# Is there any law under which the White House dinner party crashers could be prosecuted? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 27, 2009, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105 "2009-11-27T06:29:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/41 "2009-11-29T17:20:51Z")
> [@destry](#): > > This was a state dinner with the head of state of India, which is a bitter enemy of Pakistan. If he had been assassinated in the White House the political ramifications would have been tremendous. This is huge. Heads should roll. You mean heads should roll among the SS employees? Or are you still somehow stuck on arguing that jailing the people who pointed out how easy it’d be to assassinate heads of state should be the ones punished? ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/42 "2009-11-29T17:33:58Z")
> [@destry](#): > > This was a state dinner with the head of state of India, which is a bitter enemy of Pakistan. If he had been assassinated in the White House the political ramifications would have been tremendous. This is huge. Heads should roll. I was going to post something like that - I agree completely. [nitpick]Head of government, not head of state. Dr Manmohan Singh is the [Prime Minister of India](http://pmindia.nic.in/meet.htm). Smt. Pratibha Devisingh Patilis is the [President of India](http://presidentofindia.nic.in/profile.html).[/nitpick] [QUOTE=kdeus] I imagine that fully prosecuting violators makes security easier by reducing the number of people willing to attempt to breach security (because of the high consequences). This reduces the chance of the SS having to deal with two incidents simultaneously. Also, anyone who would try to breach security may be treated as a serious threat, because they know, everybody knows, that the Secret Service fully prosecutes every violator. [/QUOTE] Exactly. If people want to take on the public task of testing presidential security, they have to take the consequences. One of the ways that the Secret Service can improve security is by vigourously prosecuting anyone who consciously tries to breach security. The deterrent effect of a prosecution is likely just as important as tightening up the loophole in the procedure that allowed the gatecrashers in. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/43 "2009-11-29T17:47:16Z")
> [@BMax](#): > > I think the federal government should prosecute them. No one seems to be able to answer the key question: With what, exactly, should they be charged? ---
**Author:** ![Alex\_Dubinsky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dbc845/32.png) [@Alex\_Dubinsky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alex_Dubinsky)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/44 "2009-11-29T19:13:02Z")
> [@Northern\_Piper](#): > > Exactly. If people want to take on the public task of testing presidential security, they have to take the consequences. > > One of the ways that the Secret Service can improve security is by vigourously prosecuting anyone who consciously tries to breach security. The deterrent effect of a prosecution is likely just as important as tightening up the loophole in the procedure that allowed the gatecrashers in. Ok, can you state all of that but a 2nd time? This time writing out a paragraph in each place you had a sentence? Surely after thinking about it to that extent, you’ll realize what you said does not make any sense. “If people want to take on the public task of testing presidential security, they have to take the consequences.” In your own words, you’d like for noone to take on the task of testing presidential security? How do you not see what that leads to? Oh, I know. It leads to any terrorist being able to come to a state dinner just by buying a razor and a nice suit! Bonus question: Did you know you don’t have to bring your own knife to a dinner? Yeah, that’s how fancy these shindigs are. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/45 "2009-11-29T19:15:00Z")
> [@Joe Frickin Friday](#): > > No one seems to be able to answer the key question: > > With what, exactly, should they be charged? Interference with a Federal Officer in the course of his duty. IANAL, but I’m sure there is a crime in doing that. What if while the Secret Service were dicking around with this couple less attention was paid elsewhere and a bad guy got in and assassinated the President? Most people on this board would be wanting to charge them with murder. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [November 29, 2009, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/46 "2009-11-29T20:08:50Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Interference with a Federal Officer in the course of his duty. The duty of the FO in question included checking to see whether any given person was on the guest list or not. Clearly the FO failed this duty, but how exactly did the crashers _interfere_ with the FO’s execution of this duty? ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/47 "2009-11-30T02:11:34Z")
> [@Joe Frickin Friday](#): > > The duty of the FO in question included checking to see whether any given person was on the guest list or not. Clearly the FO failed this duty, but how exactly did the crashers _interfere_ with the FO’s execution of this duty? We have no idea yet what story they may have cooked up. Possibly fraud, possibly tresspassing. It’s probably illegal to sneeze on the president. I hope they find something to charge these people with. I can think of at least two reasons why. First, these wannabe reality TV stars really need a good slapdown. Second, since these people are apparently trying to peddle their story, if they do end up convicted their money might be forfeit as the proceeds of a crime. ---
