A precedent-setting ruling in May by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals led a San Diego judge to dismiss the charge against the musician formerly known as Lil' Boosie
A federal judge in San Diego has dismissed the criminal gun possession case against Louisiana rapper Boosie Badazz after his attorney argued that a recent federal appeals court ruling set a new precedent allowing some convicted felons to possess firearms, rendering the criminal charge against the musician unconstitutional.
The 41-year-old rapper, whose real name is Torence Ivy Hatch and who previously performed under the names Boosie and Lil’ Boosie, had been indicted in San Diego on suspicion of being a felon in possession of a firearm based on prior convictions in Louisiana for non-violent drug charges.
But in May, a three-judge panel from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers California and other western states, ruled in a similar case that it was unconstitutional to disarm a Los Angeles man who had served his sentence for non-violent drug offenses. With that precedent-setting ruling to point to, defense attorney Meghan Blanco filed a motion asking for U.S. District Judge Cathy Bencivengo to dismiss Hatch’s case. Federal prosecutors who had successfully defeated a similar motion last year, before the new 9th Circuit ruling, did not oppose the dismissal request this time around.
On Friday, Bencivengo granted the motion and dismissed the case.
“I’m so happy and relieved for him, this has been so stressful on him and his family,” Blanco said Monday. “I’m happy he’s able to put this behind him.”
Blanco said the conditions of pre-trial release, including travel restrictions, were difficult on Hatch and his family.
“As soon as we walked into the hallway after the hearing, he said ‘I’m taking my family on an international vacation,’” Blanco recalled.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Diego did not respond to questions about the case, including its decision not to oppose Hatch’s dismissal request either in writing or at Friday’s hearing.
Hatch’s case is one of the first, and the most high-profile, to be dismissed because of the 9th Circuit’s May ruling, which could soon have a much broader impact.
Since 1938 when Congress enacted the Federal Firearms Act, the federal government has barred people convicted of felonies from owning or possessing guns.
But the blanket ban on felons possessing firearms has come under closer scrutiny since the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established a new legal framework in which weapons laws must follow the “Second Amendment’s plain text” and must be “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Defendants around the country have argued, with mixed results so far, that the 1938 federal gun law is too recent to be historically relevant and is inconsistent with firearm laws from around the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.
One of those defendants was Steven “Shorty” Duarte, an alleged member of a Los Angeles street gang who was sentenced to more than four years in prison for possessing a gun as a convicted felon. Duarte appealed to the 9th Circuit, which overturned his conviction in a 2-1 ruling, establishing a new precedent for defendants like Hatch.
San Diego police had arrested Hatch in May 2023 while he was in town to shoot a music video and perform a concert. A prosecutor said in court last year that a detective was watching the Instagram Live video of a “known gang member” that day when the officer allegedly spotted the handle of a Glock pistol in Hatch’s waistband during the music video shoot.
Police sent a helicopter and dozens of officers to locate the vehicle Hatch was seen leaving in. Two guns were found in the car but not on his person.
Hatch, who was acquitted more than a decade ago by a Louisiana jury in a murder-for-hire plot, had previously been convicted on marijuana possession and distribution charges. That made him ineligible to own or possess a firearm.
Hatch was initially charged with a gun offense in San Diego Superior Court. His attorneys, Blanco and Damon Alimouri, said the musician had worked out a deal in that case in which he would be sentenced to probation. Before the deal was finalized though, the county District Attorney’s Office dismissed the case. But federal authorities were waiting for him outside the courtroom to arrest him on the federal charge.
Blanco and Alimouri argued last July that the charge should be dropped on constitutional grounds. At the time, a U.S. appellate court in Philadelphia and a U.S. district judge in Mississippi had both ruled in favor of felons seeking to restore their Second Amendment rights, but the 9th Circuit had not yet made its ruling in the Duarte case. Bencivengo ruled against Hatch at the time.
But the 9th Circuit’s decision in the Duarte case changed the calculus.
What remains to be seen is whether a full en banc panel of judges will hear the Duarte case, which the government has requested. The 9th Circuit has not said if it will take up the case en banc, and it’s unclear what would happen if the full panel overturned the three-judge panel’s ruling.
Blanco said even if that did happen, and the 9th Circuit went back to banning non-violent drug convicts from possessing firearms, she hopes prosecutors would not renew the case against her client.
“He was here filming a music video and engaged in lawful activity at the time,” Blanco said. “He’s been fully compliant while on pre-trial release. There is no good interest in pursuing additional charges.”
