No, that's for anything. Any non-Austin-sanctioned service must charge at least $55 for any ride, regardless of even if it travels one block. This is an explicit move to make people not want to use startups like Uber.
If you can find one. If you aren't on the main drag, good luck. We called twice and waited for cabs which never showed up, and finally called a friend of my sister to pick us up. We would have been much happier taking an uber instead of waking up a friend if we could have.
Seriously. This is just unconscionable on behalf of the Austin police, especially considering that drinking seems to be _the_ pastime in Austin. I suppose people have to die first, as always, before things get better.
It's the sign of a corrupt state if you're hoping to get justice by having the cops ignore the law. You can't blame cops for enforcing the laws; if you want the laws changed, change them.
"change the [laws]"... in 'murica, of all countries. No way unless you happen to have a couple of million $ lying around somewhere to bribe...eh finance the campaign of a politician.
Bullshit. It takes hard work, but ordinary people can get out there and do things just fine if they actively work at it rather than just whining on online forums.
Most of the marijuana legalization stuff isn't being driven by huge corporations.
Gay marriage rights are not a campaign that some lobbyist cooked up.
In my home state of Oregon, they legalized euthanasia a number of years ago. That wasn't exactly something with massive corporate backing... "Wash down that lethal dose of barbiturates with a refreshing Coca Cola!"
Gay marriage, pot legalization and crime-victim laws don't hurt anyone's profit (or, in case of crime-victim laws, the cost of opposing the law is higher than the cost of letting it pass) so there are no well-funded adversaries trying to kill these laws for profit.
This is the No True Scotsman fallacy. It's especially egregious given how well-funded opposition to gay marriage actually is. But even if we were in an alternate reality where the evangelical right (and the institutions that prey on them) weren't bankrolling enormous fights against gay marriage, the point you're trying to make would still be fallacious.
Hard work and a lot of time. Ordinary people putting in large numbers of unpaid hours of work competing against highly paid lobbyists that wine and dine with the elite.
> It's the sign of a corrupt state if you're hoping to get justice by having the cops ignore the law.
Look, I don't disagree with this. But the die has been cast. You probably spend more of your waking hours committing crimes than not committing them. You can blame cops for enforcing laws just like you can blame anyone for doing something they know is wrong, whether because "it's their job" or for any other reason. There's not just one way to attack a system you don't like. Fight on all fronts. You'll make better, faster progress.
Do you think more laws are invalidated by being actually repealed, or by shifting the culture to the point where enforcing them is impossible? Why is this particular case different?
You probably spend more of your waking hours committing crimes than not committing them.
That's FUD and you know it. Most things that people do are not crimes. People don't spend the majority of their day, or even a significant minority of their day committing crimes.
Moreover, just because something is against the rules doesn't make it a crime. It may be a mere infraction or a tort. Infractions may, in some jurisdictions, be enforceable by cops. Tort laws are not enforced by the police in any jurisdiction.
I'll cop to hyperbole, but not FUD. I'm basing this on the following ideas:
- A "crime" is anything proscribed by any legal code. The term is not restricted to actions earning, or just potentially earning, prison time.
- US law is so vague that there is no way to assure yourself that you haven't violated it.
- US law, in its vagueness, covers mostly normal, unexceptional conduct ("mostly" here refers to the idea that of all the conduct proscribed by the law, "most" of it is normal and a healthy majority of pollees would happily agree that it shouldn't be proscribed at all).
- The proscriptions are so broad that if, in the course of your life, you interact with any other person in any capactiy, you are reasonably likely to run afoul of one or more laws.
- As the vast majority of people interact with multiple other people every day, most of your life is covered by this.
- The breadth of these proscriptions is not aberrant in the eyes of the system. It's considered an important feature that lets prosecutors take down those who need to be taken down, and making the laws more rigid would hurt that project.
If a guy on the street asks you where you just came from, and you lie to him ("Church. I don't visit strip clubs"), that's your right. Unless he was a plainclothes LEO. There is no pretense that people are even able to follow that law, but it's on the books and enforced.
In what jurisdiction in the US is it a crime to lie to about going to a strip club, whether or not the strip club is the target of an investigation, to someone who has not identified themselves as a police officer?
In Illinois, where I live, it's not even a crime to lie if you know they're a police officer, so long as you aren't knowingly disrupting the investigation. The state needs to prove not just deception, but intent regarding the police officer's actual effort.
Where's the statute that you're thinking of? I'm sure it exists; our union includes places like Kansas and Utah.
