible when tied to unlawful conduct and preserves core rights in narrow fashion. | Yes, enhancement is permissible and justified under strict scrutiny. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165 (La. 2001) (compelling public-safety interest; nexus between drugs and firearms supports §14:95(E))
- Draughter, 130 So.3d 855 (La. 2013) (facial challenge framework; de novo review of constitutionality; standing to challenge pre-revision conduct)
- State v. Draughter, 180 So.3d 855 (La. 2013) (supreme court decision guiding facial challenge and review mechanics)
- Smith v. United States, 508 U.S. 223 (U.S. 1993) (firearm as instrumentality in drug trafficking; enhancing penalties permissible)
- Jones v. Helms, 452 U.S. 412 (U.S. 1981) (enhancement of a crime using a fundamental-right element allowed when tied to conduct)
- In re Warner, 21 So.3d 218 (La. 2009) (strict-scrutiny framework for criminal statutes)
- Copeland v. Copeland, 966 So.2d 1040 (La. 2007) (narrow tailoring and least-interference principles for rights)
- Louisiana Federation of Teachers v. State, 118 So.3d 1033 (La. 2013) (interpretation of constitutional provisions; preserve constitutionality when reasonable)