T.J. Hufnagel v. PA Game Commission, T.J. Hufnagel v. PA Game Commission

In Dec. 2014 WCO Byron Gibbs cited Hufnagel for hunting with bait and for not having required fluorescent orange markings; Hufnagel pled guilty in Jan. 2015 and was fined; the Commission issued a warning that a future baiting violation would result in revocation.
In Nov. 2015 Gibbs found Hufnagel in a blind over a corn feeder and cited him for baiting; a magisterial district judge convicted Hufnagel of baiting and imposed fines.
In Mar. 2016 the Pennsylvania Game Commission proposed revoking Hufnagel’s hunting/furtaking privileges for three years beginning July 1, 2016; a hearing was held in July 2016.
The hearing officer recommended maintaining revocation but reducing it to two years after weighing mitigating and aggravating factors (second offense within 12 months; involvement of minor son; prior good record and community service).
The Commission adopted the recommendation; Hufnagel appealed to the Commonwealth Court raising vagueness of 34 Pa. C.S. § 929 and contesting the finding that he had prior written notice (April 3, 2015 warning letter).
The Commonwealth Court affirmed: § 929 is not unconstitutionally vague, warnings are not required by statute, and substantial evidence supported the Commission’s finding that Hufnagel had been put on notice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 34 Pa. C.S. § 929 is void for vagueness	§929 gives no standards for when the Commission will impose civil license revocations, enabling arbitrary/discriminatory enforcement	§929 plainly authorizes revocation upon conviction and sets a five-year maximum; SOP guidelines merely provide internal guidance and promulgation of penalty guidelines is not constitutionally required	Court held §929 not unconstitutionally vague and discretionary revocation consistent with statute
Whether there was substantial evidence that Hufnagel received prior written warning	Hufnagel testified he never received the April 3, 2015 warning; absence of mailing certificate and officer’s lack of personal knowledge undermine the finding	Commission relied on certified exhibit packet (including the warning), matching addresses, other letters Hufnagel received/acted on, and officer testimony about procedures	Court held there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Hufnagel was on notice; warning not required by statute anyway

Pa. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Cohen, 292 A.2d 277 (Pa. 1972) (board may not apply broad, undefined standards of "grossly unprofessional conduct" without statutory guidance)
Orwell Twp. Supervisors v. Jewett, 571 A.2d 1100 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (license-denial standard based on aesthetics held unconstitutionally vague)
Metro Transp. Co. v. Pa. Pub. Util. Comm’n, 525 A.2d 24 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (penalty guidelines afford agency flexibility and are not constitutionally required to be published)
Thorne v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 727 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (official certified records may be admitted without custodian testimony under judicial-code provisions)
Spagnoletti v. Dep’t of Transp., Bureau of Driver Licensing, 90 A.3d 759 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (failure to warn of collateral civil consequence does not invalidate plea or preclude imposition of collateral consequence)