Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-----------------------------
"Just criminalized science." Well, actually, not. Leftists, quick to jump on the bandwagon at the slightest sniff of a buzzword or slogan, happily run with the latest in "anti-science" examples.
Below the article I have posted the relevant portions of the actual legislation. As you read the article, compare the claims the author makes with the language of the legislation. You will quickly discover that the author's characterizations bear no resemblance to the law.
Read on.
------------------------
Imagine visiting Yellowstone this summer. You wake up before dawn to take a picture of the sunrise over the mists emanating from Yellowstone hot springs. A thunderhead towers above the rising sun, and the picture turns out beautifully. You submit the photo to a contest sponsored by the National Weather Service. Under a statute signed into law by the Wyoming governor this spring, you have just committed a crime and could face up to one year in prison. (The law contains no mention of Yellowstone. Nor would it, since Yellowstone does not belong to Wyoming. But Yellowstone certainly makes for good story telling. Nor is there any reference regarding any protected area or federal government-owned land. Thus, the first paragraph is nothing more than a pretty lie.)
Wyoming doesn’t, of course, care about pictures of geysers or photo competitions. But photos are a type of data, and the new law makes it a crime to gather data about the condition of the environment across most of the state if you plan to share that data with the state or federal government. (Well, no. It doesn't. It makes trespassing illegal. You know, entering a place without permission? The law requires that you have permission to be on someone's land!)
The reason? The state wants to conceal the fact that many of its streams are contaminated by E. coli bacteria, strains of which can cause serious health problems, even death. (Document the claim, sir. An unsupported assertion is worth nothing more than a summary dismissal.)
A small organization called Western Watersheds Project (which I represent pro bono in an unrelated lawsuit) has found the bacteria in a number of streams crossing federal land in concentrations that violate water quality standards under the federal Clean Water Act. Rather than engaging in an honest public debate about the cause or extent of the problem, Wyoming prefers to pretend the problem doesn’t exist. (Another unsupported assertion.)
And under the new law, the state threatens anyone who would challenge that belief by producing information to the contrary with a term in jail. (No, the state will jail trespassers.)
Why the desire for ignorance rather than informed discussion? (The author now makes a logical leap, that the reason for the law is a preference for ignorance. This is known as a false choice. There are more than two possibilities, but the author is attempting to construct a scenario that pushes the buttons of the environmental Left. He needs the Pavlovian response of outrage, cloaked in a veneer of "scientific-ness." This is nothing more than rhetorical manipulation.)
The reason is pure politics. The source of E. coli is clear. (The author has yet to demonstrate that this is the reason for the legislation.) It comes from cows spending too much time in and next to streams. Acknowledging that fact could result in rules requiring ranchers who graze their cows on public lands to better manage their herds. The ranching community in Wyoming wields considerable political power and has no interest in such obligations, so the state is trying to stop the flow of information rather than forthrightly address the problem. (The legislation doesn't mention the environment. Or cows. Or e coli. Or pollution. Or ranches. The author has offered nothing but supposition. He doesn't know any of this.)
The Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws recognize that government officials lack the resources and sometimes the political will to address every environmental problem. Ordinary citizens therefore play an integral role in carrying out these laws. The statutes authorize citizens to bring lawsuits against polluters and recalcitrant government agencies, and citizen scientists have long played an important role in gathering information to support better regulations.
The Wyoming law transforms a good Samaritan who volunteers her time to monitor our shared environment into a criminal. (Yup, if the "Samaritan" is trespassing.)
Idaho and Utah, as well as other states, have also enacted laws designed to conceal information that could damage their agricultural industries—laws currently being challenged in federal court. But Wyoming is the first state to enact a law so expansive that it criminalizes taking a picture on public land. (The law does not criminalize any such thing.)
The new law is of breathtaking scope. It makes it a crime to “collect resource data” from any “open land,” meaning any land outside of a city or town, whether it’s federal, state, or privately owned. (No, one would have to be on the land without permission. But the issue remains open what constitutes "open land." At this point, I am reluctant to take anything the author says as true.)
The statute defines the word collect as any method to “preserve information in any form,” including taking a “photograph” so long as the person gathering that information intends to submit it to a federal or state agency. In other words, if you discover an environmental disaster in Wyoming, even one that poses an imminent threat to public health, you’re obliged, according to this law, to keep it to yourself. (No, if you're traipsing around on someone's land without permission and poking your nose into peoples' business, you're breaking the law.)
By enacting this law, the Wyoming legislature has expressed its disdain for the freedoms protected by the First Amendment and the environmental protections enshrined in federal statutes. Today, environmentally conscious citizens face a stark choice: They can abandon efforts to protect the lands they love or face potential criminal charges. The United States government should not sit idly by. It should plainly express its disapproval of this law. Ideally, this would entail the U.S. Department of Justice filing a lawsuit to invalidate the Wyoming law, much as it did when it challenged Arizona’s state immigration law as unconstitutional. At the very least, the federal agencies that manage public lands should issue written statements providing express permission for citizen scientists to continue their efforts to protect our shared environment. (Obviously the law doesn't come to bear on federal land.)
