Term: 2014
Docket: 13-1487
Henderson v. United States
- Pro
13-1487 HENDERSON V. UNITED STATES DECISION BELOW: 555 Fed.Appx. 851 CERT. GRANTED 10/20/2014 QUESTION PRESENTED: "The general rule is that seized property, other than contraband, should be returned to its rightful owner once * * * criminal proceedings have terminated." Cooper v. City of Greenwood, 904 F.2d 302, 304 (5th Cir. 1990) (quoting United States v. Farrell, 606 F.2d 1341, 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (quoting United States v. La Fatch, 565 F.2d 81, 83 (6th Cir. 1977)). 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) makes it "unlawful for any person * * * who has been convicted in any court of[] a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year * * * to * * * possess * * * any firearm." The question presented is whether such a conviction prevents a court under Rule 41(g) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or under general equity principles from ordering that the government (1) transfer non--contraband firearms to an unrelated third party to whom the defendant has sold all his property interests or (2) sell the firearms for the benefit of the defendant. The Second, Fifth, and Seventh Circuits and the Montana Supreme Court all allow lower courts to order such transfers or sales; the Third, Sixth, Eighth and Eleventh Circuits, by contrast, bar them. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 12-14628
In the Henderson v. United States case of 2014, Tony Henderson, a former U.S. Border Patrol agent was convicted for distributing marijuana and had to surrender his firearm collection as part of his conviction. After serving time in prison, he wanted to sell these firearms but federal law prohibits felons from possessing guns. He requested that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), who held his weapons, transfer them to a third party buyer which they refused citing it would technically give him "constructive possession". The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Henderson stating that felons only have an ownership interest not possessory interest when selling their firearms through a third party thereby not violating any laws.
In the dissenting opinion for Henderson v. United States (2014), Justice Samuel Alito argued that a convicted felon should not be allowed to transfer his firearms to a third party, even if he no longer has control over them. He contended that allowing such transfers would create a loophole in the law and potentially enable criminals to indirectly benefit from their guns or have access to them through friends or family members. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of this provision by individuals who might use it as a way around existing laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms. In essence, Justice Alito's dissent was rooted in concerns about public safety and upholding the integrity of gun ownership laws.
