## Facts

- Matthew Joseph Kammersell, age 19, used America Online (AOL) from his home in Riverdale, Utah.
- On January 16, 1997, he sent an instant message bomb threat to his girlfriend’s computer terminal at AOL’s Ogden, Utah service center, intending she could leave work early to go on a date.
- AOL’s system automatically routed the message from Utah to AOL’s main server in Virginia and then back to Utah, using interstate telephone lines.
- Kammersell did not dispute that the message traveled from Utah to Virginia and back to Utah, or that the message was a “threat” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c).
- He was charged in federal district court with transmitting a threatening communication in interstate commerce, pleaded guilty conditionally, and appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of federal jurisdiction.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 875(c)’s “transmits in interstate or foreign commerce” element is satisfied when the sender and recipient are in the same state but the electronic communication is routed through another state.

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the conviction.
- The court held that § 875(c)’s jurisdictional element is satisfied when the communication in fact crosses state lines, even if it originates and is received within a single state.
- Because the instant message traveled from Utah to Virginia and back to Utah through AOL’s network, it was transmitted “in interstate commerce.”

## Legal Principles

- For 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), a threatening communication is transmitted “in interstate commerce” if it actually travels across state lines.
- The interstate-commerce element may be met by the objective routing path of an electronic communication, regardless of the in-state locations of the sender and recipient.
- § 875(c) does not require proof that the defendant intended or knew the communication would be routed across state boundaries; actual interstate transmission is sufficient.

## Conclusion

A threatening instant message sent and received within the same state falls within 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) when the communication is automatically routed through another state, because the message is objectively transmitted in interstate commerce.


United States v. Kammersell, 196 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 1999)