Anyone with a passing familiarity with our Constitution (That is aptly phrased. A "passing familiarity" is about as much knowledge the typical leftist has regarding the Constitution.)
will recognize that the Wyoming law is unconstitutional. It runs afoul of the supremacy clause (Let's quote the relevant provision of Article VI:
Justin Pidot is an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Follow him on Twitter.
Imagine visiting Yellowstone this summer. You wake up before dawn to take a picture of the sunrise over the mists emanating from Yellowstone hot springs. A thunderhead towers above the rising sun, and the picture turns out beautifully. You submit the photo to a contest sponsored by the National Weather Service. Under a statute signed into law by the Wyoming governor this spring, you have just committed a crime and could face up to one year in prison. (The law contains no mention of Yellowstone. Nor would it, since Yellowstone does not belong to Wyoming. But Yellowstone certainly makes for good story telling. Nor is there any reference regarding any protected area or federal government-owned land. Thus, the first paragraph is nothing more than a pretty lie.)
Wyoming doesn’t, of course, care about pictures of geysers or photo competitions. But photos are a type of data, and the new law makes it a crime to gather data about the condition of the environment across most of the state if you plan to share that data with the state or federal government. (Well, no. It doesn't. It makes trespassing illegal. You know, entering a place without permission? The law requires that you have permission to be on someone's land!)
The reason? The state wants to conceal the fact that many of its streams are contaminated by E. coli bacteria, strains of which can cause serious health problems, even death. (Document the claim, sir. An unsupported assertion is worth nothing more than a summary dismissal.)
A small organization called Western Watersheds Project (which I represent pro bono in an unrelated lawsuit) has found the bacteria in a number of streams crossing federal land in concentrations that violate water quality standards under the federal Clean Water Act. Rather than engaging in an honest public debate about the cause or extent of the problem, Wyoming prefers to pretend the problem doesn’t exist. (Another unsupported assertion.)
And under the new law, the state threatens anyone who would challenge that belief by producing information to the contrary with a term in jail. (No, the state will jail trespassers.)
Why the desire for ignorance rather than informed discussion? (The author now makes a logical leap, that the reason for the law is a preference for ignorance. This is known as a false choice. There are more than two possibilities, but the author is attempting to construct a scenario that pushes the buttons of the environmental Left. He needs the Pavlovian response of outrage, cloaked in a veneer of "scientific-ness." This is nothing more than rhetorical manipulation.)
The reason is pure politics. The source of E. coli is clear. (The author has yet to demonstrate that this is the reason for the legislation.) It comes from cows spending too much time in and next to streams. Acknowledging that fact could result in rules requiring ranchers who graze their cows on public lands to better manage their herds. The ranching community in Wyoming wields considerable political power and has no interest in such obligations, so the state is trying to stop the flow of information rather than forthrightly address the problem. (The legislation doesn't mention the environment. Or cows. Or e coli. Or pollution. Or ranches. The author has offered nothing but supposition. He doesn't know any of this.)
The Clean Water Act and other federal environmental laws recognize that government officials lack the resources and sometimes the political will to address every environmental problem. Ordinary citizens therefore play an integral role in carrying out these laws. The statutes authorize citizens to bring lawsuits against polluters and recalcitrant government agencies, and citizen scientists have long played an important role in gathering information to support better regulations.
The Wyoming law transforms a good Samaritan who volunteers her time to monitor our shared environment into a criminal. (Yup, if the "Samaritan" is trespassing.)
Idaho and Utah, as well as other states, have also enacted laws designed to conceal information that could damage their agricultural industries—laws currently being challenged in federal court. But Wyoming is the first state to enact a law so expansive that it criminalizes taking a picture on public land. (The law does not criminalize any such thing.)
The new law is of breathtaking scope. It makes it a crime to “collect resource data” from any “open land,” meaning any land outside of a city or town, whether it’s federal, state, or privately owned. (No, one would have to be on the land without permission. But the issue remains open what constitutes "open land." At this point, I am reluctant to take anything the author says as true.)
The statute defines the word collect as any method to “preserve information in any form,” including taking a “photograph” so long as the person gathering that information intends to submit it to a federal or state agency. In other words, if you discover an environmental disaster in Wyoming, even one that poses an imminent threat to public health, you’re obliged, according to this law, to keep it to yourself. (No, if you're traipsing around on someone's land without permission and poking your nose into peoples' business, you're breaking the law.)
By enacting this law, the Wyoming legislature has expressed its disdain for the freedoms protected by the First Amendment and the environmental protections enshrined in federal statutes. Today, environmentally conscious citizens face a stark choice: They can abandon efforts to protect the lands they love or face potential criminal charges. The United States government should not sit idly by. It should plainly express its disapproval of this law. Ideally, this would entail the U.S. Department of Justice filing a lawsuit to invalidate the Wyoming law, much as it did when it challenged Arizona’s state immigration law as unconstitutional. At the very least, the federal agencies that manage public lands should issue written statements providing express permission for citizen scientists to continue their efforts to protect our shared environment. (Obviously the law doesn't come to bear on federal land.)
