Bill penalizes unlawful entry into animal enclosures

Summary#

HB 2857 would amend Pennsylvania’s Title 18, Crimes and Offenses, by adding a new criminal offense; it does not give the offense a separate short title. The bill’s title describes its goal as addressing unlawful entry into animal enclosures. It has been introduced and referred to committee, so it is not law.

  • A person commits the offense if they know they are not licensed or privileged to enter and either enter a locked or restricted area in an animal enclosure or bypass a protective structure designed to separate the public from it.
  • The offense is generally a third-degree misdemeanor. It becomes a second-degree misdemeanor if the entry causes visitor evacuation or an emergency response, and a third-degree felony if it results in injury, death, or substantial risk of injury or death to a listed person or animal.
  • A court must order restitution for facility costs, including animal recovery, veterinary treatment, emergency response, enclosure repair, and operational disruptions.
  • The offense would cover enclosures at zoological parks, aquariums, and menageries, and those maintained by people with a propagating permit under state law.
  • The bill allows prosecution under other laws too, including criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and animal cruelty. It provides exceptions for authorized workers and volunteers, officials acting in their duties, and people entering during a qualifying emergency.

What it means for you#

  • Visitors and other members of the public: Knowingly entering a locked or restricted area in a covered enclosure, or bypassing a protective structure, could lead to a criminal charge even if no injury or damage occurs.
  • People entering in an emergency: The offense does not apply if you enter during a bona fide emergency to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury.
  • Facility employees, contractors, veterinarians, and volunteers: The offense does not apply when you act within the scope of authorized duties.
  • Law enforcement, emergency responders, and animal control personnel: The exception applies when you act within the scope of official duties.
  • Covered facilities: If an unlawful entry leads to costs listed in the bill, a court must order restitution for those costs. The bill does not create a new facility or reporting process.

Money#

No publicly available information on estimated public cost is included in the supplied material.

  • The bill provides for restitution of facility costs, but gives no estimate, cap, or calculation method.
  • The bill does not state a public appropriation or an amount for staffing or enforcement costs.
  • It sets offense grades but does not give fine or prison-term amounts.

What is unclear#

  • The bill does not define “locked,” “restricted,” “protective structure,” or “substantial risk.”
  • It does not set out how facility costs, including “operational disruptions,” would be calculated or proved.
  • The current text of Title 18 was not supplied, so I could not verify how the new offense would relate to existing criminal trespass or other current offenses.
  • The bill does not specify how the offense would be investigated or prosecuted, beyond allowing prosecution under other laws as well.
  • The bill would take effect 60 days after enactment, but passage is uncertain.

Case for#

  • The bill appears intended to deter unauthorized entry into places where animals are kept.
  • A possible argument for the different offense grades is that they distinguish entry alone from entry that triggers an emergency response or creates serious risk.
  • Requiring restitution could make facilities whole for specified costs caused by an unlawful entry.
  • Allowing other charges could preserve prosecution for other conduct, such as property damage or animal cruelty.

Case against#

  • The bill makes unauthorized entry a crime even when no harm or emergency response occurs; the basic offense is a third-degree misdemeanor.
  • Terms such as “restricted area” and “substantial risk” are not defined, which could leave uncertainty about which conduct qualifies.
  • Restitution includes operational disruptions, but the bill gives no limit or method for deciding their value.
  • Allowing prosecution under other laws may mean one incident can be charged under this new offense and other offenses; the bill does not explain how overlapping charges would be handled.