DOCSLIB.ORG

The Criminalization of Negligence Under the Clean Water Act — by David E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Criminalization of Negligence Under the Clean Water Act — by David E The Criminalization of Negligence Under the Clean Water Act — By David E. Roth, Stephen R. Spivack, and Joseph G. Block — “I think we should be hesitant to expose countless conduct. Perhaps this high-profile effort to prosecute numbers of construction workers and contractors to negligence will provide the U.S. Supreme Court with an heightened criminal liability for using ordinary devices opportunity to revisit the question it declined to consider to engage in normal industrial operations.” eight years ago in Hanousek. Section 309(c)(1) of the CWA (codified at 33 U.S.C. Hanousek v. United States, 585 U.S. 860, 861 (2000) § 1319(c)(1)), makes it a misdemeanor to negligently vio- (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of petition for late a laundry list of CWA sections (including 1311, 1312, writ of certiorari). 1316, 1317, 1318, 1321(b)(3), 1328, and 1345). The pro- vision also criminalizes negligent violations of National little after 7:45 on the morning of November 7, Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) per- 2007, the 900-foot, 63,131-ton container ship mits issued pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (CWA § 402) A M/V Cosco Busan slipped from its berth at Pier by the United States Environmental Protection Agency 56 in the Port of Oakland and headed for open water. or by states with delegated CWA NPDES-permitting It was a typically foggy morning in the San Francisco/ programs. A first conviction under section 1319(c)(1) Oakland Bay area. The Cosco Busan was helmed not by is punishable by a fine of $2,500 to $25,000 per day of an officer of the ship, but by a pilot specifically provided violation and/or not more than one year in prison. Sub- by the San Francisco Bar Pilots. Shadowing the ship was sequent convictions can result in a fine of up to $50,000 the assist tug Revolution. The Cosco Busan was also in per day per violation and/or up to two years in prison. contact with the Coast Guard Sector San Francisco Ves- Although a misdemeanor statute, section 1319(c)(1) has sel Traffic Service, a land-based advisory system provid- very real teeth. ing navigational assistance. And yet, despite these mul- Few federal statutes purport to criminalize negligent tiple layers of protection, at 8:30 a.m., the Cosco Busan conduct. (See, e.g., 15 U.S.C. § 5408(c)(3) (negligent re- allided with the fender system of the San Francisco/ cord-keeping related to fasteners); 18 U.S.C. § 1115 (neg- Oakland Bay Bridge. The accident tore a ragged 100 by ligent ship officer conduct leading to death); 18 U.S.C. 12-foot gash in her hull, puncturing two fuel tanks and § 755 (custodian negligently allowing a prisoner to es- a ballast tank. Most importantly, she was leaking heavy cape); 42 U.S.C. § 9113(b) (negligently damaging sub- fuel oil from the gaping hole in her side. Despite diligent marine electronic transmission cables or equipment); 47 response efforts, approximately 58,000 gallons of fuel oil U.S.C. § 22 (negligent damage to a submarine cable).) We ultimately leaked into the ecologically sensitive Bay. are aware of only one other environmental statute that On March 17, 2007, the second chapter in the Cosco criminalizes negligent conduct—section 113(c)(4) of the Busan story opened with the filing of a two-count federal Clean Air Act, which makes it a misdemeanor for a per- misdemeanor information against John Joseph Cota, the son to negligently release into the ambient air any haz- San Francisco Bar pilot guiding the ship at the time of ardous air pollutant or extremely hazardous substance its allision. Although the information did not allege that when, at the time of the release, such person negligently Cota intentionally violated the federal Clean Water Act places another person in imminent danger of death or (CWA), it did charge him with the negligent discharge serious bodily injury. (42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(4).) Because of a pollutant in violation of the Act. In July 2008, a section 7413(c)(4) differs substantially in construction second superseding indictment added a laundry list of from section 1319(c)(1), we have chosen not to discuss counts, including negligent CWA charges, against the it in this article. company responsible for operating the Cosco Busan. As In its initial enactment as part of the Federal Water it continues to move forward, the Cosco Busan prosecu- Pollution Control Act of 1972, section 1319(c)(1) made tion will again highlight section 309(c)(1) of the CWA, it a misdemeanor for anyone to “willfully or negligently” which, unlike virtually all other criminal environmental violate certain provisions of the CWA. In 1987, as part statutes, criminalizes