untillableanquye999.com

10/22/126:06PMUSv.
Gerber,999F.
2d1112-CourtofAppeals,7thCircuit1993-GoogleScholarPage1of4http://scholar.
google.
com/scholar_casecase=16526780928244206921&q=999+F.
+2d+1112.
&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47999F.
2d1112(1993)UNITEDSTATESofAmerica,Plaintiff-Appellee,v.
ArthurJ.
GERBER,Defendant-Appellant.
No.
92-2741.
ArguedJune3,1993.
DecidedJuly20,1993.
UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals,SeventhCircuit.
*1113LarryA.
Mackey(argued),ScottC.
Newman,Asst.
U.
S.
Attys.
,Indianapolis,IN,forU.
S.
1113HarveyM.
Silets(argued),KennethM.
Kliebard,Katten,Muchin&Zavis,Chicago,IL,JefferyL.
Lantz,Evansville,IN,forArthurJ.
Gerber.
StevenR.
Dowell,Newport,KY,forSocietyforDocumentationofPrehistoricAmericaamicuscuriaeandThreeRiversArchaeologicalSoc.
,amicuscuriae.
StevenR.
Dowell,Newport,KY,E.
DeanSingleton,Owensville,IN,C.
DeanHigginbotham,Princeton,IN,forIndianaArchaeologicalSoc.
,amicuscuriae.
E.
DeanSingleton,Owensville,IN,C.
DeanHigginbotham,Princeton,IN,forCouncilforConservationofIndianaArchaeology,amicuscuriae,WabashValleyArchaeologicalSoc.
,amicuscuriae,SocietyofAmericanArchaeology,amicuscuriae,SocietyofProfessionalArchaeologists,amicuscuriae,IllinoisArchaeologicalSurvey,amicuscuriae,KentuckyOrganizationofProfessionalArchaeologists,amicuscuriae,ArchaeologicalSocietyofIndianapolis,amicuscuriaeandNationalTrustforHistoricPreservationintheU.
S.
,amicuscuriae.
BeforePOSNER,RIPPLE,andROVNER,CircuitJudges.
POSNER,CircuitJudge.
ArthurJosephGerberpleadedguiltytomisdemeanorviolationsoftheArchaeologicalResourcesProtectionActof1979,16U.
S.
C.
§§470aaetseq.
,andwassentencedtotwelvemonthsinprison,reservinghoweverhisrighttoappealonthegroundthattheActisinapplicabletohisoffense.
WhathehaddonewastotransportininterstatecommerceIndianartifacts[*]thathehadstolenfromaburialmoundonprivatelyownedlandinviolationofIndiana'scriminallawsoftrespassandconversion.
ThesectionoftheArchaeologicalResourcesProtectionActunderwhichhewasconvictedprovidesthat"nopersonmaysell,purchase,exchange,transport,receive,oroffertosell,purchase,orexchange,ininterstateorforeigncommerce,anyarchaeologicalresourceexcavated,removed,sold,purchased,exchanged,transported,orreceivedinviolationofanyprovision,rule,regulation,ordinance,orpermitineffectunderStateorlocallaw.
"16U.
S.
C.
§470ee(c).
Gerberarguesthatdespitethereferencesinthissectiontostateandlocallaw,theActisinapplicabletoarchaeologicalobjectsremovedfromlandsnotownedeitherbythefederalgovernmentorbyIndiantribes.
Hisback-upargumentisthattheprovisions,rules,regulations,andsoforthofstateorlocallawtowhichtheActrefersarelimitedtoprovisionsexpresslyprotectingarchaeologicalobjectsorsites,asdistinctfromlawsofgeneralapplicationsuchasthoseforbiddingtrespassandtheft.
TheissuesarenovelbecausethisisthefirstprosecutionundertheActofsomeonewhotraffickedinarchaeologicalobjectsremovedfromlandsotherthaneitherfederalorIndianlands.
*1114MorethanfifteenhundredyearsagointheAmericanmidwestIndiansbuiltaseriesoflargeearthenmoundsover111410/22/126:06PMUSv.
Gerber,999F.
2d1112-CourtofAppeals,7thCircuit1993-GoogleScholarPage2of4http://scholar.
google.
com/scholar_casecase=16526780928244206921&q=999+F.
