Bailey v. United States
516 U.S. 137 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for "using" a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), the government must prove the defendant actively employed the firearm during and in relation to the predicate crime. Mere possession or storage of a firearm near drugs or drug proceeds, even for protection, does not constitute "use."
Facts:
- Police stopped Roland Bailey for a traffic violation.
- As Bailey exited his car, he pushed something between the seat and console.
- A search of the passenger compartment revealed 30 grams of cocaine.
- In the car's locked trunk, officers found a large amount of cash and a bag containing a loaded 9-mm. pistol.
- In a separate case, an undercover officer made two controlled buys of crack cocaine from Candisha Robinson in her apartment.
- During the buys, Robinson was observed retrieving the drugs from her bedroom.
- Police later executed a search warrant on Robinson's apartment.
- Inside a locked trunk in a bedroom closet, police found an unloaded .22-caliber Derringer, 10.88 grams of crack cocaine, and marked money from one of the controlled buys.
Procedural Posture:
- Roland Bailey was convicted by a jury in the trial court on several counts, including using a firearm in violation of § 924(c)(1).
- Candisha Robinson was convicted by a jury in the trial court on several counts, including using a firearm in violation of § 924(c)(1).
- On initial appeal, one panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed Bailey's conviction, while a different panel reversed Robinson's conviction.
- To resolve the inconsistency, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reheard both cases en banc.
- The en banc Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions for both Bailey and Robinson, establishing a new 'accessibility and proximity' test for 'use'.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to clarify the meaning of 'use' under § 924(c)(1).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mere proximity and accessibility of a firearm to drugs or drug proceeds, without evidence of active employment, constitute "use" of the firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O’Connor
No. The mere proximity and accessibility of a firearm is insufficient to support a conviction for "use" of that firearm under § 924(c)(1); the statute requires evidence of active employment. The term "use" must connote more than mere possession, as Congress could have easily specified "possession" if it intended to criminalize that conduct, as it has in other statutes. The lower court's "proximity and accessibility" test effectively erases the distinction between "use" and "possession" and renders the word "carries" in the same statute superfluous. A proper interpretation gives distinct meaning to both terms, where a firearm can be "used" without being carried (e.g., displayed on a table) and "carried" without being used (e.g., concealed in clothing). Active employment includes brandishing, displaying, bartering, striking with, firing, or even referencing the firearm to facilitate the crime. The inert presence of a firearm for potential use, such as its storage in a car trunk or a locked closet, does not constitute active employment and therefore is not "use" under the statute.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrowed the interpretation of "use" under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1), rejecting the broad "proximity and accessibility" standard that many circuits had adopted. By establishing a stricter "active employment" test, the Court clarified that the government must prove a firearm was an operative factor in the crime, not merely a passively stored object. This raised the evidentiary bar for prosecutors seeking the statute's mandatory minimum sentence, forcing them to show concrete actions like brandishing or referencing the weapon. The ruling distinguishes between defendants who merely possess a firearm for contingent protection and those who overtly bring the firearm into play during the commission of a drug trafficking crime.
