US v. Reilly
Decision Date | 13 May 1993 |
Docket Number | Cr. A. No. 93-8-JJF. |
Citation | 827 F. Supp. 1076 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. William P. REILLY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Delaware |
Richard G. Andrews, Asst. U.S. Atty., Wilmington, DE and Howard P. Stewart and Christina Steck, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, DC, for the U.S.
Marc B. Tucker and Scott E. Schroeder of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Wilmington, DE, for defendant Reilly.
Joseph A. Hurley, Wilmington, DE, for defendant Dowd.
Defendant Reilly filed this Motion To Dismiss Information on February 19, 1993. D.I. 7. The Information, which was issued on January 28, 1993, charges Reilly with one count of violating 33 U.S.C. § 1411(a), a Class A misdemeanor. D.I. 1. The Information alleges that the defendant "did, without a permit, knowingly transport and cause to be transported, on the ship M/V Khian Sea, material from the United States for the purposes of dumping said material into ocean waters." Id.
Reilly contends that the Information charging him with a violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1411(a) is insufficient because it fails to charge him with "knowingly" violating § 1411(a). Reilly argues that 33 U.S.C. § 1415(b), the criminal penalty section of the Ocean Dumping Act, imposes criminal liability only if he violated § 1411(a) with knowledge of the provisions in § 1411(a). Thus, because he has not been charged with violating § 1411(a) with knowledge of the provisions of § 1411(a), Reilly maintains that the Information must be dismissed.
The Government contends that the term "knowingly violates" in § 1415(b) must be construed as merely requiring that the acts constituting the offense be done consciously. The Government argues that this is the construction of similar terms used in other public welfare statutes.
The Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 ("Ocean Dumping Act"), 33 U.S.C. § 1401 et seq., prohibits the transportation, without a permit, of any material from the United States for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. The Act defines "material" as matter of any kind including, but not limited to, solid waste, incinerator residue, garbage, and industrial and municipal waste. 33 U.S.C. § 1402(c).
The provisions at issue in this case are § 1411(a) and § 1415(b). Section 1411(a) provides, in pertinent part:
33 U.S.C. § 1411(a) (emphasis added). Section 1415(a-b) provides, in pertinent part:
33 U.S.C. § 1415(b) (emphasis added).
The first step in construing a statute is to examine the words of the statute. See, e.g., United States v. Johnson & Towers, Inc., 741 F.2d 662, 665 (3d Cir.1984), cert. denied sub nom., 469 U.S. 1208, 105 S.Ct. 1171, 84 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985). Because there is more than one plausible construction of the term "knowingly violates," the Court will next consider the term in the context of the entire statute.
The main distinction between the civil provision and the criminal provision of § 1415 is that under the civil provision there is strict liability for violating either the statutes, regulations or permits issued thereunder. Reilly contends that because § 1411(a) prohibits transporting prohibited material "for the purpose of dumping it into the ocean," it requires proof of intent. Thus, a civil penalty may only be imposed after proving that intent. Reilly argues, therefore, that the Government's construction of "knowingly violates" eviscerates the distinction between the civil and criminal provisions of § 1415 because both the civil and criminal provisions would require the same basic proofs. Reilly argues that such a construction impermissibly renders the provisions "redundant or largely superfluous." See Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, 99 S.Ct. 675, 684, 58 L.Ed.2d 596 (1979). However, Reilly fails to acknowledge that, while § 1411(a) appears to prohibit only conscious acts, the regulations promulgated pursuant to § 1411 are not so limited. See 40 C.F.R. 220-30. The regulations have no knowledge requirements. Thus, the distinction between the civil and criminal provisions of § 1415 remains meaningful under the Government's construction of the term at issue. Civil penalties can be imposed for violations of the regulations on the basis of strict liability. Criminal penalties, however, can be imposed only if the acts, which amount to violations of the regulations, are done consciously.
