United States v. Gabriel Bucher

A police officer comes to a mother’s home to arrest her son. He isn’t there. She later notifies the son that police want to arrest him. Should she be guilty of anything other than possibly loving a son who may not deserve it? What about a motorist who warns other motorists that they are entering a police “speed trap”? The price will prove extremely high if reasonable human conduct becomes criminal. However, the line between reasonable conduct and conduct that interferes with the performance of official conduct must be drawn.

Gabriel Bucher recognizes that he failed to obey a national park ranger’s command that he leave a National Park trail and that a regulation made such conduct unlawful. He vigorously contends that he did nothing to “interfere” with the rangers in the exercise of their duties, and that he was wrongly charged with violating 36 C.F.R. § 2.32 (a)(l)(2000). His confusion is understandable, but also misplaced. By *931 walking down the trail ,to warn a person whom the rangers intended to arrest, he did interfere with both the rangers and their official duties.

Bucher argues that there is no direct evidence of what he said when he spoke to the person and therefore,…

dissenting:

. If Gabriel Bucher, after speaking to the ranger, had turned around to walk back farther down, and never reached his elderly friend Robert Jacobs, he might have been charged with disobeying the ranger’s lawful order and conceivably he might have been charged with attempting to interfere with-the ranger’s performance of official duty. He could not have been charged with, or convicted of, actual interference because he would not have spoken to Jacobs. The evidence of interference in this case is no .better.

According to the majority opinion, Bucher interfered with the ranger’s duty by causing Jacobs to feign unconsciousness for six to eight hours. Curiously that remarkable piece of playacting was unknown to the government lawyer who prosecuted Bucher. It is fair to infer that Bucher spoke to Jacobs and told him of the ranger’s plan. But did this warning interfere with rangers?- The majority opinion engages in genuinely ingenious invention in supposing that Bucher’s words led Jacobs *935 to feign fainting and play possum. No testimony supports this imaginative scenario.

The trail Jacobs was on was five miles in length. It went steeply up from a crater. It takes “the…

375 F.3d 929 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gabriel BUCHER, Defendant-Appellant. No. 03-10197. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 6, 2004. Filed July 20, 2004. Alexander Silvert, First Assistant Federal Defender, and Peter C. Wolff, Jr., Federal Public Defender, District of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for the defendant-appellant. Louis A. Bracco, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Edward H. Kubo, Jr., United States Attorney, District of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-02-00280-HG. Before: FARRIS, NOONAN, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges. FARRIS, Circuit Judge: 1 A police officer comes to a mother's home to arrest her son. He isn't there. She later notifies the son that police want to arrest him. Should she be guilty of anything other than possibly loving a son who may not deserve it? What about a motorist who warns other motorists that they are entering a police "speed trap"? The price will prove extremely high if reasonable human conduct becomes criminal. However, the line between reasonable…