> In what jurisdiction in the US is it a crime to lie to about going to a strip club, whether or not the strip club is the target of an investigation, to someone who has not identified themselves as a police officer?
The answer to this question is "all of them", or, to be painfully specific, "all jurisdictions subject to the federal government".
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section,
whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the
Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick,
scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document
knowing the same to contain any materially false,
fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 5 years or, if the offense involves international
or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),
imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the
matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A,
109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of
imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not
more than 8 years.
> Though materiality is an element of Section 1001, it's a weak, diluted type of materiality. Statements to the government are deemed material if they are the sort of statements that have the capacity to influence it. Courts have come very close to creating a presumption of materiality by reasoning that if the information were not material the government would not have asked for it and you wouldn't have offered it.
(emphasis original)
The poster child for this sort of thing is Martha Stewart, who was investigated for insider trading, but not charged for it. She was convicted of (according to wikipedia) "conspiracy", obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements under §1001. It is not alleged that, other than lying to investigators, she did anything wrong.
> Courts have affirmed §1001 convictions for false statements made to private entities receiving federal funds or subject to federal regulation or supervision.
(emphasis mine)
There is no requirement that you be aware of any information concerning the person you're lying to. There is no requirement that they be employed by the government. There is no requirement that you know an investigation is being conducted. Every time you lie to a person you don't know, you're taking the risk of committing a federal felony. If they purposefully mislead you into doing so... you're just as guilty.
edit:
Concerning your language "whether or not the strip club is the target of an investigation". Obviously, it's not necessary that the strip club be the target. As long as any investigation, whether of the strip club, you, or a third party, is under way, lying about your presence there is a felony. But that's the weak, technically correct way to answer you. What bothers me more is that you don't have to be aware of th...
Did you miss the words "knowingly and willingly" in the statute?
Because the scenario you laid out for people randomly breaking the law in their daily life was "lying about ever going to strip clubs to someone who turned out to be a plainclothes cop".
I think the statute you cited is a pretty poor example of a law normal people routinely violate.
I don't see why you're parsing "knowingly and willfully" as including knowledge of the matter being within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch, when the sentence is not structured that way.
If a guy on the street asks you where you just came from, and you lie to him ("Church. I don't visit strip clubs"), that's your right. Unless he was a plainclothes LEO.
The statute he cited does not make that scenario criminal.
whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the
executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the
Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully
makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent
statement or representation
(clauses 1,2,3 are linked by "or")
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more
than 5 years or, if the offense involves international
or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331),
imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
"Knowingly" making a false statement just means you're aware that what you're saying is untrue. What part of that protects you from liability for lying to someone you've never met?
1. the agency had the power to act on the statement;
2. there was an "intended" relationship between the act
and the Federal government; or
3. the act was calculated to induce government action.
Lying to the guy on the sidewalk obviously won't satisfy (2) or (3), but it will satisfy (1).
They give several examples of what makes a violation, of which my favorites are "false statements to oil company subject to federal regulation" and "false time sheet submitted to accounting office of community organization receiving CETA funds". How are you distinguishing lying to your boss about your hours worked from lying to the guy on the street about whether you were in a strip club?
First, your source doesn't deal (in ANY of its exhausting pages) with the implications of a defendant making false statements to an unknown government agent. In every situation it refers to, including those involving non-government agents performing government functions, the defendant knows they're disclosing something material to a government function of some sort. Read closely. (It is especially annoying how close the "Things the government must prove" page comes close to settling this.)
Second, SCOTUS disagrees with you. For instance, see Liparota v. US. The government is required to prove mens rea.
Third, 18 USC 1001 is ambiguous (there's a sprawling discussion on Volokh about it), and, where statutes are ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires that the ambiguity be resolved in favor of the defendant. Here, you raise the concern that 1001 is ambiguous as to whether the defendant must know both that they are lying and speaking to an agent of the government, or whether merely lying suffices. Tie goes to the runner.
Can you find a case where someone has had an upheld conviction under 1001 for lying to someone they didn't know was an agent of the government? I looked.
No, I don't think saying you don't go to strip clubs to a plainclothes cop investigating the Strip Club Strangler actually makes you a criminal.
1. You are "in" a matter subject to the jurisdiction of any branch of the US government.
2. You knowingly (and willfully) make a false statement.
The entity your statement is directed to is not mentioned. We have cases of convictions under section 1001 for making knowing false statements to someone who was known not to be a government agent. As a side note, I was fairly explicit in my earlier comment, saying "there is no requirement that you be aware of any information concerning the person you're lying to"; it would have been nice if you'd indicated your disagreement then. Again, the object of your deceit is not even mentioned in the law.
