United States v. Blake
| Decision Date | 30 June 1962 |
| Docket Number | Crim. No. 21261. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Samuel Lee BLAKE, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
F. Russell Millin, U. S. Atty., Joseph P. Teasdale, Asst. U. S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
Kenneth K. Simon, Simon & Pierce, Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
This case involves the criminal responsibility under § 1001, Title 18, U.S.C.A., of an applicant for Christmas employment with the Post Office Department who stated that he had never been arrested, charged or held by federal, state or other law enforcement authorities for any violation of any federal, state, county or municipal law, regulation or ordinance with the exception of a traffic violation for which a fine of $25.00 or less was imposed. The amended information in this case charges that when the statement was made the applicant knew that he had been arrested on numerous occasions for assault with intent to murder, possession of narcotics, drunkenness, participating in and frequenting a gambling game, and had been convicted for unlawful possession of narcotics, and confined in the Illinois State Penitentiary for 21 months of a two to three year sentence, and when the applicant well knew the statement made in the application was false and in violation of § 1001, Title 18, U.S.C.A.
The original information in this cause was defective because it failed to allege the true facts claimed by the government to have been falsified. See United States v. Bougie (S.D.Cal.) 118 F.Supp. 359, involving a similar application for Christmas employment with the United States Post Office Department. This defect has been cured by the filing of an amended information.
The defendant moves to dismiss upon these grounds:
1. The information fails to set forth the factual reason showing that the false statement is material.
2. The facts alleged in the information do not come within the purview of Section 1001 because they involve a negative answer to an employment application for temporary employment with the Post Office Department.
The amended information sets forth the facts relied upon by the government, leaving for determination the question of whether the amended information is defective.
The question of materiality involves the answer to the following two questions: (1) Must the statement be material? (2) Is the statement in this case material?
Although the courts are divided upon the question whether it is essential that the false statement be material to constitute a violation of Section 1001, it is believed that materiality is an essential element of the crime. See authorities cited in United States v. Allen (S.D. Cal.) 193 F.Supp. 954, and Gonzales v. United States (C.A.10) 286 F.2d 118.
The statement in the case at bar was material. In securing temporary employees to assist in handling and delivery of Christmas mail, it is material to the granting of applications of employment to know whether the applicant has a record of criminal arrests, criminal charges and criminal detention. The very nature of the duties makes this information important, and therefore material, in determining who shall be employed to perform these duties. The Post Office Department would be derelict in the performance of its functions if it did not screen applicants with a view toward eliminating employees whose background suggests untrustworthiness, dishonesty, moral turpitude and disobedience to law. If the information in this case correctly sets forth the record of the applicant, it becomes obvious that knowledge of this record was not only material but essential to a proper ruling upon his application for employment.
The defendant suggests in his brief that the inquiry in this case might not be within the jurisdiction of the Post Office Department within the meaning of Section 1001. It is argued that, while retention or dismissal of an employee is within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the government, an investigation for the purpose of processing applications for minor temporary jobs may not be. In this connection, reliance is placed upon the dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Clark in United States v. De Lorenzo (C.A.2) 151 F.2d 122, 126. Whatever one may think of the rule advocated in this dissent, involving civil service procedure and the federal false claims statute (formerly § 80, now § 287 and § 1001, Title 18, U.S.C.A.), it does not appear to be the law, and will not be followed here.
The defendant also relies upon the claim that the answer of the defendant was negative and therefore not within the purview of § 1001, citing United States v. Philippe (S.D.N.Y.) 173 F. Supp. 582; United States v. Stark (D. Md.) 131 F.Supp. 190; United States v. Levin (D.Colo.) 133 F.Supp. 88; United States v. Davey (S.D.N.Y.) 155 F.Supp. 175. In these cases, negative but false responses to inquiries by investigators of the F.B.I. and the Treasury Department were not made in connection with any attempt to obtain or retain any office or employment with any agency of the government. This distinction was pointed out in United States v. Stark (D. Md.) 131 F.Supp. 190, l. c. 198. Because those cases did not involve an attempt to obtain...
To continue reading
Request your trial