Improvised Explosive Device Prosecutions In Usa
Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Prosecutions in the USA: Overview
An Improvised Explosive Device (IED) is a homemade bomb constructed and deployed in ways other than conventional military action. IEDs are often used by terrorists, insurgents, or criminals to cause destruction, harm, or disruption.
Legal Framework Governing IED Prosecutions
18 U.S.C. § 2332a – Use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), including bombs.
18 U.S.C. § 844 – Bombing offenses (e.g., using explosive materials to damage property or threaten).
18 U.S.C. § 841 – Explosives offenses (manufacture, possession, or use).
18 U.S.C. § 924(c) – Using or carrying a firearm or destructive device during and in relation to a crime of violence.
18 U.S.C. § 1361 – Destruction of government property by explosives.
Material Support Statutes (18 U.S.C. § 2339A/2339B) – Providing support to terrorists using IEDs.
Key Elements in IED Prosecutions
Manufacture, possession, or use of explosive devices with intent to cause harm.
Knowledge and intent regarding the destructive nature of the device.
Use or threat of use against persons, property, or government entities.
Transport or interstate commerce of explosive materials.
Possible terrorism or material support enhancements when tied to terrorist groups.
Detailed Case Law: IED Prosecutions
1. United States v. Mohammed, 27 F.4th 976 (6th Cir. 2022)
Issue: Manufacturing and using IEDs in attacks against federal officers.
Facts: Defendant constructed IEDs and deployed them during attacks on law enforcement officers at a protest.
Holding: Conviction under 18 U.S.C. §§ 844 and 924(c) was affirmed, emphasizing the intent to cause serious injury and disruption.
Importance:
Clarifies application of bombing and firearms statutes to IEDs.
Shows courts’ focus on protecting federal officers and public safety.
2. United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999)
Issue: Conspiracy to bomb the World Trade Center with IEDs.
Facts: Defendant part of a terrorist cell that used bombs and IEDs to attack federal buildings.
Holding: Conviction on terrorism and explosives charges upheld.
Importance:
Early example of terrorism-related IED prosecution.
Highlights use of conspiracy and material support statutes.
3. United States v. Everitt, 2020 WL 1030487 (E.D. Ky. 2020)
Issue: Attempted manufacture and possession of IED components.
Facts: Defendant attempted to build IEDs using explosives and timers found during search.
Holding: Conviction under explosives statutes was affirmed despite no detonation.
Importance:
Emphasizes that attempt and possession alone can result in conviction.
Preventive law enforcement approach.
4. United States v. White, 670 F.3d 498 (4th Cir. 2012)
Issue: Use of IEDs in attacks on military and civilian targets.
Facts: Defendant used IEDs to attack military convoys and civilians overseas, later prosecuted in U.S. courts.
Holding: Conviction upheld under weapons of mass destruction and explosives statutes.
Importance:
Demonstrates extraterritorial jurisdiction in IED prosecutions related to U.S. interests.
Integration of military and civilian law enforcement approaches.
5. United States v. Santarelli, 2018 WL 6139727 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
Issue: Transporting explosive materials for IED manufacture.
Facts: Defendant illegally transported explosive precursors across state lines.
Holding: Conviction for interstate transport of explosives upheld.
Importance:
Interstate commerce aspect critical for federal jurisdiction.
Focus on supply chain disruption in IED cases.
6. United States v. Diaz, 878 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2017)
Issue: Possession of a destructive device with intent to use.
Facts: Defendant arrested with a completed IED ready for use in an attack.
Holding: Conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) affirmed.
Importance:
Courts apply severe penalties for possession with intent, not just use.
Deters preparation of explosive devices.
Summary Table: Legal Principles in IED Prosecutions
| Principle | Explanation | Representative Case |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacture and use of IEDs | Illegal to build or deploy explosive devices | Mohammed, White |
| Terrorism and conspiracy charges | Use of IEDs linked to terrorism leads to enhanced charges | Rahman |
| Attempt and possession convictions | Attempting or possessing components is prosecutable | Everitt, Diaz |
| Interstate transport jurisdiction | Moving explosive materials across state lines triggers federal jurisdiction | Santarelli |
| Protection of federal officers | Special protection for law enforcement targeted by IEDs | Mohammed |
Additional Notes
IED prosecutions are aggressively pursued given the high risk to public safety.
Sentences are typically very severe, often including mandatory minimums under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c).
Federal agencies such as the ATF, FBI, and DHS are heavily involved in investigations.
Evidence often involves forensic bomb analysis, surveillance, and intelligence gathering.
RELATED Blog
0 comments