As to your second point, I haven't said that section 1001 defines a strict liability offense (for example, if I lie to investigators in the belief that what I'm saying is true, mens rea would be hard to show). I'm saying that the way this law is defined conflicts with the concept behind mens rea (compare my prior words, "this spits in the face of the mens rea concept"), in that liability can attach to you based on facts you couldn't have known (though you'll still have "mens rea" in that you knew you were lying).
To the third point, if speaking to an agent of the government is not an element of the crime (and since you can be convicted without having spoken to an agent of the government, that seems likely), it's hard to see why the prosecution would have to prove that you knew you were speaking to one.
The fact that a conviction hasn't occurred under a particular set of facts does not address my complaint of overcriminalization. I just spent dozens of words arguing that criminal statutes cover, in their inappropriate breadth, much more conduct than they should, including conduct that "most" would agree should not be covered at all. This kind of thing, where prosecutors could go after anyone but choose to go after the politically unpopular (lest their power to pursue anyone be taken away), is a terrible development. If you think a conviction under those facts would be so ridiculous... is it ridiculous enough that we should remove it from the reach of that law?
Remember, the fact that a conviction with unusual facts has never occurred doesn't block you from suffering the full penalty when you become the first person to fit the pattern. If you can be convicted under section 1001 for lying to known non-government-agents, and you can be convicted for lying to known government agents in a proceeding you weren't aware of, you can be convicted of lying to unknown government agents in a proceeding you weren't aware of.
I would be interested in such discussion on Volokh as you cared to bring to my attention; searching the site for "18 USC 1001" brought up a lot of mentions but no discussions (that I found).
I stand by my previous comment, and, further harming your argument:
* It appears (and obviously so in retrospect) that 1001 applies only to agents of the federal government; lying to a plainclothes police officer can't violate 18 USC 1001.
* Convictions on 18 USC 1001 have been overturned simply because the agent eliciting the statement was "unfair", for instance by concealing that they already knew the answer.
* US v Stark says held that mere denial of a fact absent a legal duty to speak didn't create a material breach of 1001 (your example was a simple denial).
* US v. Schnaiderman held that "willfulness" for 1001 requires an affirmative act calculated to confound a function of the state. Which also breaks your example, and refutes several of the points you've made.
It is apparently so difficult to win 1001 cases that US Attorneys are required to get special permission before bringing them against defendants who have simply lied to investigators during criminal investigations.
I was sick at home with a head cold today and had time to do some research. :)
I conclude that you are not just wrong, but comprehensively wrong. But I'm grateful to have a wild goose to chase!
Actually these are just regs on the driver, as a citizen I can get into any fucking car I want on any fucking terms I want and the police have nothing to say about it.
Well it would be good if the law was such that the police could encourage it, but since it isn't, why would we expect them to?
If the law says these vehicles are operating illegally, the police are pretty much bound to discommend them. We always knew Uber existed in a highly regulated space, and changing the law or how it's interpreted will always take time.
I'm also pretty sure that if the Ubers and other ride services are not in fact operating under the law, your protections as a citizen and consumer are limited. The police would want people to choose services where they have the most lawful protection.
There's a difference though between them just putting a fine on Uber cab someone reported or they ran across by accident, and them actively announcing the disagreement and targeting the business. I'm sure there are many other more interesting things they could spend their time on.
Does the police force care about Uber enough to do this? (on their own) I don't think so. I'd rather ask who cares and has so much influence on them.
I have two friends who work for the Austin Police Department; both are black, both are male, both are less than 40 years of age, and both are sworn officers. Your broad brush is neither warranted nor appreciated.
There is actually not much correlation between the race/age of the police officer and the amount of profiling they do. Your anecdotal experience doesn't do much to refute grandparent's accusation (admittedly a non-argument). That being said, I've never experienced racism in Austin, while the poverty (standard level for Texas) is quite distributed between all colors and ages.
Well, we don't hear much about cops shooting other cops so I think your friends will be ok.
How do your friends explain the deaths of various young black men shot by the police who were unarmed and had not committed crimes or violent crimes? One is too many.
When analyzing an institution, we look at the results. After all, despite what some would like to pretend, having a black president does not eliminate racist policies.
Same goes for your policeman buddies. It adds nothing to the conversation that there exist at least two black policemen in Austin; we knew that. (Certainly, wavefunction's comment is far more "appreciated" and helpful than your fallacious putdown.)
