Infrastructure Attack Plots And Prosecutions
1. United States v. Jerry Drake Varnell (2018)
Target: Federal Building (critical infrastructure)
π Facts:
Varnell was arrested for plotting to detonate a bomb at a bank building in Oklahoma City, inspired by anti-government motives. He believed he was acting in coordination with others, but the plan was part of an FBI sting operation.
βοΈ Legal Issue:
Charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against a government facility (which is considered protected infrastructure).
β Outcome:
Convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison.
Court rejected mental health defense and emphasized the premeditated nature of the attack.
π Significance:
Demonstrated the government's proactive approach to foiling attacks on symbolic and strategic infrastructure before harm occurs.
2. United States v. Lonnie Coffman (2021)
Target: U.S. Capitol and nearby buildings (government infrastructure)
π Facts:
On January 6, 2021, Coffman parked a truck near the U.S. Capitol loaded with firearms, ammunition, and homemade explosive devices, while protests and attacks unfolded nearby.
βοΈ Legal Issue:
Charged with possession of unregistered firearms and destructive devices near federal infrastructure.
β Outcome:
Pleaded guilty and sentenced to 46 months in federal prison.
His vehicle was found during a wider investigation of the Capitol attack.
π Significance:
Highlighted how plots involving infrastructure can overlap with domestic terrorism.
Showed how proximity and intent near federal facilities increase the severity of charges.
3. United States v. Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. (2022)
Target: Michigan Governor's residence and infrastructure systems
π Facts:
Fox and Croft were involved in a plot to kidnap the Governor of Michigan and potentially blow up a bridge to impede law enforcement response.
βοΈ Legal Issue:
Conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempt to destroy critical infrastructure as part of a domestic terror plot.
β Outcome:
Both convicted; Fox was sentenced to 16 years, and Croft to over 19 years.
Prosecutors used evidence of planning, weapons training, and surveillance.
π Significance:
Showed how domestic extremism intersects with infrastructure sabotage.
Courts treated plot as an act of terrorism with national security implications.
4. United States v. Garret Smith (2022)
Target: Power substation
π Facts:
Smith was caught with explosive devices near a Florida protest site, and investigators found evidence that he had researched power grid attacks.
βοΈ Legal Issue:
Possession of explosive devices and plotting violence against public infrastructure.
β Outcome:
Smith was arrested before any attack was carried out.
Mental health issues were raised, but the threat to infrastructure made it a high-level concern.
π Significance:
Shows increasing concern about grid attacks tied to ideological motives or mental instability.
Law enforcement prioritized early intervention.
5. United States v. Matthew Coleman (2021)
Target: Water treatment facility (cyber-infrastructure)
π Facts:
Coleman was involved in a cyber intrusion of a water plant system in Florida. The attacker altered chemical levels, increasing sodium hydroxide in the water supply before operators noticed and corrected it.
βοΈ Legal Issue:
Federal cybercrime charges, including unauthorized access to critical infrastructure systems.
β Outcome:
Investigation ongoing; incident sparked major federal attention.
No harm occurred due to quick operator response.
π Significance:
Raised national alarms about cyber vulnerabilities in public infrastructure.
Prompted a federal mandate to improve digital defense of water systems.
6. United States v. Larry Ray (2020)
Target: Utility systems (as part of extortion scheme)
π Facts:
Larry Ray was involved in psychological abuse and financial exploitation, part of which included threatening utility sabotage to coerce victims and extort money.
βοΈ Legal Issue:
RICO (racketeering), extortion, and threats to public infrastructure.
β Outcome:
Convicted on several charges, including threats against infrastructure.
Sentenced to 60 years in prison.
π Significance:
Unique example where infrastructure threats were used to enhance control and intimidation.
Demonstrated the broader use of infrastructure threats beyond terrorism.
7. United States v. Christopher Hasson (2019)
Target: Federal buildings, government officials
π Facts:
A U.S. Coast Guard officer plotted attacks against politicians and government infrastructure as part of a white supremacist plan.
βοΈ Legal Issue:
Illegal possession of weapons and drugs; though never charged with terrorism, his plans included infrastructure targets.
β Outcome:
Sentenced to 13 years in prison.
Court acknowledged intent to cause mass harm using infrastructure-based attacks.
π Significance:
Showed prosecutorial limits where terrorism statutes werenβt applied, despite clear targeting of infrastructure.
Summary Table
| Case | Type of Infrastructure Targeted | Key Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Varnell | Federal building | 25 years for attempted bombing |
| U.S. v. Coffman | U.S. Capitol (vehicle explosives) | 46 months in prison |
| U.S. v. Fox & Croft | Bridge and governorβs home | 16β19 years |
| U.S. v. Smith | Power grid (planned attack) | Arrest before action |
| U.S. v. Coleman | Water system (cyber) | Prevention due to early detection |
| U.S. v. Larry Ray | Utilities (used for threats) | 60-year sentence (RICO) |
| U.S. v. Hasson | Government infrastructure (broad) | 13 years |
RELATED Blog
0 comments