Opinion ID: 398313
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Barnett sells printed instructions for the manufacture of phencyclidine.

Text: 65 3. Therefore, the first amendment protects Barnett's sale of printed instructions for the manufacture of phencyclidine. 66 This specious syllogism finds no support in the law. 67 The first amendment does not provide a defense to a criminal charge simply because the actor uses words to carry out his illegal purpose. Crimes, including that of aiding and abetting, frequently involve the use of speech as part of the criminal transaction. The use of a printed message to a bank teller requesting money coupled with a threat of violence, the placing of a false representation in a written contract, the forging of a check, and the false statement to a government official, are all familiar acts which constitute crimes despite the use of speech as an instrumentality for the commission thereof. 68 A similar first amendment argument was proferred in United States v. Buttorff, 572 F.2d 619 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 437 U.S. 906, 98 S.Ct. 3095, 57 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1978). In Buttorff the defendants were convicted of aiding and abetting persons who filed false or fraudulent tax returns after hearing defendants address a public meeting as to various ways to avoid payment of taxes, including claiming large numbers of allowances to stop withholding. The court held: 69 Although the speeches here do not incite the type of imminent lawless activity referred to in criminal syndicalism cases, the defendants did go beyond mere advocacy of tax reform. They explained how to avoid withholding and their speeches and explanations incited several individuals to activity that violated federal law and had the potential of substantially hindering the administration of the revenue. This speech is not entitled to first amendment protection and, as discussed above, was sufficient action to constitute aiding and abetting the filing of false or fraudulent withholding forms. 70 Id. at 624. 71 It should be noted that in Buttorff the defendants had virtually no personal contact with the persons who filed false income tax returns. Instead, they gave speeches before large groups encouraging and advising others to evade income taxes. The court affirmed the conviction despite the absence of any proof that Buttorff profited from the filing of false tax returns by others, or had any knowledge of the fact that such returns had been in fact filed. See also United States v. Moss, 604 F.2d 569, 571 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1071, 100 S.Ct. 1014, 62 L.Ed.2d 752 (1980) (citing Buttorff in holding that defendant has no first amendment protection for a speech explaining how to violate federal income tax laws). 72 We are not here concerned with the defense Barnett may interpose at his trial; our concern is, rather, the existence of probable cause to support a search. To the extent, however, that Barnett appears to contend that he is immune from search or prosecution because he uses the printed word in encouraging and counseling others in the commission of a crime, we hold expressly that the first amendment does not provide a defense as a matter of law to such conduct. Furthermore, it is unnecessary for the government to show that Barnett ever met with Hensley in order to prove that he aided and abetted him in his attempt to manufacture phencyclidine. The facts alleged in the search warrant established that Barnett provided essential information for the specific purpose of assisting Hensley in the commission of a crime. They also established that evidence of that crime could be found on the premises to be searched-Barnett's residence. Nothing further was required. 73