Document: 401 U.S. 601 91 S.Ct. 1112 28 L.Ed.2d 356 UNITED STATES, Appellant,v.Donald FREED and Shirley Jean Sutherland. No. 345. Argued Jan. 11, 1971. Decided April 5, Leave to File Petition for Rehearing Denied June 7, See 403 912, 2201. Syllabus In Haynes v. United States, 390 85, 88 722, 19 923, the Court held invalid under Self-Incrimination Clause of Fifth Amendment provisions National Firearms Act, which constituted parts an interrelated statutory scheme taxing certain classes firearms primarily used unlawful purposes, made potentially incriminating information available state other officials. To eliminate defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports can must register them. The transferor identify himself, describe firearm, give name address transferee, whose application be supported fingerprints photograph law enforcement official's certificate identifying them as those transferee stating weapon is intended lawful uses. Only after transferor's receipt approved form may firearm transfer legally made. A does not cannot register, though possession unregistered illegal. No evidence furnished against registrant applicant 'in criminal proceeding with respect violation occurring prior concurrently filing registration, compiling records containing evidence,' no filed is, matter administration, disclosed federal, local, agencies. Appellees, had been indicted conspiring possess hand grenades, motions dismiss, District granted on ground like its predecessor, compels self-incrimination indictment contravenes due process requirements failing allege scienter. Appellees also contend relating photographs will cause future incrimination. Held: 1. revised significantly alters presented in involve any Amendment. Pp. 605—607. 2. fully protects person incrimination past present violations, creates substantial hazards P. 606. 3. Act's prohibition person's 'receive(ing) possess(ing) registered him,' requires specific intent absence such requirement this essentially regulatory statute area public safety violate either respects substantive count conspiracy count. 607 610. Reversed. Matthew J. Zinn appellant. Luke McKissack, Hollywood, Cal., appellees. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered opinion Court. 1 Following our decision view eliminating it were Haynes.1 2 At time 'only weapons principally persons engaged activities would subjected taxation.' Id., at 87, 725. Under amended, all possessors defined Act2 are covered, except Federal Government. 26 U.S.C. § 5841 (1964 ed., Supp. V). 3 included was compelled disclose fact his registration he acquired possession, provision we meant furnish Government state, federal 95 100, S.Ct., 729—732. Act3 make, manufacturere, import them; register. It however, 'to receive him Registration Transfer Record.'4 4 already noted, there sharing 97—100, 730—732. explicitly states provided compliance used, directly indirectly, evidence.'5 scope privilege extends, course, prosecution same similar offenses. Malloy Hogan, 378 1, 84 ,S.Ct. 1489, 12 653; Marchetti 39, 54, 697, 705, 889. And appellees, apparently fearful written undertake bar use filings prosecutions, urge risks real case. said California statutes6 punish grenades incriminate appellees law. 5 solicitor General, represents us practice authority, nonregistration necessary investigation Act. 6 nonetheless motion dismiss two grounds: (1) version violates Amendment; (2) destructive devices' charged do element case here direct appeal. 18 3731. see States Spector, 343 169, 72 591, 96 L.Ed. 863; Nardello, 393 286, 89 534, 21 487. 7 * We conclude provides 'shall witness himself.' As accomplished if registered. transferor—not transferee—does registering. pays tax receives stamp7 denoting payment affixes submitted Internal Revenue Service. transferred, transferee. addition, local official satisfied uses.8 over transferee.9 Solicitor General advises hands Service, practice, authorities and, law, concurrent law.10 8 transferee—makes statements. True, wants cooperate extent supplying photograph. But supplies makes lawful, firearm. Indeed, transferees have committed crimes past. argument, furnishing future. claimant confronted 'substantial 'real" but merely 'trifling imaginary, incrimination'—first reason barrier offenses, second unavailability data, supra, U.S., 53—54, 705. Cf. Minor 396 94, 90 284, 287, 24 283. Since agencies never information, left position given it, 'had claimed grant immunity.' Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 52, 79, 1594, 1610, 678. This, combined protection prove satisfies respecting self-incrimination.11 9 Appellees' argument assumes existence periphery transgressions insulation career crime about launched. expansive interpretation. 10 Another goes question entrapment. issue trial, dismiss. II 11 erred dismissing allegation knowledge unregistered. him.'12 By lower court decisions witten into required proved instrument possessed Sipes Cir., 321 F.2d 174, 179, cases cited. 13 presence 'vicious will' mens rea (Morissette 342 246, 251, 240, 243, 288) long responsibility. list exceptions grew, especially expanding involving affecting health, safety, welfare. 254, 245. offense embezzlement, borrowed from common where scienter historically required, different category.13 260 261, 248—249. 14 '(W)here borrows terms art accumulated legal tradition meaning centuries presumably knows adopts cluster ideas attached each word body learning taken convey judicial mind unless otherwise instructed.' 263, 250. 15 extreme Labert California, 355 225, 78 228, municipal code remain Los Angeles more than five days without registering convicted felony. Being per se blameworthy. mere failure held, quite 'unlike commission acts, act circumstances should alert doer consequences deed.' 243. ordinance convenient technique did save it. 16 'Where know duty proof probability knowledge, consistently process. Were otherwise, evil great when print too fine read language foreign community.' 229—230, 243—244. 17 Dotterweich, 320 277, 64 134, 138, 48, dealing imposition penalty corporate officer firm shipped adulterated misbranded drugs Food Drug 'though consciousness wrong-doing totally wanting.' category neither Lambert nor Morissette, closer Dotterweich. This measure interest well premised theory one hardly surprised learn innocent act.14 They highly dangerous offensive weapons, less narcotics involved Balint, 258 250, 42 301, 303, 66 604, defendant sale claim covered act. say Chief Taft case: 'It very evident reading emphasis section securing close supervision business these officers uses secure recorded disposition means restraining traffic. Its manifest purpose require every ascertain peril whether sells comes within inhibition statute, inhibited drug ignorance character, penalize him. weighed possible injustice subjecting seller exposing purchasers danger drug, concluded latter result preferably avoided.' 253—254, 302 303. 20 MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring judgment reversal. 22 I agree amendments §§ 5841—5872 V), Amendment's self-incrimination, join Part However, opinion; although reach convict, another route. 23 my understanding new immunity provision. 5848 pose realistic possibility An effective render transferee's appellees' contention raises Specifically, assert outlaws would, therefore, Assuming correctly interpret think suffices supplant constitutional protection. Section pertinent part: 'No obtained shall *.' 25 judgment, prevent State making application, fruits thereof, connection State's law.1 true even date filed, because continuing violation.2 Therefore, purposes continued constitute 'a application.' might possibly commit disclosure has received Thus, general scheme, '(t)he relevant class 'permeated statutes," Mackey 667, 710, 1160, 1169, 404 (1971) (Brennan, J., judgment), limited firearms. 707—711, 1167—1169. statute's provide coextensive regard, find statute. 27 Court's discussion convict 5861(d) ed. V) dispel confusion surrounding difficult, vitally important, raise questions 'consciousness wrongdoing' 'blameworthiness.' If ancient maxim 'ignorance excuse' residual validity, indicates ordinary requirement—mens rea—of illegal, wrong, Nor decide simple classifying 'regulatory' 'public welfare' measure. three material elements: items; items grenades; (3) prosecutor knowing grenades. while hold need regard offense—the status grenades—knowledge still elements. Consequently, create strict liability help deciding what level third declare falls category. analysis Model Penal Code,3 recognize, first, rule of, rather exception to, principles Anglo-American jurisprudence.' Dennis 341 494, 500, 71 857, 862, 1137 (1951) (Vinson, C.J., announcing judgment); Smith 361 147, 150, 80 215, 217, 205 (1959);4 second, unitary concept, vary crime; third, developed several identifiable analytically distinct levels intent, e.g., negligence, recklessness, purpose.5 determine mental conviction, examined determination prove, taking account considerations, Screws 325 91, 65 1031, 1495 (1945), common-law background, any, involved. Morissette 288 (1952). 