Home | About | RSS Feed | Contact and Publicity Guidelines | Comment Policy the Law, the Universe, and Everything 

Search


Concurring Opinions is a
general-interest legal blog
operated by Concurring
Opinions LLC, a Pennsylvania
Limited Liability Corporation.

jr_114_9780195367195_bnr

jr_114_9780195383768_bnr

advertise-here4


FC-CO(SS)

Our Podcast

Subscribe to Law Talk

law-rev-contents2.jpg


  • Posts by Author

  • Categories

  • Archives


  • Recent Comments

    • Mike Rich on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • anon on Privacy and Tattletales

    • orly lobel on At CELS, Hoping to Blog

    • harry brooks on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • RJ on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Michael H Schneider on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • flood pictures on Public opinion on same-sex marriage

    • gtownstudent on And Justache For All at GW Law

    • AF on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • RJ on Ricci and Briscoe as Disparate Impact Cases

    • Maryland Conservatarian on Ricci: Color-Blind Standards in a Race Conscious Society?

    • Daniel S. Goldberg on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • PrometheeFeu on KSM on Trial

    • Tom S. on Negligent Corpse Mishandling

    • Deven on Ozymandias Lessons for Copyright

  •  

    Site Meter

The Necessity Defense?

posted by Dave Hoffman

You may be interested in reading this article from Hattiesburg American (Miss.) about the Sheriff Billy McGee, who has been charged with “intimidating and impeding a federal officer.” According to the article, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, McGee “seized a pair of 18-wheelers full of ice from Camp Shelby without Federal Emergency Management Agency authorization” to obtain ice to preserve the insulin of local residents suffering from diabetes. Seems like a pretty clear cut case of a good necessity defense, but then again, it has been some time since I had criminal law. Maybe our new co-blogger and criminal law expert knows better?


 March 2, 2006 at 11:04 pm   Posted in: Criminal Law   Print This Post Print This Post

Responses (7)

  1. logicnazi - March 3, 2006 at 2:08 am

    This seems like a tricky situation for the necessity defense. Presumeably such a defense does not allow one to seize goods in a triage situation to give them to individuals that have been given lower priority. Now quite likely in this case the sheriff did move the ice from a less necessery use to a more necessery use but it is an interesting question what he would need to prove for a valid defense.

    Does he need to actually be saving more people? Just have a reasonable belief? All sorts of interesting questions that would probably be obvious if I knew something about this area.

  2. MJ - March 3, 2006 at 7:22 am

    Mississippi’s necessity defense is stated as follows:

    To prove that he had an objective need to commit a crime excusable by the defense of necessity, a defendant must prove three essential elements: (1) the act charged was done to prevent a significant evil; (2) there must was no adequate alternative; and (3) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. The test employs the “reasonable man” standard and is also available where the defendant reasonably acts out of fear of “imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm” to others.

    Stodghill v. State, 892 So. 2d 236 (Miss. 2005).

    It strikes me that, should he ever be prosecuted by a Mississippi court – highly doubtful considering he was acting for the public good during a crisis – the sheriff would have a solid defense under the test as formulated in Stodghill.

  3. Joe Sherrill - March 8, 2006 at 9:31 pm

    The problem here is that he is being charged in a federal court. The sheriff tried to contact FEMA for 5 hours and was told by people on the scene that even if he did contact FEMA, that FEMA would not know what to tell him to do. Given the fact that the ice was needed for medical reasons, I think that the feds are makeing a huge public relations error if they take this case foward.

  4. k3s793 - March 9, 2006 at 5:14 pm

    Some details: There were roughly 1/3 of the ice trucks needed available that day. Forrest County had been receiving supplies since the first day trucks were available (August 31). Forrest County could have redistributed some of its own supplies to these outlying areas but choose to operate almost exclusively within the city of Hattiesburg. By taking the trucks the sheriff certainly insured that some other areas would receive no service. He may have prevented an evil in Brooklyn but properly made one worse in other areas.

  5. Dave Hoffman - March 10, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    K3S – thanks for the information: it certainly complicates the picture found in the mainstream press.

  6. Karen - March 24, 2006 at 10:07 pm

    I dont know where K3S lives, but I happen to live only 1/2 mile from the military base where the ice was held up. In a city that had been very effectively shut down by the storm, anyone located outside the city limits had no form of communication to tell them where the distribution center was located. The only form of communication for many was word of mouth. You can all talk about protocol, laws, rights, and jurisdictions, but until you suddenly find yourself isolated with your world fallen down around you, you have no right to judge ANY action of survival. I am PROUD….VERY PROUD of my fellow mississippians because of the way we all pulled together to rise above the horrid devastation that fell upon us. Neighbor helped neighbor, and our sheriff did what he could to help us survive. It has been obvious over the past months since the disaster that our government as well as the Red Cross and other Aid Organizations had no Disaster Recovery Plan in place. Right now….today….7 months after Katrina, FEMA is STILL picking up debris in Hattiesburg. Hurricane season begins in only 3 months and the only thing that worries me is that FEMA still hasnt gotten its act together. Quit worrying about two trucks of ice and be prepared for the next disaster..when it happens.

