United States

U.S. v. Smith

Summary: <p> Defendant was convicted of possessing Bald Eagle feathers in violation of Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) after receiving the feathers in the mail from a friend to complete a craft project.&nbsp; On appeal, defendant challenged her conviction, alleging that she did not&nbsp;possess the requisite knowledge and that the act itself&nbsp;was vague as to the level of intent, or <i> scienter </i> .&nbsp; The court affirmed defendant's conviction finding that the evidence established that defendant knowingly possessed eagle feathers in violation of MBTA, the conviction did not amount to punishment of wholly passive conduct contrary to defendant's suggestion, and that MBTA was not vague nor overbroad with regard to intent.&nbsp; For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the Eagle Act, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#mbta"> Detailed Discussion of the Eagle Act </a> . </p>

Defendant was convicted of possessing Bald Eagle feathers in violation of Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) after receiving the feathers in the mail from a friend to complete a craft project.  On appeal, defendant challenged her conviction, alleging that she did not possess the requisite knowledge and that the act itself was vague as to the level of intent, or scienter .  The court affirmed defendant's conviction finding that the evidence established that defendant knowingly possessed eagle feathers in violation of MBTA, the conviction did not amount to punishment of wholly passive conduct contrary to defendant's suggestion, and that MBTA was not vague nor overbroad with regard to intent.  For further discussion on the intersection of the MBTA and the Eagle Act, see Detailed Discussion of the Eagle Act .

U.S. v. Kornwolf

Summary: <p> Defendant sells&nbsp;a headdress containing golden eagle feathers obtained before&nbsp;1962&nbsp;to an undercover officer.&nbsp; Court finds this case directly controlled by <u> Andrus v. Allard </u> .&nbsp; Court reiterates prohibition on any eagle commerce.&nbsp; For further discussion on the restriction of commerce in eagle parts under the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#commerce"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

Defendant sells a headdress containing golden eagle feathers obtained before 1962 to an undercover officer.  Court finds this case directly controlled by Andrus v. Allard .  Court reiterates prohibition on any eagle commerce.  For further discussion on the restriction of commerce in eagle parts under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

Brown v. Muhlenberg Tp.

Summary: <p> Pet owners were unreasonably deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights to their pet by police officer. Pennsylvania Court would recognize a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the killing of a pet. </p>

Pet owners were unreasonably deprived of their Fourth Amendment rights to their pet by police officer. Pennsylvania Court would recognize a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress based upon the killing of a pet.

Dubner v.City and County of San Francisco

Summary: <p> Photographer brought &sect; 1983 claim and several state law claims against city, police officers, and chief of police alleging unlawful arrest. The Court of Appeals, D.W. Nelson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) photographer established prima facie case of her unlawful arrest by police officers at animal rights demonstration; (2) police lacked probable to cause to arrest <a name="Document1zzSDUNumber2"> </a> photographer for trespassing under California law; (3) police lacked probable cause to arrest photographer under California's unlawful assembly statute; and (4) police chief could be held liable in his individual capacity. </p>

Photographer brought § 1983 claim and several state law claims against city, police officers, and chief of police alleging unlawful arrest. The Court of Appeals, D.W. Nelson, Circuit Judge, held that: (1) photographer established prima facie case of her unlawful arrest by police officers at animal rights demonstration; (2) police lacked probable to cause to arrest photographer for trespassing under California law; (3) police lacked probable cause to arrest photographer under California's unlawful assembly statute; and (4) police chief could be held liable in his individual capacity.

United States v. Bowman

Summary: <p> This case involves a conspiracy charge to defraud a corporation in which the United States was&nbsp;a stockholder.&nbsp; The&nbsp;Fifth Circuit&nbsp;Court of Appeals&nbsp;in <u> United States v. Mitchell </u> referred to this Supreme Court case when it found that the nature of the MMPA does not compel its application to foreign territories. </p>

This case involves a conspiracy charge to defraud a corporation in which the United States was a stockholder.  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Mitchell referred to this Supreme Court case when it found that the nature of the MMPA does not compel its application to foreign territories.

United States v. Hardman

Summary: <p> This is an order vacating the opinions issued in <u> Wilgus </u> , <u> Saenz </u> , and <u> Hardman </u> .&nbsp; The Tenth Circuit requested the attorneys in the above cases to brief the issues outlined by the court.&nbsp; For further discussion regarding religious challenges to the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#religious"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act </a> . </p>

This is an order vacating the opinions issued in Wilgus , Saenz , and Hardman .  The Tenth Circuit requested the attorneys in the above cases to brief the issues outlined by the court.  For further discussion regarding religious challenges to the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

Brower v. Evans

Summary: <p> The district court held that the Secretary's Initial Finding, triggering a change in the dolphin-safe label standard, was not in accordance with the law and constituted an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to (1) obtain and consider preliminary data from the congressionally mandated stress studies and (2) apply the proper legal standard to the available scientific information. We affirm. </p>

The district court held that the Secretary's Initial Finding, triggering a change in the dolphin-safe label standard, was not in accordance with the law and constituted an abuse of discretion because the Secretary failed to (1) obtain and consider preliminary data from the congressionally mandated stress studies and (2) apply the proper legal standard to the available scientific information. We affirm.

U.S. v. Oliver

Summary: <p> Despite delays in receiving eagle parts through the federal permit process, the court rules the BGEPA does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.&nbsp; There is nothing so peculiar about defendant's situation to allow a one-man exception.&nbsp; For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#religious"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act </a> . </p>

Despite delays in receiving eagle parts through the federal permit process, the court rules the BGEPA does not violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.  There is nothing so peculiar about defendant's situation to allow a one-man exception.  For further discussion on religious challenges to the BGEPA by Native Americans, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act .

U.S. v. Martinelli

Summary: <p> Court held the 1962 version of the BGEPA mandates a jury trial where defendant requests one, despite the fact it constitutes a "petty offense."&nbsp; For further discussion&nbsp;of criminal prosecutions under the BGEPA, see <a href="/articles/ddusbgepa.htm#criminal"> Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act. </a> </p>

Court held the 1962 version of the BGEPA mandates a jury trial where defendant requests one, despite the fact it constitutes a "petty offense."  For further discussion of criminal prosecutions under the BGEPA, see Detailed Discussion of Eagle Act.

U.S. v. Hayashi

Summary: <p> Appellant challenged the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, which convicted him of taking a marine mammal in violation of the MMPA.&nbsp; The court reversed appellant's conviction for taking a marine mammal under the MMPA.&nbsp; It held that the MMPA and the regulations implementing the act did not make it a crime to take reasonable steps to deter porpoises from eating fish or bait off a fisherman's line.&nbsp; </p>

Appellant challenged the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, which convicted him of taking a marine mammal in violation of the MMPA.  The court reversed appellant's conviction for taking a marine mammal under the MMPA.  It held that the MMPA and the regulations implementing the act did not make it a crime to take reasonable steps to deter porpoises from eating fish or bait off a fisherman's line.