FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK IS PROHIBITED DEPENDS UPON THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND A COMPARISON WITH THE ABOVE DEFINITIONS OF COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR AND COMMERCIAL APPLICATION.
SINCE 3-82 IS OF A PENAL NATURE, CLASSIFYING CERTAIN CONDUCT AS A MISDEMEANOR, THE STATUTE MUST BE CONSTRUED NARROWLY. PENAL STATUTES ARE TO BE INTERPRETED STRICTLY AGAINST THE STATE AND LIBERALLY IN FAVOR OF THE ACCUSED, AND WORDS NOT FOUND IN THE TEXT OF A CRIMINAL STATUTE SHOULD NOT BE READ INTO IT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXTENDING IT OR GIVING IT AN INTERPRETATION IN CONFORMITY WITH SUPPOSED POLICY. STATE V. HUMPHREY, 620 P.2D 408 (OKL.CR.1980). ADDITIONALLY, THERE DO NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY REPORTED CASES CONSTRUING THE OKLAHOMA LAWS RELATING TO LICENSURE OF PESTICIDE APPLICATORS.
II.
COMMERCIAL PESTICIDE APPLICATORS UNDER OKLAHOMA LAW
APPLYING THE ABOVE DEFINITIONS TO YOUR INQUIRY, IT APPEARS THAT THE CONDUCT OF BIDDING ON THE CONTRACT TAKES THIS SITUATION OUTSIDE THE DEFINITIONS OF BOTH "PRIVATE" AND "NONCOMMERCIAL" APPLICATORS, SINCE IT INVOLVES NEITHER THE LAND OF THE PERSON APPLYING THE PESTICIDE NOR THE SUPERVISING OF A PERSON WHO OWNS OR MANAGES THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH PESTICIDE IS BEING APPLIED. FURTHER EXAMINATION IS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS CONDUCT IS COVERED BY THE TERM "COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR." THE STATUTORY DEFINITION OF "COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR" IS CLEAR IN DELINEATING THOSE PERSONS THAT MUST OBTAIN A LICENSE FROM THE STATE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE AS PERSONS WHO ENGAGE IN COMMERCIAL APPLICATION OF PESTICIDES OR COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT OF DEVICES.
THE TERM "COMMERCIAL APPLICATION," IS DEFINED AS:
"THE ADVERTISING OF SERVICES, RECOMMENDATION FOR USE, THE PREPARATION FOR APPLICATION AND PHYSICAL ACT OF APPLICATION OF A PESTICIDE OR EMPLOYMENT OF A DEVICE FOR HIRE OR COMPENSATION." 2 O.S. 3-81(11).
SINCE THIS LIST DEFINES THE ACTIONS OF A COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR TO BE REGULATED BY 2 O.S. 3-82(A), WE MUST EXAMINE IT CLOSELY. THOUGH WE MUST STRICTLY CONSTRUE STATUTES OF A CRIMINAL NATURE, IT APPEARS THAT THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED IN YOUR INQUIRY FITS WITHIN THESE ACTIVITIES, AND THUS IS A VIOLATION OF 3-82.
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT BIDDING ON AND SECURING A COMMERCIAL CONTRACT FOR THE APPLICATION OF PESTICIDE IS CONDUCT OF A COMMERCIAL NATURE, DONE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING MONETARY GAIN. THE ACTIONS YOU DESCRIBE SEEM TO FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING. ADVERTISING IS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT, THEREFORE WE MUST USE THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF THE TERM. ADVERTISING IS "TO CALL THE PUBLIC'S ATTENTION TO THINGS FOR SALE OR RENT, HELP WANTED, ETC., AS BY PRINTED NOTICES, OR TO ASK (FOR) PUBLICLY BY PRINTED NOTICE." WEBSTER'S NEW WORLD DICTIONARY, P. 20 (2ND ED. 1980).
THUS, SINCE ADVERTISING OF SERVICES WITHOUT A COMMERCIAL APPLICATOR'S LICENSE IS WITHIN THE PROHIBITED ACTS, AND SINCE THE ACTIVITIES DESCRIBED IN YOUR INQUIRY APPEAR TO FIT WITHIN THE COMMONLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF ADVERTISING, THE CONDUCT OF BIDDING ON AND SECURING A COMMERCIAL CONTRACT FOR THE APPLICATION OF PESTICIDE AND SUB-CONTRACTING WITH A LICENSED APPLICATOR FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK IS PROHIBITED BY 2 O.S. 3-82 (1991).
CONCLUSION
IT IS,