United States v. Strong

Last updated
United States v. Strong
Seal of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.svg
Court United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
DecidedJuly 19, 2013
Citation(s) 724F.3d51 (1st Cir.2013).
Case history
Appealed from United States District Court for the District of Maine
Court membership
Judges sitting Sandra Lynch, Juan R. Torruella, & William J. Kayatta Jr.
Case opinions
Decision by Sandra Lynch
Concurrence William J. Kayatta Jr.
Dissent Juan R. Torruella
Keywords

In United States v. Ronald J. Strong, 724 F.3d 51 (1st Cir. 2013), [1] the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit had to consider if the violation of federal regulations occurring on a federal property could still stand if such regulations had not met posting requirements.

Contents

Background

Hallway of the courthouse Hallway, Edward T. Gignoux U.S. Courthouse, Portland, Maine LCCN2014630012.tif
Hallway of the courthouse

At around 11:30 a.m. on May 24, 2011, Ronald Strong entered the Edward T. Gignoux Courthouse in Portland, Maine. [2] As he was going through security Strong informed the court security officer that he needed to use the bathroom, was told he had to pass through security, soiled himself, and was escorted to the restroom, in that order; [3] about ten minutes later, he headed to the clerk's office. [4]

Approximately fifteen minutes after Strong's departure, a law enforcement officer approached the restroom to use it, found it severely soiled, and summoned a cleaner, [4] who later recalled that "seventy-five percent of the floor was covered in feces", that more had been "smeared more than two feet up on the walls", and that even more could be found "on the paper towel and toilet paper dispensers, on the toilet paper itself, and on part of the toilet seat and the left side of the toilet bowl". [5] For this, on May 27, 2011, Strong was charged with three misdemeanors, [6] willfully damaging federal property, [7] creating a hazard on federal property, [8] and creating a nuisance on federal property. [9]

At trial Strong argued that the court was out of compliance with posting regulations which was a requirement to charge him. Additionally Strong argued the government had failed to show his intent at the time. [10] He was sentenced to seven days in jail. [1] [11]

Opinion of the court

The First Circuit affirmed the decision of the lower court. [4] In the review of the statute requiring the posting of the regulations, Judge Lynch highlighted that the statute stated that the posting of regulations had to be located "in a conspicuous place on the property". [1] [3] While regulations of the General Services Administration required notice to be posted at the front of the courthouse, the court found that imperfect compliance did not invalidate Strong's conviction. [3] On the matter of intent, the lower court noted that "The defendant may very well have accidentally put some on the floor or on the walls as he tried to clean up, but it was smeared over 75 percent of the floor, on two walls at several different locations, and that indicates to me that in fact, it was a willful act". [1] Judge Torruella dissented, claiming that the smears on the walls were not "finger smears" but chunks similar to chunky peanut butter. [1] [12]

Strong filed an appeal to the United States Supreme Court but was denied. [13]

The case in question raised numerous concerns about constructive notice and how it is applied on federal property. For example, in the 1983 case United States v. Strakoff, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals handled a similar legal question on the matter of someone receiving notice of federal laws and rules on federal property. [14] In the Strakoff case the defendant was convicted of bringing a firearm into a federal courthouse in violation of government regulation. Similar to the Strong case, the regulations were not posted at the entrance to the building but were posted in other places within the building. Unlike in Strong, the court overturned the conviction in Strakoff as the regulations were not considered adequately posted. [15]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit</span> Current United States federal appellate court

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the following U.S. district courts:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mary M. Schroeder</span> American judge

Mary Murphy Schroeder is an American attorney and jurist serving as a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">William H. Pryor Jr.</span> American judge (born 1962)

William Holcombe Pryor Jr. is an American lawyer currently serving as the chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. He is a former commissioner of the United States Sentencing Commission. Previously, he was the attorney general of Alabama, from 1997 to 2004.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David B. Sentelle</span> American judge

David Bryan Sentelle is a Senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Jed Saul Rakoff is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case challenging federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated wetlands under the Clean Water Act. It was the first major environmental case heard by the newly appointed Chief Justice, John Roberts, and Associate Justice Samuel Alito. The Supreme Court heard the case on February 21, 2006, and issued a decision on June 19, 2006.

Tax protesters in the United States have advanced a number of arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that certain statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within a given statute exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Paul V. Niemeyer</span> American judge

Paul Victor Niemeyer is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and a former United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

The term aggravated felony was used in the United States immigration law to refer to a broad category of criminal offenses that carry certain severe consequences for aliens seeking asylum, legal permanent resident status, citizenship, or avoidance of deportation proceedings. Anyone convicted of an aggravated felony and removed from the United States "must remain outside of the United States for twenty consecutive years from the deportation date before he or she is eligible to re-enter the United States." The supreme court ruled 5-4 in Sessions v. Dimaya that the residual clause was unconstitutionally vague limiting the term.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jerry Edwin Smith</span> American judge

Jerry Edwin Smith is an American attorney and jurist serving as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Robert George Doumar is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Honest services fraud</span> Crime in the United States

Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346, added by the United States Congress in 1988, which states "For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

<i>Green v. Haskell County Board of Commissioners</i>

Green v. Haskell County Board of Commissioners, 568 F.3d 784, was a First Amendment case concerning the placing of a Ten Commandments monument on public property, an alleged violation of the separation of church and state.

