Document: 466 U.S. 475 104 S.Ct. 1942 80 L.Ed.2d 492 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Larry Wayne RODGERS. No. 83-620. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 27, 1984. Decided April 30, Syllabus Respondent was indicted for making false statements to Federal Bureau Investigation (FBI) and Secret Service, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which makes it a crime knowingly willfully make statement "in any matter within jurisdiction department or agency States." admittedly had lied telling FBI that his wife been kidnapped, when, fact, as determined upon investigation, she left him voluntarily, also Service involved plot assassinate President, after investigating charge locating wife, told by her home get away from respondent. The District granted respondent's motion dismiss indictment on grounds investigations were not matters "within jurisdiction" respective agencies, phrase is used 1001. Appeals affirmed, relying its decision prior case limited term "jurisdiction" 1001 "the power final binding determinations." Held: language clearly encompasses criminal conducted nothing legislative history indicates Congress intended more restrictive reach statute. Pp. 479-484. (a) A investigation surely falls meaning "any matter," equally qualify "department[s] agenc[ies] And most natural, nontechnical covers all confided authority an department. Understood this way, statutory merely differentiates official, authorized functions peripheral business. To limit "jurisdiction," did, would exclude statute's coverage most, if all, activities many federal departments thereby defeat Congress' purpose using broad inclusive did. 479-482. (b) Policy arguments favoring construction statute will change result case. Resolution pros cons whether should sweep broadly narrowly Congress. 482-484. (c) critical sufficiently ambiguous permit rule lenity construing statutes control here. P. 484. (d) Any argument against retroactive application respondent, even he could establish reliance Appeals' case, unavailing, since conflicting cases other Courts made review merits position reasonably foreseeable. 706 F.2d 854 (8 Cir.1983), reversed remanded. Barbara E. Etkind, Philadelphia, Pa., petitioner. Albert N. Moskowitz, Kansas City, Mo., Justice REHNQUIST delivered opinion Court. 1 Larry Rodgers charged two-count with "false, fictitious fraudulent statements" 1001.1 allegedly kidnaped kill President. moved failure state offense kidnapings protection President are Western Missouri motion, Eighth Circuit affirmed. We now reverse. restricted 2 On June 2, 1982, telephoned Missouri, office reported kidnaped. spent over 100 agent hours alleged kidnaping only determine Rodgers' voluntarily. Two weeks later, contacted City "estranged girlfriend" (actually wife) 150 clerical time threat eventually located Arizona. She stated husband. later confessed reports induce agencies locate wife. 3 In granting indictment, considered itself bound Friedman v. States, 374 363 (1967). initiate investigation. defendant's conviction under holding jurisdiction," provision, referred Id., at 367. 4 court noted current first passed 1934 urging some newly created regulatory agencies. See S.Rep. 1202, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). predecessor provision punished when "for intent cheating swindling defrauding Government Act Oct. 23, 1918, ch. 194, 40 Stat. 1015. 1934, deleted requirement specific enlarged class punishable include 18, 587, 48 996. "immediate primary purpose" amendment, surmised, curtail flow information new interfering their administrative functions. 5 "Though drafted terms, presumably due numerous wide variety needed, there indicate have beyond purposes created." F.2d, 366. 6 Reading light, included scope "power monetary awards, grant governmental privileges, promulgate regulative determinations," while excluding mere conduct given area without dispose problems compel action." concluded covered because "had no adjudicate rights, regulations, action finally problem giving rise inquiry." 368. 7 present adhered affirmed dismissal indictment. acknowledged two expressly rejected reasoning Friedman. Adler, 380 917, 922 (CA2), cert. denied, 389 1006, 88 561, 19 602 (1967); Lambert, 501 943, 946 (CA5 1974) (en banc). But found own analysis persuasive. certiorari resolve conflict. 464 1007, 523, 78 707 (1983). 8 It seems us interpretation adopted unduly strained. Section embraces (Emphasis supplied.) possible verbal vehicle narrowing sweeping enacted word "jurisdiction." we do think term, statute, admits constricted Appeals. 