It's the same reason that all other employees of any other employer shouldn't be tainted by the actions of their peers, even ones entrusted with the use of firearms. Punish the offender, not the group.
Minority cops are likely to be even tougher on other minorities. This is because a.) they don't want to look like they're going easy on minorities and b.) they think whites are more likely to file a complaint.
My guess is that they were being asked by bloggers, journalists, etc who were coming in for SXSW and thought it would be easier to put out an online statement to direct people to.
I don't think this is a high priority for APD.
I don't see the big deal really. I've lived in Austin since 2005 and I've never used a cab service here. They seem pretty useless in this city IMO.
I should also mention that I'm not a fan of Uber. I've been with friends and coworkers using it in San Francisco and always I see 3-4 available yellow cabs go by while we wait for our driver.
I'm in San Fran 1 week a month and when I'm by myself, I just take yellow cabs. They seem to work OK for me.
I wonder how much this is the impact of uber/lyft/sidecar etc though. Like many things posted on hn, this is highly anecdotal, but when I first moved to SF almost four years ago it was difficult to find an available cab. I often waited 20 minutes or more on nights when I went out.
Now I have a similar experience to you as open cabs seem more available, but I wonder how much of this is the ridesharing services siphoning off demand.
We (me + colleague) are at SxSW now (over from the UK) - this is quite amazing given the utter lack of cabs if you're anywhere resembling out-of-downtown. Thankfully we have through an amazing friend of a friend procured the services of a friendly cab driver who goes out of his way to help us, without which we'd basically have to stay at our residence the whole time and not do SxSW at all.
It's always funny how people come in from all over for SXSW and assume Austin will be some bustling metropolis with big-city amenities. Did you not notice "downtown" includes only a few square blocks?
I don't think being able to catch a cab, at all, is a 'big-city amenity'.
Also keep in mind Austin is one of the biggest growing cities in the entire US.
etc. I could keep on arguing the point, but I nuked my previous account on here because of petty negativity like this, so I'd rather not.
Thankfully everybody I've met in person here has been incredibly friendly and hospitable which has left a big impression on me about Austin and the US in general. I will take that as my example, not this mean-spirited comment.
It is. In most smaller cities in the US, calling a cab means waiting 45 mins for it to show up. The SXSW crowd doesn't have the patience for that.
And you're right about Austin's growing pains: the taxi shortage is very real even on a normal weekend. But Texans are also some of the friendliest people you'll find; which is a big part of why people love Austin enough to cause those growing pains.
We called cabs and got no response at all, not even a 45 min wait - I mean sure this could be a thing that is just a major difference between the UK + US, and of course different because of the heavy loading of SxSW, but the point is I don't think it's naive of me to think that'd be possible :)
Yes the people here are really amazingly nice. That is my abiding memory of this experience!
I get your sarcasm, but I live in St. Louis, which is a much bigger region than Austin [0], and the cab situation sounds pretty similar to what I've experienced here. There aren't many places where you can just hail a cab; you have to call. And on big cab days -- e.g. New Year's Eve, Mardi Gras, St. Patrick's Day, etc -- it can be quite difficult to get a cab at all. I called for a cab this past New Year's and the largest companies weren't even answering their phone.
Austin's downtown is growing, so I'd expect this to change, but my point is that you can't just hail a cab in most U.S. cities.
I'm guessing you have not been to Texas. In Texas you own a car (or more likely truck). If you do not, you are more likely a homeless person or a visitor. The visitors quickly rent a car. The population density of a city like Austin is a literal order of magnitude difference. Things aren't stacked on top of each other so people have to drive to them. Because people have to drive there large parking lots are needed. Large parking lots puts stuff even farther away from each other. Southwestern cities are built on the premise of personal transportation.
You'd think they'd do anything they could to avoid drunk driving. I hope that if anyone gets hurt or killed during SXSW by a drunk driver the victim sues the hell out of the APD for making it more likely there will be drunk drivers on the road.
The lack of cabs in Austin is a normal situation; they just don't exist. There are something like 250 licensed taxis in the city. You really can't hail them down like in other cities either; most drivers have scheduled pickups for most of the night.
You really need either a car or a shuttle bus for SXSW. It's just how it is in the US outside the northeast, Chicago or San Francisco.
Also, even though the "minimum price" is $55, Uber's "surge pricing" is requiring a $125 minimum fare.
They hang out at the airport and you can order one for a morning pickup. Austin isn't that bad, its just not geared to locals or bar hoppers (but Austin is quite walkable).
