215 A.3d 827
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2019Background
- George M. Hayden, a commercial waterman, was observed harvesting oysters on Feb. 25, 2017 from Whites Neck Creek and relaying them to his private aquaculture lease; the area was closed by MDE for pollution and relaying was not permitted that day.
- Hayes admitted relaying oysters, lacked a relay permit, and signed a 2016 acknowledgment certifying receipt of DNR maps and the Shellfish Closure Manual.
- DNR issued citations and, under Nat. Res. § 4-1210, sought administrative revocation of Hayden’s authorization to commercially harvest oysters.
- The ALJ revoked Hayden’s oyster authorization, construing “knowingly” in § 4-1210(b)(2) to require only that the act be deliberate/intended (not that the actor knew his conduct was unlawful), and alternatively finding deliberate ignorance and imputed knowledge based on the signed materials.
- The circuit court affirmed; the Court of Special Appeals likewise affirmed, holding “knowingly” means intentionally/deliberately and substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s findings.
Issues
| Issue | Hayden's Argument | DNR's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “knowingly” in Nat. Res. § 4-1210(b)(2) for license revocation | “Knowingly” requires subjective awareness that the conduct was unlawful (a mens rea of knowing illegality) | “Knowingly” means intentionally/deliberately (awareness of one’s conduct and circumstances, not knowledge that conduct is illegal) | Court: “knowingly” = intentionally/deliberately; no requirement of awareness that conduct violated law |
| Sufficiency of evidence to revoke authorization | Hayden: he believed his family riparian rights and agency staff comments made him reasonably believe relaying was permitted | DNR: Hayden intentionally harvested and relayed from a closed, polluted area; he signed acknowledgments and received closure maps/manuals | Court: substantial evidence supported ALJ finding of deliberate conduct and deliberate ignorance; imputed knowledge via DNR materials justified revocation |
Key Cases Cited
- Liparota v. United States, 471 U.S. 419 (1985) (statute criminalizing use of food stamps required proof defendant knew conduct was unauthorized)
- Chow v. State, 393 Md. 431 (2006) (interpreting “knowingly” to require awareness that activity was illegal in illegal firearm transfer statute)
- Greenway v. State, 8 Md. App. 194 (1969) (knowledge element satisfied by actual knowledge of facts, not necessarily knowledge of illegality)
- Kor-Ko Ltd. v. Maryland Dept. of the Environment, 451 Md. 401 (2017) (standard for reviewing administrative decisions; “look through” approach)