Summary:
Held Unconstitutional by Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Herbert, D.Utah, July 07, 2017
See also § 76-6-110. Offenses committed against animal enterprises--Definitions--Enhanced penalties
(1) As used in this section, “agricultural operation” means private property used for the production of livestock, poultry, livestock products, or poultry products.
(2) A person is guilty of agricultural operation interference if the person:
(a) without consent from the owner of the agricultural operation, or the owner's agent, knowingly or intentionally records an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation by leaving a recording device on the agricultural operation;
(b) obtains access to an agricultural operation under false pretenses;
(c)(i) applies for employment at an agricultural operation with the intent to record an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation;
(ii) knows, at the time that the person accepts employment at the agricultural operation, that the owner of the agricultural operation prohibits the employee from recording an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation; and
(iii) while employed at, and while present on, the agricultural operation, records an image of, or sound from, the agricultural operation; or
(d) without consent from the owner of the operation or the owner's agent, knowingly or intentionally records an image of, or sound from, an agricultural operation while the person is committing criminal trespass, as described in Section 76-6-206, on the agricultural operation.
(3) A person who commits agricultural operation interference described in Subsection (2)(a) is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
(4) A person who commits agricultural operation interference described in Subsection (2)(b), (c), or (d) is guilty of a class B misdemeanor.
CREDIT(S)
Laws 2012, c. 213, § 1, eff. May 8, 2012.