Gravity Knife Case in EDNY

S

sliplock

Joined
Feb 14, 2003
Messages
90
A terrific case came down in the Eastern District of New York regarding clip on utility knives -- the court found they are NOT gravity knives.

The case is US v. Irizarry, decided by Jack Weinstein on August 30, 2007.

The judge takes a very sensible approach to why a common folding locking knife does not fit within the legislative intent of the gravity knife statute.

Long overdue, and hopefully very useful going forward in the battle to save knife rights in NY.
 
Good to hear that common sense interpreatations prevail, at least in some parts of NY.
 
Great news!! I am correct that this was a case in the Federal Court ? If so what was the cause for the case? Importation?Is the knife a true locking blade knife or a folding razor knife? Details PLEASE !!!!!..lol...Thanks
 
tom19176 said:
Great news!! I am correct that this was a case in the Federal Court ? If so what was the cause for the case? Importation?Is the knife a true locking blade knife or a folding razor knife? Details PLEASE !!!!!..lol...Thanks
Click to expand...

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...ickler_judge_tosses_out_excons_gun_and-2.html

The case was in federal court because the defendant was charged with felon is posession of a firearm. As a result of seeing the knife, which the officer thought was illegal, he searched Irazarry and found a .25 Auto.
 
mp510...Thanks for the additional info. !!!! The case is a plus, but as I thought from the first post it was a folding razor knife and not a true gravity knife by NY law. The ruling is a bit double edge in my opinion as the judge stated that a knife that flicked open would be a gravity knife ( not good news), and he excluded this folding razor since it did not flick open. The real thing that saved the defendant is that he used the folding razor for work and therefore met the standard exception to the NYC law banning exposed knives. Since the first offense was deemed not to be a violation of the city Admin Code the search was thrown out as illegal and the defaced firearm was also thrown out as the friut of an illegal serach.
I don't see this one as much of a win for us knife collectors as I would have hoped. The judge confirmed a tool was legally carried for work reasons, but his definition of why it was not a gravity knife confirmed that a knife that could be flicked open IS a gravity knife ( a loss not a win there). The judge was made to look as the bad guy for letting a Felon with two weapons free ( not a good message for other judges to see)....lets not forget this persons past record that made him a felon may have been simple weapons possession in the past.......Oh well.....
 
Tom, in the opinion, the judge noted that the officer could flick open the knife after three tries, and despite that fact, it was not a gravity knife. He also dealt with some of the legislative history and the WWII paratrooper knife that properly exemplifies a real "gravity knife."

So while it doesn't vindicate every locking folder, I think it's a step in the right direction.

I've been told that there are also a couple of cases in the pipelin in the 1st department, so there may be more on this issue from NY courts soon.

Take care,
Seth
 
Thanks Seth !! If possible copy the text or add a link to the actual wording of the judge as that would be great to read/have...thanks !!! Tom
 
From the opinion (please forgive the formatting) . . .

"Even if Officer McCabe had reasonable suspicion to initially stop defendant, which he

didn ot, there was no probable causeto arrest him. The Husky which was recovered is nota

19

Case 1 :07-cr-00313-JBW-RLM Document 20 Filed 08/31/2007 Page 20 of 21

gravity knife and officer McCabe could nothave reasonably believed it to be one. 1t is designed,

sold and used as a folding knife. Although the officerwas ultimately able to open the Husky with

centrifugal force at thehearing, it was obviously not designed to be opened in this fashion and

does not readily open through such force. (See Tr. June at I8-19). The defendant'sexpert, as

well as a representative ofthe retailer, each testified that the Huskywas not intended to be

opened with centrifugal force and was nottreated as a weapon by its designer, manufacturer,

seller, or users.

The history ofthe gravity knifeprovision as well as the legislative scheme distinguishing

"dangerous instruments" from "per se" weapons demonstrates a plan only to ban those items

designed to be used as weapons. An examination of the other items on the banned list

underscores this point.
 
