ELR Citation: ELR 20486
No(s). 90-2023 (5th Cir. Oct 30, 1990)

The court holds that a shrimping boat operator's knowledge that he possessed a threatened species of sea turtle, or that transportation or importation of the turtle is illegal, is not necessary for a conviction under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The court finds that Congress deliberately omitted a mens rea requirement for violations of ESA §11(b)(1). Congress amended ESA §11(b)(1) in 1978 to provide that violations need not be committed willfully. The committee responsible for the amendment explicitly stated that it did not intend to make knowledge of the law a requirement for ESA violations. Rather, Congress sought to make criminal violations of the ESA general intent, not specific intent, crimes. Moreover, that Congress made violation of ESA §11(b)(1) a misdemeanor, rather than a felony, makes it more likely that Congress meant to impose liability without fault. The court also holds that the district court improperly opted not to impose a $10 special assessment for each of the operator's ESA violations because the operator was indigent. The imposition of special assessments is mandatory under 18 U.S.C. §3013.

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellee
Kathlyn G. Snyder, Ass't U.S. Attorney
U.S. Courthouse, 515 Rusk St., Houston TX 77002
(713) 229-2619

Counsel for Defendant-Appellant
Roland E. Dahlin
Federal Public Defender's Office
P.O. Box 61508, Houston TX 77208-1508
(713) 220-2194

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, THORNBERRY, and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.