United States v. Freed
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
189 Fed. Appx. 888, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 17716
- Written by Sharon Feldman, JD
Facts
Freed (defendant) incorporated and served as a trustee of the trust that owned a campground in a national forest. The Forest Service discovered improvements and construction on the national-forest land near the campground. Despite two letters informing Freed that the improvements and construction violated Forest Service regulations, the Forest Service observed unauthorized improvements and construction on two additional occasions over the next three years. An undercover Forest Service officer spoke with Freed about the violations and issued citations that were subsequently dropped. Two years later, the same Forest Service officer observed that the improvements were still being maintained and served Freed with additional citations. The United States (plaintiff) charged Freed with the misdemeanor offenses of using national-forest lands without a special-use permit and constructing and maintaining improvements on national-forest lands. Freed was tried by a magistrate judge and found guilty as a responsible corporate agent of the trust that owned the campground. The district court affirmed Freed’s convictions. Freed appealed, arguing that the district court erred in concluding that the offenses of conviction were strict-liability offenses and in finding Freed guilty under vicarious-liability principles.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.