3 ms·

Utah at least specifically only protected things like slaughterhouses. I am not familiar. The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recor

Utah at least specifically only protected things like slaughterhouses. I am not familiar. The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recording.

giantg2 3y ago
I think both depend on which state. Do you have the law that prevents the recording in UT? I only see the tresspassing law. Which by the way, would appear to be a class B misdemeanor if it was agricultural land or if it was a building (same for both your examples).
- whimsicalism 3y ago
  https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S112.html https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S112.html I wasn't trying to distinguish between land and building, mostly just that they are about recording and specifically animal operations. I'm almost certain Utah is not the only state that specifically has laws around recording and specifically for animal operations that go beyond just generic trespass, but I don't have time right now to dive in.
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Ok, thanks for the link. Based on that information it seems generic tresspass and the agricultural interference laws carry similar penalties depending on the circumstances. Both are either class A or class B misdemeanors.
    - whimsicalism 3y ago
      but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording
      - giantg2 3y ago
        "but penalties stack :)" Do they, or are they concurrent stemming from the same act in UT? "not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass" True. Your example was breaking into a Beyond Meat plant, comparing trespass to interference. In that case, the penalties are similar.
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        Relevant search terms: “lesser included offense” or “multiplicity” or “double jeopardy.”
        giantg2 3y ago
        Not sure why you're putting these here. These are not relevant to discussion we're having. We're talking about the sentencing phase and the rules determining concurrent sentences.
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        How are you going to get concurrent sentences for two things you can’t get convicted for — or sentenced for — simultaneously? My point is that what you are contemplating would not be possible. Obviously I’m missing something. What is it?
        giantg2 3y ago
        So why can't you get sentenced for trespassing and agricultural interference if you trespassed into a facility and recorded animals? I didn't see anything in UT laws preventing concurrent sentences for those. Why do you think those can't be sentenced together?
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        Now we will see why my previous comment was relevant. A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy. This is not part of any Utah statute, it’s a general constitutional principle under US law. Why you made me say this twice, I do not know.

Utah at least specifically only protected things like slaughterhouses. I am not familiar. The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recording.

giantg2 3y ago

I think both depend on which state. Do you have the law that prevents the recording in UT? I only see the tresspassing law. Which by the way, would appear to be a class B misdemeanor if it was agricultural land or if it was a building (same for both your examples).

whimsicalism 3y ago
https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S112.html https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title76/Chapter6/76-6-S112.html I wasn't trying to distinguish between land and building, mostly just that they are about recording and specifically animal operations. I'm almost certain Utah is not the only state that specifically has laws around recording and specifically for animal operations that go beyond just generic trespass, but I don't have time right now to dive in.
- giantg2 3y ago
  Ok, thanks for the link. Based on that information it seems generic tresspass and the agricultural interference laws carry similar penalties depending on the circumstances. Both are either class A or class B misdemeanors.
  - whimsicalism 3y ago
    but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording
    - giantg2 3y ago
      "but penalties stack :)" Do they, or are they concurrent stemming from the same act in UT? "not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass" True. Your example was breaking into a Beyond Meat plant, comparing trespass to interference. In that case, the penalties are similar.
      - singleshot_ 3y ago
        Relevant search terms: “lesser included offense” or “multiplicity” or “double jeopardy.”
        giantg2 3y ago
        Not sure why you're putting these here. These are not relevant to discussion we're having. We're talking about the sentencing phase and the rules determining concurrent sentences.
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        How are you going to get concurrent sentences for two things you can’t get convicted for — or sentenced for — simultaneously? My point is that what you are contemplating would not be possible. Obviously I’m missing something. What is it?
        giantg2 3y ago
        So why can't you get sentenced for trespassing and agricultural interference if you trespassed into a facility and recorded animals? I didn't see anything in UT laws preventing concurrent sentences for those. Why do you think those can't be sentenced together?
        singleshot_ 3y ago
        Now we will see why my previous comment was relevant. A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy. This is not part of any Utah statute, it’s a general constitutional principle under US law. Why you made me say this twice, I do not know.