Hunter Harassment

AR - Hunting - Chapter 71. Riots, Disorderly Conduct,

Summary: This law comprises Arkansas' hunter harassment law. Under the law, it is unlawful for any person to willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, fishing, or trapping in this state. The section also allows a person to obtain an injunction based on a showing that the hunting/fishing/trapping conduct is threatened or that the obstructive conduct has occurred in the past and it is not unreasonable to expect it to be repeated. Further, a person adversely affected by the obstructive conduct may be awarded damages, including punitive damages. If a person violates this section and is in possession of a firearm, the person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor; otherwise, violation is a Class B misdemeanor.

This law comprises Arkansas' hunter harassment law. Under the law, it is unlawful for any person to willfully obstruct or impede the participation of any individual in the lawful activity of shooting, hunting, fishing, or trapping in this state. The section also allows a person to obtain an injunction based on a showing that the hunting/fishing/trapping conduct is threatened or that the obstructive conduct has occurred in the past and it is not unreasonable to expect it to be repeated. Further, a person adversely affected by the obstructive conduct may be awarded damages, including punitive damages. If a person violates this section and is in possession of a firearm, the person is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor; otherwise, violation is a Class B misdemeanor.

AL - Hunting - Article 8A. Interference with Legal Hunting or Fishing.

Summary: This section of law reflects Alabama's hunter harassment provisions. Under the section, no person shall willfully and knowingly prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with, or attempt to prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with any person who is legally hunting or fishing. Prohibited activities include creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus intended to affect the natural behavior of the wild animal being hunted or fish for the purpose of fishing, or affecting the condition or location of personal property intended for use in the hunting or fishing. Any person violating this article is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

This section of law reflects Alabama's hunter harassment provisions. Under the section, no person shall willfully and knowingly prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with, or attempt to prevent, obstruct, impede, disturb, or interfere with any person who is legally hunting or fishing. Prohibited activities include creating a visual, aural, olfactory, or physical stimulus intended to affect the natural behavior of the wild animal being hunted or fish for the purpose of fishing, or affecting the condition or location of personal property intended for use in the hunting or fishing. Any person violating this article is guilty of a Class C misdemeanor.

AK - Hunting - § 16.05.790. Obstruction or hindrance of lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish or game

Summary: This Alaska law constitutes the state's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another person's lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish and game. Only a peace officer may arrest a person for violation of this section. Exclusions include lawful competitive hunting, actions taken on private property with the consent of the landowner, and obstruction or hindrance by a person actively engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping activities. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both.

This Alaska law constitutes the state's hunter harassment law. Under the law, a person may not intentionally obstruct or hinder another person's lawful hunting, fishing, trapping, or viewing of fish and game. Only a peace officer may arrest a person for violation of this section. Exclusions include lawful competitive hunting, actions taken on private property with the consent of the landowner, and obstruction or hindrance by a person actively engaged in lawful hunting, fishing, or trapping activities. Violation is a misdemeanor with a fine of not more than $500 or imprisonment for not more than 30 days, or both.

Dorman v. Satti

Summary: The federal district court here considered the constitutionality of Connecticut’s Hunter Harassment Act (Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 53a-183a) of 1985. The plaintiff was arrested under the Act after she approached hunters who were hunting waterfowl in public lands adjacent to her property and attempted to verbally dissuade them from hunting. The charge was ultimately dismissed, but plaintiff brought a Section 1983 action to adjudicate the constitutionality of the Act. In finding the Act unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the Court found that it criminalized constitutionally protected speech. Specifically, the Court found that the Act failed to define “interference” and did not adequately limit the reach of “acts in preparation” to hunt.

The federal district court here considered the constitutionality of Connecticut’s Hunter Harassment Act (Conn.Gen.Stat. Section 53a-183a) of 1985. The plaintiff was arrested under the Act after she approached hunters who were hunting waterfowl in public lands adjacent to her property and attempted to verbally dissuade them from hunting. The charge was ultimately dismissed, but plaintiff brought a Section 1983 action to adjudicate the constitutionality of the Act. In finding the Act unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, the Court found that it criminalized constitutionally protected speech. Specifically, the Court found that the Act failed to define “interference” and did not adequately limit the reach of “acts in preparation” to hunt.

Shoot First, Talk Later: Blowing Holes in Freedom of Speech

Share

|

Summary:

Ms. Tresl examines the constitutionality of hunter harassment laws. When a five-step doctrinal analysis is applied to hunter harassment statutes, it is clear that the statutes are content-based and subject to the strictest of scrutiny. Because the statutes fail the strict scrutiny test, they therefore violate the American citizenry's First Amendment right to free expression.

Ms. Tresl examines the constitutionality of hunter harassment laws. When a five-step doctrinal analysis is applied to hunter harassment statutes, it is clear that the statutes are content-based and subject to the strictest of scrutiny. Because the statutes fail the strict scrutiny test, they therefore violate the American citizenry's First Amendment right to free expression.