Motion that ITAR Is Unconstitutionally Vague Fails for Now

Even though our booming seminar business seems to confirm that the ITAR is vague on many points, it seems for now that a court has decided the ITAR is not unconstitutionally vague as it relates to the case of Qing Li.

Last year Qing Li was charged with conspiracy to export defense articles without a license and to smuggle goods from the US. Li attempted to export Endevco 7270A-200K accelerometers without a license to China and was caught by undercover agents.

Her case is now scheduled to go to trial. Qing Li’s legal defense ordered motions to dismiss the indictment and to suppress evidence but were shot down indefinitely. Li argued that the indictment should be dismissed on the grounds that the AECA and its implementing regulations are unconstitutionally vague as they are applied to her case. Her defense disputes that a person of ordinary intelligence could not have been able to determine if the Endevco accelerometer was a “military accelerometer” that required an export license. They supported this argument by showing a two page manufacturer-provided “public information” sheet regarding the accelerometers. The defense argued that, “[a] person of ordinary intelligence would likely deem that data sheet incomprehensible, and that the sheet does not indicate whether the device is for military or weapons use.”

The court denied her motion to dismiss claiming that the defendant failed to cite a single case in where the court found the AECA unconstitutionally vague, and whether or not she knew that the accelerometers were on the munitions list will be for the jury to decide. Her motion to suppress evidence was also denied as the subpoenas were all authorized, she had no reasonable expectation of privacy, and she lacked standing to assert any fourth amendment violations.

More information:

• Qing Li Indictment Update (ExportLawBlog)