Houghtaling, Taliaferro & Andrzejczak Bill to Help Prevent Vandalism on Farmlands Clears Legislature

(TRENTON) – Legislation sponsored by Assembly Democrats Eric Houghtaling, Adam Taliaferro and Bob Andrzejczak to protect agricultural and horticultural lands against trespassing and vandalism was approved by the full Assembly 67-0 on Monday, giving it final legislative approval.

The bill (A-4846) now goes to the governor.

“This helps protect agricultural businesses in the state from encroachment that can damage crops and put a damper on their business,” said Houghtaling (D-Monmouth). “Farming is an expensive venture. Damage caused by trespassing, whether intentional or not, should be rectified.”

“People might not realize that what looks like public open space is actually private property and someone’s livelihood,” said Taliaferro (D-Cumberland/Gloucester/Salem). “This ensures that farmers are able to recover losses for any damage incurred to their property.”

“Farmers don’t have the luxury of simply starting over again when crops are damaged,” said Andrzejczak (D-Cape May/Atlantic/Cumberland),” who chairs the committee. “This helps protect farms from vandalism and ensures that farmers can recover when they suffer a loss.”

This bill revises, expands, and clarifies the restitution and penalty provisions established in law for trespassers and vandals on agricultural or horticultural lands.

Current law provides that it is a criminal offense to:

(1) knowingly or recklessly operate a motorized vehicle or ride horseback upon the lands of another without obtaining and possessing the written permission of the owner, occupant, or lessee thereof; or

(2) knowingly or recklessly damage or injure any tangible property, including, but not limited to, any fence, building, feedstocks, crops, live trees, or any domestic animals, located on the lands of another.

The degree of the offenses described above ranges under current law from a disorderly persons offense to fourth degree or third degree crime, depending upon the pecuniary loss involved.  A person convicted of one of these offenses is required to make restitution and pay certain minimum mandatory fines in addition to any other penalties that may be assessed for the particular degree of the offense.

Current law also provides that a trespasser on agricultural or horticultural lands is subject to a civil fine of at least $100.

This bill provides that a person who is convicted of one of the criminal offenses listed above is liable to the owner, occupant, lessee, or licensee (the bill adds licensee to the list of possible victims under the current law) of the lands or of the tangible property for, in addition to any other fine, penalty, or restitution which may be imposed by law, any reasonable and necessary expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, incurred by the owner, occupant, lessee, or licensee to ensure that the lands or the tangible property are restored to their condition prior to commission of the offense.  The court hearing the case would be required to make a finding of the amount of expenses incurred and damages sustained and order the defendant to pay them as appropriate.

The bill establishes a civil penalty of at least $1,000 for persons who:  (1) knowingly or recklessly operate a motorized vehicle or ride horseback upon the lands of another without obtaining and possessing the written permission of the owner, occupant, lessee, or licensee thereof; or (2) knowingly or recklessly damage or injure any tangible property, including, but not limited to, any fence, building, feedstocks, crops, live trees, or any domestic animals, located on the lands of another.  For these civil offenses too, the court hearing the case would be required to make a finding of the amount of expenses incurred and damages sustained and order the defendant to pay them as appropriate. The committee amendments:  (1) restore in the bill the civil penalty for simple trespass on agricultural or horticultural lands to the minimum $100 fine in current law instead of the minimum $1,000 fine that would have been established by the bill as introduced; (2) reorganize section 3 of the bill to improve clarity; (3) remove from the bill specific language concerning certain procedural steps a court would be required to take after adjudging guilt or liability, thereby instead leaving the judicial process that is to be followed in these cases to that which is followed in the usual course of similar actions; (4) make technical changes; and (5) update the title and synopsis.