U.S. v. Lindsey, 78-1036
| Decision Date | 11 April 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-1036,78-1036 |
| Citation | 595 F.2d 5 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellant, v. Benjamin Scott LINDSEY and Thomas E. Lindsey, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Warren S. Derbidge, Asst. U. S. Atty., Boise, Idaho, for appellant.
Robert F. Moore, Boise, Idaho, for appellees.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
Before BROWNING and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and BURNS, * District Judge.
While rafting down the Snake River in Idaho, appellees camped and built a campfire. The campsite was on a portion of the river that is surrounded by national forests Nez Perce National Forest to the east, and the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest to the west and that comprises a part of the Hells Canyon National Recreational Area and has been designated a part of the Wild and Scenic River System created by 16 U.S.C. § 1271. Appellees were charged with violating regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture in camping and building a fire without permits. 1
The campsite was located on dry land below the river's high water mark and, therefore, was legally on the river bed, title to which is held by the State of Idaho. On motion of appellees the district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the alleged activities occurred on state property beyond the jurisdiction of the United States. This appeal by the Government followed. We reverse.
The fact that title to the land on which the violations occurred was in the state of Idaho does not deprive the United States of regulatory control over appellees' conduct. Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution provides in part:
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States.
It is well established that this clause grants to the United States power to regulate conduct on non-federal land when reasonably necessary to protect adjacent federal property or navigable waters.
In United States v. Alford, 274 U.S. 264, 47 S.Ct. 597, 71 L.Ed. 1040 (1926) the Court dealt with an act regulating the building of fires near inflammable material on the public domain. Mr. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, stated 274 U.S. at 267, 47 S.Ct. at 598. Responding to a challenge to the Act's constitutionality the Court held ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Sierra Pacific Indus.
...does not have the power to issue such an authorization. Moreover, the Mendez Concrete court's attempt to distinguish United States v. Lindsey, 595 F.2d 5 (9th Cir.1979), upon which plaintiff relies, is persuasive. The court in Mendez Concrete found “it is apparent that the result in Lindsey......
-
Stewart v. U.S. ex rel. Dept. of Agriculture, Civil No. 07-6282-TC.
...record"). Furthermore, Property Clause jurisdiction is dependent upon specific enabling legislation by Congress. See, United States v. Lindsey, 595 F.2d 5 (9th Cir. 1979). citing 16 U.S.C. § 551 (providing authority to protect against destruction by fire and other degradation upon the natio......
-
State of Minn. by Alexander v. Block
...47 S.Ct. 597, 71 L.Ed. 1040 (1927) (protecting forests against dangers of fire occurring on federal land). See also United States v. Lindsey, 595 F.2d 5, 6 (9th Cir. 1979).The case relied on by appellants, Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U.S. 46, 27 S.Ct. 655, 51 L.Ed. 956 (1906), has been greatly ......
-
Stupak-Thrall v. U.S.
...Eighth and Ninth Circuits have applied Camfield, Alford, and Kleppe in analogous circumstances to the instant case. In United States v. Lindsey, 595 F.2d 5 (9th Cir.1979), the court followed Alford and concluded that the federal government could regulate the building of forest fires on stat......
-
FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS: THE AUTHORITIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF STATE FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES.
...1985), cert, denied, 476 U.S. 1169 (1986). (128) Id. at 1547 (analyzing contract, estoppel, and Administrative Procedure Act issues). (129) 595 F.2d 5 (9th Cir. (130) 274 U.S. 264 (1927). (131) Id. at 267. (132) Grant, 595 F.2d at 6 ("The fact that title to the land on which the violations ......