United States v. Kammersell
1999 Colo. J. C.A.R. 6284, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 29818, 196 F.3d 1137 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An electronic communication transmitted across state lines satisfies the 'interstate commerce' jurisdictional element of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), even if the communication's sender and recipient are located in the same state.
Facts:
- Matthew Joseph Kammersell, located at his home in Riverdale, Utah, used the America On Line (AOL) service on his computer.
- His girlfriend was employed at an AOL service center in Ogden, Utah.
- Hoping to get his girlfriend out of work early for a date, Kammersell sent a bomb threat to her computer terminal via an AOL 'instant message'.
- Due to AOL's standard network configuration, the instant message was automatically transmitted from Kammersell's computer in Utah to an AOL server located in Virginia.
- From the server in Virginia, the message was then transmitted back to his girlfriend's computer terminal in Utah.
Procedural Posture:
- The government charged Mr. Kammersell in the U.S. District Court (a federal trial court) with transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce.
- Mr. Kammersell filed a motion to dismiss the case, arguing that the court lacked federal jurisdiction because both he and the recipient were in Utah.
- A magistrate judge recommended that the district court deny the motion.
- The district court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and denied Mr. Kammersell's motion to dismiss.
- Mr. Kammersell then entered a conditional guilty plea, which preserved his right to appeal the court's jurisdictional ruling.
- Mr. Kammersell, as Defendant-Appellant, appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
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 transmission of an electronic message between two individuals in the same state, which is automatically routed through an out-of-state server, satisfy the 'interstate commerce' jurisdictional element of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Paul Kelly, Jr.
Yes. A communication that physically crosses state lines during its transmission falls within the statute's plain meaning of being 'in interstate commerce,' regardless of the physical locations of the sender and recipient. The court must give effect to the plain language of the statute, which prohibits the transmission 'in interstate or foreign commerce' of any threatening communication. Because Mr. Kammersell's message was unquestionably transmitted over interstate lines from Utah to Virginia and back, it falls within the literal scope of the statute. The defendant's argument that Congress, which enacted the statute in an era of telegraphs, could not have intended this result for modern internet communications is a compelling reason for Congress to re-examine the law, but it does not permit the court to ignore the statute's clear text. The court also rejected the argument based on the 'spirit' of United States v. Lopez, noting that unlike the statute in Lopez, § 875(c) contains an explicit jurisdictional element requiring the use of a channel of interstate commerce.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a broad interpretation of federal jurisdiction over electronic communications, establishing that the technical path of a message, rather than the geographic location of the parties, is determinative for the 'interstate commerce' element. It demonstrates how statutes enacted for older technologies can be applied literally to the internet, significantly expanding federal criminal jurisdiction to cover communications that might appear purely intrastate. The ruling prioritizes a textualist or 'plain meaning' approach to statutory interpretation over a purposive one that might consider legislative intent from a pre-digital era. This precedent makes it easier for federal prosecutors to bring charges for online threats, as the routing architecture of the internet frequently sends data across state lines.
