The reason this woman was harassed was for the sole intention of intimidation. There was no other reason. She was on a public right of way the entire time. The officer asked her if anyone was with her because he knew her defense was valid if there was a witness that could testify.
A citizen does not have to cooperate with a police investigation as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment.
She is NOT GUILTY, but, they attempted entrapment anyway. The police should have told man who called to go to the court to file a complaint as there was no obvious evidence of misconduct at the time they arrived.
The owner/employee of the inhumane facility was obviously seeking inappropriate police power to intimidate. A person with compassion is allowed to seek the SAME POWER to facilitate their values as any other in this country.
Activists need to have two phones if they are using one to record events. The other phone to be used to be the first to call the police when they are confronted by people who harass them. In this case, the activist should have pressed charges for harassment by the facility owner.
Basically, he stays on his side of the fence and she stays on her. The police officer VALIDATED her correctness. There were no other questions for the officer to ask her. They should have left and allowed her to continue to carry out her activism. She was within the law.
Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 6 Offenses against property
Section 112. Agricultural operation interference --Penalties. (click here)
(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.
Enacted by Chapter 213, 2012 General Session
A citizen does not have to cooperate with a police investigation as guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment.
She is NOT GUILTY, but, they attempted entrapment anyway. The police should have told man who called to go to the court to file a complaint as there was no obvious evidence of misconduct at the time they arrived.
The owner/employee of the inhumane facility was obviously seeking inappropriate police power to intimidate. A person with compassion is allowed to seek the SAME POWER to facilitate their values as any other in this country.
Activists need to have two phones if they are using one to record events. The other phone to be used to be the first to call the police when they are confronted by people who harass them. In this case, the activist should have pressed charges for harassment by the facility owner.
Basically, he stays on his side of the fence and she stays on her. The police officer VALIDATED her correctness. There were no other questions for the officer to ask her. They should have left and allowed her to continue to carry out her activism. She was within the law.
Title 76 Utah Criminal Code
Chapter 6 Offenses against property
Section 112. Agricultural operation interference --Penalties. (click here)
(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.
Enacted by Chapter 213, 2012 General Session
