United States of America v. George E. Girard, Jr., Paul A. Lambert
601 F.2d 69 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The unauthorized sale of confidential government information violates 18 U.S.C. § 641, because intangible information constitutes a "thing of value" within the meaning of the statute.
Facts:
- Lambert was an active agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), while Girard was a former DEA agent.
- Girard and James Bond began discussing a plan to smuggle marijuana from Mexico into the United States.
- Girard told Bond that for $500 per name, he could use an inside source to get confidential DEA reports.
- Girard claimed these reports would reveal whether any participants in a criminal enterprise were government informants.
- At Bond's request, Girard procured reports on four specific individuals.
- Lambert, acting as Girard's inside source, used a computer terminal in his DEA office to access the confidential information on the four names.
- Lambert then provided this information to Girard for the purpose of the sale.
Procedural Posture:
- Girard and Lambert were charged in the United States District Court with conspiracy and the unauthorized sale of government property in violation of federal law.
- Following a trial, a jury found both Girard and Lambert guilty on the conspiracy and unauthorized sale counts.
- Girard and Lambert, as the appellants, appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the statute did not apply to the sale of intangible information.
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 unauthorized sale of confidential, intangible government information constitute the sale of a "thing of value" in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641?
Opinions:
Majority - Van Graafeiland
Yes. The unauthorized sale of confidential government information is a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 641 because such intangible information is a "thing of value." The court reasoned that the phrase "thing of value" is a term of art in criminal law, consistently interpreted to include intangibles as well as tangibles. Citing precedents where things like sexual intercourse, amusement, and witness testimony were held to be things of value under various statutes, the court found no reason to treat confidential information differently. The court held that the government has a property interest in its private records, and the defendants' misuse and unauthorized sale of this information constituted a "conversion" of government property, which is explicitly proscribed by § 641. The court also rejected the appellants' argument that the statute was unconstitutionally vague, holding that as current and former DEA agents, they must have known that selling confidential law enforcement records was prohibited.
Analysis:
This decision formally extends the scope of the federal theft and conversion statute, 18 U.S.C. § 641, to cover intangible property, specifically confidential government information. By broadly interpreting "thing of value," the court set a precedent that is crucial in the digital age, where data and information can be more valuable than physical assets. This ruling provides a strong legal basis for prosecuting government employees and others who leak or sell sensitive data, even when no physical document or object is stolen. It solidifies the principle that the government has a protectable property interest in its confidential data, which can be vindicated through criminal prosecution.
