United States v. Engler - 806 F.2d 425 (3d Cir. 1986)

Rule:

Strict liability for omissions which are not per se blameworthy may violate due process because such derelictions are unlike the commission of acts, or the failure to act under circumstances that should alert the doer to the consequences of his deed. By contrast, due process is not violated by the imposition of strict liability as part of a regulatory measure in the interest of public safety, which may well be premised on the theory that one would hardly be surprised to learn that the prohibited conduct is not an innocent act. 

Facts:

It is clear that Congress has declared that modern outdoorsmen and outdoorswomen may not interfere with migrating birds, and that the taking and sale of these birds is illegal. Edward Engler was prosecuted for violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act on the basis of the following circumstances. In September 1982, David Kirkland, an undercover agent for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, met with Edward Engler and Elwood Laudenslager at a "trapper's rendezvous" near North Bend, Pennsylvania. Kirkland represented that he was a dealer in animal parts (e.g. bear claws, raccoon tails) and discussed the possibility of purchasing animal parts from Engler and Laudenslager. Over the next several months, Kirkland and other Fish and Wildlife agents purchased animal and bird parts as well as whole birds from Engler and Laudenslager. Between May 15, 1983 and January 16, 1985, Engler sold the agents birds or bird parts that were protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Engler and Laudenslager also sold dynamite to the agents. A grand jury returned three indictments against Engler. The first two charged him with one count of selling or aiding and abetting the sale of stolen explosives in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 842(b), and with fifteen counts of selling migratory birds or bird parts in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 703, 707(b)(2). The third charged Engler with one explosives count and one migratory bird count. After a jury trial, Engler was found guilty on all counts. In response to post-trial motions, the district court dismissed the counts brought pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act but denied Engler's motions for judgment of acquittal and new trial on the remaining counts.  The government challenged the post-conviction dismissal of certain indictments on the basis that the strict liability felony provision of the Act violated the due process clause.

Issue:

Did the Act's strict liability provision offend due process?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the convictions, holding that the government introduced sufficient evidence to allow a jury reasonably to conclude that Engler was predisposed to take protected birds for commercial purposes in violation of the Act, and that the district court did not err in denying his motion for acquittal where he did not show that the government's activities violated due process. The court reversed the dismissal of the indictments by the district court, holding that the strict liability provision of the Act did not offend the requirements of due process where the actions prohibited were not innocent acts and an actor should not be surprised that they were illegal, and where the prohibition furthered important national interests.