SALT LAKE CITY — Attorneys opposing a state prohibition on undercover recording in agricultural facilities told a judge Tuesday the law violates constitutional rights, while the Utah Attorney General's Office argued it protects property owners and keeps employees and consumers safe.

In a hearing that lasted 4 ½ hours, attorneys on both sides called for U.S. District Judge Robert Shelby to issue summary judgement on a lawsuit challenging the law. The judge announced he will issue a written ruling on the issue.

The Animal Legal Defense Fund and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals filed the lawsuit challenging Utah's so-called "ag gag" law in 2013, calling it a violation of constitutional rights to free speech and equal protection. The lawsuit claims the statute was passed solely to target an unpopular political group while protecting a single industry from criticism.

The bill passed by the Utah Legislature in 2012 makes it a class B misdemeanor to trespass on private livestock or poultry operations and record sound or images without the owner's permission. It also prohibits seeking employment with the intent of making those recordings. Leaving a recording device for that purpose would be a class A misdemeanor.

A federal judge in Idaho tossed a similar law last year in response to a lawsuit. The decision is being appealed.

Matthew Liebman, an attorney for the Animal Legal Defense Fund, argued Tuesday that legislative debate surrounding the statute when it was passed shows lawmakers were concerned only about who these animal activists were and the recordings they were distributing, not about the employee safety and contamination concerns the Utah Attorney General's Office cites in defense of the law.

"What they are trying to protect the farmers from is people who want to publicize their embarrassing mistakes," said Liebman, who argued that the recordings or photos should be protected under the First Amendment.

Further, Liebman argued that a whistleblower uncovering unsafe practices in an agricultural facility could be correcting the very issues the law purports to protect against.

Related

Judge: Idaho's anti-dairy spying law is unconstitutional

A federal judge ruled that Idaho's law banning secret filming of animal abuse at agricultural facilities is unconstitutional, giving animal rights activists across the country hope that the decision will pave the way to overturn similar laws in other states.

Assistant attorney general Kyle Kaiser maintained, however, that someone who has gained employment at an agricultural operation with the intent not of doing his or her job, but of surreptitiously recording the goings on there, could be distracted and potentially cause accident or injury to other employees.

Additionally, that person could come in without proper training to prevent contamination in the facility, Kaiser offered, potentially spreading disease or foodborne illness.

However, when pressed by Shelby, Kaiser acknowledged that the state did not provide evidence that any employee had been harmed or any foodborne illness had been spread by someone secretly recording in an agricultural facility.

"To be honest, your honor, we don't have that evidence," Kaiser answered, saying farmers are hesitant to stand up for these kinds of laws for fear of retaliation or negative publicity.

The judge also cited the plaintiff's argument that the law does not penalize an employee who might endanger co-workers or spread disease through other forms of negligence, such as playing games on a cellphone, rather than taking recordings.

Kaiser also argued that the statute is not overly broad, but is narrowly and appropriately tailored. A whistleblower or employee concerned about a safety situation who wanted to document and immediately report something would not be penalized under the law, he said, but someone who allowed a problem to continue in order to keep recording and then eventually publicize it would be.

"The state isn't interested in hiding criminal activity, and this statute isn't interested in hiding criminal activity," Kaiser said.

As the hearing concluded Tuesday, Shelby told Kaiser his decision will not consider the state's position that a property owner's rights supersedes another person's right to record something there. The judge said the argument was not articulated in court filings, but was presented as a new argument without giving the plaintiffs an appropriate opportunity to respond.

Asserting that property owners are being deprived of the right to control who comes onto their property if someone is gaining access under false pretenses, Kaiser argued that "private property rights extinguish First Amendment rights."

Kaiser also noted during the hearing that the Constitution does not guarantee protection of false statements, such as someone making a false statement on a job application.

"The misrepresentation gets you something you otherwise couldn't get, and I don't think there's a Constitutional right to spy," he said.

Liebman finalized his argument Tuesday saying that bringing inhumane agricultural practices to light "only happens through undercover investigations."

"This statute is slamming shut the only window into how animals are treated on factory farms," he said.

Related topics