The link will probably change soon, so I’ll post this story from the Drudge Report here directly:
I realize local laws probably come into play here, but nonetheless, what could the police possibly charge him with? Could he possibly have been arrested for this six weeks ago, when the whole country wasn’t freaking out about anthrax?
Mail fraud, hoax, wasting the time of law enforcement when there is a REAL threat out there-possible stalking, maybe-it would scare the bejesus out of me!
I think creating a public nuiscance is a good place for charges to start.
While this doesn’t directly relate to the OP it is along the same lines.
If you rob a bank with your finger in your pocket looking like a gun, and they catch you, you will be charged with armed robbery even though you weren’t armed. Because you put the people in the bank in fear of their lives.
Mischief?
I wonder if “making terroristic threats” have to be written or verbal, or would just the presence of a unknown powdery substance suffice?
We had a similar case here in Maine
This is an interesting question. Before the Anthrax scare I imagine that you could argue that it was a practical joke. Something along the lines that “it would make a mess…” Not a good joke but plausable.
After the Anthrax scare I would guess that the charges get much more serious. More along the lines of intent to harm, or something like that. The bank robber with a fake gun is a good example as someone else pointed out.
Eric
I forgot to meantion that after the Anthrax scare it would be reasonable to assume everyone in the country knows that sending a powdery type substance is a threat if the person recieving the package did not know what was coming.
Eric
Re mail fraud and hoax: what fraud? what hoax?
Re creating a public nuisance: is this an actual crime on the books? Same goes for “mischief”. What’s next, tomfoolery and persnicketiness?
Re the fake gun: I thought that was a contributing factor in the commission of a crime. It’s not a crime simply to walk around with a fake gun in your hand, is it? I don’t see that this analogy applies unless there was a threatening note in the envelope along with the powder, such that the sender was indeed committing some form of assault.
Re sleestak’s points: does the law really change according to what “everybody knows” all of a sudden? I thought the rule of law was instituted to head off just such a scenario, lest we return to the days when “everybody knows” that a crazy old woman living on the edge of town “must” be a witch, or that a person whose parents immigrated from a certain country “must” be a potential enemy spy.
No convincing answers so far, folks. Is there a lawyer in the house?
There’s always the old standby, disorderly conduct.
Let’s see, in Wisconsin they might try 941.30, recklessly endangering safety. There’s probably some other local ordinances they could be nabbed under.
To respond to Doghouse Reilly
There is a general rule of law that states that if a reasonable person sees something as a threat it can be considered a real threat. IE, the guy with a fake gun in a pocket robbing a store. After recent events it seems to me to be really plausable that sending white powder to anyone could be considered a harmful act. This is due to new developments.
Reasonable people in this country know about the Anthrax issue. So now sending this type of material, without the recipents knowledge, is a really bad idea.
Eric
An anthrax scare is pretty much the equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a theatre. It causes panic and may even put people in danger. An entire office stampeding down a stairwell away from a mystery package opens up the possibilities for tramplings, falling down stairs, mayhem in general.
And on national television no less. Remember that Johnny Carson playing Carnac the Magnificent? He once opened a letter by ripping the end off and blowing into it (in order to cause the envelope to open up). Well, a bunch of practical jokers put talcum powder in one envelope and Johnny got a face full of white powder.
Hilarious at the time, but not so funny today. It depends on the general public mood and prevailing toxins du jour.
Uh, just in case you might want to try this yourselves, I’m not positive but messing with the mail is a federal offense. I’m pretty sure they can find some statute on the books to go after this kind of charade
In Canada, there is an offence of mischief under the Criminal Code which could probably be used for cases of this sort:
Here’s another example. If you sell people fake pot as the real thing, and get busted, guess what? You can apparently be charged with one of any number of drug-sales-related crimes.
For the specifics above, you could be charged with reckless endangerment, for one. You intentionally caused a scene, law enforcement of a few types had to be called in, the scene of the crime had to be contained, sterilized, etc. It’s no different from calling in a bomb threat; the fact that there’s no bomb doesn’t make you innocent of a crime in the eyes of the law.
I expect this would be equivalent to pulling a fire alarm or calling in a false alarm. I’m not sure what the charge is in those cases, but I know it is a chargable offense. Of course, the guy could claim that the leak was unintentional, and try to extend that to saying that his intent was to scare the receipient rather than the postal employees. That could reduce the severity, I suppose, if he could get a judge or jury to believe him. That’s assuming he can also show that the response would have been less extensive at the intended receipt location.
Personally, I’d say there was a reasonable expectation of a panic ensuing, so he’s liable. He’ll also probably be held accountable in a civil way for the loss of business to the post office while they were closed. I know that police and fire departments also will often use a civil suit to make those who call in a false report pay for the cost of the response, which can include the rental value of all the vehicles and the prorated salaries of all the officers and firefighters involved.
By the way, I’m not a lawyer or in any way an expert.
Um, how about good old assault? This guy made everybody around him think they were in mortal danger.
Merriam-Webster: “Assault (n.) - A threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or **bodily harm on a person **(as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contact.” (bolding mine).
Given the fear associated with powdery substances in the mail these days, a “threat to inflict bodily harm” needn’t take the form of “lifting a fist”. And if this fails, there’s always the “public disturbance” route.
[Wiggum]Bake him away, toys.[/Wiggum]
I think we would all understand if you assembled a bunch of road flares and an alarm clock to look like a bomb and then tried to mail it or walk through an airport with it, you’d be guilty of something, correct?
Now that white powder is practically synonymous with anthrax, why should it be any different?