negligent as opposed to intentional of the Water Quality Act of 1987, the “willful” com- Published in Criminal Justice, Volume 23, Number 4, Winter 2009. © 2009 American Bar Association. Reproduced with permission. All rights reserved. This information or any portion thereof may not be copied or disseminated in any form or by any means or stored in an electronic database or retrieval system without the express written consent of the American Bar Association. ponent of section 1319(c)(1) was dropped. Since 1987, refuted the argument that section 1319(c)(1) passed con- section 1319(c)(1) has been used sparingly by the gov- stitutional muster simply because the CWA is a “public ernment. (See Steven P. Solow & Ronald A. Sarachan, welfare statute”: “Although provisions of the CWA regu- Criminal Negligence Prosecutions Under the Federal late certain dangerous substances, this case illustrates that Clean Water Act: A Statistical Analysis and an Evaluation the CWA also imposes criminal liability for persons using of the Impact of Hanousek and Hong, 32 ELR 11153-61 standard equipment to engage in a broad range of ordi- (Oct. 2002) (reviewing § 1319(c)(1) prosecutions between nary industrial and commercial activities.” (Hanousek v. 1987 and 1997 and concluding, inter alia, “[t]hat analy- United States, 585 U.S. 860, 861 (2000) (Thomas, J., dis- sis reflects a history of very restrained use of the CWA senting from denial of petition for writ of certiorari).) negligence provisions by the government.”).) According For the dissenters, it was not enough to merely conclude to Solow and Sarachan, between 1987 and 2000, only that the CWA (1) regulated conduct subject to extensive 117 negligence-based environmental prosecutions were regulation, and (2) that conduct might involve risk to the brought in the United States. (Id.) As a result of this community. Such an approach could extend the “narrow” paucity of prosecutorial history, few published decisions public welfare statute doctrine “to virtually any criminal discuss section 1319(c)(1) and little jurisprudence ana- statute applicable to industrial activities.” (Id.) Justice lyzes it. Thomas also felt that the seriousness of the punitive mea- One of the more troubling questions raised by sec- sures available under the CWA strongly militated against tion 1319(c)(1) is how to synthesize the juxtaposition its classification as a public welfare statute. of traditional civil negligence with potential criminal li- Since 2000, only one appellate court has engaged in ability. The most significant case to address this issue is a substantive discussion of section 1319(c)(1), and that United States v. Hanousek, 176 F.3d 1116 (9th Cir. 1999). court followed the Ninth Circuit’s rationale. In United Hanousek involved the prosecution and conviction of States v. Ortiz, 427 F.3d 1278 (10th Cir. 2005), the Tenth the roadmaster of the White Pass & Yukon Railroad in Circuit was faced with the question of whether the gov- connection with a pipeline breach—caused by an inde- ernment had to prove that a defendant knew his conduct pendent contractor of the railroad while the defendant would result in a discharge into a navigable water. The was off duty and at home—which resulted in the release court rejected this formulation of section 1319(c)(1), of as much as 5,000 gallons of oil. Affirming the convic- holding that “an individual violates [1319(c)(1)] by failing tion, the Ninth Circuit rejected the defendant’s argument to exercise the degree of care that someone of ordinary that a “heightened negligence standard” applied to sec- prudence would have exercised in the same circumstance, tion 1319(c)(1). (Id. at 1121.) Focusing on the “plain lan- and, in so doing, discharges any pollutant into United guage” of the statute, the court held that “Congress in- States waters, without an NPDES permit.” (Id. at 1283.) tended that a person who acts with ordinary negligence in In reaching this conclusion, the court looked to tradi- violating [the CWA] may be subject to criminal penalties.” tional common-law negligence cases and treatises (such (Id. (footnote omitted).) The court also rejected a direct as Prosser and Keeton on Torts). At least in the mind of due process challenge to section 1319(c)(1), concluding the Tenth Circuit, traditional civil negligence could lead that the CWA was a “public welfare statute” and that “[i]t to a misdemeanor conviction under the CWA. is well established that a public welfare statute may subject Although there is little published district court au- a person to criminal liability for his or her ordinary negli- thority on this issue, at least one district court has recent- gence without violating due process.” (Id.) ly followed the lead of Hanousek and Ortiz. (See United Edward Hanousek sought review of the Ninth Cir- States v. Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Co., Criminal No. cuit’s decision by petitioning the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Rationale of Criminal Negligence Roy Mitchell Moreland University of Kentucky
