goliathusdavid
Arachnobaron
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2020
- Messages
- 487
I am creating this thread to act as a continuation of the discussion in the thread "Government says new centipede was illegally collected." Though it was not relevant to this particular case, a number of questions came up regarding the Lacey Act's use of the phrase "knowingly" in committing wildlife crimes. Having done some in depth analysis of the text, and having looked over it with a couple lawyer friends (one a criminal litigator, the other, a renewable energy lawyer) I would like to clear up any confusion.
The word "knowingly" does NOT mean that you have to know that you are breaking the law to be indicted. It means you have to be consciously engaging in the offending action - regardless of whether or not you know it is illegal. An action is defined as being committed knowingly by the federal third district court if "done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason." Notice, you don't have to know the law or consequence - just that you are taking an action.
The Lacey Act specifically also makes room for prosecuting people who did not know the law. It states clearly that people who "in the exercise of due care should have known [that their actions are illegal]" can still face criminal charges. Similar phrases appear two additional times throughout the act. Let's look at a few scenarios of this in action:
1. A few years ago, I opened a case of Guaraná (a delightful Brazilian soda) that I had bought from a local store to find myself surrounded by dozens of exotic roach babies which I now believe to have been Eublaberus serranus. As a USDA regulated species it would have been illegal for me to possess them or transport them intentionally but as I did so completely accidentally and unknowingly, I did not violate the Lacey Act. Had I kept or sold the roaches however, I would have.
2. An individual buys a number of Archispirostreptus gigas from a UK seller and imports them into the United States to sell domestically. Whether or not they know such an action to be illegal, they still violate the Lacey Act, by intentionally importing this species. And had they exercised "due care" they would have known this.
But don't believe me, here is the act itself and here is Michigan State University's EXTENSIVE analysis. @Malum Argenteum, @Frogdaddy, and everyone else who participated or read the previous thread, I hope this clears thing up. And yes, I know I'm a crazy nerd. But I'm passionate about wildlife law, and frankly, I wish more of us were.
The word "knowingly" does NOT mean that you have to know that you are breaking the law to be indicted. It means you have to be consciously engaging in the offending action - regardless of whether or not you know it is illegal. An action is defined as being committed knowingly by the federal third district court if "done voluntarily and intentionally, and not because of mistake or accident or other innocent reason." Notice, you don't have to know the law or consequence - just that you are taking an action.
The Lacey Act specifically also makes room for prosecuting people who did not know the law. It states clearly that people who "in the exercise of due care should have known [that their actions are illegal]" can still face criminal charges. Similar phrases appear two additional times throughout the act. Let's look at a few scenarios of this in action:
1. A few years ago, I opened a case of Guaraná (a delightful Brazilian soda) that I had bought from a local store to find myself surrounded by dozens of exotic roach babies which I now believe to have been Eublaberus serranus. As a USDA regulated species it would have been illegal for me to possess them or transport them intentionally but as I did so completely accidentally and unknowingly, I did not violate the Lacey Act. Had I kept or sold the roaches however, I would have.
2. An individual buys a number of Archispirostreptus gigas from a UK seller and imports them into the United States to sell domestically. Whether or not they know such an action to be illegal, they still violate the Lacey Act, by intentionally importing this species. And had they exercised "due care" they would have known this.
But don't believe me, here is the act itself and here is Michigan State University's EXTENSIVE analysis. @Malum Argenteum, @Frogdaddy, and everyone else who participated or read the previous thread, I hope this clears thing up. And yes, I know I'm a crazy nerd. But I'm passionate about wildlife law, and frankly, I wish more of us were.