I dunno, I've been on a (authorized) shuttle at SXSW driven by a meth-head whereupon at the end of the trip everyone was sheet-white and couldn't say a word. Could Uber be worse?
No, most probably not. But the public policy for Austin must consider not just Uber, but any other company who would take advantage of the flex that would enable Uber to profitably operate there. It's Uber and Lyft now, but it's shady companies by the 10s and 20s afterwards.
I like Uber a lot, and hope it survives in Chicago, but I understand why the issue is tricky.
"Someone should tell the folks at the police department before they start fining Uber drivers or scaring attendees away from using the service."
I live in the central belt of Scotland, if a taxi here in Glasgow or Edinburgh cost a minimum of $55 there would be a civil insurrection. I'm frankly amazed that the crux of this story is having a go at the cops and not anyone who thinks $55 minimum for a taxi is OK.
For what it's worth, if you didn't already know: Uber doesn't serve Austin, or didn't just a few months ago when I was out there last. It's not like Austin is pulling the rug out from under Uber. It's kind of irritating to me that Uber would pretend to serve Austin during SXSW. If you're going to serve a municipality, put your chips on the table and slug it out for real.
It is illegal for Uber to operate in Austin the way they do in other cities. During SXSW, Uber offers free UberX (since it's illegal to charge, but giving free rides is legit) and paid Uber Black, which probably falls under normal limo rules.
Uber isn't doing anything wrong here. Austin's politicians are, because their campaign funds come from the taxi lobby.
They don't offer Uber Black outside SXSW either. They seem to be in Austin because they want the attention of tourists, not because they want to go to bat for the people of Austin. Correction welcome.
You're right that Uber doesn't operate in Austin outside of SXSW, but it's not because they don't want to. The city shuts down every Uber-like service that tries to operate here. It's bald-faced corruption.
right! maybe they should "fight" it by serving people around the absurd rules during a popular tech-related event (a space in which Austin claims to compete) and forcing the local authority figures to put their corruption on full display...
But its cool, I'm sure tptacek has full view of their internal strategies and knows, for sure, that Uber hasn't tried at all to operate within Austin
> right! maybe they should "fight" it by serving people around the absurd rules during a popular tech-related event (a space in which Austin claims to compete) and forcing the local authority figures to put their corruption on full display...
I doubt that most of the attendees at SXSW (at least the interactive portion) are even locals. In fact, out of my group of friends (I live in Austin), none of them are actually attending the conference. Only two of them are participating at all, and they're just going to a few of the meetups.
Point being, I don't see this as an attempt to change anything in Austin. It's just promoting the service to tech people who live in areas that Uber actually serves.
I don't know how big the "taxi lobby" is in Austin, but I suspect that Uber could get the laws changed if they were so inclined considering that Austin doesn't appear to have that many taxis, at least compared to SF (which, from my experience living in both places, is far too few, but still considerably more than Austin). I just don't see this as being that attempt.
Well, people aren't 6 year olds and the Police isn't their parents. The Police saying something doesn't mean their words shouldn't be let to be gone with the wind, whose direction is, well, south by south west.
In case you're wondering, what I said above is a tactful way to say "Fuck off".
I'm the cofounder of Spokefly[1]. We have plenty of bicycles available for SXSW attendees. However it has been rainy and cold so there are good reasons to want to use a cab.
I live in Austin. The cab situation here is terrible. There aren't enough cabs when it's busy, drivers often violate the law by refusing credit cards or denying rides. Last night I was downtown (during SXSW) and tried to get a cab for 45 min. The first one that stopped tried scamming me by telling me it would be $20. I told him no way and he drove off. The second one asked where I was going and acted like he didn't know where it was (very common numbered street any idiot would know about) and told me he didn't want to go there. Both violated their licenses.
The whole time I was also trying to get Uber X. Eventually I got an Uber car. It was worth the wait to not have to ride with one of those asshole cabbies. We really need to change the laws here and crack down on these cabs.
This could be some of the best publicity and promotion that Uber ever gets, and they didn't even have to pay. Having cops tell a group of independent and creative people what to do is brilliant.
109 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadWe can blame the cops.
I don't disagree with you, but I tend to think that politicans will use citizen campaigns if they're useful and ignore them otherwise.
http://www.governo.it/Notizie/Presidenza/dettaglio.asp?d=690...
Most of the marijuana legalization stuff isn't being driven by huge corporations.
Gay marriage rights are not a campaign that some lobbyist cooked up.
In my home state of Oregon, they legalized euthanasia a number of years ago. That wasn't exactly something with massive corporate backing... "Wash down that lethal dose of barbiturates with a refreshing Coca Cola!"
