I was under the impression that federal crimes of this sort are only actionable if you are aware of the legality before it comes into your possession.
That would correlate with your statement that it isn't actually illegal, is that why? There are some crimes where it seems as though the public domain has enough knowledge that you should know better without being explicitly told so. But for something like an under-sized lobster, I think you should get a pass on not knowing.
This also presents a problem of enforcibility - will a law be enforced, and under what conditions, if it's a "silly law"? I think this is what really makes it important to have things to hide - you could be tried for what they find if they are pursuing you for other reasons.
In other words, I sure hope Edward Snowden doesn't have an under-sized lobster.
I think the US has begun to completely ignore what is known as "Mens Rea" for regulations such as this. While for something like Murder you have to have intended to commit the crime, many other crimes require no intent or prior knowledge. (Manslaughter, Child Pornography, Possession of Undersized Lobster as examples)
This isn't true at all. Read model jury instructions sometime; you'll see that virtually all of them instruct the jury not to convict without first determining that there was some knowing action. The "Undersized Lobster" statute is explicit about this, but doesn't have to be; the "strict liability" crimes (like statutory rape) are the exception, not the rule.
No that's a misunderstanding of the legal term of art "knowingly".
It is a legal maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse. A law that has a mens rea (i.e. intent) of "knowingly" refers to some factual circumstance that is one of the elements of the crime.
An example from the New York state penal law:
"156.05 Unauthorized use of a computer.
A person is guilty of unauthorized use of a computer when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization."
In this case the "knowingly" element is satisfied if you knew (or should have known) that you didn't not have authorization to access the computer, computer service, or computer network.
Similarly for possession statutes, the (sometimes implicit) knowingly element is satisfied if you knew you possessed the given item even if you had no idea possessing it was illegal. A situation where the knowingly element would not be satisfied, is if someone snuck the item into your luggage.
That would correlate with your statement that it isn't actually illegal, is that why? There are some crimes where it seems as though the public domain has enough knowledge that you should know better without being explicitly told so. But for something like an under-sized lobster, I think you should get a pass on not knowing.
This also presents a problem of enforcibility - will a law be enforced, and under what conditions, if it's a "silly law"? I think this is what really makes it important to have things to hide - you could be tried for what they find if they are pursuing you for other reasons.
In other words, I sure hope Edward Snowden doesn't have an under-sized lobster.