Connect with us

Wisconsin

Bambi’s revenge: Wisconsin ban on filming hunting unconstitutional | Strictly Legal

Published

on

Bambi’s revenge: Wisconsin ban on filming hunting unconstitutional | Strictly Legal


In 2016, the state of Wisconsin amended its “hunter harassment law” to make it a crime to interfere intentionally with a hunter by “maintaining a visual or physical proximity” to the hunter, by “approaching or confronting” the hunter, or by photographing, videotaping, audiotaping, or otherwise recording the activity of the hunter. In a suit to challenge the constitutionality of the law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit ruled that the law was vague and overly broad, and therefore violated the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are associated with Wolf Patrol, an organization that opposes hunting and monitors and documents hunting activities on public lands throughout Wisconsin to ensure that hunters comply with state regulations. After the Legislature amended the law, the plaintiffs had a number of encounters with hunters and law enforcement officers, including repeated stops for questioning by law enforcement and harassment by hunters, in the course of plaintiffs’ monitoring and documenting activities, including photographing and filming of hunting. All activities relevant to this case occurred on public lands where both hunters and plaintiffs were legally entitled to be present.

In the most significant incident, the plaintiffs were doing documentary work when a large group of hunters surrounded plaintiffs with their trucks, barricading them in while law enforcement was called. One hunter said, “Block ‘em in so we can wait for the game warden to get here. We’ve got ‘em f—ed.” The hunters proceeded to berate the Wolf Patrol members, “using foul language and threatening to beat them up and run them over.” At one point in the angry confrontation, a hunter drove his pickup truck to bump a member of the Wolf Patrol multiple times. The hunters called law enforcement.

Advertisement

Forest County sheriff’s deputies responded, and one of the plaintiffs, Brown, was questioned about his filming activities. Thinking that Brown may have recorded disputed events in this angry confrontation, deputies seized all of Brown’s filming equipment and footage, including four cameras, two memory cards, a microphone, batteries, all videography accessories, and a cellphone.

Law enforcement told Brown that they would be seeking a warrant to search his footage. Twelve days later, deputies applied for and obtained a warrant to search Brown’s devices and to view his film footage. The warrant application said that Brown’s devices and footage could constitute evidence of violations of Wisconsin’s hunter harassment law. After searching and viewing all videos and footage seized from Brown, the sheriff’s department sent the recordings to the district attorney, for review. The district attorney declined to bring charges. Around that same time, Brown’s equipment and recordings were returned to him, roughly seven months after they were seized.

In July 2017, plaintiffs filed suit asking the court to find the amendment unconstitutional. They argued that the amendment is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, chills the exercise of their First Amendment rights, is viewpoint-based and fails to survive strict scrutiny. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and the plaintiffs appealed to the 7th Circuit.

The 7th Circuit concluded that the amendment was vague and over broad. In the court’s view, the provisions prohibiting “maintaining a physical proximity” and “approaching or confronting” are overly broad and vague. According to the court, “[t]hey fail to provide reasonable notice as to what conduct is criminal, and they fail to provide reasonable constraints on the discretion of enforcement officials. They thus tend to create significant chilling effects on constitutionally protected activity, as they have for these plaintiffs.”

Advertisement

The section of the amendment that prohibits photographing or videotaping isn’t vague, as it is clear what is prohibited, but it is overly broad. It simply sweeps under its coverage permissible activity – video recording activity in a public area. In the court’s view, the sole purpose of that section of the amendment was to “chill First Amendment activities.” The appellate court also found that the amendment targeted recording activities that were critical of hunting. This constitutes unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. All in all, it was a bad day for the camera shy hunters but a good day for the First Amendment.

Jack Greiner is a partner at Faruki PLL law firm in Cincinnati. He represents Enquirer Media in First Amendment and media issues



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Wisconsin

3-star DL Arthur Scott picks Wisconsin over MSU following official visit this weekend

Published

on

3-star DL Arthur Scott picks Wisconsin over MSU following official visit this weekend


Michigan State football has been beaten out by the Wisconsin Badgers for a three-star defensive lineman from Ohio.

