United States v. Rehlander
666 F.3d 45
1st Cir.2012Background
- Small and Rehlander were involuntarily hospitalized under Maine's emergency procedure § 3863, followed by longer-term commitment under § 3864 in some cases.
- Each was later convicted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) based on prior § 3863 admissions and, in Small's case, possession of a firearm.
- Defendants challenged the indictments as violating the Second Amendment and due process under Heller and related precedents, arguing §3863 admissions do not amount to a federal permanent “commitment.”
- The district court denied the motions to dismiss; both defendants pled guilty but appealed the denial.
- The First Circuit reassessed after Heller and concluded §3863 does not qualify as a federal “commitment” for purposes of §922(g)(4).
- As a result, convictions were reversed and the judgments of conviction were set aside.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §922(g)(4) reach individuals hospitalized under §3863? | Small/Rehlander argued Heller requires reconsideration; §3863 does not justify a permanent ban. | Small/Rehlander contended §922(g)(4) applies to those adjudicated as mentally defective or committed, including emergency hospitalization. | No; §3863 hospitalization is not a commitment under §922(g)(4). |
| Is ex parte §3863 hospitalization a ‘commitment’ under federal law after Heller? | Chamberlain interpretation treated §3863 as a broad basis for disability despite ex parte nature. | Heller imposes due process limits on permanent deprivation of gun rights; ex parte §3863 lacks protective process. | §3863 is not a federal commitment; due process concerns prevail. |
| Does the due process framework permit a permanent disqualification based on temporary hospitalization? | Potential for ongoing prohibition based on initial hospitalization and dangerousness. | Temporary procedures should not create a lasting federal disability without proper post-hospitalization mechanisms. | Permanent disqualification is not supported by §922(g)(4) based on §3863 admissions. |
| What relief or remedy follows if §922(g)(4) cannot be applied to §3863 cases? | Relief from disabilities and post-hospitalization restoration mechanisms were not available or adequate. | Court should apply existing mechanisms and precedent; however, the law requires reconsideration under Heller. | Court could not sustain the convictions; remanded for appropriate relief consistent with Heller. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Chamberlain, 159 F.3d 656 (1st Cir. 1998) (read §922(g)(4) broadly; emergency hospitalization may trigger disability)
- Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (U.S. 2008) (recognizes individual right to bear arms but permits prohibitions for dangerous individuals)
- Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1979) (clear-and-convincing standard for commitments)
- Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848 (U.S. 2000) (due process considerations in criminal statutes)
- Doe v. Graham, 977 A.2d 391 (Me. 2009) (Maine’s view on emergency hospitalization procedures)
- United States v. Logan, 552 U.S. 23 (U.S. 2007) (relief from disabilities considerations)