**Author:** ![cainxinth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/7bcc69/32.png) [@cainxinth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cainxinth)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 2:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/48 "2009-11-30T02:23:42Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > I don’t get it. They obviously helped to strengthen security long-term. The more you prosecute people who demonstrate embarrassing holes in your security, the more holes you’re gonna have. That’s why it’s assinine to go after the “perpetrators” in such situations. (Reminds me of the person who “hacked” a government computer by putting ‘..’ in the URL.) > > Not only is it not fair to be punished for something that didn’t hurt anyone or anything except egos, it is only extremely counter-productive. > > Ok, well, that does paint them as douchebags. That’s like saying we shouldn’t prosecute bank robbers because they motivate us to make safer banks. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/49 "2009-11-30T02:26:45Z")
> [@qazwart](#): > > Remember that the Secret Service is on the watch for someone who might hurt the president and not from a bunch of D-bags who are after publicity. This may change in the future… The SS’s duty is to keep unvetted and potentially dangerous people away from the president. It’s not always possible, like when the pres leaps out of the car to shake hands along a parade route, for example. But otherwise, no one gets in the same room as the president without at least some kind of background check. Any such person who makes it past them, even without bringing in a weapon, is potentially lethal. There was probably plenty of cutlery around – I’m serious, if you can get that close the pres, you can literally stick a fork in him. When I worked at the Smithsonian many years back, I had to get vetted by the SS numberous times to work at events when the POTUS, VP, or members of the First Family attended. This was with me already being a Federal employee, with the proper ID to be there, etc. Every single time they had to have my name and SSN at least 24 hours in advance, so they could do whatever checks they did and then put me on an approved list. This is a really major fuckup. I do recall that it happened at least twice during the Bush administration – with the same guy both times. I never heard an outcome of that – though Bush certainly wasn’t the kind of guy to insist people be held responsible for fuckups. ---
**Author:** ![Hirundo82](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@Hirundo82](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirundo82)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/50 "2009-11-30T03:55:11Z")
> [@Joe Frickin Friday](#): > > No one seems to be able to answer the key question: > > With what, exactly, should they be charged? [18 USC § 1001](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001001----000-.html): > [@](#): > > (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— > (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; > (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or > (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; > shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. ---
**Author:** ![Hirundo82](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@Hirundo82](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirundo82)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/51 "2009-11-30T05:59:59Z")
Another statute which could be used to prosecute them is [18 USC § 1036](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00001036----000-.html): > [@](#): > > (a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter— > (1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States; > (2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States; > (3) any secure or restricted area of any seaport, designated as secure in an approved security plan, as required under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated under that section; or > (4) any secure area of any airport, > shall be punished as provided in subsection (b) of this section. > (b) The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) of this section is— > (1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if the offense is committed with the intent to commit a felony; or > (2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 6 months, or both, in any other case. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/52 "2009-11-30T13:10:58Z")
> [@Joe Frickin Friday](#): > > No one seems to be able to answer the key question: > > With what, exactly, should they be charged? Theft, perhaps? They gatecrashed a dinner. I presume they obtained food to which they were not entitled. Edit - reading the story, possibly not food, but certainly cocktails. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/53 "2009-11-30T13:17:28Z")
> [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](#): > > The classy couple is now offering to sell their exclusive story to the media outlet that will shell out the most cash, and they say the bidding will start at $200,000. Is this legal? I thought that criminals weren’t allowed to profit from selling their story. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/54 "2009-11-30T13:28:09Z")