Good to see that someone committed to fighting this all the way. Interesting how the judge is a "stickler" for actually interpreting the law correctly.
 
Thanks Seth for the additional information !!! Based on his wording there does seem to be some hope in NY law interpertation !!!
 
Just a quick question, if anyone has ever thought about this---

In the NYC Law, there is an exemption for a knive over 4 inches (i.e. hunting, camping, work, Boy Scouts, etc.). However, is there an exemption for NY State Law? The only exemption I noticed to 265.01 was the gravity knive and switch blade. However, it said nothing else for a knife with a blade over 4"??
 
charlesbjr.....NYS Penal Law does not have a blade lenght limit...only the city ( and perhaps Yonkers).
 
Reading the newspaper article a little more closely, I sort of wonder if the search that recovered the handgun wasn't so unreasonable after all. When the officer saw Irazarry, he saw the knife clipped to his pocket, the knife was visible. At that point, the officer would have a reason to stop Irazarry, since carrying a visible knife is generally illegal in New York City- and face it, the fact that he uses it for his job isn't something that the cop can necesarily figure out just by looking at him. So, the cop would be pretty sure that he has at least one weapon (the knife) when he confronts Irazarry. Wouldn't it be reaonable under Terry for the cop to pat down Irazarry, to ensure his safety during the confrontation

“The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer.”
Click to expand...
-Terry v. Ohio (392 US 1)
 
mp510 an officer must be able to demonstrate why he conducted a stop before he can then say why he conducted a search. In this case the only violation the officer believed he had observed was the one of carrying a knife displayed in public. Irazarry seemed not to be acting in any manner that allowed the officer to feel that any other crime was about to be committed. NY has strict rules about when you can conduct a search. The Terry case is not something that would stand up well in most NY courts. The NYCPD has a form made up that must be filled out everytime a "stop and frisk" is conducted ( a 250) and a arrest is not made. The judge seemed to have viewed this search as illegal once the knife was seen as not a true pocket knife, not an illegal weapon, and fell into the allowable exposed carry since it was a work tool. The officer seemed to further distant the judge by trying to make this tool into something it was not-- a gravity knife. Lets also remember that in NY all it takes to be a felon is to get caught with a "gravity knife" (any knife that can be flicked open) and have ANY other crime on your record ( carry a knife before for example). The possession of that "gravity knife" will now be a felony !!
 
One other side note on this quote about the reason it was in Federal Court....mp510 stated " The case was in federal court because the defendant was charged with felon is posession of a firearm. As a result of seeing the knife, which the officer thought was illegal, he searched Irazarry and found a .25 Auto.", but I would think it was in Federal Court due to the fact that the pistol was a defaced firearm and therefore a Federal Violation. State and local gov'ts get $$$$ from the federal govt when they arrest someone for a Federal Offense.
 
Thanks for your explanation Tom. Obviously, I'm not up on NYPD standards and NY laws and policies like you are. You're a great wealth of knowledge.

tom19176 said:
mp510 an officer must be able to demonstrate why he conducted a stop before he can then say why he conducted a search. In this case the only violation the officer believed he had observed was the one of carrying a knife displayed in public. Irazarry seemed not to be acting in any manner that allowed the officer to feel that any other crime was about to be committed. NY has strict rules about when you can conduct a search. The Terry case is not something that would stand up well in most NY courts. The NYCPD has a form made up that must be filled out everytime a "stop and frisk" is conducted ( a 250) and a arrest is not made. The judge seemed to have viewed this search as illegal once the knife was seen as not a true pocket knife, not an illegal weapon, and fell into the allowable exposed carry since it was a work tool. The officer seemed to further distant the judge by trying to make this tool into something it was not-- a gravity knife. Lets also remember that in NY all it takes to be a felon is to get caught with a "gravity knife" (any knife that can be flicked open) and have ANY other crime on your record ( carry a knife before for example). The possession of that "gravity knife" will now be a felony !!
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top