Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/102935/erlenbaugh-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2018-05-22 23:44:17
Document Index: 389707752

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1952', '§ 1952', '§ 1952', '§ 1952', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 1953', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', 'art, 311', '§ 1953', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1953', '§ 1952', '§ 1952']

Erlenbaugh Vs United States - Citation 102935 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Erlenbaugh Vs. United States - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/102935
Case Number 409 U.S. 239
Appellant Erlenbaugh
.....for the seventh circuit syllabus causing a publication to be carried by a facility of interstate commerce with an intent to facilitate the operation of an illegal gambling business is a violation of 18 u.s.c. § 1952. the exception for "any newspaper or similar publication" contained in 18 u.s.c. § 1953, which prohibits the interstate shipment of certain gambling paraphernalia, was not intended to be read into § 1952. pp. 409 u. s. 242 -248. 452 f.2d 967, affirmed. marshall, j., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all members joined except white, j., who took no part in the decision of the case. mr. justice marshall delivered the opinion of the court. the petitioners in this case attack their convictions under the travel act, 18 u.s.c. §.....
Erlenbaugh v. United States - 409 U.S. 239 (1972)
U.S. Supreme Court Erlenbaugh v. United States, 409 U.S. 239 (1972)
Causing a publication to be carried by a facility of interstate commerce with an intent to facilitate the operation of an illegal gambling business is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952. The exception for "any newspaper or similar publication" contained in 18 U.S.C. § 1953, which prohibits the interstate shipment of certain gambling paraphernalia, was not intended to be read into § 1952. Pp. 409 U. S. 242 -248.
The petitioners in this case attack their convictions under the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952, which makes it unlawful to use a facility of interstate commerce in furtherance of certain criminal activity. Petitioners were tried in five separate trials. [ Footnote 1 ] The cases were
consolidated for purposes of appeal, since each raised the question whether causing a publication to be carried by a facility of interstate commerce with an intent to facilitate the operation of a gambling business illegal under state law violated § 1952. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions, finding no exception in § 1952 for the transmittal of publications. 452 F.2d 967 (1971). We granted certiorari for the limited purpose of resolving the conflict between this decision and a previous ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. [ Footnote 2 ] 405 U.S. 973 (1972). For reasons stated below, we affirm.
Indiana, of a bookmaking business. A publication known as the Illinois Sports News was important to the functioning of each bookmaking operation. The News, a publication of the type generally referred to as a "scratch sheet," [ Footnote 3 ] contains more complete and detailed horse racing information than is found in regular newspapers, and was used extensively by the customers of the five bookmaking operations in placing their bets. Because the News, which appears daily except Sunday, is published in Chicago, Illinois, it was necessary to make arrangements for prompt daily delivery from Chicago to Hammond and the bookmaking establishments. This was accomplished by causing copies of the News to be placed on board an early morning train of the Chicago, South Shore & South Bend Railroad in Chicago for delivery to the railroad station in Hammond, where copies were picked up for each of the bookmaking operations. In each case, the petitioners assumed various roles in this scheme, [ Footnote 4 ] but the pattern of the scheme for securing the prompt daily delivery of the News was the same in all cases.
See 18 U.S.C. § 1952(b). [ Footnote 5 ] For our limited purposes, it is not open to dispute that, in each case, petitioners were involved in bookmaking businesses which violated Indiana law; [ Footnote 6 ] that the Illinois Sports News was important to the operation of those bookmaking businesses; that the scheme for delivery of the News -- a scheme which involved the use of a facility of interstate commerce, the railroad -- was intended to facilitate the operation of the bookmaking businesses; or that the requisite overt acts occurred following the use of the interstate facility. The only question here is whether these cases fall outside the ambit of § 1952 because the use of the interstate facility was to secure delivery of a news publication. [ Footnote 7 ]
The broad sweep of subsection (a) in terms of paraphernalia covered is limited to some extent by § 1953(b)(3) which makes the section inapplicable to "the carriage or transportation in interstate . . . commerce of any newspaper or similar publication." [ Footnote 8 ]
Petitioners' argument starts from the premise that they could not have been prosecuted under § 1953(a), because the Illinois Sports News falls within the newspaper exception contained in § 1953(b)(3). [ Footnote 9 ] Petitioners recognize that § 1952 contains no express exception for newspapers comparable to § 1953(b)(3), but contend that § 1952 and § 1953 are in pari materia -- that is, pertain to the same subject -- and, under settled principles of statutory construction, should therefore be construed "as if they were one law," United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556, 44 U. S. 564 (1845); see, e.g., United States v. Stewart, 311 U. S. 60 , 311 U. S. 64 (1940); Estate of Sanford v. Commissioner, 308 U. S. 39 , 308 U. S. 44 (1939). Thus, petitioners would have us read the exception contained in § 1953(b)(3) as applicable to not only § 1953(a), but also § 1952(a), thereby barring their prosecution under the latter as well as the former. This we cannot do.
