Opinion ID: 167799
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Fleeting Possession

Text: 35 As for Al-Rekabi's other asserted defense, we have discussed but never applied a fleeting possession defense. 15 This is largely because it is redundant to the necessity defense. 16 Both defenses, as we have said, require the defendant to prove no reasonable legal alternative was available to him given the circumstances. 17 It is true that we have acknowledged the possibility of a fleeting possession defense on two occasions. See Adkins, 196 F.3d at 1115; Williams, 403 F.3d at 1196. In neither case was it adopted. In both cases the discussion of fleeting possession served merely to emphasize that a defendant's justification for violating the law lasts only as long as the circumstances giving rise to it. Consider United States v. Panter, 688 F.2d 268 (5th Cir.1982), one of the principle cases relied upon by Adkins. 196 F.3d at 115. There, the Fifth Circuit held the defendant, a former felon, who reached under a bar to grab a handgun to fend off a convicted murderer who was assailing him by stabbing him in the abdomen was justified in doing so. 688 F.2d at 269, 272. Based on our precedent, such conduct, if adequately established, would clearly fall under the necessity defense, as it did in Panter itself. 688 F.2d at 272 n. 7 (discussing the differences between a self-defense and necessity justification and concluding defendant met both). Panter's discussion of the temporary nature of the defendant's otherwise illegal possession of the firearm was tied to the necessity defense. The court pointed out that our holding protects a . . . defendant only for possession during the time he is endangered. Possession either before the danger or for any significant period after it remains a violation. Id. at 272. We find Panter's discussion of the temporary nature of the necessity defense in accord with our own view. Thus, failing to establish a necessity defense, Al-Rekabi is out of justifications.