United States v. Higgins, Cr 81-00020-01-02-L.
Decision Date | 27 March 1981 |
Docket Number | No. Cr 81-00020-01-02-L.,Cr 81-00020-01-02-L. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Jon J. HIGGINS, Luther Albert James, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky |
John L. Smith, U. S. Atty., Louisville, Ky., for plaintiff.
Frank E. Haddad, Jr., Samuel Manly, J. Tim McCall, Louisville, Ky., for defendants.
This action is before the Court on the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the indictment. For the reasons which follow, the motion must be granted.
The Court's task in considering the motion to dismiss is to determine whether the allegations of the indictment, when accepted as true, are legally sufficient to state an offense. United States v. Sampson, 371 U.S. 75, 78-79, 83 S.Ct. 173, 174-175, 9 L.Ed.2d 136 (1963). The Court may properly decide all questions of law raised by defendants as grounds for dismissing the indictment. United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 661, 664-65 (6th Cir. 1976).
Defendants are charged with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505. Section 1505 is entitled "Obstruction of proceedings before department, agencies, and committees". The Court must address the threshold question of whether the F.B.I. investigation which was allegedly obstructed by defendants was a "proceeding" within the meaning of the statute. The statute reads, in pertinent part:
Whoever corruptly ... obstructs ... the due and proper administration of the law under which such proceeding is being had before such department or agency of the United States ... shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
The "proceeding" mentioned in paragraph 4 of § 1505 is referred to in paragraph 1 as "any proceeding pending before any department or agency of the United States". What constitutes a "proceeding" within the meaning of § 1505 is a question of law which must be determined by the Court. United States v. Fruchtman, 421 F.2d 1019, 1021 (6th Cir. 1970).
However, the Federal Trade Commission is an agency which by law possesses both investigative and adjudicative functions. Its mission is to regulate conduct in the economic marketplace, not merely to investigate such conduct. Under our system of separation of powers, a criminal investigatory agency, in contradistinction to an administrative or regulatory agency, has no power to engage in rulemaking or adjudication. The Court is convinced, after careful examination of the case law and pertinent legislative history, that the meaning of "proceeding" in § 1505 must be limited to actions of an agency which relate to some matter within the scope of the rulemaking or adjudicative power vested in the agency by law. Since the F.B.I. has no rulemaking or adjudicative powers regarding the subject matter of this indictment, its investigation was not a "proceeding" within the meaning of the statute.
It is significant to the Court that in the eighty-two years this statute or its predecessor has been on the books, it has apparently never been applied to a criminal investigation by a federal law enforcement agency. The United States has been unable to cite a single precedent, and the Court has found none in its independent research. Indeed, each reported decision applying this statute has involved an agency with rulemaking or adjudicative authority in addition to investigative functions. See e. g., United States v. Browning, 572 F.2d 720 (10th Cir. 1978) (Bureau of Customs); United States v. Alo, 439 F.2d 751 (2d Cir. 1971) (Securities & Exchange Commission); United States v. Fruchtman, supra (Federal Trade Commission); United States v. Abrams, 427 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1970) (Immigration & Naturalization Service); United States v. Rice, 356 F.2d 709 (8th Cir. 1966) (National Labor Relations Board); United States v. Brumfield, 85 F.Supp. 696 (W.D. La.1949) (Federal Petroleum Board).
This Court would for all practical purposes be amending § 1505 by deleting the requirement that the obstruction must relate to a proceeding pending before an agency, if it were to adopt the construction urged by the United States. In oral argument, the government contended that this indictment should be viewed differently since it involves a police chief who is alleged to have corruptly used his official position to alert the subject of an F.B.I. investigation to surveillance by federal undercover agents. But the statute makes no distinction for any special class of defendants. If § 1505 can be used to prosecute a police chief, it can be used to prosecute an ordinary citizen. Such a broad expansion of this statute should not be imposed by judicial decision. It is for Congress, not the courts, to decide if there is a need for such a provision in federal law. Criminal statutes must be strictly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Kirst
...not precedential for propositions not considered." (simplified)). Moreover, Kelley distinguishes its holding from United States v. Higgins , 511 F. Supp. 453 (W.D. Ky. 1981), which it cites with a "cf." and describes as standing for the proposition that "because [the] FBI was not vested wit......
-
United States v. Gimbel
...defendant as grounds for dismissing the indictment. United States v. Jones, 542 F.2d 661, 664-65 (6th Cir.1976); United States v. Higgins, 511 F.Supp. 453, 454 (W.D.Ky.1981). Because the court must have jurisdiction before this case can proceed, the threshold issue in this appeal from the M......
-
United States v. Kirst
... ... propositions not considered." (simplified)). Moreover, ... Kelley distinguishes its holding from United ... States v. Higgins , 511 F.Supp. 453 (W.D. Ky. 1981), ... which it cites with a "cf." and describes as ... standing for the proposition that "because [the] ... ...
-
U.S. v. Adams
...is not a `proceeding' within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1505." (Def's Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss 4, citing United States v. Higgins, 511 F.Supp. 453, 454 (W.D.Ky.1981) (holding that an FBI investigation is not a "proceeding" under § "Interpretation of a word or phrase depends upon reading the w......
-
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
...statement made to a purely investigative agency, such as the F.B.I., is not within the scope of § 1505.”); United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 455 (W.D. Ky. 1981) (finding that the FBI investigation which the defendants allegedly obstructed was not a proceeding because the agency “......
-
Obstruction of justice
...statement made to a purely investigative agency, such as the F.B.I., is not within the scope of § 1505.”); United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 455 (W.D. Ky. 1981) (finding the FBI investigation that the defendants allegedly obstructed was not a proceeding because the agency “has no......
-
Obstruction of Justice
...statement made to a purely investigative agency, such as the F.B.I., is not within the scope of § 1505.”); United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 455 (W.D. Ky. 1981) (finding that the FBI investigation that the defendants allegedly obstructed was not a proceeding because the agency “h......
-
Obstruction of justice.
...made to a purely investigative agency, such as the F.B.I., is not within the scope of [section] 1505"); United States v. Higgins, 511 F. Supp. 453, 454 (D. Ky. 1981) (observing that, while the Federal Trade Commission was an agency with rule-making and adjudicative powers, the Federal Burea......