> [@Peter\_Morris](#): > > Is this legal? I thought that criminals weren’t allowed to profit from selling their story. They haven’t been convicted of a crime yet. If they are convicted, they would not be allowed to profit from their story. > [@FRDE](#): > > The All-American way ? Make the law up as you go along. > > A very dangerous approach. Oh, I thought do whatever the fuck you want with no repercussions was the All-American way. > [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > I don’t get it. They obviously helped to strengthen security long-term. The more you prosecute people who demonstrate embarrassing holes in your security, the more holes you’re gonna have. That’s why it’s assinine to go after the “perpetrators” in such situations. (Reminds me of the person who “hacked” a government computer by putting ‘..’ in the URL.) > > Not only is it not fair to be punished for something that didn’t hurt anyone or anything except egos, it is only extremely counter-productive. Really? And do you think they are did the Secret Service a favor by making a public mockery of their security procedures to every terrorist and psychopath on the planet? I agree with everyone who said these are a couple of spoiled attention grabbing doucehbags and they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law as an example. ---
**Author:** ![Machine\_Elf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/82dd89/32.png) [@Machine\_Elf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Machine_Elf)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/55 "2009-11-30T13:42:20Z")
> [@Hirundo82](#): > > (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully— > (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; > (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or > (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; As has been noted by various news outlets, conviction would depend on _exactly_ what words were exchanged between the Salahi’s and the Secret Service as they attempted to gain entry. Merely showing up in a tux and party dress hardly qualifies as falsification, concealment, trick, scheme, etc. > [@Hirundo82](#): > > (a) Whoever, by any fraud or false pretense, enters or attempts to enter— > (1) any real property belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States; > (2) any vessel or aircraft belonging in whole or in part to, or leased by, the United States; > (3) any secure or restricted area of any seaport, designated as secure in an approved security plan, as required under section 70103 of title 46, United States Code, and the rules and regulations promulgated under that section; or > (4) any secure area of any airport… Again, it will depend on exactly what was said. If someone ever asked them “were you invited?”, and they answered yes, well then by all means, nail their balls to the flagpole (along with those of the agents who took their word for it). But if no one bothered to ask them, then the existence of “fraud or false pretense” on their part is questionable, and conviction is unlikely. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/56 "2009-11-30T15:33:17Z")
Shame one of those idiots didn’t get a flesh wound for their trouble. To those of you who thinks that they did no wrong, I’d like you to explain to me why I can’t walk into a bank, try doors, and if I make it to the vault, fill my pockets. After all, I didn’t lie to anyone or try to pass myself off as anyone. I was just testing their security. You all said that’s a perfectly legitimate thing to do, help the poor Secret Service look for secuity holes. Hey, maybe I can check for lapses in the security of your house. Tell me when you’re throwing a big party. Maybe there’ll be so many people milling about I can just slide in, smile and nod with your non-testing guests. ---
**Author:** ![Si\_Amigo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/si_amigo/32/2877_2.png) [@Si\_Amigo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Si_Amigo)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/57 "2009-11-30T15:43:52Z")
> [@Alex\_Dubinsky](#): > > Or are you still somehow stuck on arguing that jailing the people who pointed out how easy it’d be to assassinate heads of state should be the ones punished? Really, why did they lock up that Hinkley guy after all he did was show how easy it was to shot Regan? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 30, 2009, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/58 "2009-11-30T15:51:25Z")
I’ve seen some right-wingers advance the theory that Obama sneaked them in past security and, when they got caught, threw the Secret Service under the bus. No, seriously. ---
**Author:** ![a35362](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3da27b/32.png) [@a35362](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/a35362)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/59 "2009-12-01T22:04:44Z")
If they knew enough not to sit down at a table, then they knew they weren’t supposed to be there. There’s a part of me that’s thinking, here they are on TV talking about how they’re NOT party crashers, yadda yadda yadda, and I’m thinking, They’re on TV! You’re giving these silly people exactly what they want – more attention! :smack: ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [December 1, 2009, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105/60 "2009-12-01T22:41:01Z")
> [@Lightnin](#): > > I’ve seen some right-wingers advance the theory that Obama sneaked them in past security and, when they got caught, threw the Secret Service under the bus. > > No, seriously. I guess Michelle was his only +1, and he had to sneak his pals in. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-any-law-under-which-the-white-house-dinner-party-crashers-could-be-prosecuted/519105.md?page=4)