Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. v. FORSBERG

September 6, 2005.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DANA FORSBERG, Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHARD SEEBORG, Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

I. INTRODUCTION

On August 29, 2005, defendant Dana Forsberg was tried to the Court, without a jury, for unlawfully entering a military facility in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382, for carrying a concealed and loaded weapon in a vehicle in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13, assimilating California Penal Code §§ 12025(a)(1) and 12031(a)(1), and for driving under the influence of alcohol with a blood alcohol content of more than .08%, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13, assimilating California Vehicle Code §§ 23152(a) and (b). The United States was represented by Special Assistant United States Attorney Robert Nelson and defendant was represented by Terrance McCleery. Witnesses Alberto Corpuz, Lt. Dave Wicklund, Greg Avilez, Sgt. Michael Hespe, and Officer Timothy Walsh testified on behalf of the United States, while defendant testified on his own behalf. Based on all evidence and testimony presented, the Court finds defendant Forsberg GUILTY on all Counts of the Information. II. FINDINGS

  A. Count One: Entry on Military Reservation for Purpose Prohibited by Law

  In Count One, the government charges that defendant violated 18 U.S.C. § 1382 by entering a military reservation on July 2, 2004, for a purpose prohibited by law. To prove a violation of Section 1382, the government must show that the defendant's initial entry onto the military reservation was made for a prohibited purpose, although the prohibited purpose may be the unauthorized entry itself. United States v. Cottier, 759 F.2d 760, 762 (9th Cir. 1985); United States v. Hall, 742 F.2d 1153, 1154 (9th Cir. 1984). Accordingly, "going upon a military base with knowledge that such entry is unauthorized violates the statute." United States v. Hall, 742 F.2d at 1154.

  The evidence presented at trial established that on July 2, 2004, defendant and a passenger drove to Fort Hunter Liggett, located in Monterey, California. Defendant was stopped at the entry gate to the Fort and informed by security officer Alberto Corpuz that in order to obtain lawful entry onto the premises he must produce a valid identification, as well as proof of valid registration of his vehicle and proof of insurance. Despite such instructions, however, Mr. Corpuz testified that defendant did not provide proof of his insurance information but, nonetheless, proceeded through the entry gate and onto the grounds of Fort Hunter Liggett. He was subsequently stopped by a patrol officer for traveling at an excessive rate of speed and charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1832.

  Mr. Forsberg testified that he left the entry area because he believed that officer Corpuz had waved him through the entry gate. He reasonably thought, therefore, that he was free to travel onto the grounds. Officer Corpuz testified, to the contrary, that he was not waving Mr. Forsberg through the entry but was, rather, signaling another vehicle to enter the Fort.

  Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the Court finds that the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant entered Fort Hunter Liggett, a military reservation, on July 2, 2004, for a purpose prohibited by law, to wit, that defendant knew that he was prohibited from entering the Fort without submitting proof of valid automobile insurance. Defendant knew that he had failed to show proof of such insurance at the entry gate to the Fort but proceeded, nonetheless, to enter the grounds of the Fort. Accordingly, defendant is guilty of Count One of the Information.

  B. Count Two: Unlawfully Carrying Concealed Weapon

  In Count Two, the government charges that defendant unlawfully carried a concealed weapon within a vehicle under his control, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13, assimilating California Penal Code § 12025(a)(1). To prove a violation of Penal Code § 12025(a)(1), the government must establish that defendant knowingly carried concealed within a vehicle under his control or direction a pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed upon the person. Cal. Penal Code § 12025(a)(1); People v. Hodges, 71 Cal.App.4th 1348 (1999).

  The evidence presented at trial showed that defendant was driving a vehicle in which he had placed a concealed handgun. Defendant testified that he had wrapped the handgun in an oily towel and placed it in the back of the vehicle. He also stated that when he was stopped for a speeding violation, he informed the officer of the presence of the handgun. At trial, defendant did not contest the fact that he knew a concealed handgun was in the car he was driving, but noted that there was no trunk in the vehicle in which he could store the gun.

  Based on the evidence and testimony presented, the Court finds that the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knowingly carried concealed within a vehicle under his control or direction a pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 12025(a)(1). Accordingly, defendant is guilty of Count Two of the Information.

  C. Count Three: Unlawfully Carrying Loaded Weapon

  In Count Three, the government charges that defendant unlawfully carried a loaded weapon within a vehicle under his control, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 13, assimilating California Penal Code § 12025(a)(1). To prove a violation of Penal Code § 12025(a)(1), the government must establish that defendant knowingly carried within a vehicle under his control or direction a loaded pistol, revolver, or firearm capable of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.