U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit deems Wisconsin’s hunter harassment law vague and overly broad, violating First Amendment rights.
In a recent ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit declared Wisconsin’s “hunter harassment law” unconstitutional. The law, amended in 2016, aimed to criminalize intentional interference with hunters, including actions such as maintaining proximity, approaching or confronting hunters, and recording their activities. The court found that the law was vague, overly broad, and violated the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs, associated with Wolf Patrol, an organization opposing hunting, had faced harassment and repeated stops by law enforcement while monitoring and documenting hunting activities on public lands.
Challenging the Constitutionality of the Law
The plaintiffs in the case were members of Wolf Patrol, an organization dedicated to monitoring and documenting hunting activities on public lands in Wisconsin. They aimed to ensure that hunters complied with state regulations. However, after the amendment to the hunter harassment law, the plaintiffs encountered numerous incidents of harassment by hunters and law enforcement officers. These encounters included repeated stops for questioning and aggressive behavior from hunters.
One significant incident involved a large group of hunters surrounding the plaintiffs with their trucks, effectively barricading them in while law enforcement was called. The hunters berated the Wolf Patrol members, using foul language and making threats of physical harm. In a particularly alarming moment, a hunter repeatedly bumped a member of the Wolf Patrol with his pickup truck. Law enforcement was eventually called to the scene.
Seizure of Filming Equipment and Footage
During the confrontation, one of the plaintiffs, Brown, was filming the events. Law enforcement, suspecting that Brown had captured disputed footage, seized all of his filming equipment and footage. This included cameras, memory cards, a microphone, batteries, videography accessories, and a cellphone. Brown was informed that law enforcement would be seeking a warrant to search his footage.
Twelve days later, deputies obtained a warrant to search Brown’s devices and view his film footage. The warrant application claimed that Brown’s footage could potentially provide evidence of violations of the hunter harassment law. After searching and reviewing the seized recordings, the sheriff’s department sent the footage to the district attorney for review. However, the district attorney declined to bring charges. It took approximately seven months for Brown’s equipment and recordings to be returned to him.
Lawsuit and Court Ruling
In July 2017, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the amendment. They argued that the law was unconstitutionally vague, overbroad, and chilled their exercise of First Amendment rights. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, prompting the plaintiffs to appeal to the 7th Circuit.
The 7th Circuit ultimately concluded that the amendment was both vague and overbroad. The provisions prohibiting “maintaining a physical proximity” and “approaching or confronting” were deemed overly broad and failed to provide reasonable notice of what conduct is considered criminal. Additionally, these provisions failed to provide reasonable constraints on the discretion of enforcement officials, leading to chilling effects on constitutionally protected activity.
The section of the amendment that prohibited photographing or videotaping was not found to be vague but was deemed overly broad. It encompassed permissible activities, such as recording in public areas, and appeared to have the sole purpose of chilling First Amendment activities. The court also noted that the amendment specifically targeted recording activities critical of hunting, constituting unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Conclusion: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit’s ruling declaring Wisconsin’s hunter harassment law unconstitutional is a significant victory for First Amendment rights. The court found the law to be vague, overly broad, and targeting activities critical of hunting. The ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting individuals’ rights to monitor and document public activities, even when those activities are controversial. It also highlights the need for legislation that respects the boundaries of the First Amendment while addressing legitimate concerns surrounding hunting and public safety.
Leave a Reply