+2d+1112.
&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47preparedmoundfloorscontaininghumanremainsplusnumerousceremonialartifactsandgravegoodsmadeofsilver,copper,wood,cloth,leather,obsidian,flint,mica,quartz,pearl,shells,anddrilled,carved,orinlaidhumanandbearteeth.
Thismoundculture,theproductofacivilizationthatincludedthebeginningsofsettledagriculture,anelaborateceremonialism,andfar-flungtradingnetworks,hasbeendubbedthe"Hopewellphenomenon.
"N'omiB.
Greber&KatharineC.
Ruhl,TheHopewellSite:AContemporaryAnalysisBasedontheWorkofCharlesC.
Willoughby(1989);WarrenK.
Moorehead,TheHopewellMoundGroupofOhio(FieldMuseumofNaturalHistory,PublicationNo.
211,1922).
In1985farmerssoldGeneralElectricapieceofuntillablelandinsouthwesternIndianaadjacenttooneofitsfactories.
Thelandcontainedaprominentknobontopofaridge.
UnbeknownsttoanyonethisknobwasaHopewellburialmoundsome400feetlong,175feetwide,and20feethigh.
Themoundanditscontents(whichincludedtwohumanskeletons)wereintact—eventheperishablematerialssuchaswoodandleatherartifactswerewellpreserved—andwhendiscovereditwouldprovetobeoneofthefivelargestHopewellburialmoundsknown.
Ahighwaywasplannedtorunthroughtheridgeonwhichtheknobwaslocated.
Inthecourseofconstruction,in1988,earthwasremovedfromtheknobtostabilizetheroadbed.
Workmenengagedinthisremovaldiscoveredintheknobcuriousobjects—turtleback-shapedrocks—whichtheyshowedtoaheavy-equipmentoperatorontheproject,namedBillWay,whohappenedtobeacollectorofIndianartifacts.
Recognizingthesignificanceofthefind,Waynosedhisbulldozerintotheknobandquicklydiscoveredhundredsofartifacts,includingcopperaxeheads,inlaidbearcanines,andtooledleather.
Heloadedtheseitemsintohispickuptruckandcovereduptheexcavationhehadmade.
AnacquaintanceputhimintouchwithArthurJosephGerber,awell-knowncollectorofIndianartifactsandpromoterofannualIndian"relicshows.
"GerberpaidWay$6,000fortheartifactsandforrevealingtoGerberthelocationofthemound.
WaytookGerbertothesitethesamenight,encounteringotherpeoplediggingforIndianartifacts.
Gerberreturnedtothesiteseveralmoretimes,excavatingandremovinghundredsofadditionalartifacts,includingsilverearspools,copperaxeheads,piecesofworkedleather,andraresilvermusicalinstruments,somewiththeoriginalreedspreserved.
OnGerber'slastvisittothesitehewasdetectedbyaGeneralElectricsecurityguardandejected.
ShortlyafterwardGerbersoldsomeoftheartifactsathisannual"IndianRelicShowofShows"inKentucky.
HeacknowledgesthatinenteringuponGeneralElectric'slandwithoutthecompany'spermissionandinremoving,againwithoutitspermission,Indianartifactsburiedthere,hecommittedcriminaltrespassandconversioninviolationofIndianalaw.
Healsoacknowledgeshavingtransportedsomeofthestolenartifactsininterstatecommerce.
ThepreambleoftheArchaeologicalResourcesProtectionActof1979statesthat"archaeologicalresourcesonpubliclands[definedelsewhereintheActasfederalpubliclands]andIndianlandsareanaccessibleandirreplaceablepartoftheNation'sheritage"andthatthepurposeoftheActis"tosecure,forthepresentandfuturebenefitoftheAmericanpeople,theprotectionofarchaeologicalresourcesandsiteswhichareonpubliclandsandIndianlands.
"16U.
S.
C.
§§470aa(a)(1),(b).
Consistentwiththispreamble,mostoftheActisgivenovertotheregulation,intheformofcivilandcriminalpenalties,permitrequirements,forfeitureprovisions,andotherregulatorydevices,ofarchaeologicalactivitiesonfederalandIndianlands.
ThecriminalpenaltiesareforarchaeologicalactivitiesconductedonthoselandswithoutapermitandfortraffickinginarchaeologicalobjectsthathavebeenremovedfromtheminviolationeitheroftheAct'spermitrequirementsorofanyotherfederallaw.
§§470ee(a),(b).
GerberdidnotremoveIndianartifactsfromfederalorIndianlands,however,andwasthereforeprosecutedunderthethirdcriminalprovision(§470ee(c),quotedearlier),whichisnotintermslimitedtosuchlands.
*1115Theomissionofanyreferenceinsubsection(c)tofederalandIndianlandswas,Gerberargues,inadvertent.
NotonlythepreambleoftheAct,butitslegislativehistory,showsthatallthatCongresswasconcernedwithwasprotectingarchaeologicalsitesandobjectsonfederalandIndianlands.
Thisisindeedallthatthepreamblementions;andaprincipalsponsoroftheActsaidthat"itdoesnotaffectanylandsotherthanthepubliclandsoftheUnitedStatesand[Indian]lands.
"125Cong.
Rec.
17,394(1979)(remarksofCongressmanUdall).
Thelegislativehistorycontainsnoreferencetoarchaeologicalsitesorobjectsonstateorprivatelands.
TheActsupersededtheAntiquitiesActof1906,16U.
S.
C.
§§431-33,whichhadbeenexpresslylimitedtofederallands.
AndiftheActappliestononfederal,non-Indianlands,itsprovisionsareatonceover-inclusiveandunderinclusive:overinclusivebecausetheActauthorizesthefederalcourtinwhichadefendantisprosecutedtoorder,initsdiscretion,theforfeitureofthearchaeologicalobjectsinvolvedintheviolationtotheUnitedStates(unlesstheywereremoved111510/22/126:06PMUSv.
Gerber,999F.
2d1112-CourtofAppeals,7thCircuit1993-GoogleScholarPage3of4http://scholar.
google.
com/scholar_casecase=16526780928244206921&q=999+F.
+2d+1112.
&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47fromIndianlands),§§470gg(b),(c);underinclusivebecausetheprovisionsauthorizingcivilpenaltiesandthepaymentofrewardstoinformersoutoffinescollectedincriminalprosecutionsundertheActareadministeredbyofficialswholackjurisdictionovernonfederal,non-Indianlands.
§§470bb(2),470ff,470gg(a).
(TheartifactsstolenbyGerberwererecoveredandarebeingheldbytheUnitedStatesasevidenceinthiscase,buttheyhavenotbeenorderedforfeited.
)MostscholarlycommentatorsontheActassumethatitislimitedtofederalandIndianlands.
E.
g.
,KristineOlsonRogers,"VisigothsRevisited:TheProsecutionofArchaeologicalResourceThieves,Traffickers,andVandals,"2J.
EnvironmentalLaw&Litigation47,72(1987).
Gerberremindsusoftheruleoflenityininterpretingcriminalstatutesandoftheimpliedconstitutionalprohibitionagainstexcessivelyvaguecriminalstatutes.
Headdsthatsubsection(c)ofsection470eewouldnotbeanullityiftheActwereheldtobelimitedtositesandobjectsonfederalandIndianlands.
AnumberofstatelawsprohibittraffickinginstolenIndianartifactsregardlessoftheirorigin,andithasnotbeensuggestedthatthesestatutesarepreemptedbythefederalActevenwithrespecttoartifactsstolenfromfederalorIndianlands.
ApersonwhotraffickedinIndianartifactsinviolationofstatelawwouldbesubjecttofederalprosecutiononlyundersubsection(c)eveniftheartifactshadbeenremovedfromfederalorIndianlands,iftheremovalhappenednottoviolatefederallaw.
Wearenotpersuadedbythesearguments.
Thatthestatute,thescholarlycommentary,andthelegislativehistoryareallfocusedonfederalandIndianlandsmaysimplyreflectthefactthatthevastmajorityofIndiansites—andvirtuallyallarchaeologicalsitesintheWesternHemisphereareIndian—arelocatedeitherinIndianreservationsoronthevastfederalpubliclandsoftheWest.
Subsection(c)appearstobeacatch-allprovisiondesignedtobackupstateandlocallawsprotectingarchaeologicalsitesandobjectswhereverlocated.
