United States v. Larson
807 F. Supp. 2d 142
W.D.N.Y.2011Background
- Superseding Indictment (April 1, 2008) charges Local 17 members with RICO conspiracy, Hobbs Act extortion conspiracy, and attempted Hobbs Act extortion, plus a RICO forfeiture claim.
- Defendants Larson, Minter, Kirsch, and Franz are among the “primary” figures in the Local 17 enterprise.
- Indictment covers conduct 1997–2007 and lists eleven racketeering acts with various participants.
- Overt acts include threats, violence, property damage, and attempted interference with construction projects.
- Magistrate Judge Scott recommended dismissal of the indictment; the government objected and this court set aside that recommendation and denied the motions.
- Court addressed Enmons-shielding limits on Hobbs Act extortion and analyzed whether New York extortion proceeds fit within or outside Enmons’ scope.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hobbs Act extortion conspiracy is facially valid under Enmons | Government contends Enmons permits legitimate union objectives to proceed | Defendants argue Enmons bars extortion where aims are legitimate union goals | Indictment facially sufficient under Enmons standards |
| Whether Enmons applies to New York extortion claims | Government asserts Enmons does not bar NY extortion liability | Defendants rely on Enmons to limit NY extortion | Enmons does not render NY extortion claims invalid; indictment survives on NY extortion theory |
| Whether Bove’s First Amendment defenses warrant dismissal | N/A | Bove argues protected speech/association invalidates charges | First Amendment defenses insufficient; dismissal denied; speech alone not a shield when extortion/conspiracy proven |
| Whether the indictment adequately alleges deprivation of ‘property’ under the Hobbs Act | Indictment links property to wages, jobs, and business decisions | Categories of ‘property’ are too vague or not cognizable | Indictment adequately alleges deprivation of property through coerced collective bargaining-related outcomes |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (U.S. 1973) (limits Hobbs Act extortion to wrongful objectives; narrowly confines Enmons)
- National Labor Relations Bd. v. Local 103, 434 U.S. 335 (U.S. 1978) (prehire/majority-wage context for construction industry)
- Terrence Terzi Productions, Inc. v. Theatrical Protective Union, 2 F. Supp. 2d 485 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Enmons applicability to non-bona fide labor disputes)
- United States v. Markle, 628 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2010) (Enmons exception rarely extends beyond strikes)
- A. Terzi Productions, Inc. v. Theatrical Protective Union, 2 F. Supp. 2d 485 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Enmons limited to bona fide labor disputes)
- People v. Dioguardi, 8 N.Y.2d 260 (N.Y. 1960) (extortion/ labor context in New York law)
- Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490 (U.S. 1949) (speech incidental to unlawful conduct may be criminalized)
- Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88 (U.S. 1940) (protected labor speech context; free discussion essential)
- Lanier v. United States, 520 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1997) (fair warning due process and criminal liability)
- United States v. Rahman, 189 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1999) (speech-based offenses can be prosecuted if lines crossed into crime)
- United States v. Spock, 416 F.2d 165 (1st Cir. 1969) (speech-driven conspiracy not immune from prosecution)