Title 1 of the Code of Federal Regulations, titled General Provisions, is a United States federal government regulation.

Title IX of the United States Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits discrimination "on the basis of sex" in educational programs and activities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Obama administration interpreted Title IX to cover discrimination on the basis of assigned sex, gender identity, and transgender status. The Trump administration determined that the question of access to sex-segregated facilities should be left to the states and local school districts to decide. The validity of the executive's position is being tested in the federal courts.

<i>G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board</i> U.S. court case dealing with transgender rights

G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board is a court case dealing with transgender rights in the United States. The case involves a transgender boy attending a Virginia high school, who sued the local school board after he was forced to use girls' restrooms based on his assigned gender under the school board's policy. While the Fourth Circuit ruled in favor of the student based on Obama administration policy related to Title IX protections, the election of Donald Trump changed the underlying policy, forcing a pending hearing before the Supreme Court of the United States to be vacated and the case retried at the lower courts. Due to recent case law, including the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County, the Fourth Circuit ruled again in favor of the student; the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, allowing the Fourth Circuit's judgment to stand.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julius N. Richardson</span> American judge (born 1976)

Julius Ness "Jay" Richardson is an American judge and lawyer who serves as a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He was formerly an Assistant United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

<i>Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida</i> Florida court case on transgender students rights to access bathrooms

Adams ex rel. Kasper v. School Board of St. Johns County, Florida is a court case from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressing whether schools can separate bathrooms on the basis of biological sex, and thus refuse to allow transgender students to use bathrooms that match their gender identity. The case was filed by Erica Adams Kasper on behalf of Drew Adams, a minor at the time, against the school board of St. Johns County, Florida, in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. The lawsuit was filed after Adams was denied access to the boys' bathrooms at Nease High School. Kasper claimed that Adams's rights were being violated on account of discriminated on the basis of sex, which is prohibited by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and a violation of the equal protection of the laws under the Fourteenth Amendment.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 United States v. Strong, 724F.3d51 (1st Cir.2013).
  2. ↑ Russell, Eric (26 Jul 2013). "After two years in courts, bathroom-mess case ends". Portland Press Herald. Vol. 152, no. 31. pp. B1. Retrieved 2023-05-07.
  3. 1 2 3 Weiss, Debra Cassens (July 25, 2013). "1st Circuit upholds man's conviction for soiling courthouse bathroom". ABA Journal. Chicago, Illinois: American Bar Association . Retrieved 2023-04-22.
  4. 1 2 3 Nemitz, Bill (2013-07-28). "Case forecast to leave stain on federal justice system". Press Herald. South Portland, Maine. Retrieved 2023-04-22.
  5. ↑ Kase, Aaron (2013-07-27). "Found guilty of the worst bowel movement ever". Salon. Archived from the original on 2023-04-11. Retrieved 2023-04-11.
  6. ↑ Peacock, William (2013-07-30). "Incontinence and Incompetence: Diarrhea Leads to 3 Convictions". FindLaw. Archived from the original on 2023-04-11. Retrieved 2023-04-11.
  7. ↑ 41 CFR 102-74.380
  8. ↑ 41 CFR 102-74.380
  9. ↑ 41 CFR 102-74.390
  10. ↑ Snider, Brett (2013-07-29). "Jail Sentence for Filthy Mess in Courthouse Restroom Upheld". FindLaw. Archived from the original on 2023-04-11. Retrieved 2023-04-11.
  11. ↑ Moran, Lee (July 29, 2013). "Maine man who defecated in court punished with jail time". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2023-04-11. Retrieved 2023-04-11.
  12. ↑ Shepherd, Chuck (2013-09-12). "New of the Weird: Fine Points of the Law". Sun-News. Vol. 63, no. 255. Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. pp. WS5. Archived from the original on 2023-04-21. Retrieved 2023-04-20.
  13. ↑ Journal of the Supreme Court of the United States (PDF) (Report). Supreme Court of the United States. October 7, 2013. p. 344. Retrieved 2023-05-07. No. 13–6890. Ronald J. Strong, Petitioner v. United States. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.
  14. ↑ United States v. Strakoff, 719F.2d1307 (5th Cir.1983).
  15. ↑ Halbrook, Stephen (1987). "Firearms, the Fourth Amendment, and Air Carrier Security". Journal of Air Law and Commerce. 52 (3).
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.