Court Opinion

ID: 9460929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:02:44.591154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:49.844198
License: Public Domain

TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge
with whom BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM, THORNBERRY, GOLDBERG, SIMPSON and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, join (concurring in part and dissenting in part):
I concur, of course, in the disposition of this ease by the Court. No less than does the majority of the Court, I consider that there was an impermissible variance between the indictment and the proof upon which Lambert was convicted.
Without intending unnecessarily to belabor the issue, however, I dissent from that part of the opinion which vacates the prior decision and opinion in this case and which holds that section 1001 comprehends false statements made to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. I am strongly of the view that, since Lambert’s statement to the FBI did not relate to a pecuniary claim against the government the question then was only whether his allegedly false report in any sense “perverted” the normal functioning of the FBI. I think not. As stated in the original opinion:
“Indeed when appellant went into the Tampa office of the FBI, he went to ask that agency to do what it normally does, that is, to investigate. The normal function of the FBI was to ascertain whether Lambert’s statements were true or false and the mere fact that they were, upon investigation, found to be false does not mean, ipso facto, that they worked a perversion of the FBI’s regular business.” (Emphasis in original) 470 F.2d 354, 359. Fn. omitted.
*952I can imagine no more important national policy than that of preserving an open line of communication between private citizens and law enforcement agencies. Therefore, without attempting to reargue what was contained in the original opinion of the Court, I feel it appropriate to repeat the following language which was used there, and which I feel even more strongly now is appropriate :
“We are all familiar with the possibilities that arise when an individual makes a complaint concerning law enforcement officers (local or national). He is often met with a difficult or impossible burden of proof. If feelings run high, the ones complained against may feel strong enough of their position to seek an indictment under such a statute as this. Need we speculate on the chilling effect of such' punitive possibilities on even the person who is honest and acting in good faith?”
I would reverse the judgment on the ground that 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001 has no application to the facts of this case and remand the case to the district court with instructions to dismiss the indictment.