Assuming that White Hat Guy is in fact the Boston bomber, and the following:
He’s lived in the Boston area for some time, before deciding to do the bombing;
He bought the bomb components in the Boston area;
He hasn’t crossed a state line in furtherance of the plot;
He got the know-how for the bomb from the internet.
(These four points are just my initial guesses, from the press reports.)
If those are accurate, what federal offences could he be facing? It’s not like the Oklahoma City bombing, where the target of the bomb was a federal building and killed federal employees.
I’m just not clear on the extent of federal criminal jurisdiction in these situations.
The Internet is both a channel and instrumentality of interstate commerce, which makes federal jurisdiction a foregone conclusion at least as to any charges relating to the bomb-making information itself.
DOMESTIC terrorism, as opposed to INTERNATIONAL terrorism.
As mentioned IF the “how to build a bomb” was accessed over the internet, no doubt INTERstate, that creates federal jurisdiction, and the federal MURDER statute is worded as such, a federal element.
The area is on lockdown. It’s blatantly obvious that interstate or foreign commerce has been affected. Businesses that aren’t running aren’t engaging in interstate or foreign commerce that they otherwise would have. There’s going to be at least one person who was going to travel in or out of Boston today who isn’t going to because of the events, and it’s likely that there will be some people who would have traveled interstate or internationally who now won’t because they are afraid. If even one interstate Amtrak train got cancelled that had at least one tourist or business traveler on it you got your affect right there.
There are several federal terrorism statutes that the bombing would fall under in Title 18 USC Chapter 113B, the aforementioned weapons of mass destruction statute being one; jurisdiction could be established there by showing use of the internet, or that the components moved through interstate commerce, etc. Another is 18 USC § 2332f - Bombings of places of public use, government facilities, public transportation systems and infrastructure facilities. Jurisdiction could be established under that statute by showing that the bombing occurred in a public place and that one of the victims was a Chinese national.
Oh my. The Supreme Court has been embracing “tenuous effects on interstate commerce” for a generation or two. In *Gonzales v. Raich[/I, for example personal marijuana cultivation was held to be within federal jurisdiction because if you grow your own you’re not buying illegal marijuana, which is part of interstate commerce. Or some such thing.
For a long, but interesting examination of the issue, here’s an interesting law review article.
(Haven’t read entire thread yet, so don’t know if this has been mentioned yet . . . )
I don’t have a cite, but it’s been discussed for years and years: Various court rulings (up to and including the Supreme Court), over many years, have expanded the notion of “interstate commerce” to the point where just about all commerce is interstate.
If a customer in San Francisco buys a TV that was manufactured in Los Angeles, is that “interstate commerce”? (Yes, IIRC that was a real question.) Answer: Yes, because the TV manufacturer in Los Angeles got (or may have gotten) components from elsewhere out-of-state, or that were made with out-of-state labor.
The entire topic of anti-discrimination laws (at the Federal level) have been dragged into this as well. It’s been argued: Why does Federal law, under the constitution, have any jurisdiction over discrimination or segregation issues? Answer: It’s justified under the Commerce Clause, because discrimination has (or could have) ripple effects that cross state boundaries.
The argument, in general, is that just about any commercial transaction potentially has interstate effects. This is the basis for a whole lot of law under the Commerce Clause, and is highly controversial.
ETA: I see Procrustus has beat me to it, more-or-less, with a cite even! Yes, I’ve read of other sorts of cases where even private gardening on one’s own property has been held to be within Federal jurisdiction under the Commerce Clause. I think I’ve read of it being applied to people growing their own potatoes during World War II also. So there’s precedent for that marijuana ruling.
As an example, if you look at the federal minimum wage law, it covers any employee affected by Interstate Commerce, exceptions of course, but IC generally means, in some capacity, what they work at, there were items from interstate commerce, shipped in, etc.
Surely merely having an impact on interstate commerce is insufficient to establish a federal crime. If I murder a long-haul trucker at a truckstop in St. Louis I might affect the shipping of goods traveling from one coast to the other, but I’m still just going to be charged with murder in Missouri under state law.
Growing wheat on your own land to feed to your own livestock affects interstate commerce and thus comes under federal jurisdiction according to SCOTUS. Do not underestimate how far the Commerce Clause has been stretched to apply to almost any commercial transaction.
That is a justification to render a federal statute constitutional. Not quite the same thing as establishing the supremacy of federal jurisdiction in a criminal case. Otherwise the feds would have jurisdiction over all criminal law.
Although federal murder is at 1111, here is some case law for Murder for Hire in the U.S. Code;
Federal jurisdiction may be established in one of three ways: 1) by travel in interstate or foreign commerce; 2) by use of the mails; or 3) by use of any facility in interstate or foreign commerce.
The term “facility in interstate or foreign commerce” is defined to expressly include “means of transportation and communication.” § 1958(b)(2). Congress intended to give the term “facility in interstate or foreign commerce” the same scope and breadth encompassed by the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1952. S.Rep. 225 at 306 n.5.
Any use of the mails, including intrastate mailings, will furnish Federal jurisdiction. See United States v. Riccardelli, 794 F.2d 829, 830-33 (2d Cir. 1986); United States v. Heacock, 31 F.3d 249, 254 (5th Cir. 1994).
A single interstate telephone call will furnish Federal jurisdiction. United States v. Perrin, 580 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir. 1978), aff’d, 444 U.S. 37 (1979); United States v. Pecora, 693 F.2d 421 (5th Cir. 1982)
More than one Amtrak train was canceled and this impacted at least one business traveler. My son lives and works in Boston, but his company has offices in NY (and elsewhere). He is on a committee that is examining what NYC ought to do to face future floods. His specialty is transportation. To make a long story short, to get home on Friday, he took Metro North to Stanford, then a local railroad to New Haven and then rented a car.