Facts
- Connecticut criminalized killing certain game birds for export and possessing such birds within the state with intent to transport them out of state.
- Edward M. Geer was charged by information in New London, Connecticut with receiving and possessing woodcock, ruffed grouse, and quail killed in Connecticut with intent to procure transportation beyond the state.
- Geer was convicted and fined in the police court.
- On appeal to the Criminal Court of Common Pleas, Geer demurred, arguing the statute was unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution, chiefly the Commerce Clause; the demurrer was overruled, and he was again adjudged guilty and fined.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors affirmed.
- Geer sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court by writ of error.
Issues
- Whether a state may, consistent with the Commerce Clause, prohibit possessing game birds within the state when done with intent to transport them out of state, even if the birds were lawfully taken under state law.
- Whether such an export/transport restriction is a permissible exercise of state police power to conserve wildlife or an impermissible regulation of interstate commerce.
Decision
- The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the judgment sustaining Geer’s conviction.
- The Court held Connecticut could prohibit the export and interstate transportation of game birds taken within the state.
- The Court treated the statute as a conservation measure regulating the conditions under which wildlife may be reduced to possession and used, rather than as a direct regulation of interstate commerce.
Legal Principles
- A state may regulate and preserve wild game as a resource held in trust for the public, including by limiting the terms on which private persons may take and possess it.
- When a state permits wildlife to become private property only subject to conditions, it may attach limitations to that privilege, including restrictions on export.
- A conservation-based restriction directed at the in-state use and disposition of wildlife may be sustained as an exercise of state police power and not invalidated solely because it incidentally affects interstate movement.
Conclusion
The Court upheld Connecticut’s ban on possessing certain in-state-killed game birds with intent to ship them out of state, reasoning that the state’s authority to conserve wildlife allowed it to condition private possession and bar export without violating the Commerce Clause.