Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 11-01-2022

Case Style:

United States of America v. David Foster

Case Number: 3:22-cr-00136

Judge: Karl A. Dooley

Court: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven County)

Plaintiff's Attorney: United States Attorney’s Office

Defendant's Attorney:




Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan


Click Here For The Best New Haven Criminal Defense Lawyer Directory


If no lawyer is listed, call 918-582-6422 and MoreLaw will help you find a lawyer for free.

Description: New Haven, Connecticut criminal law lawyer represented Defendant charged with violating the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

In in late September and early October 2020, after receiving an anonymous complaint, the Connecticut Environmental Conservation Police (EnCon) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel investigated the spreading of whole kernel corn around a hunting blind on Menunketesuck Island in Westbrook. David Foster, age 51, of Westbrook, Connecticut, had received a summons for waterfowl baiting/taking violations in the same area in October 2009. On October 10, 2020, which was the opening day of duck hunting season, officers who had established surveillance near the duck blind observed Foster, two other hunters shoot and retrieve ducks over the area that had been baited. When they finished, officers conducted a compliance check. Under questioning, Foster admitted that he had spread corn over the hunting area to attract ducks.

Foster pleaded guilty on August 2, 2022.

This matter was investigated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Law Enforcement, and the Connecticut Environmental Conservation Police. This case was prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Nathaniel J. Gentile.

The Migratory Bird Treat Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. 703, et seq. prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) of protected migratory bird species without prior authorization by the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

See also: Title 50 Part 10.13 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides a list of the species covered by the treat.

Outcome: Defendant was ordered to pay a $4,000 fine.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments:

The Migratory Bird Treat of 1918



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: