Source: http://openjurist.org/470/f3d/132
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 02:20:04
Document Index: 595422149

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 924', '§ 16', '§ 242', '§ 924', '§ 3156', '§ 924', '§ 924', '§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 924', '§ 242', '§ 924', '§ 242', '§ 924', '§ 242', '§ 924', '§ 241', '§ 241', '§ 924', '§ 242', '§ 924', '§ 242', '§ 924', '§ 242', '§ 242', '§ 241']

470 F3d 132 United States v. Acosta T | OpenJurist
470 F. 3d 132 - United States v. Acosta T
470 F3d 132 United States v. Acosta T
470 F.3d 132
Sylvestre ACOSTA, also known as Sly Acosta, and Paul Skinner, Defendants-Appellants,
Gerald T. Skinner, Defendant.
Docket No. 05-3346-CR(L).
Docket No. 05-3416-CR(CON).
Patrick J. Brown, LoTempio & Brown, P.C., Buffalo, NY, for Defendant-Appellant Paul Skinner.
Before JACOBS, Chief Judge, B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judge, and OBERDORFER, District Judge.*
Since 1989, Acosta and Skinner, along with several others were police officers assigned to the Buffalo Police Department's "Maryland Street Detail" (the MSD), a unit formed to combat drug traffic in the lower west side of Buffalo. The MSD was later absorbed into various other street crime units of the Buffalo police, but this core group continued to work together throughout the 1990s. The testimony at trial demonstrated that during this period, they engaged in rogue, vigilante-style tactics worthy of a television drama. The government's evidence at trial established that Skinner, Acosta, and their co-conspirators "tossed" suspects (i.e., searched them in violation of their constitutional rights), planted drugs, and stole money, computers, electronics, weapons, and other items from suspected drug dealers. That evidence also showed that they falsified information in search warrant applications and covered up the practice with falsified official reports, and that, while armed, they engaged in a wide variety of violent and intimidating behavior with respect to informants and suspects.
In Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004), the Supreme Court considered whether an offense is a "crime of violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 16, a provision which contains virtually identical language to § 924(c)(3).1 The Supreme Court instructed reviewing courts "to look to the elements and the nature of the offense of conviction, rather than to the particular facts relating to petitioner's crime." Id. at 7, 125 S.Ct. 377. We too have employed this "categorical approach" when determining whether a particular offense is a crime of violence under § 16. See, e.g., Vargas-Sarmiento v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 448 F.3d 159, 166 (2d Cir.2006); Jobson v. Ashcroft, 326 F.3d 367, 371 (2d Cir.2003); Dalton v. Ashcroft, 257 F.3d 200, 204 (2d Cir.2001); Ming Lam Sui v. INS, 250 F.3d 105, 117-18 (2d Cir.2001).
Under this categorical approach, we focus on the intrinsic nature of the offense rather than on the circumstances of the particular crime. Consequently, only the minimum criminal conduct necessary for conviction under a particular statute is relevant. Vargas-Sarmiento, 448 F.3d at 166; see also Ming Lam Sui, 250 F.3d at 117-18 (noting that the reviewing court "cannot go behind the offense as it was charged to reach [its] own determination as to whether the underlying facts amount to one of the enumerated crimes") (citation omitted). Applying this categorical approach, we now consider whether §§ 242 and 241 are crimes of violence for purposes of § 924(c). Cf. United States v. Patino, 962 F.2d 263, 267 (2d Cir.1992) (applying principles developed under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3156(a)(4), to the question of whether a crime is a "crime of violence" under § 924(c)(3) because the definition of "crime of violence" in the two statutes is "virtually identical").
We first turn to Acosta's contention that he was improperly convicted under § 924(c), because § 242 does not constitute a crime of violence. We review this claim for plain error because it was not raised before the district court. See United States v. Carr, 424 F.3d 213, 219 (2d Cir. 2005).
[1] Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person . . . . to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States . . . shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and [2] if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and [3] if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
18 U.S.C. § 242. Acosta was charged under the second clause of § 242. Since this clause "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another," it necessarily qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3)(A). The use of a gun by a police officer to rob and intimidate suspected drug dealers, therefore, violates § 242's prohibition on "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon" in the course of willfully depriving a person of his constitutional rights under color of law. That use also subjects the offender to enhanced punishment for carrying a firearm "during and in relation to any crime of violence" under § 924(c).2 Consequently, no error occurred when Acosta's conviction under the second clause of § 242 served as a predicate crime of violence supporting his conviction under § 924(c). In reaching this conclusion, we align ourselves with the Fifth Circuit which held in United States v. Williams, 343 F.3d 423, 434 (5th Cir. 2003) that an offense based on the second clause of § 242 is a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c).
A conspiracy conviction requires, among other things, proof of a specific intent to join the conspiracy with knowledge of its illegal purposes. See, e.g., United States v. Glen, 418 F.3d 181, 184 (2d Cir.2005); United States v. Diez, 736 F.2d 840, 843 (2d Cir.1984); United States v. Cirillo, 499 F.2d 872, 883 (2d Cir.1974). The government proved that Acosta and Skinner knowingly joined the conspiracy charged under § 241, and that they used armed force to steal drugs during raids and in connection with the intimidation of suspected drug dealers.3 At a minimum, the conspiracy created a substantial risk that violence would be used to achieve its purposes. For these reasons we again join the Fifth Circuit in concluding that § 241 is a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c). See United States v. Greer, 939 F.2d 1076, 1099 (5th Cir.1991).
Our conclusion that Acosta's conduct was properly found to have violated the second clause of § 242, and as such constitutes a predicate crime of violence under § 924(c), should not be misunderstood to imply that any conduct by a police officer that violates constitutional rights is subject to the same enhanced penalties. We express no opinion as to whether conduct that is prohibited by the first clause of § 242, but does not involve "bodily injury" or "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon," necessarily qualifies as a crime of violence under either § 924(c)(3)(A) or (B). Moreover, we note that an on-duty police officer's mere act of carrying a service weapon in accordance with police policy does not equate with "the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon." This is true even if the officer is engaged in conduct that violates another's constitutional rights—for example, making an arrest at a protest that is subsequently found to violate the First Amendment, or impounding a car in violation of due process. To suggest otherwise would unjustifiably convert every violation of the first clause of § 242 by a police officer into a violation of the second clause. Likewise, we caution that not every violation of constitutional rights by a police officer constitutes the willful deprivation of such rights in violation of § 242
We note that not all conduct by police officers acting in tandem that interferes with others exercising their constitutional rights constitutes a § 241 violation. In the present case, however, the government established both the elements of a conspiracy and that the object and result of that conspiracy was to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate" in connection with the exercise of constitutional rights