Call us now:
5th DCA Scheurman v State 5D2023-2294 clay county 5th DCA
muzzleloader rifle is antique and is not deadly weapon or firearm unless used in crime or used as weapon – VOP – possession of weapon – return of property
Antique Firearms in Florida Law and Probation Conditions
Ryan Lee Scheurman (Appellant) appealed the circuit court’s denial of his motion to return a black powder muzzleloader rifle seized by law enforcement during a probation violation search of his home. Appellant had been sentenced to probation with conditions prohibiting the possession of firearms or weapons. Appellant admitted to having other weapons but disputed that the muzzleloader violated his probation.
The court reviewed the definitions of “firearm” and “weapon” under Florida law. Since the muzzleloader was an antique firearm and was not used in a crime, it did not violate probation conditions. The court ruled that it wasn’t a “deadly weapon” and that the probation officer’s instructions couldn’t redefine probation terms.
Probation Conditions
Appellant was subject to probation, and three of the conditions of his probation stated that he must not “possess, carry or own any firearm,” and he must not “possess, carry or own any weapons without first procuring the consent of” his probation officer. Another condition stated that Appellant must comply with all instructions that his probation officer may give to him.
The case begins with a pretty common occurrence, an argument with a probation officer. The Officer stated that she and Appellant had argued back and forth over whether he was permitted to possess a black powder muzzleloader rifle, and she had informed him that he would be charged with violating his probation were a muzzleloader found in his home or vehicle.
After this conversation the probation officer discovered a muzzleloader during a search of Appellant’s home, and Appellant told her he used the muzzleloader for hunting.
A violation was submitted, and the Defendant went to Court and entered an admission of probation violations as to a number actual weapons found in his home (bow, sword, machete, daggers, etc) but not as to the muzzleloader, contending that his probation order did not prohibit him from possessing it.
Definition of Weapon
After his violation was concluded the Defendant moved to have his muzzleloader returned. This forced the appellate Court to decide if his muzzleloader was evidence of a crime/violation of probation.
The Court starts with interpreting the words “firearm” and “weapon[ ]” in the order that set forth the conditions of Appellant’s probation. The Court explained its reasoning in the following manner.
The question thus becomes: is a black powder muzzleloader rifle a “deadly weapon” as section 790.001 uses the term? While the statute does not define “deadly weapon,” our precedent does. In Brown v. State, 896 So. 2d 808, 809 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005), we held that the antique rifle did not “constitute a deadly weapon because it was not used or threatened to be used in a way likely to produce death or great bodily harm.”
It is uncontested that the muzzleloader was discovered encased in a residential closet. Therefore, Appellant’s keeping of a muzzleloader in his home did not violate the condition of his probation relating to firearms and weapons and was not a deadly weapon.
Probation Officers Authority to Define Weapon
State argues that the muzzleloader was prohibited under the separate probation condition that Appellant comply with all instructions that his probation officer gives to him, but- a probation officer’s instructions cannot redefine the term “weapon.” See Messineo, 174 So. 3d at 1108 (“[T]he fact that [a]ppellant’s probation officer told her that she could not possess any knives did not redefine or expand the definition of ‘weapon’ in Condition 4 and was not evidence that [a]ppellant willfully violated her probation by carrying this pocketknife.”) She “has no authority to impose additional conditions of probation, even if the court has ordered the probationer to follow all instructions the officer may give.” Id. (quoting Bishop v. State, 21 So. 3d 830, 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)).
Conclusion
This case is a great example of the limits of authority set up by Courts are constantly being challenged by the agents of the State of Florida. Even though binding precedent existed, the Defendant still had his property seized and the State of Florida fought tooth and nail over the definition of deadly weapon and the extent of the authority of a probation officer over an old antique firearm.
Find out more about weapons charges.
Find out more about violations of probation.
Why Retaining an Attorney Matters
If you’re accused of violating your probation or any other criminal law or any criminal matter, retaining an attorney is critical to protecting your rights. These cases will involve constitutional questions and concern allegations of misconduct or are sensitive in nature, requiring a skill, preparation and experience. For expert legal help, contact Gainesville Defense Lawyer Matt Landsman to protect your rights today.