United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Corp.

Decision Date11 January 1971
Docket NumberNo. 11616.,11616.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORPORATION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

Simon L. Leis, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Cincinnati, Ohio, for plaintiff.

Leonard D. Slutz, Nichols, Wood, Marx & Ginter, Cincinnati, Ohio, for defendant.

Probable Jurisdiction Noted January 11, 1971. See 91 S.Ct. 451.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER

PORTER, District Judge.

There is pending for decision a motion to dismiss the five-count information which started this prosecution March 2, 1970. The motion is made pursuant to Rule 12(b) (2) F.R.Crim.P.

Title 18 U.S.C., section 834(a) commands the Interstate Commerce Commission (hereinafter I.C.C.) to formulate regulations for safe transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles. Pursuant to that section the I.C.C. promulgated the following regulations:

(a) Each shipper offering for transportation any dangerous article subject to the regulations in this chapter, shall describe that article on the shipping paper by the shipping name prescribed in Section 172.5 of this chapter and by the classification prescribed in Section 172.4 of this chapter, and may add a further description not inconsistent therewith. 49 C.F.R., section 173.427.

Section 834(f) of 18 U.S.C. provides:

Whoever knowingly violates any such regulation shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both * * * (emphasis added).

The five counts contained in the information are bottomed on the above regulation in its relation to section 834 (f) in that they charge the defendant with knowingly failing to show on its shipping papers the required classification, or name and classfication, of the property shipped. The information does not, however, charge that the defendant knowingly violated the above regulation and such an omission, defendant contends, requires dismissal. In other words, the defendant asserts that there is a vast difference between intending not to do the act(s) which a statute commands and, on the other hand, purposely not doing such an act but with the added ingredient of a consciousness that it is illegal not to so do.

On the basis of Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 72 S.Ct. 329, 96 L.Ed. 367 (1952); St. Johnsbury Trucking Co., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.2d 393 (1 Cir., 1955); United States v. Chicago Express Inc., 235 F.2d 785 (7 Cir., 1956); United States v. Deer, 131 F.Supp. 319 (E.D.Wash.N.D.195...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • US v. Laughlin
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of New York
    • June 20, 1991
    ...The district court dismissed the information, holding that it failed to allege a "knowing" violation of the regulation. 318 F.Supp. 1335, 1336 (S.D.Ohio 1970). The government appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals which then certified the appeal to the Supreme The question before th......
  • United States v. International Minerals Chemical Corp
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • June 1, 1971
    ...L.Ed. 367, ruled that the information did not charge a 'knowing violation' of the regulation and accordingly dismissed the information, 318 F.Supp. 1335. The United States filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, 18 U.S.C. § 3731, and in reliance on that section later moved to cert......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT