Results
Displaying 1 - 10 of 69
| Title | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| OH - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 2923. Conspiracy, Attempt, and Complicity; Weapons Control. Corrupt Activity. | R.C. § 2923.31 - 2923.36 | OH ST § 2923.31 - 2923.36 | This Ohio law define "animal or ecological terrorism" as the commission of any felony that involves causing or creating a substantial risk of physical harm to any property of another, the use of a deadly weapon or dangerous ordnance, or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causing serious physical harm to property and that involves an intent to obstruct, impede, or deter any person from participating in a lawful animal activity, from mining, foresting, harvesting, gathering, or processing natural resources, or from being lawfully present in or on an animal facility or research facility. | Statute |
| CA - Zoo - § 602.13. Entering animal enclosure at zoo, circus, or traveling animal exhibit; punishment; exceptions; other prosec | West's Ann. Cal. Penal Code § 602.13 | CA PENAL § 602.13 | This law makes it an infraction for a person to enter into an animal enclosure at a zoo, circus, or traveling animal exhibit if that facility is licensed or permitted to display animals and if it posts signs prohibiting entrance into the animal enclosures. | Statute |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 (S.D. Iowa, 2018) | 297 F.Supp.3d 901 | Plaintiffs, a collection of local and national non-profit organizations brought this action alleging that Iowa Code § 717A.3A, which criminalizes agrigcultural facility fraud by either obtaining access to an agricultural facility on false pretenses or making a false statement or false representation in regard to the application or agreement to be employed by an agricultural facility, impeded their ability to advocate for their respective causes. Some of the non-profit organizations listed as plaintiffs, engaged in undercover investigations where investigators serve as employees at argricultural facilities to gather information about the inner workings of slaughterhouses and other facilities. The plaintiffs alleged that the Iowa statute was unconstitutional on its face becuase it violated the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Discrict Court determined that the plaintiffs have standing to make their claim and have an injury sufficient to suppor their standing. The defendants sought a motion to dismiss. The District Court ultimately denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the First Amendment claim and granted the motion to dismiss with respect to the Equal Protection claim. | Case |
| WA - Ecoterrorism - 4.24.570. Acts against animals in research or educational facilities | West's RCWA 4.24.570 - 580 | WA ST 4.24.570 - 580 | These Washington sections concern interference with animal research or educational facilities as well as facilities that keep animals for agricultural or veterinary purposes. Both sections provide that any person or organization that plans or assists in the development of a plan to commit an intentional tort described in the laws is liable for damages to the same extent as a person who has committed the tort. However, membership in a liable organization does not in itself establish the member's liability under this subsection. Section 4.24.580 allows an individual employed with an animal facility to obtain injunctive relief if he or she has reason to believe that he or she may be injured. This includes obtaining an injunction to prevent harassment. | Statute |
| GA - Ecoterrorism - Article 2. Georgia Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act | Ga. Code Ann., § 4-11-30 to 35 | GA ST § 4-11-30 to 35 | This article is known as the Georgia Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act. A person commits an offense if, without the consent of the owner, the person acquires or otherwise exercises control over an animal facility, an animal from an animal facility, or other property from an animal facility with the intent to deprive the owner of such facility, animal, or property and to disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Other prohibited actions also include gaining entry where a person knows entry is forbidden. In the definition of "consent," the act states that the term does not include assent that is induced by force, threat, false pretenses or fraud. It also excludes assent given by a person that the actor knows is not authorized by the owner, or given by a person who the actor knows is unable to make reasonable decisions (e.g., because of youth, intoxication, or mental disease or defect). Violations that involve exercising control over a facility are felonies; those that involve illegal entry or damage less than $500 are misdemeanors. | Statute |
| ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, CENTER FOR FOOD SAFETY, SHY 38, INC. & HOPE SANCTUARY, Plaintiffs, v. LAURA KELLY & DEREK SCHMIDT, Defendants | Slip Copy, No. CV 18-2657-KHV, 2020 WL 362626 (D. Kan. Jan. 22, 2020) | The Animal Legal Defense Fund (“ALDF”), Center for Food Safety (“CFS”), Shy 38, Inc. and Hope Sanctuary are interest groups that aim to protect and advocate for animals and the environment. These interest groups filed suit on December 4, 2018 against the Governor and Attorney General of Kansas seeking a declaratory judgment that the Kansas Animal and Field Crop and Research Facilities Protect Act was unconstitutional. The Act made it a crime to damage or destroy an animal facility or an animal, exercise control over an animal facility or animal from a facility, take photos or videos at an animal facility that that is not open to the public, and remain at an animal facility against the owner’s wishes. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. ALDF desired to conduct an undercover investigation in Kansas but refrained from doing so out of fear of criminal prosecution under the Act. The Plaintiffs alleged that the Act violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. To be subject to criminal prosecution under subsection (a) of K.S.A. 47-1827, the ALDF investigator had to cause physical damage to an animal or the animal facility or its property. The Plaintiffs did not allege that the ALDF investigator intended to cause such physical damage so the ALDF investigator was not at risk of criminal prosecution under the provision and, therefore, ALDF did not demonstrate standing to challenge subsection (a). ALDF alleged sufficient injury to support standing to challenge subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Act. CFS, Shy 38, and Hope Sanctuary also had standing to challenge those subsections. The Court found that subsections (b), (c), and (d) regulated speech rather than conduct and was content-based rather than neutral-based. The Court ultimately concluded that the Plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on their claim that subsections (b), (c), and (d) violated the First Amendment. The Defendants were entitled to summary judgment on their lack of standing claim for subsection (a) and K.S.A. 47-1828. | Case | |
| UT - Ag gag - § 76-6-112. Agricultural operation interference--Penalties | U.C.A. 1953 § 76-6-112 | UT ST § 76-6-112 | This Utah law creates the crime of "agricultural operation interference ." A person commits agricultural operation interference if he or she records an image or sound from an agricultural operation by leaving a recording device without consent, obtains access to an agricultural operation under false pretenses, applies for employment with the intent to record, or without consent intentionally records the operation while committing criminal trespass. | Statute |
| Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Reynolds | 8 F.4th 781 (8th Cir. 2021) | This appeal centers around an Iowa statute called the “Agricultural Production Facility Fraud" law that prohibited accessing agricultural production facilities by false pretenses and making false statements as part of an employment application to an agricultural production facility. Animal rights organizations filed a § 1983 action against state and county officials contending the law violated the the First Amendment free speech clause. The district court ruled that both provisions are unconstitutional and entered an injunction against enforcement of the entire statute. Here, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The court found both the Access Provision and the Employment Provision constitute direct regulations of speech. However, the court held the conclude that the Access Provision's prohibition on assuming false pretenses to obtain access to an agricultural production facility is consistent with the First Amendment. In contrast, the Employment Provision did not survive strict scrutiny because is proscribes speech that is protected by the First Amendment and was not narrowly tailored. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs on Iowa Code § 717A.3A(1)(b), reversed the judgment declaring unconstitutional § 717A.3A(1)(a), vacated the injunction against enforcement of § 717A.3A(1)(a), (2), and (3), and remanded for further proceedings. | Case | |
| KS - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 47. Livestock and Domestic Animals. | K. S. A. 47-1825 - 1830 | KS ST 47-1825 - 1830 | This section comprises Kansas' farm animal and field crop and research facilities protection act. Under the act, no person shall, without the effective consent of the owner and with the intent to damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility, damage or destroy an animal facility or any animal or property in or on an animal facility. A person is also prohibited from exercising control over an animal or property. The act makes it illegal for a person to enter an animal facility that is not open to the public to take pictures or video. Violation is a nonperson felony if the property damage is $25,000 or more. Illegal entry that involves taking of pictures or video is a class A, nonperson misdemeanor. | Statute |
| OK - Ecoterrorism - G-1. Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act | 2 Okl. St. Ann. § 5-103 to 107 | OK ST T. 2 § 5-103 to 107 | This article is known as the “Oklahoma Farm Animal, Crop, and Research Facilities Protection Act." A person commits an offense if, without the consent of the owner, the person acquires or otherwise exercises control over an animal facility, an animal from an animal facility, or other property from an animal facility with the intent to deprive the owner of such facility, animal, or property and to disrupt or damage the enterprise conducted at the animal facility. Violation is a felony and results in a fine of up to $10,000 and/or 3 years imprisonment. | Statute |