United States v. International Minerals Chemical Corp
Citation | 91 S.Ct. 1697,402 U.S. 558,29 L.Ed.2d 178 |
Decision Date | 01 June 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 557,557 |
Parties | UNITED STATES, Appellant, v. INTERNATIONAL MINERALS & CHEMICAL CORP |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Appellee was charged by information with shipping sulfuric and hydrofluosilicic acids in interstate commerce and that it 'did knowingly fail to show on the shipping papers the required classification of said property, to wit, Corrosive Liquid, in violation of 49 CFR 173.437,' issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 834(a). Section 834(f) provides that whoever 'knowingly violates and such regulation' shall be fined and imprisoned. The District Court dismissed the information, holding that it did not charge a 'knowing violation' of the regulation. Held: The statute does not signal an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse. The word 'knowingly' in the statute pertains to knowledge of the facts, and where, as here, dangerous products are involved, the probability of regulation is so great that anyone who is aware that he is in possession of or dealing with them must be presumed to be aware of the regulation. Pp. 560—565.
Reversed.
John F. Dienelt, Washington, D.C., for appellant, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court.
Harold E. Spencer, Chicago, Ill., for appellee.
The information charged that appellee shipped sulfuric acid and hydrofluosilicic acid in interstate commerce and 'did knowingly fail to show on the shipping papers the required classfication of said property, to wit, Corrosive Liquid, in violation of 49 C.F.R. 173.427.'
Title 18 U.S.C. § 834(a) gives the Interstate Commerce Commission power to 'formulate regulations for the safe transportation' of 'corrosive liquids' and 18 U.S.C. § 834(f) states that whoever 'knowingly violates any such regulation' shall be fined or imprisoned.
Pursuant to the power granted by § 834(a) the regulatory agency1 promulgated the regulation already cited which reads in part:
49 CFR § 173.427.
The District Court, relying primarily on Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, 342 U.S. 337, 72 S.Ct. 329, 96 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 certify the case to this Court which the Court of Appeals did; and we noted probable jurisdiction, 400 U.S. 990, 91 S.Ct. 451, 27 L.Ed.2d 437.
Here as in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 28 L.Ed.2d 356, which dealt with the possession of hand grenades, strict or absolute liability is not imposed; knowledge of the shipment of the dangerous materials is required. The sole and narrow question is whether 'knowledge' of the regulation is also required. It is in that narrow zone that the issue of 'mens rea' is raised; and appellee bears down hard on the provision in 18 U.S.C. § 834(f) that whoever 'knowingly violates any such regulation' shall be fined, etc.
Boyce Motor Lines, Inc. v. United States, supra, on which the District Court relied, is not dispositive of the issue. It involved a regulation governing transporting explosives, inflammable liquids, and the like and required drivers to 'avoid, so far as practicable, and, where feasible, by prearrangement of routes, driving into or through congested thoroughfares, places where crowds are assembled, street car tracks, tunnels, viaducts, and dangerous crossings.' The statute punished whoever 'knowingly' violated the regulation. Id., at 339, 72 S.Ct., at 330. The issue of 'mens rea' was not raised below, the sole question turning on whether the standard of guilt was unconstitutionally vague. Id., at 340, 72 S.Ct., at 330—331. In holding the statute was not void for vagueness we said:
Id., at 342—343, 72 S.Ct., at 331—332.
The 'mens rea' that emerged in the foregoing discussion was not knowledge of the regulation but knowledge of the safer routes and those that were less safe within the meaning of the regulation. Mr. Justice Jackson, writing in dissent for himself, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Frankfurter, correctly said:
'I do not suppose the Court intends to suggest that if petitioner knew nothing of the existence of such a regulation its ignorance would constitute a defense.' 342 U.S., at 345, 72 S.Ct., at 333.
There is no issue in the present case of the propriety of the delegation of the power to establish regulations and of the validity of the regulation at issue. We therefore see no reason why the word 'regulations' should not be construed as a shorthand designation for specific acts or omissions which violate the Act. The Act, so viewed, does not signal an exception to the rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse and is wholly consistent with the legislative history.
