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 activities such as maintaining proximity, approaching or confronting hunters, and recording their activities. The court ruled that the law was both vague and overly broad, thereby infringing upon the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs involved in the case.
The Plaintiffs and Wolf Patrol’s Monitoring Activities
The plaintiffs in this case are associated with Wolf Patrol, an organization dedicated to opposing hunting and monitoring hunting activities on public lands in Wisconsin. Their goal is to ensure that hunters comply with state regulations. Since the amendment of the law, the plaintiffs have encountered multiple instances of harassment by both hunters and law enforcement officers. These incidents include repeated stops for questioning by law enforcement and confrontations with hunters. The plaintiffs engage in monitoring and documenting activities, including photographing and filming hunting activities, all of which took place on public lands where both hunters and plaintiffs were legally present.
The Significant Incident and Law Enforcement Response
One notable incident occurred when a large group of hunters surrounded the plaintiffs with their trucks, effectively barricading them in while law enforcement was called. During this encounter, one hunter explicitly stated their intention to wait for law enforcement and berated the Wolf Patrol members, using offensive language and making threats of physical violence. At one point, a hunter even used his pickup truck to repeatedly bump a member of the Wolf Patrol. Law enforcement subsequently arrived at the scene.
Seizure of Filming Equipment and Footage
Upon questioning one of the plaintiffs, Brown, regarding his filming activities, law enforcement seized all of Brown’s filming equipment and footage. This included cameras, memory cards, a microphone, batteries, videography accessories, and a cellphone. Law enforcement informed Brown that they would be seeking a warrant to search his footage. Eventually, a warrant was obtained, and the seized devices and footage were searched and viewed by the sheriff’s department. The recordings were then sent 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 Constitutional Challenges
In July 2017, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking a declaration that the amendment to the law was unconstitutional. They argued that the amendment was vague, overbroad, and chilled their exercise of First Amendment rights. Additionally, they claimed that the amendment targeted recording activities critical of hunting, constituting viewpoint discrimination. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the defendants, but the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the 7th Circuit.
The 7th Circuit’s Ruling
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ultimately sided with the plaintiffs, deeming the amendment to be both vague and overbroad. The court found that the provisions prohibiting “maintaining a physical proximity” and “approaching or confronting” were overly broad and failed to provide reasonable notice or constraints on enforcement officials. Consequently, these provisions created chilling effects on constitutionally protected activity. Regarding the section of the amendment that prohibited photographing or videotaping, the court determined that while it was clear what was prohibited, it was still overly broad. The court concluded that this section of the amendment was specifically designed to chill First Amendment activities and targeted recording activities critical of hunting, constituting unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.
Conclusion: The recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit has declared Wisconsin’s “hunter harassment law” unconstitutional. The court found the law to be both vague and overly broad, violating the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs involved in the case. This decision serves as a reminder of the importance of protecting individuals’ rights to engage in constitutionally protected activities, including monitoring and documenting public activities, without fear of harassment or legal repercussions. The ruling also highlights the need for lawmakers to carefully consider the constitutionality and potential chilling effects of legislation when addressing contentious issues such as hunting.
Leave a Reply