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 32 | Issue 2 Article 2 1944 A Rationale of Criminal Negligence Roy Mitchell Moreland University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Moreland, Roy Mitchell (1944) "A Rationale of Criminal Negligence," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 32 : Iss. 2 , Article 2. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol32/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A RATIONALE OF CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE (Continued from November issue) RoY MOREL A D* 2. METHODS Op DESCRIBING THE NEGLIGENCE REQUIRED 'FOR CRIMINAL LIABILITY The proposed formula for criminal negligence describes the higher degree of negligence required for criminal liability as "conduct creating such an unreasonable risk to life, safety, property, or other interest for the unintentional invasion of which the law prescribes punishment, as to be recklessly disre- gardful of such interest." This formula, like all such machinery, is, of necessity, ab- stractly stated so as to apply to a multitude of cases. As in the case of all abstractions, it is difficult to understand without explanation and illumination. What devices can be used to make it intelligible to judges and juries in individual cases q a.
    [Show full text]
  • What Does Intent Mean?
    WHAT DOES INTENT MEAN? David Crump* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1060 II. PROTOTYPICAL EXAMPLES OF INTENT DEFINITIONS......... 1062 A. Intent as “Purpose” ..................................................... 1062 B. Intent as Knowledge, Awareness, or the Like ............ 1063 C. Imprecise Definitions, Including Those Not Requiring Either Purpose or Knowledge .................. 1066 D. Specific Intent: What Does It Mean?.......................... 1068 III. THE AMBIGUITY OF THE INTENT DEFINITIONS.................. 1071 A. Proof of Intent and Its Implications for Defining Intent: Circumstantial Evidence and the Jury ........... 1071 B. The Situations in Which Intent Is Placed in Controversy, and the Range of Rebuttals that May Oppose It................................................................... 1074 IV. WHICH DEFINITIONS OF INTENT SHOULD BE USED FOR WHAT KINDS OF MISCONDUCT?....................................... 1078 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................... 1081 * A.B. Harvard College; J.D. University of Texas School of Law. John B. Neibel Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center. 1059 1060 HOFSTRA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 38:1059 I. INTRODUCTION Imagine a case featuring a manufacturing shop boss who sent his employees into a toxic work environment. As happens at many job sites, hazardous chemicals unavoidably were nearby, and safety always was a matter of reducing their concentration. This attempted solution, however, may mean that dangerous levels of chemicals remain. But this time, the level of toxicity was far higher than usual. There is strong evidence that the shop boss knew about the danger, at least well enough to have realized that it probably had reached a deadly level, but the shop boss disputes this evidence. The employees all became ill, and one of them has died. The survivors sue in an attempt to recover damages for wrongful death.
    [Show full text]
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Equity's Power to Enjoin Criminal Acts
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 16 | Issue 2 Article 17 Fall 9-1-1959 Equity'S Power To Enjoin Criminal Acts Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Legal Remedies Commons Recommended Citation Equity'S Power To Enjoin Criminal Acts, 16 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 302 (1959), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol16/iss2/17 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 302 WASHINGTON AND LEE LAW REVIEW [Vol. XVI the right or the constitutional issues in the case.8 In other words, it must be decided whether or not Greene has a right to sue or whether his case presents a justiciable controversy before the other issues can be considered. Moreover, because of the type of relief which Greene sought-in effect, a mandatory injunction-the case really does present a problem of the right of access to secret information 9 Despite the apparent crucial nature of this issue, the Government concede it in oral argument before the Court, and, therefore, the opin- ion correctly speaks only in terms of dicta. Nevertheless, the language of the dicta is strong and unequivocal. But it is submitted that the Court erred in its statements and overlooked fundamental constitution- al law on this issue as pointed out in the above comment.
