Post by cambygsp on May 3, 2006 6:06:58 GMT -5
www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060503/NEWS01/605030499/1006
May 3, 2006
Couple appeal convictions related to protest of deer kill
Pair found guilty of harassing hunters in '01 claim wording of state law is too vague
Associated Press
VALPARAISO, Ind. -- A Porter County couple are appealing their convictions for misdemeanor hunter harassment, claiming the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague.
An attorney for Frederick and Rosanne Shuger, Beverly Shores, contends in the appeal that the wording of the section of the law that prohibits behaviors "that will tend to disturb or otherwise affect the behavior of a game animal" is too broad.
"There is no objective description of what behavior would land you in trouble with the state," attorney James Morsch said.
The clause places Indiana's law at the extreme in comparison to those in other states and could chill free speech, the appeal claims.
A jury convicted the Shugers in July of two counts each of hunter harassment for interfering with a deer kill sanctioned by the town along Lake Michigan in 2001.
Frederick Shuger also was found guilty of intimidation. That conviction is not being appealed.
The couple could have faced jail time, but Porter Superior Court Judge Julia Jent sentenced both to community service and probation.
Morsch said there was no evidence the Shugers disturbed a game animal when they honked their car horn, took photographs and allowed their dog to bark while driving on a public road. Their intent was to express concern over the safety of hunting in the town of about 700 people, he said.
Porter County Deputy Prosecutor Andrew Bennett said at the time that the hunter-harassment law does not hamper anyone's rights to free speech.
The Shugers had many chances to voice their opinion before the hunt, he said.
May 3, 2006
Couple appeal convictions related to protest of deer kill
Pair found guilty of harassing hunters in '01 claim wording of state law is too vague
Associated Press
VALPARAISO, Ind. -- A Porter County couple are appealing their convictions for misdemeanor hunter harassment, claiming the law is unconstitutional because it is too vague.
An attorney for Frederick and Rosanne Shuger, Beverly Shores, contends in the appeal that the wording of the section of the law that prohibits behaviors "that will tend to disturb or otherwise affect the behavior of a game animal" is too broad.
"There is no objective description of what behavior would land you in trouble with the state," attorney James Morsch said.
The clause places Indiana's law at the extreme in comparison to those in other states and could chill free speech, the appeal claims.
A jury convicted the Shugers in July of two counts each of hunter harassment for interfering with a deer kill sanctioned by the town along Lake Michigan in 2001.
Frederick Shuger also was found guilty of intimidation. That conviction is not being appealed.
The couple could have faced jail time, but Porter Superior Court Judge Julia Jent sentenced both to community service and probation.
Morsch said there was no evidence the Shugers disturbed a game animal when they honked their car horn, took photographs and allowed their dog to bark while driving on a public road. Their intent was to express concern over the safety of hunting in the town of about 700 people, he said.
Porter County Deputy Prosecutor Andrew Bennett said at the time that the hunter-harassment law does not hamper anyone's rights to free speech.
The Shugers had many chances to voice their opinion before the hunt, he said.
? Can`t predict what will spook a game animal? hmmmmmm.