Most initiatives in California.
Megan's Law and various other laws named for crime victims.
Look, I don't disagree with this. But the die has been cast. You probably spend more of your waking hours committing crimes than not committing them. You can blame cops for enforcing laws just like you can blame anyone for doing something they know is wrong, whether because "it's their job" or for any other reason. There's not just one way to attack a system you don't like. Fight on all fronts. You'll make better, faster progress.
Do you think more laws are invalidated by being actually repealed, or by shifting the culture to the point where enforcing them is impossible? Why is this particular case different?
That's FUD and you know it. Most things that people do are not crimes. People don't spend the majority of their day, or even a significant minority of their day committing crimes.
Moreover, just because something is against the rules doesn't make it a crime. It may be a mere infraction or a tort. Infractions may, in some jurisdictions, be enforceable by cops. Tort laws are not enforced by the police in any jurisdiction.
- A "crime" is anything proscribed by any legal code. The term is not restricted to actions earning, or just potentially earning, prison time.
- US law is so vague that there is no way to assure yourself that you haven't violated it.
- US law, in its vagueness, covers mostly normal, unexceptional conduct ("mostly" here refers to the idea that of all the conduct proscribed by the law, "most" of it is normal and a healthy majority of pollees would happily agree that it shouldn't be proscribed at all).
- The proscriptions are so broad that if, in the course of your life, you interact with any other person in any capactiy, you are reasonably likely to run afoul of one or more laws.
- As the vast majority of people interact with multiple other people every day, most of your life is covered by this.
- The breadth of these proscriptions is not aberrant in the eyes of the system. It's considered an important feature that lets prosecutors take down those who need to be taken down, and making the laws more rigid would hurt that project.
If a guy on the street asks you where you just came from, and you lie to him ("Church. I don't visit strip clubs"), that's your right. Unless he was a plainclothes LEO. There is no pretense that people are even able to follow that law, but it's on the books and enforced.
In Illinois, where I live, it's not even a crime to lie if you know they're a police officer, so long as you aren't knowingly disrupting the investigation. The state needs to prove not just deception, but intent regarding the police officer's actual effort.
Where's the statute that you're thinking of? I'm sure it exists; our union includes places like Kansas and Utah.
The answer to this question is "all of them", or, to be painfully specific, "all jurisdictions subject to the federal government".
The code is this one: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1001
This purports to require material false statements, not just false statements. You can read a subject matter expert's opinion on that here: http://www.popehat.com/2011/03/18/just-a-friendly-reminder-p...> Though materiality is an element of Section 1001, it's a weak, diluted type of materiality. Statements to the government are deemed material if they are the sort of statements that have the capacity to influence it. Courts have come very close to creating a presumption of materiality by reasoning that if the information were not material the government would not have asked for it and you wouldn't have offered it.
(emphasis original)
The poster child for this sort of thing is Martha Stewart, who was investigated for insider trading, but not charged for it. She was convicted of (according to wikipedia) "conspiracy", obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements under §1001. It is not alleged that, other than lying to investigators, she did anything wrong.
At the charge's wikipedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements ), we can read the following:
> Courts have affirmed §1001 convictions for false statements made to private entities receiving federal funds or subject to federal regulation or supervision.
(emphasis mine)
There is no requirement that you be aware of any information concerning the person you're lying to. There is no requirement that they be employed by the government. There is no requirement that you know an investigation is being conducted. Every time you lie to a person you don't know, you're taking the risk of committing a federal felony. If they purposefully mislead you into doing so... you're just as guilty.
edit:
Concerning your language "whether or not the strip club is the target of an investigation". Obviously, it's not necessary that the strip club be the target. As long as any investigation, whether of the strip club, you, or a third party, is under way, lying about your presence there is a felony. But that's the weak, technically correct way to answer you. What bothers me more is that you don't have to be aware of th...
Because the scenario you laid out for people randomly breaking the law in their daily life was "lying about ever going to strip clubs to someone who turned out to be a plainclothes cop".
I think the statute you cited is a pretty poor example of a law normal people routinely violate.
If a guy on the street asks you where you just came from, and you lie to him ("Church. I don't visit strip clubs"), that's your right. Unless he was a plainclothes LEO.
The statute he cited does not make that scenario criminal.
