Courts And Justice
Federal kidnapping can start before a car reaches the border
The court said a rider can withdraw permission mid-trip, and a driver who keeps going can face federal kidnapping charges even before crossing a state line. It also upheld Pilson’s conviction for violating a protective order across state lines.
A ride does not stay lawful just because it started with permission, the First Circuit said. The court held that once a passenger withdraws consent, continued transport can support a federal kidnapping charge even before a state line is crossed. The decision came in Stephen Pilson’s case, which also involved an interstate protective-order conviction.
- A passenger can withdraw consent mid-trip, the court said.
- Continued transport after that can still support federal kidnapping charges.
- The ruling came in Stephen Pilson’s case involving his then-girlfriend, Rilka Stefanov.
- The case also involved an interstate protective-order conviction.
- In the First Circuit, a ride that begins with consent does not get a permanent pass
In the First Circuit, a ride that begins with consent does not get a permanent pass. The court said a traveler can withdraw permission mid-trip, and if the other person keeps driving anyway, federal kidnapping liability under 18 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) can still attach before anyone reaches the state line.
That matters most in coercive domestic-violence and abduction cases, where the trip itself can become part of the abuse. The panel said consent is not set in stone; once it is withdrawn, the other person has to accept that decision.
Why this case mattered
The ruling came in Stephen Pilson’s federal case. He was convicted of kidnapping his then-girlfriend, Rilka Stefanov, and of violating a protective order across state lines.
The conduct began in October 2019 and continued through December 2019, after Pilson was released from a Massachusetts jail following similar offenses involving the same victim. That backdrop gave the court a concrete example of a ride that can become unlawful when the other person wants out.
What changes for future cases
Pilson challenged the kidnapping conviction as unsupported by the evidence, and he also challenged the jury instructions tied to the interstate protective-order charge under 18 U.S.C. § 2262(a)(1), the federal law covering interstate violations of domestic-violence stay-away orders. The First Circuit said the consent question turns on how the trip unfolded, not just on how it started.
For prosecutors, that gives a cleaner theory in cases where a ride shifts from voluntary to coercive before the border. For defense lawyers, it is a warning that consent can disappear in the middle of a trip, and the legal risk can follow the driver from that point forward.