Campers Qualify as Motor Vehicles
- Steven Topazio wrote this January 17, 2024 at 6:58 pm
Case Breakdown
In a recent case, the Appeals Court ruled “that the defendant’s camper, which was affixed to his pickup truck, qualifie[d] as a ‘vehicle’” or part of a vehicle under the statute for purposes of searching a motor vehicle where a weapon was found. Commonwealth v. Davenport (Appeals Court No. 2019-P-0595) – April 8, 2020
After a jury-waived trial, the defendant was convicted of carrying a dangerous weapon (a spring-loaded knife or switchblade) on his person or under his control in a vehicle. See G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b). The principal issue before the appeals court was whether there was sufficient evidence to show that the defendant’s camper, which was affixed to his pickup truck, qualifies as a “vehicle” under the statute. This particular camper is not freestanding in the sense that it does not have a driving cab or wheels, but instead is a type of attachment designed to rest on top of the pickup truck, with its outer dimensions not exceeding those of the truck. The Appeals Court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to show that the camper, as affixed to the truck, is a vehicle or part of a vehicle within the meaning of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (b), and that there was also sufficient evidence that the knife was under the defendant’s control in the vehicle.
The camper has both a kitchen area and a sleeping area. It does not have its own driving cab, and there is no access to it from the truck; the only access is through a door in the rear. On appeal from his conviction, the defendant argued “that the camper is not a ‘vehicle’ within the meaning of” G.L. c.269, §10(b). In its decision rejecting the defendant’s argument, the Appeals Court opined that “[a] camper that is affixed to a truck is a means of transporting people and things and, as such, is a vehicle or at least part of a vehicle under the common definition. The appeals court disagreed with the defendant’s suggestion that his camper, though attached to his truck, cannot be considered a vehicle because it does not have its own driving cab. Moreover, the Court rejected the defendant’s contention “that his camper cannot be considered a vehicle because he was using it as a residence. The appeals court perceived the defendant’s argument to be twofold: that G.L. c.269, §10(b), can never be applied to a vehicle that also serves as one’s residence; and that it cannot be applied on the facts of this case because the camper was set up as a residence when the defendant was arrested. The first of these arguments fails because, unlike [c.269,] §10(a), which prohibits the unlawful carrying of firearms, §10(b) contains no residence exception…. The defendant’s second argument fails because the evidence was sufficient to show that he used the camper as a means of transport, even though he also used it at times as a residence.