Summary of Muscarello v. United States
Citation: 524 U.S. 125 (1998)
Relevant Facts: Two consolidated cases came before the Supreme Court on similar facts, both requiring the Court to interpret the statutory meaning of “carries" as it applied to firearm possession in the course of a drug-related crime. In the first case, Defendant Frank Muscarello transported marijuana in his truck and unlawfully sold the drugs in violation of federal law. In transported his marijuana, Muscarello had a handgun locked in the glove compartment of his truck. Police found the gun when Muscarello was arrested, and he admitted he had carried the gun for protection while executing his illicit deal. Muscarello later recanted in part, admitting that the gun was in his vehicle but denying that possession of the weapon in a locked glove compartment during the course of an illegal drug sale constituted “carrying" the weapon under the language of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1), which provided for an enhanced sentence. In the second case, consolidated on appeal with Muscarello’s case, Defendants Donald Cleveland and Enrique Gray-Santana were arrested at the site of a proposed drug transaction where officers uncovered several guns in a bag located in the trunk of their vehicle. In this case, the Defendants had intended to steal the drugs rather than purchase them, but law enforcement officials arrived on the scene to seize both the drugs and the guns prior to the execution of their plan. In both cases, the defendants were convicted of the underlying offense and the enhanced sentence as a result of “carrying" a firearm during a drug-related offense within the meaning of the statute. In both cases, the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether possession of a firearm in a vehicle at the scene, rather than on their person, constituted “carrying" a firearm within the statutory meaning.
Issue: Whether possession of a firearm in a vehicle during the course of committing a drug-related offense constitutes “carrying" a firearm within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §924(c)(1)?
Holding: Yes, under the plan and historical meaning of “carries" as used in the statute, and consistent with its legislative history, a defendant “carries" a firearm when he has a firearm in his vehicle during the commission of a drug-related offense.
Reasoning: Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas. The majority began with a straightforward assessment of the plain statutory language. As Justice Breyer explained, an individual “carries" a firearm whenever he transports it in his vehicle just as if he had in on his person while traveling. Looking to common usage as well as surveying simple, dictionary definitions, the majority concluded that “carries" has always been meant to include transportation in a vehicle by an individual. The Court refused to adopt the secondary meaning of carries as used in the statute, whereby Congress would have intended to prevent carrying a weapon in the strict physical sense, such as carrying a bag and literally giving it physical support. As the majority noted, the Circuit Courts all agreed that “carries" as used in the relevant statute should be afforded the first, broader meaning rather than the more limited definition. Next, the majority explained that the broader definition of “carries" was consistent with the legislative history and Congressional intent embodied in the enhanced sentence provision. As Justice Breyer explained, Congress sought to combat the dangerous (and deadly) combination of drugs and guns. The broader definition, and accompanying imposition of a stricter sentence, is consistent with the purpose. Finally, the Court declined to adopt the more limited definition as urged by the Petitioners in light of statutory language elsewhere in federal law. The Petitioners argued that the broader definition here would undermine the distinction elsewhere between “carrying" and “transporting" a firearm. Similarly, the Petitioners reasoned that the broader definition would also conflict with more limited interpretations of “use" of a firearm, where the Court had previously adopted a narrow definition of that term to encompass only actually employing the firearm. The Petitioners also suggested that the broad definition here may be read to include possession of a firearm while traveling by common carrier, and urged application of the rule of lenity to interpret the ambiguity in favor of the criminal defendants here. The majority found each argument unconvincing, having discerned the proper meaning from both the plain language of the statute and clear Congressional intent. As to the rule of lenity, the majority explained that all statutes have ambiguities to some degree, but application of such an interpretive rule is only appropriate when the Court cannot discern the intended meaning and is left to essentially guess between two competing interpretations.
Dissent: Justice Ginsburg dissented, joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Souter. The dissenters argued that just as the Court had narrowly construed the term “use" of a firearm, they should now adopt a similarly narrow construction of the term “carries." As Justice Ginsburg explained, adoption of the broader meaning of “carries" was not necessary here, as Congress could have reasonably intended to limit enhanced sentencing to instances where the defendant was prepared to actually use a firearm rather than merely having it in close proximity. As Justice Ginsburg explained, dictionary definitions here were useful but hardly dispositive. Given that Congress could have use clearer language or better explanations, the dissenters argued that the rule of lenity should apply such that no defendant be subjected to a lengthy prison sentence absent clear Congressional intent to impose such a sentence. Consistent with narrow interpretations elsewhere in federal law involving firearms, Justice Ginsburg concluded that the Court should have adopted a narrower construction here and left it for Congress to speak should they have intended a broader definition.
Conclusion: Under the relevant statute, a defendant “carries" a firearm when he possession the weapon in his vehicle during the course of a drug-related offense. The Court declined to adopt a narrow interpretation, concluding that both the statutory language and Congressional intent were readily discernible and militated in favor of the broader interpretation.