Legal Document

401 U.S. 808 91 Supreme Court Reporter 1056 28 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 493 James Wintfored REWIS and Mary Lee Williams, Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. Number 5342. Argued Jan. 19, 1971. Decided April 5, Syllabus Petitioners conducted a lottery operation in Florida, near the Georgia border. They were convicted along with two residents who placed bets at petitioners' establishment, of violating 18 Code KF62 § 1952, Travel Act, which prohibits interstate travel intent to 'promote, manage, establish, carry on or facilitate' certain illegal activity. The District instructed jury that if bettors traveled Florida for purpose gambling, they violated defendant could be found guilty under aiding abetting statute, 2, without proof he had personally performed every act constituting charged offense. Appeals reversed convictions bettors, holding 1952 did not make it federal crime merely cross state line place bet, but upheld ground gambling establishment operators are responsible their customers. Held: Conducting frequented by out-of-state does not, more, constitute violation Act. Pp. 811—814. 418 Federal Reporter, 2nd 1218, reversed. Albert Judge Datz, Jacksonville, Fla., petitioners. Sidney M. Glazer, Washington, D.C., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 In this case, petitioners challenge furtherance criminal activity.1 Although Fifth Circuit narrowed an expansive interpretation affirmed convictions. For reasons stated below, we reverse. 2 Petitioners, Rewis other defendants Middle Florida.2 Their arose from lottery, numbers operation, admittedly ran Yulee, small community located few miles south Georgia-Florida line. residents, there is no evidence any time crossed lines connection lottery. homes Yulee. 3 mere law, also Presumably referring petitioners, further 2,3 On appeal, held placing bet because presented trial was insufficient show anything than customers bambling operation.4 However, establishments 1222. 4 We agree cannot said, certainty sufficient justify conviction, Congress intended should violate Act.5 But unable conclude conducting itself, violates Section on, kinds activity; ordinary meaning language suggests traveler's must involve more desire patronize Legislative history Act limited, reveal aimed primarily organized and, specifically, persons reside one State while operating managing activities another.6 addition, struck what say. Given ease citizens our Nation able existence many multi-state metropolitan areas, substantial amounts activity, traditionally subject regulation, patronized such context, would certainly recognize alter sensitive federal-state relationships, overextend limited police resources, might well produce situations geographic origin customers, matter happenstance, transform relatively minor offenses into felonies. It us weigh merits these factors, fact even discussed legislative strongly intend apply activity solely times another State. short, neither statutory nor supports broad-ranging 1952. And lack support less apparent, ambiguity concerning ambit statutes resolved favor lenity, Bell versus States, 349 81, 83, 75 620, 99 L.Ed. 905 (1955). 5 Government concedes as much, offers alternative construction Act—that whenever operator can reasonably foresee will patronizing actively seeks attract business first half proposed interpretation—reasonable foreseeability patronage—does merit acceptance. Whenever individuals actually almost always reasonable say have foreseen some come out So, practical purposes, interpretations already rejected. little, any, govern liability 6 There may, however, greater second Government's interpretation—that active encouragement patronage Of course, conduct deemed operation; otherwise, only restate constructions Still, cases courts correctly applied those whose agents employees see, e.g., Chambers, 382 910, 913—914 (CA6 1967); Barrow, 363 62, 64—65 (CA3 1966), cert. denied, 385 1001, 87 703, 17 541 (1967); Zizzo, 338 577, 580 (CA7 1964), 381 915, 85 1530, 14 435 (1965), argues principles decisions extended cover seek patronage. cited gone so far although much said casts doubt broad argument, may occasional encouraging closely appropriates principal agency relationship violated. need rule part theory convicted. find sought informed action designed As result, employed uphold 7 Reversed. 8 WHITE took decision case. Title (1964 ed. Supp. V) provides: '(a) Whoever travels foreign commerce uses facility commerce, including mail, to— '(1) distribute proceeds unlawful '(2) commit violence '(3) otherwise promote, facilitate promotion, management, carrying 'and thereafter performs attempts perform acts specified subparagraphs (1), (2), (3), shall fined $10,000 imprisoned five years, both. '(b) used section 'unlawful activity' means (1) enterprise involving liquor excise tax has been paid, narcotics, prostitution laws committed (2) extortion, bribery, arson States.' eight substantive violations conspiracy section. Petitioner sentenced years' imprisonment each count, run concurrently. Williams three concurrently, parole 4208(a)(2). counts having failed purchase wagering stamp. These latter intervening Marchetti 390 39, 88 697, 19 889 (1968), Grosso 716, 906 (1968). commits offense against aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces procures its commission, punishable principal. willfully causes done directly him principal.' 1218. review reversing conviction residents. Both parties concede questions case statutory. No issue constitutional dimension presented. Incorporated Senate report (S.Rep. 644, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 2—3, dated July 27, 1961) following appears: 'The bill, S. 1653, introduced chairman committee, Senator O. Eastland, 18, 1961, recommendation Attorney General, Robert KF105 F3 Kennedy, General's program combat racketeering. General testified before committee June 6, commented: "We seeking take effective racketeer conducts lives scene comfort safety, hoodlums. "Let me outset do impede anyone except engaged businesses spelled bill. * "The target clearly crime. banned 'in enterprise' involves liquor, extortion bribery. Obviously, trying curtail sporadic, casual involvement offenses, rather continuous course termed enterprise.' "Our investigations made quite clear shut off funds permit top men live therefore, remain immune local officials."

Classification Label: 0