United States v. Darst

A Kansas conservation officer observed a great horned owl caught in a leg trap on Billy Joe Darst’s (defendant) property. The officer advised Darst to contact a federal game officer for a trapping permit because killing great horned owls was prohibited by law. When the officer returned to Darst’s property approximately four months later, he again observed a great horned owl in a leg trap. Darst told the officer that the great horned owls were killing his chickens and that he had set four traps meant to protect his property. Furthermore, Darst confirmed he had not contacted the federal game officer or inquired after a trapping permit. The United States (plaintiff) charged Darst with illegally taking migratory birds in violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and its attendant regulations. Pursuant to the MBTA, the secretary of the interior (the secretary) was authorized to promulgate certain regulations related to the taking of migratory birds. The great horned owl was included in the secretary’s regulation that listed the applicable species of birds protected by the MBTA. Darst, a pro se defendant, argued that the secretary’s definition was excessively broad because the great horned owl was not a migratory bird and, furthermore, that the MBTA was unconstitutionally vague because it did not define migratory birds except by regulation of the secretary. Darst was found guilty, and he appealed his conviction.