You must read this opinion, especially Judge Lagoa's concurrence (joined by Judge Grant), in United States v. John Moore. Here are some excerpts from the beginning of the concurrence:
John Moore, Jr., and Tanner Mansell are felons because they
tried to save sharks from what they believed to be an illegal poaching operation. They are the only felons I have ever encountered, in
eighteen years on the bench and three years as a federal prosecutor,
who called law enforcement to report what they were seeing and
what actions they were taking in real time. They are felons who
derived no benefit, and in fact never sought to derive any benefit,
from the conduct that now stands between them and exercising the
fundamental rights from which they are disenfranchised. What’s
more, they are felons for having violated a statute that no reasonable person would understand to prohibit the conduct they engaged
in.
***
For reasons that defy understanding, Assistant United States
Attorney Tom Watts Fitzgerald learned of these facts and—taking a page out of Inspector Javert’s playbook—brought the matter to a
grand jury to secure an indictment for a charge that carried up to
five years in prison. Watts Fitzgerald decided to pursue this indictment despite the following undisputed facts: Moore and Mansell
(1) called law enforcement to report what they were doing, (2) were
comfortable involving their tourism customers in their actions, (3)
encouraged Kuehl to record what was happening, and (4) returned
the gear to the marina dock as instructed. Against the weight of all
this—which, in my view, plainly suggests a good-faith mistake on
Moore and Mansell’s part—Watts Fitzgerald determined that this
case was worth the public expense of a criminal prosecution, and
the lifelong yokes of felony convictions, rather than imposition of
a civil fine.