Having read this post by Ioz, a friend asked me a question that I didn’t know the answer to. Let’s say that you took a bottle of wine, removed one of the glasses of wine from it and replaced that liquid with an industrial-strength laxative.
While going through the line at the TSA, this bottle would then be confiscated. Would you be held liable if a TSA agent went on to get a massive case of the trots?
And how would they know who laced the bottle?Report
I assume they’d go to the tape.Report
For this, no jury in the land would convict you. Why, just last this year, a jury thanked a man.Report
If giving someone the shits made someone liable legally or financially, I’m calling my lawyers and the cops on Taco Bell.
The Indian restaurant two towns over gets a pass only because of how delicious it is…Report
I’m quite certain that not only would no jury ever hold you liable, any self-respecting judge would grant your motion to dismiss.Report
Katko v. Briney. Booby traps are illegal, regardless of how they come to be set off.
Suggesting that “no jury would convict you” is an argument for judicial activism.Report
You say that like it’s a bad thing?Report
Not sure Katko applies here. Confiscation law is pretty clear, the property has been arrested and passes into the possession of the confiscator.
So if a kilo of cocaine is seized from a drug mule and it evaporates in the evidence locker, resulting in the overdose of the property clerk, we can hold the drug mule responsible? I don’t think so.Report
And if it were merely evaporating evidence we were talking about, you’d have a point. What we have, instead, is a booby trap. And those are not legal. “If he hadn’t stolen it the trap wouldn’t have harmed him” isn’t a defense.Report
But that presumes the intent was to trap someone. What if I enjoy wine AND am constipated? It would be hard to prove intent when the alleged booby trapper would have no way to guarantee, or even really fairly expect, the agent to drink confiscated items (I presume they are supposed to either dispose of them or hold them for further investigation; I highly doubt that drinking them is an official means of either).Report
“It would be hard to prove intent when the alleged booby trapper would have no way to guarantee, or even really fairly expect, the agent to drink confiscated items…”
aka “Here’s a picture of Chewbacca. Why am I showing a picture of Chewbacca? A man’s life is at stake here! It doesn’t make sense! And if it doesn’t make sense, you must acquit.”Report
No, it’s an argument for jury nullification. That’s different.Report
<i>Booby traps are illegal, regardless of how they come to be set off.</i>
The prosecution would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the wine was replaced with laxative with the intent of trapping a bystander. That’s going to be really tough. A shotgun trap really only has one purpose, i.e. to shoot anyone who comes through the door. That’s clearly not okay. But putting liquid in a bottle? Any number of legitimate reasons for doing that. Maybe fewer with industrial-strength laxative, but one can certainly think of an explanation that isn’t criminal.
“Why, sir, did you replace the wine in this bottle with laxative?” “Because, see, my buddy and I were planning on a low-fiber extravaganza this weekend so we split a jumbo-sized bottle of laxative, and I didn’t have another container ready to hand.” Or whatever.
Just because something is formally illegal doesn’t mean it’s easy to get a conviction for it.Report