Prohibits harassment of farmers engaged in farming operations.
A4878 would make it unlawful for any person to harass, bother, or otherwise interfere with a farmer when the conduct is intended to hinder or prevent lawful farming operations. The bill defines “farmer” broadly to include people commercially growing, harvesting, producing, or raising agricultural products, and it defines agricultural products to include crops, livestock, dairy animals, poultry, bees, aquacultural products, horticultural products, and trees and forest products.
The bill creates both criminal and civil consequences for violations. A first violation would be a petty disorderly persons offense, while a second or subsequent violation would be a disorderly persons offense. It also establishes civil penalties of $250 to $500 per offense, treats each day of a continuing violation as a separate offense, and authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to seek injunctive and other relief in Superior Court. In addition, an affected person could sue for damages, including punitive and special damages such as lost profits and damage to farmland, supplies, equipment, and agricultural products.
The bill would add a new statutory protection in Title 4 of the Revised Statutes aimed at shielding farming operations from intentional interference. It would expand potential enforcement tools by giving the Secretary of Agriculture authority to bring civil actions, while also allowing private civil suits by persons harmed by violations. The measure would create new misdemeanor-level criminal exposure, civil penalties, and damages remedies for conduct directed at farmers, while expressly excluding law enforcement officers acting to enforce state law or local ordinances.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee testimony or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a pro-farmer, anti-interference bill with a protective and enforcement-oriented purpose. The sponsor statement presents the bill as a response to harassment that can disrupt agricultural work and cause economic harm. No formal opposition or support is reflected in the provided record, so the overall sentiment in the available materials is one of support for farm operations and agricultural security, with no documented debate.
The main potential point of contention is the breadth of the prohibited conduct, since terms like “harass,” “bother,” and “otherwise interfere” could be read broadly and may raise concerns about overreach or enforcement against protest activity, trespass, or other expressive conduct near farms. Another possible issue is the bill’s criminal penalties and private right of action, which could be viewed as strong deterrents but also as creating liability for conduct that may be disputed. The bill’s express exemption for law enforcement suggests an effort to narrow its scope, but no committee record is provided showing whether stakeholders raised concerns about free speech, protest rights, or agricultural enforcement.