Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantliabilitystatutemisdemeanorcase lawstrict liability
defendantdiscoveryliabilityappealwillmisdemeanorcase lawstrict liability

Related Cases

Bernstein v. Bankert, 733 F.3d 190, 77 ERC 1212
View Case »
United States v. Dico, Inc., Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2017 WL 9049852
View Case »
U.S. v. Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F.Supp. 802, 19 ERC 1953, 70 A.L.R. Fed. 314, 13 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,986
View Case »
State of N.Y. v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 22 ERC 1625, 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,358
View Case »
Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U.S. 1, 109 S.Ct. 2273, 105 L.Ed.2d 1, 29 ERC 1657, 57 USLW 4662, 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,974
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

U.S. v. Apollo Energies, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 211580

Facts

The case arose when a landowner reported dead birds found in a heater-treater owned by Apollo Energies. Investigations revealed that numerous heater-treaters in the area contained dead birds, including species protected by the MBTA. The Fish and Wildlife Service had previously warned the oil and gas industry about the dangers posed by heater-treaters to migratory birds. Both defendants were charged and convicted for violations of the MBTA after inspections found dead birds in their heater-treaters.

The present case began in November of 2005, when a landowner telephoned the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to report the discovery of dead birds in a heater-treater owned by Apollo Energies. A heater-treater is a device used in the oil and gas industry to process crude oil. The device does not always employ active combustion, but crude oil will flow through the chamber on the way to storage tanks. Heater-treaters have an exhaust stack with a diameter of approximately 9 inches.

Issue

Did the Magistrate Judge err in holding that a conviction under 16 U.S.C. § 703 does not require any scienter element, but is rather a specific intent crime?

Did the Magistrate Judge err in holding that a conviction under 16 U.S.C. § 703 does not require any scienter element, but is rather a specific intent crime?

Rule

Misdemeanor violations under 16 U.S.C. § 703 of the MBTA are treated as strict liability crimes, meaning that proof of intent or scienter is not necessary for conviction.

Since its enactment, the majority of courts considering misdemeanor violations under § 703 of the MBTA have treated these offenses as strict liability crimes, eliminating proof of scienter from the government's case.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by referencing previous case law that established the MBTA as a strict liability statute. It noted that the defendants had received warnings about the dangers of heater-treaters and had knowledge of the potential for harm to migratory birds. The court found that the defendants' actions fell within the scope of the MBTA, regardless of intent, as the statute applies to both intentional and unintentional behavior.

The court finds that the present appeals should be denied. As the defendants acknowledge, there is also a substantial body of case law squarely holding that the MBTA has no scienter requirement.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the convictions of both defendants, concluding that the MBTA does not require a scienter element for misdemeanor violations.

The court finds unpersuasive the defendants' further suggestion that the Tenth Circuit has subsequently expressed a desire to limit the application of Corrow, or to somehow express support for a narrower view of liability under the MBTA by criticizing one of the cases—United States v. Moon Lake Elec., 45 F.Supp.2d at 1070.

Who won?

The United States prevailed in the case, as the court upheld the convictions of Apollo Energies and Dale Walker based on the strict liability nature of the MBTA.

The court further adopts the conclusions adopted in the well-reasoned opinion of the Magistrate Judge, and orders that the Judgments in the present actions be accordingly AFFIRMED.

You must be