United States v. Bibbins
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 8001
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bibbins was stopped in Lake Mead NRA for a license plate obscured by a garbage bag.
- Rangers learned Bibbins had an active Clark County felony warrant and prior charges for assaulting officers.
- Rangers planned Bibbins exit from the motor home and walk to the back of the pickup to be arrested.
- Bibbins claimed pain from a broken leg, wore or needed a walking boot/crutches, and asserted his leg hindered him from complying.
- Bibbins resisted attempts to handcuff; rangers tased him after a struggle.
- Convictions: resisting a government employee under 36 C.F.R. § 2.32(a)(1) and obstructing a license plate under 36 C.F.R. § 4.2(b) and Nev. Rev. Stat. § 482.275; sentence included 30 hours community service and a year ban from Lake Mead NRA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether willfulness is required for § 2.32(a)(1) resisting | Bibbbins argues lack of willfulness defeats conviction | Bibbbins contends no willful intent shown | Willfulness required; substantial evidence supports willful resistance |
| Whether evidence supports Bibbins's willful resisting conviction | Prosecution shows Bibbins tensed, resisted, and failed to comply | Bibbins asserts pain and inability to comply negates willfulness | There was substantial evidence of willful resistance |
| Whether the district court properly rejected Bibbins's necessity defense | Necessity defense warranted given harm to leg | No reasonable necessity justification; alternatives exist | District court's rejection upheld; necessity defense not shown |
| Whether the Nevada license-plate statute applies to a towed vehicle | Plate obstructed violates Nev. § 482.275 when on motor vehicle | Towed pickup is not a motor vehicle; statute not applicable | Towed vehicle can be a 'motor vehicle'; § 482.275 applies; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hoff, 22 F.3d 222 (9th Cir.1994) (comments on regulatory interpretation and mens rea)
- United States v. Bucher, 375 F.3d 929 (9th Cir.2004) (regarding willfulness as applied to § 2.32(a)(1))
- Reno v. Nat'l Transp. Safety Bd., 45 F.3d 1375 (9th Cir.1995) (plain meaning governs regulatory interpretation when not absurd)
- United States v. Kent, 945 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir.1991) (read intent into Forest Service regulations; supports mens rea for similar offenses)
- United States v. Semenza, 835 F.2d 223 (9th Cir.1987) (requires willfulness for certain regulations on government function)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S.1980) (substantial evidence standard for sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Arellano-Rivera, 244 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir.2001) (necessity defense framework (Arellano-Rivera test))
- United States v. Launder, 743 F.2d 686 (9th Cir.1984) (willfulness in regulatory context; aligns with intent requirements)