Ecolex Logo
El portal del
derecho ambiental
Resultados de la búsqueda » Jurisprudencia

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. APOLLO ENERGIES, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

País/Territorio
Estados Unidos de América
Tipo de la corte
Otros
Fecha
Jun 30, 2010
Fuente
UNEP, InforMEA
Nombre del tribunal
United States Court of Appeals
Juez
HENRY, ANDERSON, and TYMKOVICH.
Número de referencia
2010 WL 2600502 (C.A.10 (Kan.))
Idioma
Inglés
Materia
Especies silvestres y ecosistemas
Palabra clave
Fauna silvestre Especies migratorias Especies de plantas protegidas Especies animales protegidas Especies de peces protegidas Protecíon de las especies
Resumen
Appellants, Apollo Energies, Inc. and Dale Walker (doing business as "Red Cedar Oil"), were charged with violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA or "the Act"), which declares it a misdemeanor to "pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or] kill" birds enumerated by several international treaties. On numerous instances, an agent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service discovered dead migratory birds lodged in each appellant's "heater-treater," a piece of equipment used in the course of appellants' Kansas oil drilling businesses. At trial, both Apollo and Walker were convicted of "taking" or "possessing" migratory birds (each misdemeanor violations) and fined $1,500 and $500 total, respectively. The federal district court affirmed the convictions. On appeal, Apollo and Walker contested that (1) under the MBTA, it is not a strict liability crime to take or possess a protected bird or, (2) if it is a strict liability crime, the MBTA is unconstitutional as applied to their conduct. As to the first contention, the United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, held that Appellants' assertion is foreclosed by United States v. Corrow, 119 F.3d 796 (10th Cir. 1997), which squarely concluded that "misdemeanor violations under [the MBTA] are strict liability crimes." Bound by the Corrow holding, the court concluded that the MBTA includes no mens rea requirement. As to Appellants' second contention challenging the constitutionality of the Act as applied to their conduct, the court concluded that while the Act is not unconstitutionally vague, "the MBTA requires a defendant to proximately cause the statute's violation for the statute to pass constitutional muster". Thus, liability would attach only where the injury "might be reasonably anticipated or foreseen as a natural consequence of the wrongful act." Accordingly, the conviction against Apollo Energies was affirmed, since the record demonstrated that Apollo had notice of the detrimental effects of the heater-treater's exposed exhaust pipes for a nearly a year-and-a-half before the bird death resulting in its conviction. However, the first of two convictions against Walker was reversed, since the court found that Walker was unaware of the industry-wide problem and "no reasonable person would conclude that the exhaust pipes of a heater-treater would lead to the deaths of migratory birds." For the foregoing reasons, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Texto completo
COU-157269.pdf