ItresemblestheMannAct,theLindberghLaw,theHobbsAct,andahostofotherfederalstatutesthataffixfederalcriminalpenaltiestostatecrimesthat,whencommittedininterstatecommerce,aredifficultforindividualstatestopunishorpreventbecausecoordinatingthelawenforcementeffortsofdifferentstatesisdifficult.
ThereferencetointerstatecommercewouldbesuperfluousifthesubsectionwerelimitedtoartifactstakenfromfederalorIndianlands,sinceeithersourcewouldestablishfederaljurisdictionwithnoneedtorequireproofthattheartifactsweretransportedininterstatecommerce.
Probablythesubsectionwasaddedasanafterthought,sooneisnotsurprisedthatitdoesnotjibeperfectlywiththesurroundingprovisions;butthatdoesnotmakeitinvalid,anditcertainlyisnotvague.
AndwecannotseehowthepurposesoftheActwouldbeunderminedbyourgivingsubsection(c)theinterpretationthatitswordsinvite.
Anamicusbrieffiledbyseveralassociationsofamateurarchaeologistsclaimsthatsuchaninterpretationwillinfringetheirlibertytoseektoenlargearchaeologicalknowledgebyexcavatingprivatelands.
Butthereisnorighttogouponanotherperson'sland,withouthispermission,tolookforvaluableobjectsburiedinthelandandtakethemif*1116youfindthem.
AtcommonlawGeneralElectricwouldhavebeentheownerofthemoundanditscontentsregardlessofthefactthatitwasunawareofthem.
Elwesv.
BriggGasCo.
,33Ch.
D.
562(1886);SouthStaffordshireWaterCo.
v.
Sharman,[1896]2Q.
B.
44.
ThemodernAmericanlawisthesame.
Kleinv.
UnidentifiedWrecked&AbandonedSailingVessel,758F.
2d1511,1514(11thCir.
1985);Ritzv.
SelmaUnitedMethodistChurch,467N.
W.
2d266,269(Ia.
1991);Favoritev.
Miller,176Conn.
310,407A.
2d974,978(1978);Bishopv.
Ellsworth,91Ill.
App.
2d386,234N.
E.
2d49(1968);Allredv.
Biegel,240Mo.
App.
818,219S.
W.
2d665(1949);Chancev.
CertainArtifactsFound&Salvaged,606F.
Supp.
801,806-08(S.
D.
Ga.
1984).
AllredactuallyinvolvedanIndianartifact.
AlthoughwehavefoundnoIndianacases,wearegivennoreasontosupposethattheIndianacourtswouldadoptadifferentrule.
Itwouldmakenodifferenceiftheywould.
WhatevertherightfulownershipofthemoundanditscontentsundercurrentAmericanlaw,noonesuggeststhatWayorGerberobtainedanyrightstotheartifactsinquestion.
Nodoubt,theftisattherootofmanytitles;andpricelessarchaeologicalartifactsobtainedinviolationoflocallawaretobefoundinreputablemuseumsallovertheworld.
ButitisalmostinconceivablethatCongresswouldhavewantedtoencourageamateurarchaeologiststoviolatestatelawsinordertoamassvaluablecollectionsofIndianartifacts,especiallyasmanyoftheseamateursdonotappreciatetheimportancetoscholarshipofleavinganarchaeologicalsiteintactandundisturbeduntilthelocationofeachobjectinithasbeencarefullymappedtoenableinferencesconcerningthedesign,layout,size,andageofthesite,andthepracticesandcultureoftheinhabitants,tobedrawn.
ItisalsounlikelythataCongresssufficientlyinterestedinarchaeologytoimposesubstantialcriminalpenaltiesfortheviolationofarchaeologicalregulations(themaximumcriminalpenaltyundertheActisfiveyearsinprisonplusa$100,000fine,§470ee(d))wouldbesoparochialastoconfineitsintereststoarchaeologicalsitesandartifactsonfederalandIndianlandsmerelybecausethatiswheremostofthemare.
111610/22/126:06PMUSv.
Gerber,999F.
2d1112-CourtofAppeals,7thCircuit1993-GoogleScholarPage4of4http://scholar.
google.
com/scholar_casecase=16526780928244206921&q=999+F.
+2d+1112.
