Court Opinion

ID: 9860330
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:18:12.871166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:21:07.830773
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE BILANDIC, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I would find that section 2(c) of the Act meets constitutional standards. I agree with the decision and reasoning of our appellate court in Woodstock Hunt Club v. Hindi, 291 Ill. App. 3d 1051 (1997), which rejected overbreadth and vagueness challenges to the Hunter Interference Prohibition Act. That court correctly concluded that section 2(c) is not impermissibly content-based. Section 2(c) prohibits the disturbance of a hunter when that disturbance is intended to “dissuade or otherwise prevent” the taking of an animal. Although the disturbance may take the form of verbal expression, the commission of this offense is not dependent on the content of the expression. The Woodstock Hunt Club court aptly illustrated this distinction: “A person may violate the Act by shouting ‘Fire!’, by waving a placard proclaiming ‘Hunting is good!’ in front of a hunter, or by playing the 1812 Overture on a stereo system, if any of these actions is done with the intent to dissuade or prevent the taking of a wild animal and disturbs either a hunter or his intended quarry.” Woodstock Hunt Club, 291 Ill. App. 3d at 1054. The majority reasons that the use of the term “dissuade” renders section 2(c) impermissibly content-based because that term connotes the conveyance of a message. Section 2(c), however, does not prevent antihunting advocates from attempting to convince hunters not to hunt. Rather, it merely prohibits disturbing a hunter who is engaged in the hunt if the intent of the disturbance is to dissuade or otherwise prevent the taking of the animal. It is the act of disturbing, not the act of dissuading, that is proscribed. The content of what is said to disturb the hunter is not relevant. As noted by the Montana Supreme Court in rejecting this precise argument, a person could wish to prevent the taking of an animal by a hunter for reasons other than opposition to hunting, such as a desire to shoot the animal himself. State v. Lilburn, 265 Mont. 258, 268, 875 P.2d 1036, 1042-43 (1994). Section 2(c) simply does not single out any particular thought or opinion for prohibition. It is therefore content-neutral. I would further find that section 2(c) is neither unconstitutionally overbroad nor vague. The doctrine of overbreadth “is designed to protect first amendment freedom of expression from laws written so broadly that the fear of punishment might discourage people from taking advantage of the freedom.” People v. Bailey, 167 Ill. 2d 210, 226 (1995). The doctrine is used sparingly; in order for a statute to be invalidated for overbreadth, its overbreadth “must not only be real, but substantial as well, judged in relation to the statute’s plainly legitimate sweep.” Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U.S. 601, 615, 37 L. Ed. 2d 830, 842, 93 S. Ct. 2908, 2918 (1973). Section 2(c) is not so broadly drafted that possible unconstitutional applications are real and substantial. The conduct that is proscribed by section 2(c) is the intentional disturbance of a hunter engaged in a lawful activity. Both sides agree that the government has a legitimate interest in regulating the hunting environment and in protecting hunters against unwarranted intrusions during the hunt. Section 2(c) achieves the legitimate goals of protecting hunters from intentional interference and preventing potentially violent confrontations. See Lilburn, 265 Mont. at 268, 875 P.2d at 1042. The conduct proscribed by section 2(c) is reasonably drawn and is not protected by the constitution. Defendant has not shown that the statute is so broadly drawn that it prohibits constitutionally protected expression. As discussed above, section 2(c) does not prevent antihunting advocates from attempting to convince hunters to stop hunting. Rather, the statute merely prohibits them from intentionally interfering with hunters during a lawful hunt. Section 2(c) is not unconstitutionally overbroad. Neither is section 2(c) unconstitutionally vague. A statute is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108, 33 L. Ed. 2d 222, 227, 92 S. Ct. 2294, 2298 (1972). Section 2(c) gives adequate warning of what activities it proscribes. Moreover, there is no question that defendant was given fair warning that his conduct fell within the proscriptions of section 2(c). Defendant is alleged to have approached a woman who was engaged in the lawful taking of a deer at a deer relocation center. Defendant asked the woman if she was a veterinarian, and when she responded in the affirmative, defendant began taking photographs and yelling at her. After informing the woman that he had also taken down her license plate number, defendant allegedly continued to threaten her by following her in his car. Defendant’s alleged conduct was unquestionably proscribed by section 2(c). For the foregoing reasons, I would reverse the trial court’s judgment holding section 2(c) unconstitutional. I therefore dissent.