Ninth Circuit denies appeal of Las Vegas man who lied about being awarded a Purple Heart

By Cy Ryan

Monday, Sept. 26, 2011 | 12:01 p.m.

A federal appeals court has rejected the appeal of a Las Vegas man convicted of wearing a Purple Heart and collecting $180,000 in disability benefits even though he was never wounded in military service.

The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the law prohibiting the conduct was constitutional and denied the appeal of David Perelman, convicted of stealing money from the Veterans Administration and the unauthorized wearing of the Purple Heart.

Perelman served three months in Vietnam in 1971. Twenty years later, he accidentally shot himself in the leg. In applying to the Veterans Administration for benefits, he claimed it was a shrapnel injury suffered while in the U.S. Force.

He wore the medal to a national convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart in Las Vegas.

He pleaded guilty on two counts and was sentenced to one year in prison and three years probation. But he reserved the right to challenge the constitutionality of the law.

The law prohibiting the wearing of the medal violated the First Amendment and was too broad, said Perelman. He argued that any person who wears a military medal, if he or she is not authorized is guilty of a crime, no matter the circumstances.

The reading of the law, according to Perelman, means a crime would be committed by an actor who wore the military metals in films or on stage; schoolchildren who wore medals given to them by soldiers; grieving spouses or parents who have worn medals at military funerals and children and adults who wore medals to Halloween costumes gatherings.

The court said the reading of the law by Perelman raises doubts. But the court said "Congress intended to criminalize the unauthorized wearing of medals only when the wearer intended to deceive." The decision, written by Judge Susan Graber, said "Congress made clear that deception was its targeted harm in the federal law."

Graber said grieving widow, actors or school children do not fall under the law.

The court said a prior opinion held that false speech alone is protected by the First Amendment. But fraud and impersonation statutes are constitutional.