Arthur Scott of Streetsboro, Ohio announced his commitment to Wisconsin on Sunday morning. Scott revealed his commitment to the Badgers via a post on his social media X account.

Scott took an official visit to Wisconsin this weekend, which apparently went very well for the Badgers.

Scott is a three-star defensive lineman in the 2026 class. He has a recruiting ranking of 86 on 247Sports.

Advertisement

Scott ranks as the No. 115 defensive lineman in the 2026 class, according to 247Sports. He is also listed as the No. 59 player from Ohio in the class.

According to 247Sports, Scott holds offers from 15 schools, but it was Michigan State, Rutgers, Cincinnati and Wisconsin that were considered the favorites for his commitment. He had official visits scheduled with each of those schools, but it’s unclear at this time if he’ll still be taking those visits following his Wisconsin commitment. Should Scott take these additional official visits, he’ll be heading to Michigan State on June 13.

Contact/Follow us @The SpartansWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Michigan State news, notes and opinion. You can also follow Robert Bondy on X @RobertBondy5.





Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Wisconsin announces UW Athletic Hall of Fame Class of 2025 inductees

Published

on

Wisconsin announces UW Athletic Hall of Fame Class of 2025 inductees


This past Thursday, Wisconsin athletic director Chris McIntosh announced the UW Athletic Hall of Fame Class of 2025. The list of inductees included notable athletes, staff, and even broadcasters.

These names include Mohammed Ahmed (Track & Field and Cross Country, 2009-14), Dorcas Akinniyi Jansen (Track & Field, 2008-13), Molly Engstrom (Women’s Hockey, 2001-05), Travis Frederick (Football, 2009-12), Frank Kaminsky (Men’s Basketball, 2012-15), Mary Massei Landini (Softball, 2010-14), Joe Pavelski (Men’s Hockey, 2004-06), Cara Walls (Women’s Soccer, 2011-14), James White (Football, 2010-13), Tom Shipley (Baseball, 1970-74), Martin Smith and Matt Lepay (Broadcasting).

The biggest names on the list include former National Player of the Year Frank Kaminsky, multiple-time Super Bowl winner James White, and Matt Lepay, who has served as the play-by-play announcer for Wisconsin Badgers basketball since 1988 and Wisconsin football since 1994.

The class of 2025 will be officially inducted into the UW Athletic Hall of Fame during Hall of Fame weekend on September 5th and 6th. The inductees will also be honored inside Camp Randall Stadium during Wisconsin football’s Week 2 game against the Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders.

Advertisement

Contact/Follow @TheBadgersWire on X (formerly Twitter) and like our page on Facebook to follow ongoing coverage of Wisconsin Badgers news, notes and opinion





Source link

Continue Reading

Wisconsin

Wisconsin judge who shielded illegal migrant from ICE shares latest defense: ‘I am absolutely immune’

Published

on

Wisconsin judge who shielded illegal migrant from ICE shares latest defense: ‘I am absolutely immune’


A Wisconsin judge indicted for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade ICE is now claiming ‘absolute judicial immunity’ in a broader legal effort to dismiss all charges.

Hannah Dugan, 66, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, was arrested by FBI agents on April 25 for allegedly preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from detaining a man in her courtroom. 

The man, 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, was reportedly subject to a federal detainer at the time.

Federal prosecutors allege Dugan directed ICE officers to the chief judge’s office while allowing Flores-Ruiz and his attorney to exit through a door typically used by jurors. 

Advertisement

The long-time judge was later indicted on May 13 on charges of obstructing a federal agency and aiding Flores-Ruiz’s escape. 

However, in a 37-page memorandum filed May 14, her attorneys argued the indictment is an ‘ugly innovation’ that threatens long-standing legal precedent.

They claim Dugan is protected by ‘absolute judicial immunity’ for actions taken as part of her official duties, even if those actions are later contested. 

‘Judges can be and are charged for actions wholly unrelated to their role, like taking bribes or kidnapping,’ the memo notes, adding that Dugan’s conduct occurred squarely within her judicial capacity.

