Opinion ID: 212589
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Vagueness Challenge

Text: We recognize that putting together the pieces of this regulatory puzzle is not easy. To understand the crime with which Defendant was charged, one must look at four sources and read them together: the statute, § 1705(a); Executive Order No. 13,222; and two implementing regulations, the Commerce Control List in 15 C.F.R. Part 774 and the Commerce Country Chart in 15 C.F.R. Part 738. But a statute does not fail the vagueness test simply because it involves a complex regulatory scheme, or requires that several sources be read together, and Defendant has not directed us to a single case in which we have held otherwise. See United States v. Kennecott Copper Corp., 523 F.2d 821, 824 (9th Cir.1975) (rejecting a vagueness challenge premised on the complexity of a similar regulatory scheme and observing that the scheme was simple as compared with some other statutory schemes carrying criminal penalties, such as the federal income tax statutes and regulations). Rather, the test is whether the text of the statute and its implementing regulations, read together, give ordinary citizens fair notice with respect to what the statute and regulations forbid, and whether the statute and regulations read together adequately provide for principled enforcement by making clear what conduct of the defendant violates the statutory scheme. City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41, 56, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999). Although complicated, the Export Administration Regulations describe in detail the technologies subject to export control. That detailed description gave Defendant clear warning that the cameras he sought to export fell within the licensing requirement of the export regulations. Those regulations also provide law enforcement with clear guidance as to what technologies they may police. Because the regulations apprise those who take the time and effort to consult them as to what may and may not be taken to other countries without a license and do not allow for arbitrary enforcement, the regulations satisfy due process. Moreover, the scienter requirement in § 1705(c) further alleviates any concern over the complexity of the regulatory scheme. To convict Defendant of willfully violating § 1705(a), the government was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant knew that a license was required for the export of the particular thermal imaging camera he was dealing with, and that Defendant intended to violate the law by exporting or attempting to export such a thermal imaging camera to China without such a license. The requirement that § 1705(c) places on the government to prove Defendant's knowledge of the law `mitigate[s] a law's vagueness, especially with respect to the adequacy of notice to the complainant that his conduct is proscribed.' Jae Gab Kim, 449 F.3d at 943 (quoting Vill. of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 499, 102 S.Ct. 1186, 71 L.Ed.2d 362 (1982)); see also United States v. Quinn, 401 F.Supp.2d 80, 100-01 (D.D.C.2005) (rejecting a vagueness challenge to the export administration regulations because ignorance of the law is a defense and, therefore, concerns about defendants being convicted under a law that they could not have reasonably understood are alleviated).