United States v. Silver
| Citation | 196 F. Supp. 677 |
| Decision Date | 14 August 1961 |
| Docket Number | Commissioner's Return No. 16471. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Sam SILVER. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Joseph S. Lord, III, U. S. Atty., by Daniel J. DiGiacomo, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Garfield W. Levy, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
The record in this case indicates that a warrant of arrest was issued on the complaint of Richard E. Wood, before T. D. Cashen, United States Commissioner, in the Southern District of Florida, Jacksonville Division. The complaint charges the defendant in general with wilfully imparting or conveying, or causing to be imparted or conveyed, false information to the effect that the defendant had stated that he had a bomb in a brief case which he was carrying in the Imeson Airport, Jacksonville, Florida, on July 11, 1961, in violation of the provisions of the Act of July 14, 1956, § 1, 70 Stat. 540, 18 U.S.C.A. § 35.
The defendant was apprehended by the United States Marshal in the City of Philadelphia, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on July 11, 1961. After two continued hearings, he appeared before Edward W. Furia, United States Commissioner, at his office, 4060C United States Court House, 9th and Chestnut Streets, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on Wednesday, August 2, 1961.
A well conducted and full hearing was held before the United States Commissioner, at which time two witnesses testified on behalf of the Government. The defendant was represented by counsel who conducted the cross-examination. As a result of that hearing, the Commissioner quite properly, we believe, directed that the defendant be held under bail of $1,000 and defendant was permitted to sign his own bond in that amount. The matter was brought before us for review in connection with the provisions of Rule 40 of the Fed.Rules of Crim.Proc., 18 U.S.C.A. This Court held a full hearing on the matter on August 8, 1961, at which time the United States Attorney and counsel for defendant agreed that no further testimony was necessary and both would rely on the record as contained in the transcript of the hearing before the United States Commissioner.
There is no serious dispute as to the facts in this case. Admittedly, as stated in the memorandum supplied to us by counsel for the defendant, the defendant, stated to the ticket agent when making arrangements for his flight: "I have a bomb in my brief case." (NT 5). It is also clear that when this statement was made the agent immediately took precautionary steps, as directed by his superiors, which resulted in the alerting of airport guards and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as to the statement made by the defendant. The defendant was thereafter kept under surveillance and was ultimately questioned by the officers. It appears that the plane, carrying eighty-eight passengers from Jacksonville, Florida to Washington, D. C. en route to Philadelphia, was delayed some twenty minutes due to this occurrence and that the defendant was not permitted to board it. As a side issue, it was also revealed that in his luggage the defendant was carrying a can of aerosol bug spray with the words "bug bomb" imprinted thereon.
There is no doubt but what the statement that he had a bomb in his brief case was made in jest, but the peculiar sense of humor attributable to this defendant does not lessen the seriousness of the legal consequences of his acts.
As we say, the factual situation is not in dispute. The legal consequences thereof are seriously questioned by counsel for defendant. The duty of the Court, of course, is to determine whether or not there was probable cause to justify the issuance of a warrant of removal. If the statement admittedly made by the defendant comes within the provision of the Act, there is obviously probable cause.
The defendant, however, argues vigorously that to be a violation of § 35 of Title 18 U.S.C.A. he must have done some act which comes within the provisions of Title 18, Chapter 2, the Aircraft and Motor Vehicles Act, or Title 18, Chapter 97, referring to Railroads, or Title 18, Chapter 111, referring to Shipping. He argues that the carrying of a bomb into an airport terminal, even if this were done,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
D.C. v. R.R.
...sense of humor or pranksters with juvenile minds have . . . induced fear by [their] acts." (Ibid.; accord, U.S. v. Silver (E.D.Pa. 1961) 196 F.Supp. 677, 678.) "[W]e reject [R.R.'s] argument that his statements were not `true threats' because they were merely `jests to show toughness and to......
-
STATE EX REL. RT
...as those uttered with specific intent to harm the carrier by causing fear and consequent interruption of traffic. In United States v. Silver, 196 F.Supp. 677 (E.D.Pa.1961), defendant told the ticket agent as he checked in at the airport that he had a bomb in his briefcase. The agent took th......
-
U.S. v. Irving, 74--1722
...false information presents a clear and present danger of interference with air commerce and safety. For example, in United States v. Silver, E.D.Pa.1961, 196 F.Supp. 677, the defendant told a ticket agent he had a bomb in his briefcase. Predictably, the agent alerted airport guards and the ......
-
Taylor v. United States, 72-478-MO (CF).
...of the individuals to whom the statements were made. United States v. Sullivan, 329 F.2d 755 (2d Cir. 1964); United States v. Silver, 196 F.Supp. 677 (E.D.Pa.1961); United States v. Allen, 317 F.2d 777 (2nd Cir. 1963) III. Lastly, appellant challenges 49 U.S.C. § 1472(m) as being violative ......