United States v. Laney
2:15-po-00062
D.N.M.Apr 20, 2017Background
- On Jan. 11, 2015, USFS Law Enforcement Officer Christopher Mandrick, in a marked USFS patrol vehicle, activated lights and siren to stop a brown Ford pickup traveling through Gila National Forest on U.S. Highway 180; the driver (Laney) ultimately stopped after passing several safe pullouts.
- Laney was tried before a magistrate judge on two counts: interfering with a forest officer (36 C.F.R. § 261.3(a)) and failing to stop when directed by a forest officer (36 C.F.R. § 261.10(m)); he was acquitted of Count 1 and convicted of Count 2.
- Judge Vidmar fined Laney $135 total; Laney appealed to the district court under Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g)(2)(B).
- Laney’s principal appellate challenge: FSO Mandrick lacked authority to stop him because Highway 180 is a state-owned road and not a “National Forest System road or trail,” so the regulation’s geographic jurisdiction did not apply.
- The government argued (and the district court agreed) that the USFS retains authority to enforce § 261 within the geographical boundaries of the National Forest System and over certain non‑NFS roads where necessary to protect federal lands.
- The district court reviewed de novo the sufficiency of the evidence and affirmed the conviction, holding Mandrick had authority and that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the § 261.10(m) conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of USFS officer to stop vehicle on Hwy 180 | US: USFS has jurisdiction to enforce § 261 within National Forest boundaries and over certain non‑NFS roads needed to protect forest resources | Laney: Highway 180 is a state road, not an NFS road or part of the NFS, so Mandrick had no authority to effect the stop | Court: Mandrick had authority under 36 C.F.R. § 261.1(a)(1); USFS jurisdiction extends to acts occurring within National Forest System and certain adjacent roads |
| Sufficiency of evidence for § 261.10(m) conviction | US: Mandrick acted in official capacity; observed speeding, tailgating, unsafe passing; activated lights/siren; Laney failed to stop when directed | Laney: contesting authority and necessity of nexus to protect NFS; argued the court did not evaluate jurisdictional element | Court: Viewing evidence in light most favorable to government, a reasonable jury could find Laney failed to stop and that the conduct affected persons protecting the NFS; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. McCane, 573 F.3d 1037 (10th Cir.) (standard for de novo review of sufficiency of evidence)
- United States v. Bader, 678 F.3d 858 (10th Cir.) (evaluate sufficiency by collective inferences from the whole record)
- United States v. Bowen, 527 F.3d 1065 (10th Cir.) (trial-court credibility and weight determinations are not revisited on sufficiency review)
- United States v. Parker, 761 F.3d 986 (9th Cir.) (USFS jurisdiction can extend to non‑federal roads adjacent to or serving NFS lands and to protect adjacent federal property)
- United States v. Vogler, 859 F.2d 638 (9th Cir.) (broad Forest Service authority to regulate conduct on federal lands)