    [Show full text]
  • Misdemeanor State Violations Reportable Under Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) § 32-3208
    MISDEMEANOR STATE VIOLATIONS REPORTABLE UNDER ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES (A.R.S.) § 32-3208 The following are the categories and types of misdemeanor offenses that have been determined to affect patient safety and are reportable under A.R.S. § 32-3208 by a licensee or license applicant. Other misdemeanors reportable under A.R.S. § 32-3208 besides those specifically listed below include any comparable charges filed against an Arizona licensee or license applicant by any other state, territory or country. I. CRIMINAL STATUTES A. Preparatory Offenses are reportable when charged in connection with any of the criminal misdemeanors listed as reportable under A.R.S. § 32-3208. A.R.S. § 13-1001 Attempt § 13-1002 Solicitation § 13-1003 Conspiracy § 13-1004 Facilitation B. Personal Offenses Assault § 13-1201 Endangerment § 13-1202 Threatening § 13-1203 Assault Kidnapping § 13-1303 Unlawful Imprisonment Sexual § 13-1402 Indecent Exposure § 13-1403 Public Sexual Indecency C. Property Offenses Theft § 13-1802 Theft § 13-1805 Shoplifting § 13-1806 Unlawful Failure to Return Rental or Lease Property § 13-1807 Issuing a Bad Check Forgery § 13-2005 Obtaining a Signature by Deception Fraud § 13-2103 Receipt of Anything of Value by Fraudulent Use of Credit Card § 13-2105 Fraudulent Use of a Credit Card § 13-2106 Possession of Machinery, Plate, Contrivance, or Incomplete Credit Card § 13-2108 Fraud by Person Authorized to Provide Goods or Services § 13-2109 Credit Card Transaction Record Theft § 13-2202 Deceptive Business Practices § 13-2203 False Advertising Perjury § 13-2704 Unsworn Falsification Interfering with Judicial Process § 13-2902 Simulating Legal Process D. Public Order Offenses § 13-2904 Disorderly Conduct § 13-2905 Loitering § 13-2906 Obstruction of Highway or Other Public Thoroughfare § 13-2908 Criminal Nuisance § 13-2910 Cruelty to Animals § 13-2916 Use of Telephone to Terrify, Intimidate, Threaten, Harass, Annoy, or Offend § 13-2921 Harassment § 13-2924 Unlawful Solicitation of Tort Victims E.
    [Show full text]
  • House Bill Report Hb 1499
    HOUSE BILL REPORT HB 1499 As Reported by House Committee On: Public Safety Title: An act relating to vulnerable adults. Brief Description: Concerning vulnerable adults. Sponsors: Representatives Goodman, Jinkins, Johnson, Orwall, Appleton, Lytton and Tharinger. Brief History: Committee Activity: Public Safety: 1/28/15, 1/30/15 [DPS], 1/19/16, 1/22/16 [DP3S]; General Government & Information Technology: 2/20/15, 2/24/15 [DP2S(w/o sub PS)]. Brief Summary of Third Substitute Bill Makes it a Criminal Mistreatment offense when a person, with criminal negligence (instead of recklessly) withholds the basic necessities of life from a child or dependent person. Creates the crime of Theft from a Vulnerable Adult in the first and second degree. Adds the crimes of Criminal Mistreatment and Theft from a Vulnerable Adult to the list of crimes against persons. Limits the statute of limitations for the crime of Theft from a Vulnerable Adult to six years. HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SAFETY Majority Report: The third substitute bill be substituted therefor and the third substitute bill do pass. Signed by 7 members: Representatives Goodman, Chair; Orwall, Vice Chair; Klippert, Ranking Minority Member; Appleton, Griffey, Moscoso and Wilson. Staff: Yvonne Walker (786-7841). Background: –––––––––––––––––––––– This analysis was prepared by non-partisan legislative staff for the use of legislative members in their deliberations. This analysis is not a part of the legislation nor does it constitute a statement of legislative intent. House Bill Report - 1 - HB 1499 Criminal Mistreatment. A person commits Criminal Mistreatment if he or she: is the parent of a child, is a person entrusted with the physical custody of a child or dependent person, or is employed to provide a child or dependent person with the basic necessities of life; and withholds the basic necessities of life from the child or dependent person.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Assault Includes Both a Specific Intent to Commit a Battery, and a Battery That Is Otherwise Unprivileged Committed with Only General Intent