The US Attorney's Manual ( http://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/tit... ) tells us that the jurisdictional requirement is satisfied if any of the following three circumstances hold:
Lying to the guy on the sidewalk obviously won't satisfy (2) or (3), but it will satisfy (1).They give several examples of what makes a violation, of which my favorites are "false statements to oil company subject to federal regulation" and "false time sheet submitted to accounting office of community organization receiving CETA funds". How are you distinguishing lying to your boss about your hours worked from lying to the guy on the street about whether you were in a strip club?
First, your source doesn't deal (in ANY of its exhausting pages) with the implications of a defendant making false statements to an unknown government agent. In every situation it refers to, including those involving non-government agents performing government functions, the defendant knows they're disclosing something material to a government function of some sort. Read closely. (It is especially annoying how close the "Things the government must prove" page comes close to settling this.)
Second, SCOTUS disagrees with you. For instance, see Liparota v. US. The government is required to prove mens rea.
Third, 18 USC 1001 is ambiguous (there's a sprawling discussion on Volokh about it), and, where statutes are ambiguous, the rule of lenity requires that the ambiguity be resolved in favor of the defendant. Here, you raise the concern that 1001 is ambiguous as to whether the defendant must know both that they are lying and speaking to an agent of the government, or whether merely lying suffices. Tie goes to the runner.
Can you find a case where someone has had an upheld conviction under 1001 for lying to someone they didn't know was an agent of the government? I looked.
No, I don't think saying you don't go to strip clubs to a plainclothes cop investigating the Strip Club Strangler actually makes you a criminal.
1. You are "in" a matter subject to the jurisdiction of any branch of the US government.
2. You knowingly (and willfully) make a false statement.
The entity your statement is directed to is not mentioned. We have cases of convictions under section 1001 for making knowing false statements to someone who was known not to be a government agent. As a side note, I was fairly explicit in my earlier comment, saying "there is no requirement that you be aware of any information concerning the person you're lying to"; it would have been nice if you'd indicated your disagreement then. Again, the object of your deceit is not even mentioned in the law.
As to your second point, I haven't said that section 1001 defines a strict liability offense (for example, if I lie to investigators in the belief that what I'm saying is true, mens rea would be hard to show). I'm saying that the way this law is defined conflicts with the concept behind mens rea (compare my prior words, "this spits in the face of the mens rea concept"), in that liability can attach to you based on facts you couldn't have known (though you'll still have "mens rea" in that you knew you were lying).
To the third point, if speaking to an agent of the government is not an element of the crime (and since you can be convicted without having spoken to an agent of the government, that seems likely), it's hard to see why the prosecution would have to prove that you knew you were speaking to one.
The fact that a conviction hasn't occurred under a particular set of facts does not address my complaint of overcriminalization. I just spent dozens of words arguing that criminal statutes cover, in their inappropriate breadth, much more conduct than they should, including conduct that "most" would agree should not be covered at all. This kind of thing, where prosecutors could go after anyone but choose to go after the politically unpopular (lest their power to pursue anyone be taken away), is a terrible development. If you think a conviction under those facts would be so ridiculous... is it ridiculous enough that we should remove it from the reach of that law?
Remember, the fact that a conviction with unusual facts has never occurred doesn't block you from suffering the full penalty when you become the first person to fit the pattern. If you can be convicted under section 1001 for lying to known non-government-agents, and you can be convicted for lying to known government agents in a proceeding you weren't aware of, you can be convicted of lying to unknown government agents in a proceeding you weren't aware of.
I would be interested in such discussion on Volokh as you cared to bring to my attention; searching the site for "18 USC 1001" brought up a lot of mentions but no discussions (that I found).
* It appears (and obviously so in retrospect) that 1001 applies only to agents of the federal government; lying to a plainclothes police officer can't violate 18 USC 1001.
* Convictions on 18 USC 1001 have been overturned simply because the agent eliciting the statement was "unfair", for instance by concealing that they already knew the answer.
* US v Stark says held that mere denial of a fact absent a legal duty to speak didn't create a material breach of 1001 (your example was a simple denial).
* US v. Schnaiderman held that "willfulness" for 1001 requires an affirmative act calculated to confound a function of the state. Which also breaks your example, and refutes several of the points you've made.
It is apparently so difficult to win 1001 cases that US Attorneys are required to get special permission before bringing them against defendants who have simply lied to investigators during criminal investigations.
I was sick at home with a head cold today and had time to do some research. :)
I conclude that you are not just wrong, but comprehensively wrong. But I'm grateful to have a wild goose to chase!
However, is there any instance where it applied to a guy making comments to an unidentified cop?
Or better yet, there should be a tax for stupidity in congress, that alone would set the USA economy back on track.
