Zhi Yong Guo, a Chinese citizens was convicted of conspiring to export thermal imaging cameras to China and attempting to export the equipment without a license.

Thermal imaging cameras are a relatively new technological device used for among other things night vision and discovering structural problems in construction. They detect infrared heat and through the use of a computer create an image of the object releasing the heat. Guo is an engineer and owner of a company dedicated to developing uses for
photoelectric technologies in China and he wanted to use the thermal imaging camera in his business but a license is necessary for its export.

On appeal he challenged the validity of the statute on due process grounds. He claimed the statute was too vague. A statute does not meet due process requirement if it is vague. A statute is void for vagueness if it is so unclear that either a person cannot tell what he/she has to do to comply with the statute or law enforcement authorities cannot determine who is violating the statute.

The laws governing which exports need to be licensed are complicated. To determine if a particular device needs a license a person must consider four documents concurrently: the statute, § 1705(a); Executive Order No. 13,222; and two implementing regulations, the Commerce Control List in 15 C.F.R. Part 774 and the Commerce Country Chart in 15 C.F.R. Part 738. When looking at these document it is necessary to consider “(1) connecting the item to the relevant description in the Commerce Control List; (2) identifying the reasons for control applicable to that item; and (3) looking to see whether any of the reasons for control of that item are checked off next to the relevant country on the Commerce Country Chart.” But being complicated does not necessarily make it vague. Reviewing the documents leaves no question that the thermal imaging camera needs an export license.

Furthermore, since the statute requires that a violation of the statute be willful, in order to convict Guo the government had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew he was violating the statute. If he knew that he was violating the statute he must have understood the statute or at least the requirements of the law. As a result the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the conviction.