9 "Jurisdiction" defined therefore "start assumption expressed ordinary words used." Richards 369 1, 9, 82 585, 591, (1962). reading Thus, Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1227 (1976) defines as, among things, limits territory particular may be exercised: sphere authority." has jurisdiction, sense, exercise situation. supra, ("the 'jurisdiction' must mean simply act received"). business body. 10 There course narrower, technical meanings For example, alternative definition provided "legal interpret administer law." Black's Law 766 (5th ed. 1979). narrow, sort, limiting protections judicial quasi-judicial activities, clashes strongly sweeping, everyday either side term. far too embrace myriad previously designed protect. See, e.g., Bryson 396 64, 90 355, 24 264 (1969) (affidavit filed union officer National Labor Relations Board falsely denying affiliation Communist Party); Bramblett, 348 503, 75 504, 99 L.Ed. 594 (1955) (fraudulent representations Member Disbursing Office House Representatives); Gilliland, 312 86, 61 518, 85 598 (1941) (false Secretary Interior amount petroleum produced certain wells). 11 our interpreting stressed narrow 1001." U.S., 70, S.Ct., 359 (citing supra). 91, 521, contention confined "to financial proprietary interest." added language, set circumstances precipitated passage. 12 "The amendment indicated congressional protect perversion might deceptive practices described. see reason why apparent intention frustrated construction." 93, 522. 13 Discussing same 507, concluded: "There indication committee debates way restricted." 70-71, 359-360, "valid interest protecting integrity official inquiries" held "statutory basis agency's request provides enough punish 1001."2 14 doubt exists basis" sparked respondent reports. detect prosecute crimes States," including kidnaping. 28 533(1). person President." 3056. these turn into Missing Person's domestic squabbles. knowing filing report, leading prosecution, can grave consequences individuals accused crime. 922; 377 (Register, J., dissenting). is, therefore, [such] inquiries," embraced in, furthered by, 15 Limiting thought limited, "departments" "agencies" Government, If courts, narrower well indicated; but referring does agency" such inconsistent rest language. 16 supported give "literal interpretation" offering several policy favor construction. carries penalty exceeding perjury3 argued "considered serious one informally volunteer untrue F.B.I. than relate story oath before similar 95, 523. fact maximum marginally exceeds perjury penalties, permitted range, appropriate each violations "a offenses penalties prescribed gave range sentences according gravity violations." Ibid. 17 Perhaps influential below perception spectre prosecution" citizens hesitant report suspected thwart important social served open line communication between general public law enforcement agencies." 369. justification concern debatable. applies those who "knowingly willfully" lie Government. likely "individuals acting innocently good faith, deterred voluntarily complaints F.B.I." 922. 946; dissenting).4 Even persuaded arguments, unchanged. Its resources potential harm implicated justifies punishing so "absurd glaringly unjust," Sorrells 287 435, 450, 53 210, 216, 77 413 (1932), lead question actually what plain imports. Finally, urges applied books number years contrary retroactively him. well-recognized principle construction, see, Williams 458 279, 290, 102 3088, 3095, 73 767 (1982), ambiguous, view, controlling 509-510, 508. decision, earlier unavailing existence issue 20 judgment reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. 21 ordered. Title provides: "Whoever, falsifies, conceals up trick, scheme, device material false, representations, uses writing document contain entry, shall fined $10,000 imprisoned five years, both." Both attempt distinguish ground NLRB, unlike "is rights regulations. . ." App. Pet. Cert. 4a. Brief 16. undisputed Bryson, NLRB neither adjudicating nor establishing conducting "official inquiry" just doing instant Unless read States" out treating investigatory performed another agency. difference lies fine. 1621 sets fine $2,000 imprisonment both. identical grand jury 1623(a). literal obviate taking oaths proceedings. "Since Judiciary strict remove time-honored necessary formality requiring witnesses testify oath." Several courts faced law. Abrahams, 604 386 1979); D'Amato, 507 26 (CA2 (holding private civil actions); Erhardt, 381 173 (CA6 1967) (per curiam). they mostly relied, rather "department agency." These that, although judiciary respect housekeeping functions, themselves qualify. 392-393; 175. Morgan 114 U.S.App.D.C. 13, 16, 309 234, 237, 373 83 1306, 416 express validity cases.

Category: 0