Results

Displaying 41 - 50 of 69
Titlesort descending Author Citation Alternate Citation Summary Type
NC - Ecoterrorism - § 99A-1. Recovery of Damages for Exceeding the Scope of Authorized Access to Property N.C.G.S.A. § 99A-1, 2 NC ST § 99A-1, 2 This law is known as North Carolina’s Property Protection Act and is what many consider to be a new variation of ag-gag law. § 99A-2 imposes a civil punishment for “exceeding the scope of authorized access to property.” A person exceeds access to authority by intentionally gaining access to the non-public areas of another’s premises and removing (and subsequently distributing) documents, recording images or sounds, placing a camera on the premises, conspiring in organized retail theft, or interfering with property. The punishment for violation of the Property Protection Act can result in equitable relief, compensatory damages, costs and fees, and exemplary damages of $5,000 per day that a defendant has acted in violation. The law is effective January 1, 2016. Statute
ND - Ecoterrorism - Chapter 12.1-21.1. Animal Research Facility Damage NDCC 12.1-21.1-01 to 05 ND ST 12.1-21.1-01 to 05 This chapter concerns unlawful interference with animal facilities. Under the section, a person may not intentionally damage or destroy an animal facility or the property or animals located therein; exercise control over the animals or property; enter an animal facility not open to the public with the intent on committing prohibited acts; enter a facility and remain concealed to commit prohibited acts; or intentionally release an animal at a facility. Violation is a class B felony if damage is $10,000 or more, a class C felony if the damage is at least $500 to under $10,000, and a class A misdemeanor if damage is less than $500. Entering an animal facility and using or attempting to use a camera, video recorder, or any other video or audio recording equipment is a class B misdemeanor. Statute
NH - Ecoterrorism - 644:8-e Willful Interference With Organizations or Projects Involving Animals N.H. Rev. Stat. § 644:8-e NH ST § 644:8-e This law is New Hampshire's eco/agroterrorism law. The law states that whoever willfully causes bodily injury or willfully interferes with any property, including animals or records, used by any organization or project involving animals, or with any animal facility shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor. Whoever in the course of a violation of paragraph I causes serious bodily injury to another individual or economic loss in excess of $10,000 shall be guilty of a class B felony. Statute
NY - Ecoterrorism - § 378. Unlawful tampering with animal research McKinney's Agriculture and Markets Law § 378 NY AGRI & MKTS § 378 This New York law comprises the state's ecoterrorism provision. A person who has been given "notice," as defined by the law, is guilty of the crime of "unlawful tampering with animal research" if he or she: (1) knowingly or intentionally releases an animal from a facility or causes the abandonment of an animal knowing that such animal was exposed to infectious agents prior to such release or abandonment and was capable of transmitting such infectious agents to humans; or (2) with intent to do so, causes loss or damage to secret scientific material, and having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, causes loss of or damage to any secret scientific material in an amount in excess of two hundred fifty dollars at a facility. Statute
NY - Research, animal - Article 5. Laboratories. Title I. General Provisions: State Laboratories; Approved Laboratories. McKinney's Public Health Law § 500 - 506 NY PUB HEALTH § 500 - 506 The group of statutes provides that the commissioner shall require laboratories and research facilities to treat all animals used in testing humanely, provide food and suitable housing, and that any experiments that inflict or involve pain shall be performed with anesthesia. Each research facility shall be inspected by the commissioner in order to ensure compliance with said rules. In addition, the statutes provide that alternative animal testing methods be utilized when the alternative has been scientifically validated and recommended by the Inter-Agency Coordinating Committee for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) and adopted by the appropriate federal agency. Statute
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
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
Ouderkirk v. People for Ethical Treatment of Animals, Inc. 2007 WL 1035093 (E.D.Mich.) (Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 1035093 (E.D.Mich.)) Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

The plaintiffs in this case own a chinchilla ranch in mid-Michigan. They filed a complaint alleging that PETA lied to them to gain access to their farm, took video footage of their farm operation, and then published an exposé on PETA's website that put the plaintiffs in an unfavorable false light. The court ultimately granted defendant-PETA's motion for summary judgment on all the issues. The court observed that the Ouderkirks gave permission for the taping in an email that makes no reference to any restriction on that consent. Further, the primary use made of the plaintiffs' likenesses by the defendant was to advocate against the chinchilla trade; thus, PETA had a right under the First Amendment to disseminate the information containing the plaintiffs' likenesses.

Case
Overview of Ag-gag Laws Alicia Prygoski Animal Legal & Historical Center

Ag-gag laws, also known as “agricultural interference/fraud” laws, are laws designed to prohibit recording or undercover investigations at industrialized farming operations (commonly known as factory farms).

Article
Overview of The Rise of Ecoterrorism Renada R. Rutmanis Animal Legal & Historical Center

This overview examines the legal issues that arise when animal activist take extreme measures to document animal cruelty. Their actions, ofter termed "ecoterrorism," often involve taking photographs of alleged animal cruelty that can often be admitted at trial. However, many states have begun to enact laws targeting the actions of animal activists.

Article

Pages