United States v. Lowe (1981)

See, e.g., Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d at 695 ; United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981).

“Absent compelling reason for appellate interference, the task of line-drawing in probation matters is best left to the discretion of the sentencing judge.” United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 568 (9th Cir.1981).

United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981).

In contrast, the civil rights lunch counter sit-ins, for example, constituted direct civil disobedience because the protestors were challenging the rule that prevented them from sitting at lunch counters. 7 While our prior cases consistently have found the elements of the necessity defense lacking in cases involving indirect civil disobedience, see, e.g., Dorrell, 758 F.2d at 431-34 ; United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. May, 622 F.2d 100…

While our prior cases consistently have found the elements of the necessity defense lacking in cases involving indirect civil disobedience, see, e.g., Dorrell, 758 F.2d at 431-34 ; United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1008-10 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 402 , 66 L.Ed.2d 247 (1980), we have never addressed specifically whether the defense is available in cases of indirect civil disobedience.

While our prior cases consistently have found the elements of the necessity defense lacking in cases involving indirect civil disobedience, see, e.g., Dorrell, 758 F.2d at 431-34 ; United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1008-10 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 984 , 101 S.Ct. 402 , 66 L.Ed.2d 247 (1980), we have never addressed specifically whether the defense is available in cases of indirect civil disobedience.

See United States v. Glenn, 667 F.2d 1269, 1274 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Luckey, 655 F.2d 203, 205-06 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir. 1981).

See, e.g., Rearden, 349 F.3d at 620-21 (barring access to the Internet without prior approval of a probation officer); Bee , 162 F.3d at 1234-35 (infringing upon free speech interests by prohibiting the possession of sexually stimulating or sexually oriented material); id. at 1235-36 (prohibition of unapproved contact with children and loitering in places primarily used by children, infringing on liberty interests); Bolinger, 940 F.2d at 480 (condition infringing on associat…

See, e.g., United States v. Romero, 676 F.2d 406, 407 (9th Cir.1982) (condition restricting defendant’s association with drug dealers reasonable for his rehabilitation and the protection of the public even though it infringed on right to freely associate and might result in revocation of probation for associating with persons whose drug activities he was not aware of); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567-68 (9th Cir.1981) (condition restricting approach to submarine bas…

See Walker v. Endell, 850 F.2d 470, 476-77 (9th Cir.1987), certs. denied, 488 U.S. 926 , 488 U.S. 981 (1988); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 565-66 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. Morgan, 595 F.2d 1134, 1135-37 (9th Cir.1979).

See, e.g., United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981).

See, e.g., United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981).

See, e.g., United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981).

See, e.g., United States v. Dorrell, 758 F.2d 427, 430 (9th Cir.1985); United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691, 693 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981).

United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez, 521 F.2d 259, 264 (9th Cir.1975) (en banc).

E.g., United States v. Cottier, 759 F.2d 760, 763 (9th Cir.1985); Dorrell, 758 F.2d at 433, 434 ; Seward, 687 F.2d at 1276 ; United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981).

E.g., United States v. Cottier, 759 F.2d 760, 763 (9th Cir.1985); Dorrell, 758 F.2d at 433, 434 ; Seward, 687 F.2d at 1276 ; United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981).

United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1981).

State v. Friberg, 421 N.W.2d 376, 380 (Minn.App.1988) (citing United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981)).

Freedom of Movement United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 568 (9th Cir. 1981) (upholding probation condition that prohibited defendants convicted of entering a submarine base illegally from coming within 250 feet of the base was reasonable "[g]iven the alternatives of imprisonment or some other greater restriction" upon the defendant's rights of movement, association, and speech); State v. Cooper, 282 S.E.2d 436, 439 (N.C. 1981) (ruling that probation condition prohibiting de…

Markley, 507 So.2d at 1051 , quoting United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981).

Id. at 567 (citations omitted).

“Although a law or policy can result in a general harm, an individual lacks standing in such a generalized harm.” Maxwell-Anthony at 104 , citing United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981).

See, e.g., United States v. Clark, 918 F.2d 843, 847-848 (9th Cir. 1990); United States v. Tolla, 781 F.2d 29, 32-34 (2d Cir. 1986), and cases cited; United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir. 1981); State v. Graham, 33 Conn. App. 432, 446-448 (1994); State v. McGill, 114 N.C.

Consideration must be given to the following: “(1) the purposes sought to be served by probation; (2) the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding citizens should be accorded to probationers; and (3) the legitimate needs of law enforcement.” Id. (quoting United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 567 (9th Cir.1981)).

Cf. United States v. Cottier, 759 F.2d 760, 762-63 (9th Cir.1985) (magistrate’s granting of motion in limine precluding evidence of necessity defense affirmed on appeal); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 564 (9th Cir.1981) (presentation of defenses disallowed as matter of law after offer of proof in bench trial).

See United States v. Glenn, 667 F.2d 1269, 1274 (1982); United States v. Luckey, 655 F.2d 203, 205-6 (1981); United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 565 (1981).

See United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566 (9th Cir.1981) (concluding that sentencing properly proceeded in the absence of a PSR, given that there was no evidence that the court relied on erroneous information and defendant did not credibly suggest how a PSR would have changed the sentence imposed).

See United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Shiel, 611 F.2d 526, 528 (4th Cir.1979).

See United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981); United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000, 1009 (9th Cir.1980); United States v. Shiel, 611 F.2d 526, 528 (4th Cir.1979).

See United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981) (necessity); United States v. Hernandez, 608 F.2d 741, 750 (9th Cir.1979) (duress).

See United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981) (citing United States v. May, 622 F.2d 1000 (9th Cir.1980), for the proposition that the necessity defense in indirect civil disobedience cases is a “back door” attempt to attack government programs in a manner foreclosed by the standing requirements of the Supreme Court). 3 *105 Moreover, Defendant has not alleged that the procedure by which the United States Government generally, or Navy specifically, adopted t…

See, e.g., United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562 (9th Cir.1981); State v. Friberg, 421 N.W.2d 376 (Minn. App.1988).

Ward v. 28 Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989); see also Griffin v. Wisconsin, 483 U.S. 1 868, 875 (1987) (noting that probation conditions are permissible when they “assure that 2 the probation serves as a period of genuine rehabilitation and that the community is not 3 harmed by the probationer’s being at large.”) When “fundamental rights” are affected, 4 “[t]he test for validity of probation conditions . . . is whether the conditions are primarily 5 designed to …

See also, United States v. Consuelo-Gonzalez , supra and Malone v. United States , supra and United States v. Lowe , supra. We have carefully examined all arguments presented in brief and find that the appellant's constitutional rights were here carefully observed by the trial judge.

See also United States v. Lowe, 654 F.2d 562, 566-67 (9th Cir.1981).