and "is therefore entitled to great weight in resolving any ambiguities and doubts." United States v. Stewart, supra, at 311 U. S. 64 -65. See also, e.g., Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 , 393 U. S. 388 (1969); United States v. Freeman, supra, at 44 U. S. 565 . The rule is but a logical extension of the principle that individual sections of a single statute should be construed together, [ Footnote 10 ] for it necessarily assumes that whenever Congress passes a new statute, it acts aware of all previous statutes on the same subject, cf. Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co., 347 U. S. 535 , 347 U. S. 541 -552 (1954). Given this underlying assumption, the rule's application certainly makes the most sense when the statutes were enacted by the same legislative body at the same time. Such was indeed the case here. [ Footnote 11 ] Yet petitioners would have us resort to the exception
contained in § 1953(b)(3) not simply to resolve any "ambiguities [or] doubts" in the language in § 1952, but to introduce an exception to the coverage of the latter where none is now apparent. This might be a sensible construction of the two statutes if they were intended to serve the same function, but plainly they were not. [ Footnote 12 ]
True, § 1952 and § 1953 were both parts of a comprehensive federal legislative effort [ Footnote 13 ] to assist local authorities in dealing with organized criminal activity which, in many instances, had assumed interstate proportions [ Footnote 14 ] and which, in all cases, was materially assisted in its operations by the availability of facilities of interstate commerce. [ Footnote 15 ] The two statutes, however, play different roles in achieving these broad, common goals.
Section 1953 has a narrow, specific function. It erects a substantial barrier [ Footnote 16 ] to the distribution of certain materials used in the conduct of various forms of illegal gambling. [ Footnote 17 ] By interdicting the flow of these materials to and between illegal gambling businesses, the statute purposefully seeks to impede the operation of such businesses. [ Footnote 18 ]
Section 1952, by contrast, does not apply just to illegal gambling; rather, it is concerned with a broad spectrum of "unlawful activity," [ Footnote 19 ] illegal gambling businesses being only one element. Moreover, the statute does not focus upon any particular materials, but upon the use of the facilities of interstate commerce with the intent of furthering an unlawful "business enterprise." It is, in short, an effort to deny individuals who act for such a criminal purpose access to the channels of commerce. [ Footnote 20 ] Thus, while § 1952 ultimately seeks, like § 1953,
to inhibit organized criminal activity, [ Footnote 21 ] it takes a very different approach to doing so. To introduce into § 1952 an exception based upon the nature of the material transported in interstate commerce would carve a substantial slice from the intended coverage of the statute. This we will not do without an affirmative indication -- which is lacking here- -- that Congress so intended.
used in an illegal gambling business. Were "knowingly" construed as modifying only the phrase "carries or sends," [ Footnote 22 ] the statute might have been applied to a wholly innocent person who knowingly carried a newspaper in interstate commerce unaware that it contained racing information. [ Footnote 23 ] It was to avoid this problem that the newspaper exception was added to § 1953. [ Footnote 24 ] But § 1952 obviously poses no threat to innocent citizens. Its application is limited to those who act with an intent to further unlawful activity -- as was clearly true of these petitioners. There is, then, no reason for carrying the newspaper exception of § 1953(b)(3) over to § 1952.
See, e.g., Clark v. Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A.G., 332 U. S. 480 , 332 U. S. 488 (1947); Markham v. Cabell, 326 U. S. 404 , 326 U. S. 410 -411 (1945); Ex parte Public National Bank, 278 U. S. 101 , 278 U. S. 104 (1928).
Cf. Farmers Reservoir & Irrigation Co. v. McComb, 337 U. S. 755 , 337 U. S. 764 (1949); Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 U. S. 84 , 293 U. S. 87 -88 (1934); Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 286 U. S. 427 , 286 U. S. 433 (1932).
In Rewis v. United States, 401 U. S. 808 , 401 U. S. 811 (1971), we observed that
Id. at 401 U. S. 812 . See also United States v. Bass, 404 U. S. 336 , 404 U. S. 349 -350 (1971). Petitioners contend that there was no proof in these cases that they were involved in organized criminal activity, and that such activity was being directed from another State. Given the limited nature of our grant of certiorari, it is not open to question here that the five illegal bookmaking businesses were elements of organized criminal activity of the type contemplated by § 1952 -- though we do note that the reach of the statute clearly was not limited to instances in which organized criminal activity in one State is managed from another State, see n 15, supra.