  7. Steve - March 25, 2006 at 1:28 am

    I don’t think that Sherrif McGee should be prosecuted, but I don’t think that the National Guardsman should be badmouthed either. If he hadn’t tried to stop the trucks, he’d probably be facing courtmartial right now.

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture. Click on the picture to hear an audio file of the word.
Click to hear an audio file of the anti-spam word


  • « Previous post
  • Next post »

Authors

Daniel J. Solove

Website
Understanding Privacy

Kaimipono Wenger

Website
SSRN Page

Dave Hoffman

Website
SSRN Page

Nate Oman

Website
SSRN Page

Frank Pasquale

Website
SSRN Page

Deven Desai

Website
SSRN Page

Danielle Citron

Website
SSRN Page

Lawrence Cunningham

Website
SSRN Page

Sarah Waldeck

Website
SSRN Page

Jaya Ramji-Nogales

Website
SSRN Page

Solangel Maldonado

Website
SSRN Page

Gerard Magliocca

Website
SSRN Page


Guests

Rachel Godsil
Alex Kreit
Anita Krishnakumar
Matthew Sag
Michael Zimmer






Previous Guests

Michael Abramowicz
Michelle Adams
Robert Ahdieh
Michelle Anderson
Laura Appleman
Ann Bartow
Francesca Bignami
Jeremy Blumenthal
Kathleen Boozang
Bruce Boyden
Donald Braman
Al Brophy
Neil H. Buchanan
Bill Burke-White
Scott Burris
Paul Butler
Naomi Cahn
Anupam Chander
Miriam Cherry
Jack Chin
Jennifer Collins
Allison Danner
Brannon Denning
Deven Desai
Mike Dimino
Mark Edwards
David Fagundes
Christine Haight Farley
Kim Ferzan
Dan Filler
Michael Froomkin
Amanda Frost
Timothy Glynn
Rachel Godsil
Eric Goldman
David Gray
Craig Green
Tristin Green
Jeffrey Harrison
Erica Hashimoto
Carissa Hessick
Laura Heymann
Robert Hillman
Christine Hurt
Darian Ibrahim
John Ip
Kevin Johnson
Dan Kahan
Brian Kalt
Sam Kamin
Michael Kang
Chimène Keitner
Orin Kerr
Nancy Kim
Heidi Kitrosser
Adam Kolber
Russell Korobkin
Anita S. Krishnakumar
Susan Kuo
Greg Lastowka
Sarah Lawsky
Erik Lillquist
Jeff Lipshaw
Jonathan Lipson
Jacqueline Lipton
Joseph Liu
Michael Madison
Solangel Maldonado
Jason Mazzone
Linda McClain
William McGeveran
Salil Mehra
Carrie Menkel-Meadow
Max Minzner
Scott Moss
Eric Muller
Jaya Ramji-Nogales
Helen Norton
Elizabeth Nowicki
Paul Ohm
Michael O'Shea
David Opderback
Kristen Osenga
Rafael Pardo
Marcy Peek
Eduardo Peñalver
Robert Percival
David Post
Shruti Rana
Geoffrey Rapp
Neil Richards
Lori Ringhand
Alice Ristroph
Susan Scafidi
Paul Secunda
Jonathan Siegel
Jessica Silbey
Peter Smith
Charles Sullivan
Rick Swedloff
Steph Tai
Andrew Taslitz
Robert Tsai
Jenia Turner
Steve Vladeck
Sarah Waldeck
Melissa Waters
Alfred Yen
David Zaring
Timothy Zick
Spencer Weber Waller
Howard Wasserman
Frank Wu
Corey Yung
Jonathan Zittrain

Blogroll

Above the Law
ACS Blog
Althouse
Balkinization
Becker-Posner Blog
BlackProf
BoingBoing
Chicago Law Faculty Blog
Conglomerate
CrimLaw
Crime & Federalism
CrimProf Blog
Crooked Timber
Discourse.net
Dorf on Law
Election Law
Emergent Chaos
The Faculty Lounge
Feminist Law Profs
43(B)log
Freakonomics Blog
Freedom to Tinker
Google Blogoscoped
How Appealing
Ideoblog
Info/Law
Instapundit.com
Juris Novus
Jurisdynamics
Law and Humanities Blog
Law and Letters
Law Librarian Blog
Legal Profession Blog
Legal Theory Blog
Legal Times Blog
Leiter Reports
Brian Leiter's Law School Reports
Lessig Blog
Madisonian Theory
Media Law Blog
Mirror of Justice
The Moderate Voice
National Security Advisors
Opinio Juris
Point of Law
PrawfsBlawg
ProfessorBainbridge.com
Property Prof Blog
Red Tape Chronicles
The Right Coast
Schneier on Security
SCOTUSBlog
Security Dilemmas
Sentencing Law and Policy
Simple Justice
Sivacracy.net
The Situationist
Susan Crawford
TalkLeft
Talking Points Memo
TaxProf Blog
Tech & Marketing Law
Truth on the Market
Volokh Conspiracy
WorkPlace Prof Blog
WSJ Law Blog
Wonkette
The Yin Blog


© Concurring Opinions

Powered by WordPress