    QUESTION 5 Don has owned Don's Market in the central city for twelve years. He has been robbed and burglarized ten times in the past ten months. The police have never arrested anyone. At a neighborhood crime prevention meeting, apolice officer told Don of the state's new "shoot the burglar" law. That law reads: Any citizen may defend his or her place of residence against intrusion by a burglar, or other felon, by the use of deadly force. Don moved a cot and a hot plate into the back of the Market and began sleeping there, with a shotgun at the ready. After several weeks of waiting, one night Don heard noises. When he went to the door, he saw several young men running away. It then dawned on him that, even with the shotgun, he might be in a precarious position. He would likely only get one shot and any burglars would get the next ones. With this in mind, he loaded the shotgun and fastened it to the counter, facing the front door. He attached a string to the trigger so that the gun would fire when the door was opened. Next, thinking that when burglars enter it would be better if they damaged as little as possible, he unlocked the front door. He then went out the back window and down the block to sleep at his girlfriend's, where he had been staying for most of the past year. That same night a police officer, making his rounds, tried the door of the Market, found it open, poked his head in, and was severely wounded by the blast.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System
    A GUIDE TO MENTAL ILLNESS AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM A SYSTEMS GUIDE FOR FAMILIES AND CONSUMERS National Alliance on Mental Illness Department of Policy and Legal Affairs 2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Helpline: 800-950-NAMI NAMI – Guide to Mental Illness and the Criminal Justice System FOREWORD Tragically, jails and prisons are emerging as the "psychiatric hospitals" of the 1990s. A sample of 1400 NAMI families surveyed in 1991 revealed that 40 percent of family members with severe mental illness had been arrested one or more times. Other national studies reveal that approximately 8 percent of all jail and prison inmates suffer from severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorders. These statistics are a direct reflection of the failure of public mental health systems to provide appropriate care and treatment to individuals with severe mental illnesses. These horrifying statistics point directly to the need of NAMI families and consumers to develop greater familiarity with the workings of their local criminal justice systems. Key personnel in these systems, such as police officers, prosecutors, public defenders and jail employees may have limited knowledge about severe mental illness and the needs of those who suffer from these illnesses. Moreover, the procedures, terminology and practices which characterize the criminal justice system are likely to be bewildering for consumers and family members alike. This guide is intended to serve as an aid for those people thrust into interaction with local criminal justice systems. Since criminal procedures are complicated and often differ from state to state, readers are urged to consult the laws and procedures of their states and localities.
    [Show full text]
  • Know Your Rights: Petty Misdemeanor and Misdemeanor Citation Options
    Know your rights: Petty Misdemeanor and Misdemeanor Citation Options I have been charged with a PETTY MISDEMEANOR. What are my options? 1. You may pay the fine(s) for the offense(s) listed on your citation. BE AWARE THAT BY PAYING THE FINE YOU ARE PLEADING GUILTY and waiving your rights to: A trial before a judge; Be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; Confront and cross-examine witnesses; and Remain silent and/or testify on your own behalf. 2. Pleading guilty will result in a conviction for a petty misdemeanor offense. You can talk to a hearing officer about your case. If you have already talked to a hearing officer, but did not resolve your case, you can schedule a court hearing. If you are convicted, the maximum sentence is a $300 fine. If you schedule your case for a court hearing and fail to appear, you will be found guilty and a conviction will be entered. (Minn. Stat. § 169.91; 609.491; Minn.R.Crim.P. 23.04-23.05.) I have been charged with a MISDEMEANOR payable offense. What are my options? 1. You may pay the fine(s) for the offense(s) listed on your citation. PLEASE BE AWARE THAT BY PAYING THE FINE YOU ARE PLEADING GUILTY and you are waiving your rights to: A trial before a judge or a jury; Be represented by an attorney; Be presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; Confront and cross-examine witnesses; and Remain silent and/or testify on your own behalf.
