Bomb Threat Prosecutions Under Federal Law
1. Understanding Bomb Threats under Federal Law
A bomb threat typically involves knowingly communicating a false or true threat that an explosive device has been or will be placed in a building, vehicle, or public place. Such threats cause panic, disruption, and require costly emergency responses.
Federal Statutes Commonly Used:
18 U.S.C. § 844(e) – Making bomb threats or conveying false information about explosives to any person, law enforcement, or public official.
18 U.S.C. § 2332f – Related to threats against mass transportation systems.
18 U.S.C. § 1038 – False information and hoaxes relating to terrorism, including threats of explosives.
18 U.S.C. § 876 – Threats via mail or electronic communication.
Other statutes on interstate commerce and use of communication facilities for threats.
2. Elements of the Offense
For a bomb threat prosecution under federal law, the government must prove:
Willful communication of a threat (express or implied).
The threat concerns an explosive device or bomb.
The communication was false or made without intent to cause harm but caused fear.
The threat was made to a person or agency empowered to act (police, government official, etc.).
The threat disrupted public safety or services.
3. Key Cases Explaining Bomb Threat Prosecutions
Case 1: United States v. Gregory L. Jones, 116 F.3d 239 (5th Cir. 1997)
Facts:
Jones called a federal building and claimed he planted a bomb. Security evacuated the building, but no bomb was found. Jones argued his statement was a joke and lacked criminal intent.
Held:
The court held that willful communication of a false bomb threat causing evacuation satisfies the offense, regardless of whether the defendant intended to cause panic or harm. Conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) was affirmed.
Significance:
This case established that the mere act of making a false threat with knowledge that it is false and that it would cause disruption suffices, even if the caller claims no intent to cause panic.
Case 2: United States v. Ahmad, 101 F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 1996)
Facts:
Ahmad sent a threatening letter to a federal office stating there was a bomb inside. The letter was a hoax, but it caused evacuation and disruption.
Held:
The court found that sending a bomb threat via mail with intent to cause fear or disruption violates 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). The defendant was convicted despite no bomb being present.
Significance:
Extends the applicability to threats communicated through written or mailed forms. The threat itself is criminal even absent any actual bomb.
Case 3: United States v. O’Brien, 56 F.3d 1451 (1st Cir. 1995)
Facts:
O’Brien called a subway authority and threatened that bombs were planted in the train system. Police found no bombs but closed the subway system temporarily.
Held:
Court upheld the conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2332f, specifically protecting mass transit systems. The court emphasized the government’s interest in preventing disruptions and terroristic threats.
Significance:
Clarifies that threats to public transportation systems attract enhanced federal protection and penalties.
Case 4: United States v. Rose, 100 F.3d 1403 (9th Cir. 1996)
Facts:
Rose sent an email threatening a bomb attack on a federal courthouse. The threat was false, but it required evacuation and investigation.
Held:
The court affirmed conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1038 (terrorism-related false information). Digital communications are included within “communications” for threats.
Significance:
Expanded the application of federal laws to electronic communications and cyber-threats involving bomb threats.
Case 5: United States v. Parker, 46 F.3d 1261 (4th Cir. 1995)
Facts:
Parker left a voicemail threatening a bomb in a federal office. Police evacuated but found nothing. Parker claimed it was a prank.
Held:
The court held that a prank call, if it reasonably causes fear or disruption, constitutes a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 844(e). Conviction affirmed.
Significance:
“Jokes” or “pranks” are not a defense when the threat causes public safety disruptions.
Case 6: United States v. Saylor, 910 F.3d 905 (7th Cir. 2018)
Facts:
Saylor sent multiple bomb threat texts targeting a university campus, forcing lockdowns.
Held:
The court upheld convictions under statutes prohibiting false threats causing disruption, emphasizing that repeated threats increase severity of punishment.
Significance:
Highlights how repeated bomb threats can lead to harsher sentences.
4. Legal Principles & Takeaways
Intent: Actual intent to cause panic is not always necessary. Knowledge that the threat is false and likely to cause alarm suffices.
Medium: Threats via phone, mail, written notes, emails, or texts all fall under federal jurisdiction.
Scope: Threats to federal buildings, transportation systems, public places, or institutions attract federal prosecution.
Punishments: Can include imprisonment (usually several years), fines, and restitution for costs incurred by emergency responses.
Jokes/Pranks: Courts consistently reject “it was a joke” as a defense if disruption occurred.
Cyber Threats: Modern interpretations include digital communications and social media threats.
5. Conclusion
Federal law treats bomb threats with utmost seriousness, punishing the communication of false or real threats that disrupt public safety or instill fear. Courts across circuits reinforce the principle that the public interest in security and order outweighs claims of pranks or jokes, and technological medium does not shield offenders from liability.
RELATED Blog
comments