Question 1

Although local governments generally resort to administrative and civil court remedies for enforcement of zoning regulations, local zoning ordinances usually classify violations as misdemeanors.

Accepted Answer

Local zoning ordinances typically classify violations as misdemeanors, even though administrative and civil court remedies are the most common enforcement methods used by local governments.

Question 2

The criminal enforcement provisions of local zoning ordinances must include an intent requirement.

Accepted Answer

Local zoning ordinances do not necessarily require an intent requirement for criminal enforcement provisions; they can impose strict liability offenses where intent is not a factor.

Question 3

Congress has adopted a federal law prohibiting smoking in restaurants, bars and sports arenas.

Accepted Answer

As of October 2023, there is no federal law in the United States that universally prohibits smoking in restaurants, bars, and sports arenas; such regulations are typically enacted at the state or local level.

Question 4

The courts have not permitted the "responsible corporate officer" to apply to the Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act.

Accepted Answer

The courts have permitted the "responsible corporate officer" doctrine to apply to the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. The doctrine holds an individual corporate officer responsible for a company's violations, even if they personally did not commit the violation or have knowledge of it.

Question 5

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) imposes civil but not criminal penalties on persons who dispose of certain hazardous wastes without a permit.

Accepted Answer

The RCRA imposes both civil and criminal penalties for the illegal disposal of hazardous waste without a permit.

Question 6

Under the doctrine of ferae naturae each state has the exclusive authority to regulate the taking of migratory birds.

Accepted Answer

Under the doctrine of ferae naturae, states have exclusive authority to regulate the taking of wildlife within their borders, but migratory birds are under the authority of the federal government, specifically the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

Question 7

State environmental regulations are markedly disparate in standards, enforcement policies, and sanctions.

Accepted Answer

State environmental regulations vary greatly in their standards, enforcement, and penalties, creating a patchwork of policies across the United States.

Question 8

Prior to 1980, government agencies relied primarily on criminal penalties as a tool to enforce environmental regulations.

Accepted Answer

The answer of Prior to 1980, government agencies relied primarily...

Question 9

Most state wildlife and fish laws define strict liability offenses, but if a law includes terms such as "willfully" or "knowingly," the prosecution must prove the defendant's intent.

Accepted Answer

This is correct. Most state wildlife and fish laws do define strict liability offenses, but if the law includes language such as "willfully" or "knowingly," then the prosecution must prove that the defendant had the intention to commit the offense.

Question 10

Despite federal regulations, the primary responsibility for protecting the population from noise pollution rests with state and local governments.

Accepted Answer

The federal government has established regulations related to noise pollution, but it is primarily the responsibility of state and local governments to enforce these regulations and protect their communities from excessive noise.

Question 11

At the turn of the century, the U.S.Supreme Court determined that compulsory vaccination laws encroached upon individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.

Accepted Answer

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of compulsory vaccination laws in the 1905 case Jacobson v. Massachusetts, ruling that individual liberties could be overridden for public health and safety.

Question 12

Offenses defined by public health laws that impose criminal penalties are generally "strict liability" offenses.

Accepted Answer

Strict liability offenses do not require intent or mens rea to be proven, but rather the mere violation of the law. Public health laws often impose criminal penalties for offenses such as selling contaminated food, which are considered strict liability offenses.

Question 13

A corporate officer whose duties require supervision of sanitation in the preparation of food, but who delegates authority over sanitation to lower level employees, cannot be held criminally liable under the Federal Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Accepted Answer

According to the "Park Doctrine" or "Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine," corporate officers can be held criminally liable for violations of the Federal Pure Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, even if they did not have direct knowledge or involvement in the violation, as long as they had the authority and responsibility to prevent or correct the violation and failed to do so. Delegating authority does not absolve them of their responsibility.

Question 14

Corporations as well as responsible corporate officers can be held criminally liable for environmental offenses.

Accepted Answer

This is true. Both corporations and responsible corporate officers can be held criminally liable for environmental offenses under various environmental laws such as the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. This can include fines, imprisonment, and other penalties.

Question 15

Many violations in the public health area are caused by corporate entities; therefore, courts often focus on whether an accused, by reason of his or her position in the corporate enterprise, had sufficient responsibility and authority to either prevent or correct the violation charged.

Accepted Answer

This statement is true. Courts often consider the level of responsibility and authority of an accused in a corporate entity in cases of public health violations, as they may have the power to prevent or correct such violations.

Question 16

Enforcement of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is accomplished largely through civil penalties, but criminal liability is imposed against anyone who knowingly violates regulations issued under the act.

Accepted Answer

Civil penalties are the primary means of enforcement, but criminal liability is also imposed for knowing violations of regulations under the Endangered Species Act.

Question 17

The "responsible corporate officer" doctrine was originally applied in public health cases, but it is now also being applied by the courts in respect to environmental crimes.

Accepted Answer

This is true. The responsible corporate officer doctrine holds high-level executives accountable for criminal actions occurring under their watch, regardless of their personal involvement or knowledge of the crime. It has been extended from public health cases to also include environmental crimes.

Question 18

Most zoning ordinances classify criminal violations as felonies and provide for prison terms upon conviction.

Accepted Answer

Zoning ordinances typically do not address criminal violations or provide for criminal penalties. Zoning violations are considered civil matters and are typically subject to fines or other administrative penalties.

Question 19

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 Act contained no criminal penalties for discharge of refuse into the navigable waters of the United States.

Accepted Answer

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 does include criminal penalties for the unauthorized discharge of refuse into navigable waters of the United States.

Question 20

Although environmental statutes are enforced primarily through civil means, criminal sanctions can be imposed for knowingly discharging pollutants, for violations concerning permits, and for making false statements.

Accepted Answer

Criminal sanctions can be imposed for certain environmental violations as specified in the statement.

Quiz 11: Offenses Against Public Health and the Environment