Reason and common sense not technicalities –
the key to success
Many criminal prosecutions are
simply the result of an attempt to accomplish
a desired goal by cutting a corner or venturing
into a “gray” area of the law. The
problem that often arises is that, while the goal
itself is legal, the pathway to that goal causes
the legal problem for the target of the prosecution.
With that in mind, a March decision by an Ohio
Court of Appeals in State v. Elyria Acquisition,
Co. No.1 (Crawford Cty 2006), 2006 Ohio 1415,
served to emphasize the fact that no one should
abandon their common sense and gamble their future
on a technicality.
Elyria Acquisition Co. No. 1
[EAC] was a scrap tire storage and shredding company
operating out of Lorain County, Ohio. EAC was
owned by Mary K. Szabo and Jack Vasi, Ms. Szabo’s
brother, was an employee. EAC accumulated over
100,000 scrap tires at its Lorain County site
during its operations. In 1996 EAC lost its license
to operate the Lorain County shredding and storage
facility and a subsequent civil lawsuit by the
State led to a Court Order to stop receiving scrap
tires at the facility and clean up what was already
on site. In 2002, the civil actions involving
the EAC facility resulted in a State clean up
of the site where over 350,000 scrap tires were
ultimately removed.
Several counties away from Lorain
County a small auto salvage yard was required
by the state EPA to properly remove thousands
of scrap tires that had legally accumulated at
its place of business due to its salvage operations.
The salvage yard used an outdated EPA list of
licensed shredding companies and contacted EAC.
After speaking with Jack Vasi, the salvage yard
signed a contract to have its scrap tires shredded
and removed for the tidy sum of $25,000. However,
knowing that EAC did not have a license to run
a shredding operation as well as the fact that
the salvage yard was required to submit a copy
of any agreement for the removal of the scrap
tires to the EPA inspector, Vasi signed the contract
as the representative of a fictitious company.
While the name of the company and the address
he gave were fictitious, the telephone number
he gave for the company was the phone number for
EAC. Vasi subsequently transported a shredder
owned by EAC and his sister, Szabo, to the salvage
yard where Vasi operated it for several days using
EAC employees. The shredder constantly broke down
and eventually, after taking several thousand
dollars from the owner of the salvage yard in
advance, Vasi abandoned the broken down shredder
and did not remove a single tire from the site.
Vasi, Szabo and EAC were subsequently
charged with multiple environmental crimes including
operating a mobile shredding facility without
proper licenses at the salvage yard, possessing
criminal tool in the form of the mobile shredder
at the salvage yard, and open dumping of scrap
tires at the Lorain County facility. At trial
and on appeal Vasi, Szabo and EAC argued that
the legal definition of a mobile shredder required
the fact that the machine be designed to be mobile.
Since Vasi had mounted the shredder on a trailer
himself, it was not “designed” to
be mobile. They also argued that the shredder
was not a criminal tool because it had a legitimate
legal use; i.e. to shred scrap tires. Finally,
they argued that there was no evidence that they
had dumped additional scrap tires at the Lorain
County facility after losing their license to
run the site as a storage facility.
The jury rejected the claims
and found Vasi, Szabo and EAC guilty as they were
charged. The Court of Appeals rejected the claims
and explained that, as to the claim there was
no evidence of open dumping at the closed Lorain
facility, the facility had lost its license to
operate in 1996. When the license was lost there
were only 107,000 scrap tires present and there
was an Order in the civil case prohibiting any
additional scrap tires from being brought in and
requiring the removal of the 107,000 that was
already there. However, since the Order to remove
those tires was issued by the Court, the number
of scrap tires grew to over 350,000. Add in to
that the fact that, even without proper licenses,
Vasi, as a representative of EAC entered into
the contract to shred and remove the scrap tires
from the salvage yard, and the conclusion was
that a reasonable mind could conclude that scrap
tires were dumped at the facility.
In a similar fashion, the Court
of Appeals rejected the claim that the shredder
was required to be “designed” to be
mobile in order to require a license as a mobile
shredder. The Court pointed out that the definition
was more inclusive that Vasi, Szabo and EAC wished
because it also included the possibility of where
a shredder was in fact moved from one location
to another. Finally, the Court rejected the claim
that the mere fact an object could be used for
a legitimate purpose precluded a finding that
it was a criminal tool. In this regard, the Court
simply pointed out that a license was required
and Vasi intended to operate the shredder without
it.
The legal difficulties these
individuals became embroiled in could have been
averted if they would have adhered to a number
of basic concepts:
