Fort Lauderdale Arson Attorney

Arson Crimes

Title 18 of the United States Code Section 844 makes it a crime to willfully and or maliciously damage or destroy by means of fire or an explosive device any building, vehicle or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce or in any activity affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

Construing the "affecting interstate commerce" element of the offense, which makes it federal in nature, the United States Supreme Court in Russell v. United States, 471 U.S. 858 (1985) held that the federal arson statute necessarily encompasses any property involved in commercial activity. It should be noted that the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal said that the destruction of property no longer intended for commercial use might fail to satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the federal arson statute.

When the property destroyed is not a business, however, the interstate commerce element may amount to an insurmountable hurdle to a federal prosecution. In United States v. Jones, 529 U.S. 848 (2000) the Supreme Court held that an owner occupied residence that is not used for any commercial purpose does not qualify as "property used in interstate or foreign commerce' within the meaning of Section 844. In the Jones case, the defendant had destroyed his neighbor's home; however, the house was not used in interstate commerce and did not affect interstate commerce. The court stated that the government was required to prove that the destruction of the private residence had a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The court held in that case that the government had not met that burden and thus could not establish the essential jurisdictional element of effect interstate or foreign commerce.

This was also held true in a recent case where the defendants were charged with burning down a church. The government could only prove that some of the bibles in the church had been shipped via interstate commerce. Also, certain donations came from out of state parishioners ect. The 11th Circuit held that these passive facts could not substantiate the government’s burden of establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that interstate or foreign commerce was affected.

The same was not true of a defendant who was charged with traveling around the county burning down churches. The court unanimously held that in that case the interstate nexus had been satisfied. It should also be noted that circumstantial evidence can be used in establishing the interstate nexus requirement.

In sum, one can see that the federal arson statute varies significantly from the state arson cases in that in a state prosecution, no such interstate jurisdiction is required. This results in far more state prosecutions that those litigated in the federal courts.