Perrin v. United States
444 U.S. 37 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term "bribery" as used in the federal Travel Act (18 U.S.C. § 1952) is not limited to its narrow common-law definition of bribing a public official. It encompasses the broader, contemporary meaning of the term, including commercial bribery of private individuals that is defined as a crime under the law of the state where the act was committed.
Facts:
- Petty-Ray Geophysical Co., a Louisiana-based company, was in the business of conducting geological explorations and selling the confidential data to oil companies.
- The economic value of this data depended on its confidentiality.
- In June 1975, Duffy LaFont solicited Roger Willis, a Petty-Ray employee, to steal the company's confidential geological data.
- LaFont promised Willis a percentage of the profits from a new corporation created to exploit the stolen information in exchange for his participation.
- Vincent Perrin, a consulting geologist, was recruited into the scheme to interpret and analyze the stolen data.
- During a meeting in July 1975, Perrin instructed Willis to make an interstate phone call to a firm in Richmond, Texas, to obtain gravity maps to aid in the evaluation of the data.
- After this meeting, Willis contacted the FBI, disclosed the scheme, and agreed to have his subsequent conversations with the conspirators recorded.
Procedural Posture:
- Vincent Perrin and his co-defendants were indicted in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana for violating the Travel Act and for conspiracy.
- After a trial, a jury in the district court convicted Perrin on one conspiracy count and two substantive Travel Act counts.
- Perrin appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, arguing that his conduct did not constitute "bribery" under the Act.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that the Travel Act's prohibition on bribery extended to commercial bribery.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the circuit courts on the interpretation of "bribery" in the Travel Act.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the term "bribery" in the federal Travel Act, which prohibits interstate travel to promote an unlawful activity, include commercial bribery of private employees that violates a state criminal statute, or is it confined to the common-law definition of bribery of a public official?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Burger
Yes, the term "bribery" in the federal Travel Act includes commercial bribery of private employees that violates a state criminal statute. A fundamental canon of statutory construction is that words are interpreted according to their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning at the time of enactment unless otherwise defined. When Congress passed the Travel Act in 1961, the common understanding of "bribery" had evolved far beyond its original common-law definition limited to public officials. By 1961, a majority of states and several federal statutes had already criminalized various forms of commercial bribery. The legislative history shows Congress was concerned with organized crime's infiltration of legitimate businesses, which often involved bribing private individuals. Furthermore, the Court’s precedent in United States v. Nardello, which interpreted "extortion" in the same statute generically, supports giving "bribery" a similarly broad, generic meaning rather than a restrictive common-law one.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that when federal criminal statutes incorporate state offenses by reference, undefined terms like "bribery" should be interpreted using their broader, contemporary meaning rather than their narrow, historical common-law definitions. It significantly expanded the reach of the Travel Act, allowing federal prosecutors to target a wider range of illicit activities, including white-collar and commercial crimes, as long as an interstate nexus is present. By affirming that Congress intended a generic definition, the Court reinforced the Act's purpose as a tool to supplement state law enforcement against organized crime's various methods of infiltrating legitimate enterprises, thereby strengthening the federal-state partnership in combating such activities.
Unlock the full brief for Perrin v. United States