United States v. Stitt (17-765)

argument 17-765

United States v. Stitt

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 7 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 6 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the historical definition of burglary under the Armed Career Criminal Act?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument next in case seventeen seven six six six six six five, United States versus Stit and Case number seventeen seven six six, United States versus Sims. Ms. Ross.

Unknown 0:12

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The crime of burglary has always focused on dwellings. By the time Congress adopted the current version of the Armed Career Criminal Act in nineteen eighty six, the vast majority of states had burglary statutes protecting all types of homes, including the non permanent and mobile dwellings at issue in these cases. In the words of Taylor versus United States, that was the generic sense in which the term burglary was then used in the criminal codes of most states.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 0:41

That wasn't the position that the government took pri prior to Mathis, was it? I thought that prior to Mathis the government acknowledged that generic bur burglary did not include motor vehicles as um habitations.

Unknown 0:59

I don't think that's um quite right, Your Honor. Uh Before Mathis, this issue didn't come up as often because obviously the government often had two arguments it could make. It would make a divisibility argument as well as a um mobile dwellings argument. But the government did in many of the Court of Appeals cases, going back to the nineties and the early two thousands, actually make this argument. Um again, it's become more important following Mathis because now the divisibility analysis is harder, and so in more cases uh the outcome is actually turning on whether burglary is uh capacious enough to include the very types of burglaries that, as we note in the brief, at least forty four states would have counted in nineteen eighty six.

Elena Kagan 1:37

I have little problem understanding your argument with respect to mobile homes. or floating homes. Those are structures that don't have any propulsion propul self propulsion mechanisms. If I drive by a mobile home It's a home on land. I don't think of it as a vehicle. in any meaningful way. Um a floating home is essentially the same, it just floats, but to move it you need a vehicle to move it, of some sort, a ship. But Um RVs, campers, tents, these temporary things. Um How is some someone supposed to know that people are using them to sleep in at a particular moment.

Unknown 2:27

Well, Your Honor, um to answer uh sort of your question directly and then to take take a step back, I think people often will know that those are being used because those are uh in fact designed or adapted for that purpose, and so you sort of know that an RP generally has.

Elena Kagan 2:41

There are plenty of homeless people I know in both New York and Washington, because I've seen them. um sleep in their cars. But if I'm a thief and I see a blanket or a pillow in the back of the car, I have no idea. There's no notice. that it's being used to sleep in. because or to sleep in overnight. um you know, parents who take a kid on a trip. will throw a pillow and a blanket in the back. Um I've thrown one in the back if someone else is driving um during the day. So what are we supposed to do about the used part of this? Adapted I understand. You might be able to see that. But how would you, if you're a thief, know? that a car is being used. for someone to sleep in overnight.

Unknown 3:36

So Your Honor, I think there are a number of points sort of in that question. I want to try to get to all of them. I actually don't think that the vehicle that's simply being used on the trip taking the kid to college is at all at issue in this case. Um that's not a uh sort of ordinary interpretation of either of the statutes that we have before us. Uh the SIMS statute uh that comes closest to make this to making this argument, the Arkansas statute applies uh either to a vehicle that is customarily used for overnight accommodation or one in which a person lives. So somebody sleeping overnight would not fall in there. I also

Elena Kagan 4:07

where any person lives, the homeless person who lives in a car.

Unknown 4:11

Right, Your Honor. And we don't think that even that interpretation is in front of this court because that was not raised previously in uh the brief in opposition and it also