Thorne v. United States
2012 WL 5513968
D.C.2012Background
- Thorne was convicted in DC Superior Court of CPWL, UF, and UA.
- He held Virginia SCOP appointments enabling limited on-duty law enforcement authority and firearm carry.
- DC and LE exemptions were argued to apply; Thorne was not on-duty when arrested.
- Trial relied on stipulated facts; Thorne was off-duty, not in scope of employment.
- Court analyzed each exemption separately, concluding Thorne is not a "law enforcement officer" for purposes of the exemptions.
- Court also addressed LEOSA and Second Amendment arguments, declining relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Thorne is a law enforcement officer for exemptions | Thorne: SCOP status makes him an officer | DC/State disagree; not general officer | No, not a law enforcement officer for exemptions |
| CPWL exemption applicability | SCOP status should fit exemption | Exemption narrowly construed; not met | Exemption not met; CPWL conviction stands |
| UF exemption applicability | UF exemption should apply to Thorne | Exemption limited to on-duty officers | Exemption not met; UF conviction stands |
| UA exemption applicability | UA exemption should apply to Thorne | Requires on-duty scope | Exemption not met; UA conviction stands |
| LEOSA applicability and Second Amendment challenge | LEOSA protects Thorne | Alexandria Security Patrol not a governmental agency; LEOSA inapplicable | LEOSA inapplicable; no plain Second Amendment error |
Key Cases Cited
- Bsharah v. United States, 646 A.2d 998 (D.C.1994) (exemptions to CPWL interpreted narrowly; government intent to regulate guns)
- McNeely v. United States, 874 A.2d 371 (D.C.2005) (de novo review of exemptions; standard for analysis)
- Heller v. District of Columbia, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (home-possession rights; limits outside home; presumptively lawful regs)
- Gamble v. United States, 30 A.3d 161 (D.C.2011) (clarifies non-home Second Amendment scope after Heller)
- Little v. United States, 989 A.2d 1096 (D.C.2010) (no clear right to carry outside the home)
- Shivers v. United States, 533 A.2d 258 (D.C.1987) (narrow exception for professionals with limited authority)
- Singleton v. United States, 225 A.2d 315 (D.C.1967) (special policemen are public officers when performing duties)
- Timus v. United States, 406 A.2d 1269 (D.C.1979) ( Timus aid on special officers and firearms)