United States v. Lepowitch, 629
Decision Date | 19 April 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 629,629 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. LEPOWITCH et al |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 319 U.S. 783, 63 S.Ct. 1171, 87 L.Ed. —-.
Mr. Archibald Cox, of Washington, D.C., for appellant.
Mr. Henry S. Janon, of St. Louis, Mo., for appellees.
The defendants are charged with impersonating Federal Bureau of Investigation officers and by that means attempting to elicit information from one person concerning the whereabouts of another. They were indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 76, 18 U.S.C.A. § 76, the first branch of which includes two elements: impersonation of an officer of the government and acting as such with intent to defraud either the United States or any person.1 The District Judge sustained a demurrer to the indictment, holding that the conduct of the defendants, 'while highly reprehensible, does not come within the terms of the statute.' 48 F.Supp. 846, 847.2 He apparently concluded that the count of the indictment under consideration did not, within the meaning of the statute, make sufficient allegations either of impersonation or of acting with intent to defraud. Since the decision below was based on a construction of the statute, the case was properly brought here by the government under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U.S.C. § 682, 18 U.S.C.A. § 682, and 28 U.S.C. § 345, 28 U.S.C.A. § 345.
Government officials are impersonated by any persons who 'assume to act in the pretended character.' United States v. Barnow, 239 U.S. 74, 77, 36 S.Ct. 19, 21 60 L.Ed. 155. The most general allegation of impersonation of a government official, therefore, sufficiently charges this element of the offense. The validity of this portion of the indictment was not contested here.
We hold that the words 'intent to defraud' in the context of this statute, do not require more than the defendants have, by artifice and deceit, sought to cause the deceived person to follow some course he would not have pursued but for the deceitful conduct.3 If the statutory language alone had been used, the indictment would have been proof against demurrer under Lamar v. United States, 241 U.S. 103, 116, 36 S.Ct. 535, 539, 60 L.Ed. 912; Pierce v. United States, 314 U.S. 306, 307, 62 S.Ct. 237, 86 L.Ed. 226; and this indictment has merely been made more elaborate than that in the Lamar case by the addition of a description of the nature of the alleged fraud. In any case, this branch of the statute covers the acquisition of information by impersonation although the information may be wholly valueless to its giver. This result is required by United States v. Barnow, supra, 239 U.S. page 80, 36 S.Ct. page 22, 60 L.Ed. 155, in which we held that the purpose of the statute was 'to maintain the general good repute and dignity of the (government) service itself', and cited with approval cases which, interpreting an analogous statute, said: 'it is not essential to charge or prove an actual financial or property loss to make a case under the statute.' Haas v. Henkel, 216 U.S. 462, 480, 30 S.Ct. 249, 254, 54 L.Ed. 569, 17 Ann.Cas. 1112; United States v. Plyler, 222 U.S. 15, 32 S.Ct. 6, 56 L.Ed. 70.
The first clause of this statute, the only one under consideration here, defines one offense; the second clause de- fines another. While more than mere deceitful attempt to affect the course of action of another is required under the second clause of the statute, which speaks of an intent to obtain a ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bridges v. United States
...253, 70 L.Ed. 616; Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188, 44 S.Ct. 511, 512, 68 L.Ed. 968; cf. United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 63 S.Ct. 914, 87 L.Ed. 1091. ...
-
United States v. Chappell
...good repute and dignity of government service itself.” 132 S.Ct. at 2546 (plurality opinion) (quoting United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 704, 63 S.Ct. 914, 87 L.Ed. 1091 (1943)). Thus, far from supporting Chappell's argument, Alvarez instead confirms that § 18.2–174 speaks to the ver......
-
United States v. Strandlof
...provisions is to prevent con artists from misappropriating and diluting the government's message. See United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 704, 63 S.Ct. 914, 87 L.Ed. 1091 (1943) ( “actual financial or property loss” are not elements of § 912 because Congress enacted the statute to “ma......
-
United States v. Alvarez
...confined to "maintain[ing] the general good repute and dignity of ... government ... service itself." United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 704, 63 S.Ct. 914, 87 L.Ed. 1091 (1943) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). The same can be said for prohibitions on the unauthorize......
-
RECLAIMING ACCESS TO TRUTH IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTHCARE AFTER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF FAMILY & LIFE ADVOCATES V. BECERRA.
...Merchs. Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786, 802 (2011)). (177.) Alvarez, 567 U.S. at 734 (Breyer, J., concurring). (178.) United States v. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 704 (1943); see also Alvarez, 567 U.S. at 734 (Breyer, J., concurring) ("Fraud statutes, for example, typically require proof of a misrepresen......
-
False Valor: Amending the Stolen Valor Act to Conform With the First Amendment's Fraudulent Speech Exception
...the false identity). 260. This is especially trae when the individual is impersonating a government official. United States V. Lepowitch, 318 U.S. 702, 704 (1943) ("[T]he purpose of the [false personation] statute was 'to maintain the general good repute and dignity of the [government] serv......
-
18 U.S.C. § 912 Officer Or Employee of the United States
...person", contained in said section 76 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as meaningless in view of United States v. Lapowich, 63 S. Ct. 914.Changes were made in EDITORIAL NOTES AMENDMENTS 1994- Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000"....
-
18 U.S.C. § 912 Officer Or Employee of the United States
...person", contained in said section 76 of title 18, U.S.C., 1940 ed., were omitted as meaningless in view of United States v. Lapowich, 63 S. Ct. 914.Changes were made in EDITORIAL NOTES AMENDMENTS1994- Pub. L. 103-322 substituted "fined under this title" for "fined not more than $1,000"....