    [Show full text]
  • Misdemeanor Enforcement Trends Across Seven U.S. Jurisdictions
    Misdemeanor Enforcement Trends Across Seven U.S. Jurisdictions October 2020 Becca Cadoff, M.P.A., Preeti Chauhan, PhD, Erica Bond, J.D. Table of Contents Page The Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice 1 Key Findings 3 Why Do Misdemeanor Arrests Matter? 4 Overall Trends in Misdemeanor Enforcement Rates 6 Misdemeanor Trends by Demographics 9 Trends by Race & Ethnicity 9 Trends by Age 13 Trends by Sex 16 Misdemeanor Trends by Charge 18 Supplementary Analyses 20 Future Research on Misdemeanor Enforcement 22 Conclusion 23 References 25 Appendix A: List of Research Network Reports 29 Appendix B: Data Definitions & Limitations 30 The Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College of Criminal Justice houses a group of research initiatives that raise important questions and share critical research about the criminal legal system and its role in creating safe, just, and equitable communities. DCJ conducts data analysis and research on enforcement in the community, the adjudication of cases in the courts, and the use of confinement in jails and prisons. DCJ’s work has informed policy reforms, facilitated partnerships between researchers and government agencies across the country, spurred new scholarly research on lower-level enforcement, and has been cited extensively in the press. For more information about the Data Collaborative for Justice please visit: https://datacollaborativeforjustice.org/ Misdemeanor Enforcement Trends Across Seven October 2020 U.S. Jurisdictions The Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice In 2016, the Data Collaborative for Justice (DCJ) at John Jay College launched the Research Network on Misdemeanor Justice (“the Research Network”) with the goal of analyzing data and producing research to inform policy conversations and reforms related to lower-level enforcement, particularly misdemeanor arrests.
    [Show full text]
  • Sentencing Guidelines Offense Table (Updated 11/2/20)
    Appendix A Sentencing Guidelines Offense Table (Updated 11/2/20) Appendix A contains a table of guidelines offenses including their CJIS code, statutory source, seriousness category, and penalties. If an offense is not listed in Appendix A and the offense has a maximum penalty of one year or less, the offense should be identified as a category VII offense. If an offense is not listed in Appendix A and the maximum penalty is greater than one year, the individual completing the worksheet should use the seriousness category for the closest analogous offense and the sentencing judge and the parties should be notified. If there are any questions about how to categorize or score an offense, please call the Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy staff at (301) 403-4165. November 2020 121 INDEX OF OFFENSES Abuse & Other Offensive Conduct ......................... 1 Kidnapping & Related Crimes .............................. 33 Accessory After the Fact ......................................... 2 Labor Trafficking ................................................... 33 Alcoholic Beverages ................................................ 2 Lotteries ................................................................. 33 Animals, Crimes Against ......................................... 3 Machine Guns ........................................................ 34 Arson & Burning ...................................................... 3 Malicious Destruction & Related Crimes ............. 34 Assault & Other Bodily Woundings .......................
    [Show full text]
  • CRIMINAL LAW-PROSECUTION of CORPORATE OFFICIALS UNDER the FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, and COSMETIC Act-United States V
    CRIMINAL LAW-PROSECUTION OF CORPORATE OFFICIALS UNDER THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC AcT-United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975). I. INTRODUCTION The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938' provides criminal sanctions for those violating its provisions. 2 The Act since its inception has been applied to corporations, but judicial decision3 has extended its coverage to individual officials whose corporations have violated the Act. The standards applicable to individuals prose- cuted under the Act have been generally ill defined in two related areas: first, the officials who can be charged with violations of the Act; and second, the necessary degree of the defendant's involvement in the violation in order to make out a prima facie case.4 United States v. Park5 presented the United States Supreme Court with an excellent opportunity to clarify the law in this area. The Park case arose in the following manner. As a result of an inspection of its Baltimore warehouse, Acme Markets, Inc., a large national retail food chain,6 and its president, John R. Park, were charged with viola- tions of the Act. Each count of the information alleged that the defendants had received goods shipped in interstate commerce, and that while the food was being held in an Acme warehouse, they caused it to be exposed to contamination. These acts allegedly re- sulted in the food becoming adulterated within the meaning of the Act, which provides that: A food shall be deemed to be adulterated-(a). (3) if it consists in whole or in part of any filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or it is otherwise unfit for food; or (4) if it has been prepared, packed, or held under insanitary conditions whereby it may have 21 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]