## Facts

- Kenneth C. Fitzgibbon traveled from the United States to Calgary, Canada, and returned the next day through a U.S. port of entry.
- At entry, he completed Customs Declaration Form 6059-B and answered routine questions from customs inspectors.
- On the form and orally, Fitzgibbon stated he was not transporting more than $5,000 in currency or monetary instruments into the United States.
- Customs inspection discovered approximately $9,800 in Canadian currency concealed in his boots, exceeding the reporting threshold when converted.
- Evidence showed Fitzgibbon possessed a false Wisconsin driver’s license listing a non-existent address.
- Fitzgibbon stated he did not want “a problem with the Internal Revenue Service” and claimed part of the money was intended as payment to an attorney.
- The government prosecuted Fitzgibbon under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for knowingly and willfully making a false, material statement to federal officials, rather than for a direct reporting violation.

## Issues

1. Whether the indictment was insufficient for failing to cite or quote the regulation treating foreign currency as “monetary instruments.”
2. Whether prosecuting under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 was improper where specific currency-reporting provisions also applied.
3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Fitzgibbon knowingly and willfully made a materially false statement.
4. Whether removing Fitzgibbon’s boots and discovering concealed currency was an unreasonable border search under the Fourth Amendment.
5. Whether alleged errors in jury instructions warranted reversal, particularly absent specific defense objections.
6. Whether constitutional objections to the currency-reporting scheme (First, Fourth, Fifth Amendments) undermined liability under § 1001.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The indictment sufficiently alleged a § 1001 offense by identifying the false statement, time and place, and essential elements; it need not cite every implementing regulation.
- The government could charge under § 1001; selection among overlapping statutes was within prosecutorial discretion absent improper discrimination.
- The evidence supported a finding of knowing and willful falsity, including concealment of funds, use of false identification, and motive to avoid governmental scrutiny.
- The inspection, including removal of boots, was a lawful border search and not an impermissibly intrusive search.
- The jury instructions were adequate, and no reversible error was shown under the applicable standard for unpreserved objections.
- The currency-reporting requirements were constitutional, and in any event a defendant has no right to respond to government inquiries with willfully false statements.

## Legal Principles

- An indictment is generally sufficient if it alleges the elements of the offense, identifies the charged false statement, and provides enough detail to permit preparation of a defense and to bar double jeopardy; it need not recite all underlying regulations.
- When conduct falls within more than one criminal statute, prosecutors may elect among applicable charges, including use of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for affirmative false statements to federal officials.
- Proof of “knowing and willful” falsity under § 1001 may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, including concealment and deceptive conduct.
- Routine searches at the international border are subject to a relaxed reasonableness standard; removal of clothing items such as boots may be permissible as part of border inspection.
- A defendant charged under § 1001 cannot justify lying by challenging the validity of the underlying reporting requirement; disagreement with a legal duty does not create a defense of intentional falsification.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a § 1001 conviction based on false statements on a customs declaration about cross-border currency, holding the indictment adequate, the evidence sufficient, the border search reasonable, and constitutional objections to the reporting regime unavailable as a basis to excuse willful falsification.


United States v. Fitzgibbon, 576 F.2d 279 (10th Cir. 1978)