Do you have the law that prevents the recording in UT? I only see the tresspassing law. Which by the way, would appear to be a class B misdemeanor if it was agricultural land or if it was a building (same for both your examples).
I wasn't trying to distinguish between land and building, mostly just that they are about recording and specifically animal operations.
I'm almost certain Utah is not the only state that specifically has laws around recording and specifically for animal operations that go beyond just generic trespass, but I don't have time right now to dive in.
Ok, thanks for the link. Based on that information it seems generic tresspass and the agricultural interference laws carry similar penalties depending on the circumstances. Both are either class A or class B misdemeanors.
but penalties stack :) and not all agricultural recording would fall under trespass - many times it is people who are employed there who are doing the recording
Not sure why you're putting these here. These are not relevant to discussion we're having. We're talking about the sentencing phase and the rules determining concurrent sentences.
How are you going to get concurrent sentences for two things you can’t get convicted for — or sentenced for — simultaneously? My point is that what you are contemplating would not be possible. Obviously I’m missing something. What is it?
So why can't you get sentenced for trespassing and agricultural interference if you trespassed into a facility and recorded animals? I didn't see anything in UT laws preventing concurrent sentences for those. Why do you think those can't be sentenced together?
Now we will see why my previous comment was relevant.
A lesser included offense is an offense which itself constitutes one element of another offense. Under the doctrine of multiplicity, you may either be tried for the lesser included or the offense for which the lesser included is an element — but not both. To be charged with both would run afoul of the constitutional provisions limiting double jeopardy.
This is not part of any Utah statute, it’s a general constitutional principle under US law.
I didn't make you say anything. It looks like you replied to the wrong person, and in a unconstructive way. Seems you should have replied to the person about stacking penalties. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40310758
You could have been constructive and said that criminal trespass was a lesser included offense under section 2d. Or should I just reply to you using a few semirandom words? Relevant search terms include: conversation, context, sentences, convey complete ideas
The principle is well understood. You could have pointed out how that principle applied - that the lesser included offense of criminal trespass existed under 2d. Researching principles does nothing if there is a missing fact. Or are you referring to yourself as "Computer Guy"?
If it's too much work for you to engage in a thoughful conversation (per the guidelines), just don't engage at all next time. We don't need low effort "search terms..." comments on here.
The penalties in these laws are higher than just generic secret recording.