U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART I— CRIMES › Chapter CHAPTER 73— OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE

18 U.S.C. § 1511

Obstruction of State or local law enforcement

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) It shall be unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to obstruct the enforcement of the criminal laws of a State or political subdivision thereof, with the intent to facilitate an illegal gambling business if—(1) one or more of such persons does any act to effect the object of such a conspiracy;(2) one or more of such persons is an official or employee, elected, appointed, or otherwise, of such State or political subdivision; and(3) one or more of such persons conducts, finances, manages, supervises, directs, or owns all or part of an illegal gambling business.(b) As used in this section—(1) “illegal gambling business” means a gambling business which—(i) is a violation of the law of a State or political subdivision in which it is conducted;(ii) involves five or more persons who conduct, finance, manage, supervise, direct, or own all or part of such business; and(iii) has been or remains in substantially continuous operation for a period in excess of thirty days or has a gross revenue of $2,000 in any single day.(2) “gambling” includes but is not limited to pool-selling, bookmaking, maintaining slot machines, roulette wheels, or dice tables, and conducting lotteries, policy, bolita or numbers games, or selling chances therein.(3) “State” means any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.(c) This section shall not apply to any bingo game, lottery, or similar game of chance conducted by an organization exempt from tax under paragraph (3) of subsection (c) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, if no part of the gross receipts derived from such activity inures to the benefit of any private shareholder, member, or employee of such organization, except as compensation for actual expenses incurred by him in the conduct of such activity.(d) Whoever violates this section shall be punished by a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.(Added Pub. L. 91–452, title VIII, § 802(a), Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 936; amended Pub. L. 99–514, § 2, Oct. 22, 1986, 100 Stat. 2095; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(2)(C), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

Paragraph (3) of subsection (c) of section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, referred to in subsec. (c), is classified to section 501(c)(3) of Title 26, Internal Revenue Code.

Amendments

1994—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fine under this title” for “fine of not more than $20,000”.

1986—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–514 substituted “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” for “Internal Revenue Code of 1954”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesCongressional Statement of Findings

Pub. L. 91–452, title VIII, § 801, Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 936, provided that: “The Congress finds that illegal gambling involves widespread use of, and has an effect upon, interstate commerce and the facilities thereof.”

Priority of State Laws

Pub. L. 91–452, title VIII, § 811, Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 940, provided that: “No provision of this title [enacting this section and section 1955 of this title, amending section 2516 of this title, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section and section 1955 of this title] indicates an intent on the part of the Congress to occupy the field in which such provision operates to the exclusion of the law of a state or possession, or a political subdivision of a State or possession, on the same subject matter, or to relieve any person of any obligation imposed by any law of any State or possession, or political subdivision of a State or possession.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 95 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1971–2025 · leading case: United States v. Philip A. Chance, 306 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
United States v. Philip A. Chance, 306 F.3d 356 (6th Cir. 2002). · cites it 6× “§ 1951 (a), and one count of conspiring to obstruct the enforcement of the criminal laws of a state with the intent to facilitate an illegal gambling business, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1511 . The district judge sentenced Appellant to 71 months of imprisonment and two years of…”
Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 (1975). · cites it 8× “18 U. S. C. § 1511 . In drafting the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Congress manifested its clear awareness of the distinct nature of a conspiracy and the substantive offenses that might constitute its immediate end.”
United States v. Tom Welch, 656 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1981). · cites it 5× “JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: This case involves the conviction of four defendants on charges of conspiracy to obstruct the enforcement of the criminal laws of the State of Texas with intent to facilitate an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1511 , and of…”
United States v. Michael A. Riehl, 460 F.2d 454 (3d Cir. 1972). · cites it 10× “18 U.S.C. §§ 1511 , 1955 (1971); Act of October 15, 1970, Pub.”
United States v. Herbert Vederman, 914 F.3d 112 (3d Cir. 2019). “§ 1344 , and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 1511 . See 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (1).”
United States v. David S. O'Bryant, 998 F.2d 21 (1st Cir. 1993). · cites it 2× “See 18 U.S.C. § 1511 (1988). After one of appellant’s codefendants began cooperating with law enforcement authorities, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment.”
United States v. Zemek, 634 F.2d 1159 (9th Cir. 1980). · cites it 5× “18 U.S.C. § 1511 . Appellants object to the trial court’s instruction defining “gross revenue” and Mazzuca, Carbone and Janovich challenge the sufficiency of the evidence as to specified counts, i.”
United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994). “, at 936, codified at 18 U. S. C. § 1511 (a). *15 Early opinions in the Ninth Circuit dealing with the drug conspiracy statute simply relied on our precedents interpreting the general conspiracy statute and ignored the textual variations between the two provisions.”
Pugin v. Garland, 599 U.S. 600 (2023). “” 18 U. S. C. § 1511 (a). Given that § 1511 is a specialized conspiracy provision intended to “discourage organized crime's corruption of state and local offcials for the purpose of facilitating gam- bling enterprises,” Iannelli v.”
Davit v. Davit, 366 F. Supp. 2d 641 (N.D. Ill. 2004). · cites it 4× “) Davit also apparently contends that Stogsdill’s “collection” of child support payments from Davit violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 1511 ,1513,1951, and 1952. (Id.”
Niles v. Wilshire Inv. Grp., LLC, 859 F. Supp. 2d 308 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). · cites it 2× “) Obstruction of State or local law enforcement, Title 18 U.S.C. § 1511 ; (XIV.) Engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activity, Title 18 U.”
Anderson v. Janovich, 543 F. Supp. 1124 (W.D. Wash. 1982). · cites it 4× “Count XI charged a conspiracy to obstruct state law enforcement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1511 . Neither conviction required proof that Janovich acted “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State” or that he “deprived” any person of a…”
Show all 95 citing cases →
18 U.S.C. § 1511(a): 1 case
United States v. Willie Clinton Lovett, 662 F. App'x 838 (11th Cir. 2016).
18 U.S.C. § 1511(b): 1 case
United States v. Michael A. Riehl, 460 F.2d 454 (3d Cir. 1972). “18 U.S.C. §§ 1511 , 1955 (1971); Act of October 15, 1970, Pub.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.