29 Although legislative history silent offense, some guideposts. begin proposition stated 'is provincial transient notion. universal persistent mature systems belief freedom human consequent ability normal individual choose between good evil.' first elements favor finds confirmation replaced amendments. conviction illegal 'willing conscious' knew E.g., 179 (CA8 1963); Decker, 292 (CA6 1961). disapprove cases, therefore properly infer 30 element—the presents difficulty. Proof show negligently recklessly failed sense one's actions prohibited illegal.6 Rather, definition crime, Congress, element, namely accordance solely offense. Code illustrates distinction: 31 noted principle mistake excuse usually greatly overstated; include element. So, example, immaterial theft, right adduced defense, involves property. defense property belongs someone else fact. defining offense; characterizes attendant offense.' 2.02, Comment 131 (Tent. Draft 4, 1955). 32 elements, congressional intent. easy one, factors persuade me required. First, notes, las current dispensed supra. Second, major machineguns sawed-off shotguns; deceptive flashlight guns fountain pen guns; devices bombs, mines, rockets, large caliber including mortars, anti-tank guns, bazookas. Without exception, likelihood governmental regulation distribution anyone presumed aware context reasonable weapon, administration S.Rep.No.1501, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 26, 42, 52; H.R.Conf.Rep.No.1956, 35. 5845(f) defines 'destructive device' 'grenades' Title 5812(a) provides: 'A transferred Secretary delegate duplicate, prescribed delegate; payable paid evidenced proper stamp affixed original form; identified manner regulations prescribe, that, individual, identification photograph; (4) prescribe; (5) (6) shows Applications denied transfer, receipt, place law.' 5812(b) 'The take subsection (a) section.' 5841(b) 'Each manufacturer, importer, maker imports, makes. Each transferor.' V); CFR 179.202. 12303 (1970). 5811 Supp 179.98 179.99. 179.100. 'use immunity' opposed 'transactional immunity,' cf. Piccirillo New York, 400 548, 520, 596, real. U.S.C., case, Marshall, Intention Law Society 138 (1968), says: wished government bombing range, capacity opportunity, tried succeeded (his wish fulfilled, accomplished). For recovery tort action shown establish liability, make felonious intent,' rea, established. could actions, open, concealment, according statement—that abandoned. words, happening criminal, accomplish something criminal. So discussing wishes characters: giving basis civil (the own), support (taking intent).' 'innocent itself' known alleged conspirators actuated corrupt motive intention object conspiracy. agreement acquire itself. Therefore special facts Mack, 112 290. transactional raised since laws jurisdiction compelling information. 552, 522, 596 dissenting). moved became affect nature possession. ALI 123—132 'Still, doubtless competent (government) liabilities offenses scienter—though precedent power limitations. 228.' (1959). situations imposed Judge, now Justice, Blackmun: omits mention seems basically policy, standard circumstances, adherence thereto expected person, relatively small, gravely besmirch, supporting, construed requiring intent.' Holdridge 282 302, 310 1960). These code. 2.02 (Prop.Official 1962). relied code's definitions. Leary 395 6, 46 n. 93, 1532, 1553, 57 (1969); Turner 398, 416 29, 642, 652, 610 actual bring forbidden result. James 366 213, 81 1052, 246 (1961); Boyce Motor Lines 337, 329, 367 Murdock, 290 389, 54 223, 381 (1933). generally Note. Counseling Resistance: Case Good Faith Belief Defense, Yale L.J. 1008, 1022—1037 (1969). 2.02(2)(a) 1962) (definition 'purposely').

Category: 0