If the law says these vehicles are operating illegally, the police are pretty much bound to discommend them. We always knew Uber existed in a highly regulated space, and changing the law or how it's interpreted will always take time.
I'm also pretty sure that if the Ubers and other ride services are not in fact operating under the law, your protections as a citizen and consumer are limited. The police would want people to choose services where they have the most lawful protection.
Does the police force care about Uber enough to do this? (on their own) I don't think so. I'd rather ask who cares and has so much influence on them.
How do your friends explain the deaths of various young black men shot by the police who were unarmed and had not committed crimes or violent crimes? One is too many.
Same goes for your policeman buddies. It adds nothing to the conversation that there exist at least two black policemen in Austin; we knew that. (Certainly, wavefunction's comment is far more "appreciated" and helpful than your fallacious putdown.)
You are punished with 3 weeks paid leave!
http://www.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/tickets/072003b.s...
I don't think this is a high priority for APD.
I don't see the big deal really. I've lived in Austin since 2005 and I've never used a cab service here. They seem pretty useless in this city IMO.
I should also mention that I'm not a fan of Uber. I've been with friends and coworkers using it in San Francisco and always I see 3-4 available yellow cabs go by while we wait for our driver.
I'm in San Fran 1 week a month and when I'm by myself, I just take yellow cabs. They seem to work OK for me.
Now I have a similar experience to you as open cabs seem more available, but I wonder how much of this is the ridesharing services siphoning off demand.
Yikes.
Generally that means 2-3. Is there such a thing as hypobole?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis_(figure_of_speech)
Also keep in mind Austin is one of the biggest growing cities in the entire US.
etc. I could keep on arguing the point, but I nuked my previous account on here because of petty negativity like this, so I'd rather not.
Thankfully everybody I've met in person here has been incredibly friendly and hospitable which has left a big impression on me about Austin and the US in general. I will take that as my example, not this mean-spirited comment.
And you're right about Austin's growing pains: the taxi shortage is very real even on a normal weekend. But Texans are also some of the friendliest people you'll find; which is a big part of why people love Austin enough to cause those growing pains.
Yes the people here are really amazingly nice. That is my abiding memory of this experience!
Austin's downtown is growing, so I'd expect this to change, but my point is that you can't just hail a cab in most U.S. cities.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistica...
You really need either a car or a shuttle bus for SXSW. It's just how it is in the US outside the northeast, Chicago or San Francisco.
Also, even though the "minimum price" is $55, Uber's "surge pricing" is requiring a $125 minimum fare.
I like Uber a lot, and hope it survives in Chicago, but I understand why the issue is tricky.
This is one of the supposed advantages of the regulated systems - people report dangerous drivers who then lose their ability to be drivers.
I live in the central belt of Scotland, if a taxi here in Glasgow or Edinburgh cost a minimum of $55 there would be a civil insurrection. I'm frankly amazed that the crux of this story is having a go at the cops and not anyone who thinks $55 minimum for a taxi is OK.
Uber isn't doing anything wrong here. Austin's politicians are, because their campaign funds come from the taxi lobby.
But its cool, I'm sure tptacek has full view of their internal strategies and knows, for sure, that Uber hasn't tried at all to operate within Austin
Do not say things like this. It is incredibly disrespectful.
However...
> If you're going to serve a municipality, put your chips on the table and slug it out for real.
I found this to be far more presumptuous and disrespectful.
I doubt that most of the attendees at SXSW (at least the interactive portion) are even locals. In fact, out of my group of friends (I live in Austin), none of them are actually attending the conference. Only two of them are participating at all, and they're just going to a few of the meetups.
Point being, I don't see this as an attempt to change anything in Austin. It's just promoting the service to tech people who live in areas that Uber actually serves.
I don't know how big the "taxi lobby" is in Austin, but I suspect that Uber could get the laws changed if they were so inclined considering that Austin doesn't appear to have that many taxis, at least compared to SF (which, from my experience living in both places, is far too few, but still considerably more than Austin). I just don't see this as being that attempt.
In case you're wondering, what I said above is a tactful way to say "Fuck off".
Travis County[1]: Highest elevation 1420ft Lowest elevation 425ft
San Francisco: Highest elevation 925 ft (282 m) Lowest elevation 0 ft (0 m)
Thanks for your baseless statement though.
1: https://www.spokefly.com
The whole time I was also trying to get Uber X. Eventually I got an Uber car. It was worth the wait to not have to ride with one of those asshole cabbies. We really need to change the laws here and crack down on these cabs.