The failure to change the language in § 834 in 1960 should not lead to a contrary conclusion. The Senate approved an amendment deleting 'knowingly' and substituting therefor the language 'being aware that the Interstate Commerce Commission has formulated regulations for the safe transportation of explosives and other dangerous articles.'2 But the House refused to agree. As the House Committee stated, its version would 'retain the present law by providing that a person must 'knowingly' violate the regulations.'3
The House Committee noted there was a 'judicial pronouncement as to the standards of conduct that make a violation a 'knowing' violation.'4 In St. Johnsbury Trucking Co. v. United States, 220 F.2d 393, 397, Chief Judge Magruder had concluded that knowledge of the regulations was necessary. But whether the House Committee was referring to Boyce Motor Lines or the opinion of Chief Judge Magruder is not clear since both views of the section were before Congress.5 It is clear that strict liability was not intended. The Senate Committee felt it would be too stringent and thus rejected the position of the Interstate Commerce Commission.6 But despite protestations of avoiding strict liability the Senate version was very likely to result in strict liability because knowledge of the facts would have been unnecessary and anyone involved in the business of shipping dangerous materials would very likely know of the regulations involved. Thus in rejecting the Senate version the House was rejecting strict liability.7 But it is too much to conclude that in rejecting strict liability the House was also carving out an exception to the general rule that ignorance of the law is no excuse.
The principle that ignorance of the law is of defense applies whether the law be a statute or a duly promulgated and published regulation. In the context of these proposed 1960 amendments we decline to attribute to Congress the inaccurate view that that Act requires proof of knowledge of the law, as well as the facts, and that it intended to endorse that interpretation by retaining the word 'knowingly.' We conclude that the meager legislative history of the 1960 amendments makes unwarranted the conclusion that Congress abandoned the general rule and required knowledge of both the facts and the pertinent law before a criminal conviction could be sustained under this Act.
So far as possession, say, of sulfuric acid is concerned the requirement of 'mens rea' has been made a requirement of the Act as evidenced by the use of the word 'knowingly.' A person thinking in good faith that he was shipping distilled water when in fact he was shipping some dangerous acid would not be covered. As stated in Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 250, 72 S.Ct. 240, 243, 96 L.Ed. 288:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Corbin Farm Service
...particular statute, it clearly falls within the framework of other regulatory statutes. In United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 91 S.Ct. 1697, 29 L.Ed.2d 178 (1971), the Court examined the mens rea requirements applicable to a violation of a regulation of the......
-
State v. A.M.
...511 U.S. 513, 522, 114 S. Ct. 1747, 128 L. Ed. 2d 539 (1994) (selling drug paraphernalia); United States v. Int'l Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 559-60, 91 S. Ct. 1697, 29 L. Ed. 2d 178 (1971) (shipping hazardous materials); Morissette, 342 U.S. at 263-64, 72 S.Ct. 240 (converting fe......
-
U.S. v. Talebnejad
...welfare offenses include, among others, transportation of dangerous liquids or products, United States v. International Minerals & Chem. Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 91 S.Ct. 1697, 29 L.Ed.2d 178 (1971), dumping of hazardous wastes, United States v. Johnson & Towers, Inc., 741 F.2d 662 (3d Cir.1984......
-
McNeely v. US
...a state's `police power....'"16 McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A.2d 744, 756 (D.C.1978) (citing United States v. Inter'l Minerals & Chems. Corp., 402 U.S. 558, 91 S.Ct. 1697, 29 L.Ed.2d 178 (1971) (corrosive liquids); United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 91 S.Ct. 1112, 28 L.Ed.2d 356 (1971) (......
-
Environmental crimes.
...the regulatory purpose. United States v. Laughlin, 768 E Supp. 957, 965 (N.D.N.Y. 1991) (discussing United States v. Int'l Minerals, 402 U.S. 558, 565 (1971), where the Supreme Court held that where dangerous waste materials are involved, "probability of regulation is so great that anyone w......
-
CHAPTER 4 REDUCING THE LEGAL EXPOSURE OF OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, AND EMPLOYEES
...Ct. 1171 (1985). [33] 33 U.S.C.A. § 1319(c). [34] See 741 F.2d at 664. [35] Id. at 664, 665. [36] Id. at 667. [37] Id. at 667, 668. [38] 402 U.S. 558 (1971). [39] 741 F.2d at 670. [40] See Comment, Corporate Officer Liability Under RCRA: Stringent but Not Strict, 1991 BYU L. Rev. 1547, 1553......
-
Environmental crimes.
...the regulatory purpose. United States v. Laughlin, 768 E Supp. 957, 965 (N.D.N.Y. 1991) (discussing United States v. Int'l Minerals, 402 U.S. 558, 565 (1971), where court held that where dangerous waste materials are involved, "probability of regulation is so great that anyone who is aware ......
-
Criminal Enforcement of Air Pollution Control Laws
...of the features that made it an automatic weapon). 89. Id. at 390. 90. 133 F.3d 251, 28 ELR 20299 (1997). 74. 320 U.S. 277 (1943). 75. 402 U.S. 558 (1971). 76. 18 U.S.C. §834(a)&(f) (2000); 49 C.F.R. §173.427. 77. 402 U.S. at 563. 78. Id . at 565. See, e.g. , Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S......