Anyone with a passing familiarity with our Constitution (That is aptly phrased. A "passing familiarity" is about as much knowledge the typical leftist has regarding the Constitution.)
will recognize that the Wyoming law is unconstitutional. It runs afoul of the supremacy clause (Let's quote the relevant provision of Article VI:
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
There's that one little word that voids the author's entire argument: "Pursuance." Federal laws are only supreme above the states if they are made in "pursuance" to the Constitution.) because it interferes with the purposes of federal environmental statutes by making it impossible for citizens to collect the information necessary to bring an enforcement lawsuit. The Wyoming law also violates the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech because it singles out speech about natural resources for burdensome regulation and makes it a crime to engage in a variety of expressive and artistic activities. And finally, it specifically criminalizes public engagement with federal and state agencies and therefore violates another right guaranteed by the First Amendment: the right to petition the government. (Whew. Quite a litany. None of it true or accurate based on the overlooking of single concept: Trespass. You just can't waltz onto someone's land without permission and start poking around. How simple is that?)
Justin Pidot is an assistant professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law. Follow him on Twitter.
----------------------------------------
AN ACT relating to crimes and offenses; creating the crimes of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data and unlawful collection of resource data; limiting use of unlawfully collected data; providing for expungement; providing definitions; and providing for an effective date.
Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Wyoming: Section 1. W.S. 6-3-414 is created to read: 6-3-414. Trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data; unlawful collection of resource data.
(a) A person is guilty of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data if he:
(i) Enters onto open land for the purpose of collecting resource data; and (ii) Does not have:(A) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter or access the land to collect resource data; or (B) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter or access the land to collect the specified resource data.
(b) A person is guilty of unlawfully collecting resource data if he enters onto private open land and collects resource data without: ORIGINAL SENATE FILE NO. SF0012 ENROLLED ACT NO. 61, SENATE SIXTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 2015 GENERAL SESSION 2
(i) An ownership interest in the real property or, statutory, contractual or other legal authorization to enter the private land to collect the specified resource data; or (ii) Written or verbal permission of the owner, lessee or agent of the owner to enter the land to collect the specified resource data.
(c) Trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data and unlawfully collecting resource data are punishable as follows:
(i) By imprisonment for not more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or both; (ii) By imprisonment for not less than ten (10) days nor more than one (1) year, a fine of not more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00), or both, if the person has previously been convicted of trespassing to unlawfully collect resource data or unlawfully collecting resource data.
(d) As used in this section:
(i) "Collect" means to take a sample of material, acquire, gather, photograph or otherwise preserve information in any form from open land which is submitted or intended to be submitted to any agency of the state or federal government; (ii) "Open land" means land outside the exterior boundaries of any incorporated city, town, subdivision ORIGINAL SENATE FILE NO. SF0012 ENROLLED ACT NO. 61, SENATE SIXTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING 2015 GENERAL SESSION 3 approved pursuant to W.S. 18-5-308 or development approved pursuant to W.S. 18-5-403; (iii) "Peace officer" means as defined by W.S. 7-2-101; (iv) "Resource data" means data relating to land or land use, including but not limited to data regarding agriculture, minerals, geology, history, cultural artifacts, archeology, air, water, soil, conservation, habitat, vegetation or animal species. "Resource data" does not include data:(A) For surveying to determine property boundaries or the location of survey monuments; (B) Used by a state or local governmental entity to assess property values; (C) Collected or intended to be collected by a peace officer while engaged in the lawful performance of his official duties.
(e) No resource data collected in violation of this section is admissible in evidence in any civil, criminal or administrative proceeding, other than a prosecution for violation of this section or a civil action against the violator.
(f) Resource data collected in violation of this section in the possession of any governmental entity as defined by W.S. 1-39-103(a)(i) shall be expunged by the entity from all files and data bases, and it shall not be considered in determining any agency action. ORIGINAL SENATE FILE NO. SF0012 ENROLLED ACT NO. 61, SENATE SIXTY-THIRD LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WYOMING
The law goes beyond just preventing trespass. It outlaws evidence gained while trespassing. Think of an instance where, if you had evidence of a murder, but if you gained it illegally, it couldn't be admitted. Then think about what the courts have decided over the years as far as illegal searches by the police. Those cases involve more than how the evidence was gained, likewise this is about more than trespassing. It's about suppressing evidence, too.
ReplyDeleteEvidence gained illegally is inadmissible. This is perfectly reasonable. No one should be subject to illegal search.
ReplyDeleteBut notice the law in question is not regarding collecting evidence or performing law enforcement duties on the land. The law is not talking about crime occurring on the land where someone is coming to investigate.