Advertisement

Hannah Dugan (pictured), 66, a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge, was arrested by FBI agents on April 25 for allegedly preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from detaining a man in her courtroom

The long-time judge was indicted on May 13 on charges of obstructing a federal agency and aiding 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz's escape. Pictured: Surveillance footage shows Hannah Dugan outside her courtroom on April 18, confronting federal agents who were there to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz

The long-time judge was indicted on May 13 on charges of obstructing a federal agency and aiding 31-year-old Eduardo Flores-Ruiz’s escape. Pictured: Surveillance footage shows Hannah Dugan outside her courtroom on April 18, confronting federal agents who were there to arrest Eduardo Flores-Ruiz

Her high-powered legal team, including attorney Dean Strang, warned the case could set a ‘dangerous precedent,’ undermining judicial independence. 

‘This is an extraordinary prosecution that poses a threat to federalism and judicial independence,’ the filing states. 

‘Dismissal here flows from a straightforward application of long-settled law. The indictment itself is an ugly innovation. Its dismissal will not be.’

Advertisement

The filing continues: ‘Nothing in the Constitution allows the federal government to superintend the administration and case-by-case, daily functioning of state courts as this indictment proposes.’

This latest motion expands on an earlier filing with more detailed arguments about federal overreach and the constitutional role of judges. Dugan’s attorneys maintain she acted within her jurisdiction and broke no laws in declining to facilitate the detention.

The US Department of Justice, however, characterizes the incident as obstruction of federal law, triggering a contentious legal and political debate.

An amicus brief filed on Friday by 138 former state and federal judges supports Dugan, arguing she is entitled to ‘absolute immunity for her official acts.’ 

The brief compares this protection to that granted to members of the legislative and executive branches. 

Advertisement
Dugan's high-powered legal team claims Dugan is protected by 'absolute judicial immunity' for actions taken as part of her official duties, even if those actions are later contested. Pictured: Dugan leaves after appearing in court in Milwaukee on May 15

Dugan’s high-powered legal team claims Dugan is protected by ‘absolute judicial immunity’ for actions taken as part of her official duties, even if those actions are later contested. Pictured: Dugan leaves after appearing in court in Milwaukee on May 15

Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, appeared in Dugan's court on April 18 for a status conference in a misdemeanor battery case. He is accused of repeatedly hitting and briefly strangling his roommate, and also striking two women who tried to intervene

Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, 31, appeared in Dugan’s court on April 18 for a status conference in a misdemeanor battery case. He is accused of repeatedly hitting and briefly strangling his roommate, and also striking two women who tried to intervene

It calls the prosecution an ‘egregious overreach by the executive branch’ that ‘threatens public trust in the judicial system and the ability of the public to avail themselves of courthouses without fear of reprisal.’ 

But, the Justice Department maintains that no one – including judges – is above the law when it comes to obstructing federal immigration operations.

‘Since President Trump was inaugurated, activist judges have tried to obstruct President Trump and the American people’s mandate to make America safe and secure our homeland – but this judge’s actions to shield an accused violent criminal illegal alien from justice is shocking and shameful,’ Assistant Secretary Department of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement.

Advertisement

Dugan, who was released after her arrest, pleaded not guilty earlier this month. Her trial is set to begin the week of July 21.

If found guilty of both charges, she could face up to six years in prison and $350,000 in fines. 

She has served as a Milwaukee County Circuit Court judge since 2016, winning election with about 65 percent of the vote and running unopposed for reelection in 2022, according to CBS News.

As for Flores-Ruiz, he had appeared in Dugan’s court on April 18 for a status conference in a misdemeanor battery case, according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 

He is accused of repeatedly hitting and briefly strangling his roommate, and also striking two women who tried to intervene.

Advertisement

Flores-Ruiz has pleaded not guilty to three battery charges and to a separate federal charge of illegally re-entering the US after being deported to Mexico 12 years ago. 

Six federal agents were present at the courthouse on April 18 to arrest him. He was ultimately taken into custody after a short chase outside the courthouse.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending