Undercover whistleblowers can endanger animals and food, says lawmaker (Part 1)
by Katerina Lorenzatos Makris
As part of a series of articles about a proposed law that would restrict undercover video and photography of possible animal abuse on Iowa farms, Animal Policy Examiner recently spoke by telephone with Iowa state Rep. Annette Sweeney, chief sponsor of the bill. Please see Q&A below.
Background:
House File (HF) 589 would make it a felony to obtain unauthorized video and photos on Iowa crop and animal agriculture facilities, and impose penalties of prison time and fines that would be more severe than for the animal abuse such images might seek to expose.
owa state Rep. Annette Sweeney, chief sponsor of bill to curb undercover videos Photo: Courtesy of Iowa state Rep. Annette Sweeney
Animal protection groups including Mercy for Animals, Compassion Over Killing, PETA, and The Humane Society of the United States have released a number of such videos and photos in recent years, with some resulting in law enforcement investigations, prosecutions, convictions, fines, and closures of animal agriculture facilities.
Many observers are concerned that the bill would violate the First Amendment right to free speech, inhibit whistleblowers, and set a precedent for other states to follow. A similar bill is pending in the Florida legislature.
Sweeney owns a cattle farm in central Iowa, where she lives along with thirteen chickens, a cat, and a rescued golden retriever.
Animal Beat: Right now the bill as I understand it cleared the Senate Ag [Agriculture] Committee?
Rep. Annette Sweeney: Yes it did. It cleared the Senate Ag Committee yesterday [March 30, 2011].
AB: So now what happens?
Sweeney: It will go to the Senate floor for debate and hopefully passage. Hopefully that will happen maybe sometime next week [week of April 3]. I’m not sure, but we’re hoping.
AB: Were there any amendments to it?
Sweeney: Coming out of the Ag Committee, no amendments at this time. But we did have amendments that took dogs and cats out, coming out of the House side.
AB: I know there were concerns from some legislators that companion animal facilities [such as dog and cat breeders, pet stores, and animal shelters] would be included.
Sweeney: Yeah, so we addressed that and got it straightened out.
AB: Why do you feel that a bill like this is necessary in Iowa?
Sweeney: I look at it as updating code, because right now in code 90 percent of the bill is already in law. And this updates to where we are concerned about individuals just coming onto our places and taking video without the owners knowing—or pictures—and when you come onto somebody’s place, you can have a virus or disease on your person. It’s amazing. I think that if people realized how much that people carry on their person, it is rather scary.
And so what we’re trying to do with this is if somebody sees abuse—it’s already in code—you’re supposed to go, and there’s proper authorities, go to the sheriff, go to a deputy, go to your county supervisor, you go to report it to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship, or to the USDA [United States Department of Agriculture]. Those steps are already in place, and what we want to make sure is that you have first-hand knowledge, and not hearsay of the possible abuse.
AB: As I understand it, this bill targets—is it only targeting folks who deliberately seek employment for the purpose of taking undercover videos of possible animal abuse?
Sweeney: It’s not targeting—this is all-inclusive, OK? What it’s also saying is that this person is hired with the intent—the purpose—of going on, abusing animals, and filming it for their own personal gain, and that’s what we don’t want, because we just don’t want that to happen.
AB: What if there’s a scenario where someone is just a regular employee with no ties to any animal welfare groups or anything like that, and they just see something happening that they don’t feel is right. They’re not sure, or they’re worried about it, and they whip out their cell phone or something and they want to take some video or pictures so that they can document it, so that they can show law enforcement. What would happen in that case?
Sweeney: In that case right now I think it would be good for that person to go to the sheriff and say, “Hey, you know what? There is some abuse going on.” And I don’t care who they’re connected with. If they see abuse, abuse is abuse. So what they need to do is go to the sheriff and say “Hey, there’s some abuse going on here, or suspected abuse.” And the sheriff says,”Go ahead, you take a picture and bring it back to me because you have first-hand knowledge.”
AB: OK, so you’re saying that under this bill they would be required to go to law enforcement and get permission to take the images?
Sweeney: Mmm-hmm, mmm-hmm.
AB: And otherwise, if they don’t do that, if they’re just there, and they’re seeing something that they feel isn’t right, and they want to just document it right then and there, and they take that video without having permission first, then is that something they could be prosecuted for?Sweeney: Well, right now, what we’re wanting to avoid is posting it on YouTube and hindering the process. Because if they would go to the law enforcement first, in other words, it is prescribed in law right now, that’s the way they’re supposed to do it, and we would like it to stay that way.
If somebody just happens to do something—you know, it’s an "oops"—you know we all do oopsies—but if this is somebody you know is going to continually abuse the animals, you know, usually it isn’t a one-time deal. And so if that person goes to the sheriff and says “Hey, this is what’s going on—next day in, more than likely you know that’s going to happen. We just want to make sure it’s the proper channels and we don’t want some kneejerk reaction to something that might not be what it appears.
AB: I’m completely ignorant of legal stuff, but out of curiosity, would the sheriff have to get a court order, or a judge’s permission for that kind of undercover video or photography?
Sweeney: No, not if the person works there. If the sheriff tells him to go ahead and take a picture the next day he’s at work, and he brings it in with first-hand knowledge, that’s fine.
AB: So the sheriff has the authority to give that kind of permission.
Sweeney: Mmm-hmm.
For Parts Two and Three of this interview plus interviews with more policy makers and animal welfare leaders on this issue, please visit Animal Beat again soon.
Or subscribe to Animal Beat by visiting our HOME page and signing our GUESTBOOK to receive emails letting you know whenever there’s a new article. It’s free, private, and no other emails will bombard you.
To voice an opinion yea or nay on HF 589, contact:
Please note: Concerned citizens from outside the state may express opinions to Iowa legislators, but it is recommended that they identify themselves as non-Iowans.