&hl=en&as_sdt=2,47Weconcludethatsection470ee(c)isnotlimitedtoobjectsremovedfromfederalandIndianlands,butwemustconsiderGerber'salternativeargument,thatthesectionislimitedtoremovalsinviolationofstateandlocallawsexplicitlyconcernedwiththeprotectionofarchaeologicalsitesorobjects.
Gerberarguesthatifitisnotsolimitedallsortsofanomaliesarecreated.
SupposehehadboughtanIndianartifactfromitsrightfulownerbuthadfailedtopaytheapplicablestatesalestax,andhadtransportedtheartifactacrossstatelines.
Thenhewould,hetellsus,betransportingininterstatecommerceanarchaeologicalobjectpurchasedinviolationofstatelaw.
Andlikewiseifhetransportedsuchanobjectininterstatecommerceinavehiclethatexceededtheweightlimitationsimposedbystatelaw.
Thesearepoorexamples.
Itisunlikelyineithercasethatthestatewouldconsiderthetransportationofagoodtobeinviolationofstatelawmerelybecausesalestaxhadnotbeenpaidoranoverweightvehiclehadbeenused.
Butweagreewiththegeneralpoint,thattheActislimitedtocasesinwhichtheviolationofstatelawisrelatedtotheprotectionofarchaeologicalsitesorobjects.
AbroaderinterpretationwouldcarrytheActfarbeyondtheobjectivesofitsframersandcreatepitfallsfortheunwary.
Butwedonotthinkthattobedeemedrelatedtotheprotectionofarchaeologicalresourcesastateorlocallawmustbelimitedtothatprotection.
AlawthatforbadethetheftofIndianartifacts"andanyotherobjectshavinghistoricalorartisticvalue"couldnotreasonablybethoughtalawunrelatedtotheprotectionofsuchartifactsmerelybecauseithadbroaderobjectives.
ThatisessentiallywhatIndiana'slawsforbiddingtrespassandconversionhave:objectivesthatincludebutarenotexhaustedintheprotectionofIndianartifactsandotherantiquities.
Alawthatcomprehensivelyprotectstheowneroflandfromunauthorizedincursions,spoliations,andtheftcouldwellbethoughttogivealltheprotectiontoburiedantiquitiesthattheyneed,makingthepassageofalawspeciallyprotectingburiedantiquitiesredundant—andthepassageofnewlawsisnevercostlessandrarelyeasy.
TheinterpretationurgedbyGerberwouldifacceptedcompel*1117statesdesiringfederalassistanceinprotectingIndianartifactsinnonfederal,non-Indianlandswithintheirborderstopasslawsthatmightduplicateprotectionsalreadyadequateconferredonlandownerssittingatopundiscoveredarchaeologicalsitesbyexistinglawsofgeneralapplicability.
Granted,allfiftystateshavelawsexpresslyprotectingtheirarchaeologicalsites;andin1989,toolateforthiscase,Indianaamendeditslawtoforbid—redundantly—whatGerberhaddone.
Sotheinterpretationforwhichhecontendsmightnotactuallyimposeasignificantburdenonthestates.
ButIndianamaynothaveamendeditslawearlierbecauseitthoughtitsgeneralcriminallawsoftrespassandconversionadequate—forallweknow,itamendedthelawinresponsetoGerber'scontentionthatthefederalActcontainsaloopholethroughwhichheandotherslikehimmightbeabletosqueeze.
1117WeconcludethatGerber'sconductwasforbiddenbytheAct.
Wecommendcounsel,HarveySiletsforthedefendantandLarryMackeyforthegovernment,fortheexceptionalqualityoftheirbriefsandargument.
Wehavenothesitatedtocriticizecounselwhofallbelowminimumprofessionalstandardsforlawyerspracticinginthiscourt;equally,counselwhoseperformanceexceedsthosestandardsbyagenerousmargindeserveourpublicrecognitionandthanks.
AFFIRMED.
[*]Wearemindfulthat"NativeAmerican"isthetermpreferredbymostmembersoftheAmericanIndiancommunity.
Since,however,thestatuteandbothofthepartiesusetheterm"Indian,"wehavedecidedtodolikewise.
Savetrees-readcourtopinionsonlineonGoogleScholar.