United States v. Ryan, Cr. A. No. 16972.
| Court | United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. United States District Court of Colorado |
| Citation | 213 F. Supp. 763 |
| Docket Number | Cr. A. No. 16972. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Donald Dennis RYAN, Robert Robbins, also known as Robin R. Roberts, and Eugene Louis Smaldone, Defendants. |
| Decision Date | 11 February 1963 |
213 F. Supp. 763
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Donald Dennis RYAN, Robert Robbins, also known as Robin R. Roberts, and Eugene Louis Smaldone, Defendants.
Cr. A. No. 16972.
United States District Court D. Colorado.
February 11, 1963.
Lawrence M. Henry, U. S. Atty. for the District of Colorado, James A. Clark, Asst. U. S. Atty., Denver, Colo., for plaintiff.
Winner, Berge & Martin, Fred M. Winner, and Roland E. Camfield, Jr., Denver, Colo., for defendant Ryan.
Albert A. Norbont, Denver, Colo., for defendant Robbins.
Cristiano & Bugdanowitz, Vincent Cristiano, and Robert Bugdanowitz, Denver, Colo., for defendant Smaldone.
CHILSON, District Judge.
The defendants attack the constitutionality of Title 18 United States Code, § 1952, upon which the indictment in this case is based. The Court has considered the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to said motions, has heard oral argument and is now duly advised.
§ 1952 reads in its essential parts as follows:
"(a) Whoever travels in interstate or foreign commerce or uses any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, including the mail, with intent to—
* * * * * *
"(3) * * * promote, manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity,
"and thereafter performs or attempts to perform any of the acts specified in subparagraphs (1), (2), and (3), shall be fined * * *.
"(b) As used in this section `unlawful activity' means (1) any business enterprise involving gambling, liquor on which the Federal Excise tax has not been paid, narcotics, or prostitution offenses in violation of the laws of the State in which they are committed or of the United States * * *."
The defendants attack the statute on three constitutional grounds. First, the statute exceeds the power of Congress under the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, clause 3, Federal Constitution) in that the activity which is the subject of the statute has no substantial relation to interstate commerce. Second, the statute usurps powers reserved to the states in violation of Amendment Article X of the Constitution in that it attempts to substitute federal enforcement of state criminal laws for state enforcement of those laws. Third, the statute deprives the defendant of due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, in that the prohibition of travel to a state in which gambling is unlawful and permitting travel to a state where gambling is not unlawful is an arbitrary discrimination and bears no reasonable relation to the regulation of interstate commerce.
We first consider the commerce clause (Article I, Section 8, clause 3).
Defendants read Section 1952 to mean that the "unlawful activity" mentioned in that section must take place after the interstate travel. Defendants' interpretation appears to be correct. To constitute a violation of Section 1952, the travel in interstate commerce must be followed by the performance of acts or an attempt to perform acts to promote, manage, et cetera, a business enterprise involving gambling, et cetera, in violation of state law.
The defendants recognize the power of Congress to prohibit the use of interstate commerce in furtherance of violation of state law after the state law has been violated.
But defendants contend "speculative future activity is an invalid criterion by which to regulate commerce * * *."
Defendants further contend "this statute is a regulation of interstate commerce for the purpose of reaching a local activity which could not possibly affect that commerce because the use of that commerce has, by the express wording of the statute, stopped before the regulated local activity commences."
That Congress may use its powers under the commerce clause to implement state policy by the exercise of police power over interstate commerce is admitted by the defendants. See Brooks v. United States, 267 U.S. 432, 45 S.Ct. 345, 69 L.Ed. 699.
However, counsel have cited no case and we have found none which is decisive of the contention here made by the defendants, namely that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Gerhart, Cr. A. No. 513 (Beckley)
...Inc. v. United States, 325 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Borgese, 235 F.Supp. 286 (S.D.N.Y.1964); United States v. Ryan, 213 F.Supp. 763 (D.Colo.1963) are but a few of the many cases which hold unequivocally that legislation which constitutes an exercise by Congress of its plen......
-
U.S. v. Villano, Nos. 74--1463
...393 U.S. 1062, 89 S.Ct. 714, 21 L.Ed.2d 705; Turf Center, Inc. v. United States, supra, 325 F.2d at 795--96; United States v. Ryan, 213 F.Supp. 763, 766 Last, defendants say that regulation of gambling is not a power conferred on the Federal Government and hence § 1952 is invalid under the ......
-
Spinelli v. United States, No. 18389.
...cert. denied 381 U.S. 915, 85 S.Ct. 1530, 14 L.Ed.2d 435; United States v. Kelley, 254 F.Supp. 9 (S.D. N.Y.1966); United States v. Ryan, 213 F.Supp. 763 4. The substantive violation of this statute took place when appellant crossed into Missouri with the requisite intent and thereafter atte......
-
Marshall v. United States, No. 19383.
...United States v. Zizzo, 338 F.2d 577 (7th Cir. 1964); United States v. Borgese, 235 F.Supp. 286 (S.D.N.Y.1964); United States v. Ryan, 213 F.Supp. 763 (D. Colo.1963); United States v. Barrow, 212 F.Supp. 837 (E.D.Pa.1962); United States v. Smith, 209 F.Supp. 907 (E.D. Ill.1962). Nor do we b......
-
United States v. Gerhart, Cr. A. No. 513 (Beckley)
...Inc. v. United States, 325 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Borgese, 235 F.Supp. 286 (S.D.N.Y.1964); United States v. Ryan, 213 F.Supp. 763 (D.Colo.1963) are but a few of the many cases which hold unequivocally that legislation which constitutes an exercise by Congress of its plen......
-
U.S. v. Villano, Nos. 74--1463
...393 U.S. 1062, 89 S.Ct. 714, 21 L.Ed.2d 705; Turf Center, Inc. v. United States, supra, 325 F.2d at 795--96; United States v. Ryan, 213 F.Supp. 763, 766 Last, defendants say that regulation of gambling is not a power conferred on the Federal Government and hence § 1952 is invalid under the ......
-
Spinelli v. United States, No. 18389.
...cert. denied 381 U.S. 915, 85 S.Ct. 1530, 14 L.Ed.2d 435; United States v. Kelley, 254 F.Supp. 9 (S.D. N.Y.1966); United States v. Ryan, 213 F.Supp. 763 4. The substantive violation of this statute took place when appellant crossed into Missouri with the requisite intent and thereafter atte......
-
Marshall v. United States, No. 19383.
...United States v. Zizzo, 338 F.2d 577 (7th Cir. 1964); United States v. Borgese, 235 F.Supp. 286 (S.D.N.Y.1964); United States v. Ryan, 213 F.Supp. 763 (D. Colo.1963); United States v. Barrow, 212 F.Supp. 837 (E.D.Pa.1962); United States v. Smith, 209 F.Supp. 907 (E.D. Ill.1962). Nor do we b......