The Court will next consider the relevant legislative history to determine Congress' specific intent on this issue. See Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419, 424-26, 105 S.Ct. 2084, 2087-88, 85 L.Ed.2d 434 (1985); Johnson & Towers, Inc., 741 F.2d at 665. The Senate Report on the Ocean Dumping Act specifically refers to the term "knowingly violates." "The term `knowingly violates' refers to a conscious act or conscious omission of the offender which amounts to a violation of the law, regulation, or permit." S.Rep. No. 451, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4234, 4249. Reilly contends that this statement is ambiguous, that it was superseded by the Conference Report, and that other legislative history refers to imposing criminal liability only for "knowing and willful" violations.
The Court does not agree that the statement in the Senate Report is ambiguous. The term "conscious" modifies the term "act." Thus, the act must be done consciously, and the act must constitute a violation of the law, regulation, or permit.
Reilly admits that the Conference Report (No. 1546, 92d Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4264-76) does not address the construction of the disputed term. Thus, the Court can presume that the construction offered in the Senate Report is the appropriate construction intended by Congress.
The letters included in the legislative history were letters written to Senator Warren Magnuson, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, the Committee that wrote Senate Report No. 451. The letters were written by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and an Assistant Secretary of the Interior in February and April of 1971 respectively. See 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4257, 4259. As the Senate Report was published in November 1971 (see 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 4234), it would appear that the proposed constructions were not adopted by the Senate Commerce Committee. In any event, the opinions of Executive Agencies expressed to Congressional committees, while meriting some weight in considering legislative history, are merely evidence of opinions which may have been considered by Congress in passing a law. Thus, the letters do not provide much support for Reilly's position.
The Court will adopt the construction of the term "knowingly violates," that has been offered by the Government. The Government must prove that Reilly consciously engaged in the acts alleged in the Information. The Government need not prove that Reilly had knowledge of the statutes at issue. Such a construction appears to be in harmony with the construction of other public welfare and environmental statutes. See, e.g., United States v. Frezzo Brothers, Inc., 546 F.Supp. 713, 721 (E.D.Pa.1982) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Still v. Commissioner of Dept. of Employment and Training
...c. 93A violation requires "sufficient awareness of the facts" plus an element of inequitable behavior); United States v. Reilly, 827 F.Supp. 1076, 1077-1078 (D.Del.1993) ("knowing violation" of the statute against ocean dumping requires that "the acts constituting the offense be done consci......
- Scelsa v. City University of New York, 92 Civ. 6690 (CBM).
-
General Principles of Criminal Liability
...of the action, and not proof that the defendant had knowledge of the relevant statutory provision. See United States v. Reilly, 827 F. Supp. 1076, 1078, 24 ELR 20097 (D. Del. 1993), af’d , 33 F.3d 1396 (3d Cir. 1994). 11. See discussion in Chapter 4, Section I.C, infra . 12. 934 F.2d 864, 2......
-
Specific Environmental Statutes
...§1415(c). 152. S. Rep. No. 451, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971), reprinted in 1972 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4234, 4249. 153. United States v. Reilly, 827 F. Supp. 1076, 107, 24 ELR 20097 (D. Del. 1993), af’d, 33 F.3d 1396 (3d Cir. 1994). In Reilly, the dumping of toxic ash into the Indian Ocean from an inc......
-
Table of authorities
...870 United States v. Reaves, 923 F. Supp. 1530, 26 ELR 21394 (M.D. Fla. 1996) ...........940 United States v. Reilly, 827 F. Supp. 1076, 24 ELR 20097 (D. Del. 1993 ............... 1065 United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 16 ELR 20086 (1985)...............................
-
The CWA in relation to other laws
...injunctive relief. Would it have been decided diferently under §§ 309 and 404 of the CWA? he third decision, United States v. Reilly , 827 F. Supp. 1076, 24 ELR 20097 (D. Del. 1993), is a motion to dismiss criminal charges for ocean disposal without a permit. It turns on the meaning of “kno......