Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/23pdf/23-5572_l6hn.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

2 

FISCHER v. UNITED STATES 

Opinion of the Court 

“forced  entry”  into  the  building,  “breaking  windows,”  and
“assaulting members of the U. S. Capitol Police.”  App. 189.
This breach of the Capitol caused Members of Congress to
evacuate  the  Chambers  and  delayed  the  certification  pro-
cess.  The complaint alleges that Fischer was one of those 
who invaded the building.

According  to  the  complaint,  about  an  hour  after  the
Houses  recessed,  Fischer  trespassed  into  the  Capitol  and
was involved in a physical confrontation with law enforce-
ment.  Fischer claimed in Facebook posts that he “pushed 
police back about 25 feet,” and that he “was inside the [Cap-
itol] talking to police.”  Id., at 193–194.  Body camera foot-
age shows Fischer near a scrum between the crowd and po-
lice who were trying to eject trespassers from the building. 
Id., at 195–196. 

A grand jury returned a seven-count superseding indict-
ment  against  Fischer.  Six  of  those  counts  allege  that 
Fischer forcibly assaulted a federal officer, entered and re-
mained in a restricted building, and engaged in disorderly 
and disruptive conduct in the Capitol, among other crimes. 
See  id.,  at  181–185;  18  U. S. C.  §§111(a),  231(a)(3), 
1752(a)(1), (a)(2); 40 U. S. C. §§5104(e)(2)(D), (G).  Those six 
counts carry maximum penalties ranging from six months’ 
to eight years’ imprisonment.

In Count Three, the only count now before us, the Gov-
ernment  charged  Fischer  with  violating  18  U. S. C. 
§1512(c)(2).  Fischer moved to dismiss that count, arguing 
that the provision criminalizes only attempts to impair the 
availability  or  integrity  of  evidence.    The  District  Court 
granted his motion in relevant part.  It concluded that the 
scope  of  Section  1512(c)(2)  is  limited  by  subsection  (c)(1)
and therefore requires the defendant to “ ‘have taken some 
action with respect to a document, record, or other object.’ ”  
2022 WL 782413, *4 (DC, Mar. 15, 2022) (quoting United 
States v. Miller, 589 F. Supp. 3d 60, 78 (DC 2022)).