California High Court Says Sometimes a Footrest Is Just a Footrest
On the afternoon of Aug. 21, 2007, a Los Angeles police officer spotted a 14-year-old boy riding his bicycle without a helmet and stopped him. The boy consented to a search and the officer found in his pocket a metal footrest from a bicycle – but not the boy's bicycle, which had both pedals intact.
The officer knew something about gang weapons, and, according to the court records, concluded the boy was carrying the footrest to hold in his fist during a fight, to add power to a punch. The teen, identified as David. V., was charged with "possession of metal knuckles," more commonly known as brass knuckles.
On appeal, the boy's lawyer argued that the metal cylinder couldn't be considered the same as brass knuckles, which are worn over the fist, because the cylinder could only be clenched in the fist – a distinction the appeals court didn't buy.
But the California Supreme Court did, agreeing with David V. in a 10-page decision that hinged on the definition of "worn." The ruling said that under the law, metal knuckles are "worn" and the device "either protects the wearer's hand while striking a blow or increases the force of impact from the blow or injury to the individual receiving the blow."
The prosecution argued that holding the metal footrest in the hand is the same as a woman who is carrying a clutch purse being considered wearing the fashion accessory. "Unpersuasive," the court said.
And since the bicycle footrest can't be worn, it can't be considered the same as metal knuckles, the court ruled.
But the court also pointedly said that it wasn't passing judgment on what the youth intended to do with the metal cylinder he was carrying around in his pocket.






