United States v. Parker
651 F.3d 1180
9th Cir.2011Background
- Parker, Jr. appeals three misdemeanor convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 1382 arising from protest activity on Ocean Avenue near Vandenberg Air Force Base.
- On three occasions Parker protested along the shoulder of Ocean Avenue; he refused to leave or relocate after being advised of designated protest areas.
- Ocean Avenue is a public road established under a public road easement, with concurrent jurisdiction by Santa Barbara County and VAFB; the county handles criminal enforcement.
- Parker received barment letters restricting access to VAFB for three years after the first two incidents and was cited again after the third violation.
- Section 1382 requires the government to prove ownership or exclusive possession of the property where the violation occurred; the government contends it fulfilled this via an easement, but Parker challenges the ownership/possession element.
- The district court’s ruling focused on whether Parker’s presence violated § 1382 given lack of exclusive possession; the Ninth Circuit vacated the convictions and reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the evidence support conviction under § 1382? | Parker argues insufficient evidence to prove violation. | Government contends evidence supports a § 1382 violation. | Convictions vacated; insufficiency found due to lack of exclusive possession. |
| Must the government prove absolute ownership or exclusive possession for § 1382? | Parker asserts the government must show exclusive control; Mowat stance supports this. | Government argues precedent supports possession/control requirements. | The government must prove absolute ownership or exclusive right of possession; circuit precedent controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Packard, 236 F. Supp. 585 (N.D. Cal. 1964) (discusses ownership/possession necessary to exclude others under § 1382)
- United States v. Vasarajs, 908 F.2d 443 (9th Cir. 1990) (reaffirms need for government to show exclusive control to exclude)
- United States v. Douglass, 579 F.2d 545 (9th Cir. 1978) (rejects public easement argument and emphasizes possession/ownership)
- United States v. Mowat, 582 F.2d 1194 (9th Cir. 1978) (holds government must prove absolute ownership or exclusive possession)
- Holdridge v. United States, 282 F.2d 302 (8th Cir. 1960) (exclusive possession concept cited in § 1382 discussions)