BS violation today

[Rob5589]

My friends in LE tell me all the time, people often talk themselves into a citation and/or arrest. The op admitted to seeing a baited area, hunting a short distance from said area, and knowing that hunting over/near bait is illegal, and knew the feeder had bait as well as some on the ground. Hindsight and all, he most assuredly wishes he turned right around and left the area. Lesson learned, the hard way unfortunately.

 

[Erict]

I don't see the issue. The officer(s) certainly had probable cause to believe that a violation occurred. The officer(s) split the difference by writing warnings and a citation. It is now up to the judge and/or jury to decide guilt unless the OP opts to plead guilty. If everything happened as the OP states, the reasonable outcome would be dismissal or an option to plea to a lesser offense.

Speak to the supervisor if you want, but he/she is not there to decide the merits of the case, he is there to handle the conduct of his/her officers.

I still can't understand why there were 3 officers there unless maybe 2 of them were there as part of new officer training.

 

[khunter]

I knew a guy who got a $2000.00 fine because he didn't dot the i on his signature of his license; it's a wonder he didn't lose his truck

no way.

 

[mtwarden]

no way.

exactly my point

I heard so many BS stories about game wardens during my career it would make your head spin. Having the benefit of hearing the other side of the story opens your eyes- wide.

 

[rayporter]

with 3 wardens there i would guess they had a tip.

and expected more action than a guy and his son hunting.

 

[boonez40]

Lengthy I know...So I took my son on his first turkey hunt this morning. Arkansas youth weekend. Went to a lease that I’m a member of. We walked down an old road that I’ve used for locating birds my entire life. Someone had a deer stand and a corn feeder still up from deer seasons. We walked straight by it and down the ridge another 300 yards. I proceeded to crack off a few calls but heard zip in return. Walked back towards my truck and when we went by the feeder, 3 wardens stood up out of the brush. My son (13) was given a warning for hunting over bait. I was given the same warning and issued a citation for “aiding/abetting” because I supposedly let him do it.
I know you can’t bait turkeys. I never have and never will. I honestly didn’t even pay attention to the feeder because it wasn’t mine and I didn’t even know it was there until we topped the ridge. There was still some corn in the feeder and a tiny bit on the ground.
Didn’t matter to the warden. Simply wrong place, wrong time. But not the way a kid should be introduced to Game and Fish officers. Most are simply doing their jobs. But this was overboard. I will be fighting it in court. Thoughts???

Very simple to take care of, when you go to court, tell the magistrate that you want a trial by jury.
The magistrate will send it to the prosecutor, prosecutor will look at it and say, we are not wasting money and resources on this and drop the charges.
Been there, done that.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[boonez40]

In Ca based on the letter of the law, you would lose in court, no ands if's or butts about that. Your state, I have no idea. I presume the law is very similar if not the same, as such, you should have been the legal distance required from the corn on the ground. It is the hunters responsibility.

I am not saying I like it, I am just stating it the way it is, with zero candy coating.

The law reads, knowingly.
Not his feeder and he did not knowingly know there was corn in it or on the ground.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[boonez40]

I’m going to fight it simply because I won’t plead guilty to something I didn’t do. It may cost me more money. If the judge rules against me then so be it. I’ll pay the fine and go on. It has been a lesson for my son and for me as well. I have respect for law enforcement and by no means want him to think differently, but he also must learn to stand up for himself when need be.

I also wanted to say that I don’t think the wardens “planted” the bait. I honestly think it was a feeder left over from late bow season. Our season doesn’t close until February 28. If filled in Feb, then it could have still had some in it. I checked it today and it was practically empty. I’m sure some vibrating out when it goes off. Thanks for the opinions.

Yeah, but to prove intent, they had to shake some corn out on the ground from the feeder if it was inactive.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[boonez40]

My friends in LE tell me all the time, people often talk themselves into a citation and/or arrest. The op admitted to seeing a baited area, hunting a short distance from said area, and knowing that hunting over/near bait is illegal, and knew the feeder had bait as well as some on the ground. Hindsight and all, he most assuredly wishes he turned right around and left the area. Lesson learned, the hard way unfortunately.

Very true, OP should have asked for a lawyer present as soon as the GW asked a question.
You can not talk your way out a ticket or being arrested. You can only talk your way into trouble.
When being questioned by an LEO, just do your self a favor and STFU

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Bubblehide]

The law reads, knowingly.
Not his feeder and he did not knowingly know there was corn in it or on the ground.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Show me

 

[boonez40]

Show me

Show you what ?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[mtwarden]

where it states INTENT is in the law

rarely on misdemeanors do you have to prove intent, ie if you're traveling at 75 mph in a posted 65 mph, the officer doesn't have to prove you intended to speed, just that you were speeding

most state game violations (misdemeanors) are the same, maybe not Arkansas?

 

[FLAK]

Set up a feeder on a known access trail and bust hunters all day.
like the OP said,,,,BS violation.

 

[Bubblehide]

Show you what ?

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

My post was pretty clear. But hey, I'll help you out here. Our typical criminal laws typically requires some from of intent as it directly relates to the crime, i.e., murder for example, is it murder or is it involuntary manslaughter. However, our game and fish laws are Prima Facie (based on the first impression unless proven otherwise). This directly relates to why a Warden does NOT need a warrant to search if you appear to have been or about to engage in fishing or hunting.

But hey, here is the Ca law:

California Code of Regulations (CCR, T14)​

• Take game birds, game mammals or furbearing mammals except as permitted by regulations. CCR T14-250.
• Hunt with a crossbow during archery season (except with a Disabled Archer Permit). CCR T14-354(g).
• Possess a firearm while hunting during archery season or while hunting during the general season with an archery-only tag. CCR T14-354(h).
• Take spike buck. CCR T14- 351(c).
• Pursue, drive, herd, or take any bird or mammal from any type of motor-driven air or land vehicles, motorboat, airboat, sailboat, or snowmobile, except when the motor is off and/or the sails furled and it is drifting, beached, moored, resting at anchor, or is being propelled by paddle, oar or pole. CCR T14-251.
• Knowingly feed big game mammals. CCR T14-251.3.
• Take game birds and mammals within 400 yards of any baited area. This does not apply to the taking of game birds and mammals on or over standing crops, croplands, or grains found scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural operations or procedures. CCR T14-257.5.
• Take bears within 400 yards of any garbage dump or bait. CCR T14-365(e).

There is NO knowingly in that section of the law; there however is for the regulation above, only applying to feeding big game.

My point in previous responses is that the law must be measurable to be legally enforced, for example, Dawn and Dusk are not measurable that is why Sunrise and Sunset are used in the regulations, as they are precisely measurable, and thus enforceable.

 

[boonez40]

My post was pretty clear. But hey, I'll help you out here. Our typical criminal laws typically requires some from of intent as it directly relates to the crime, i.e., murder for example, is it murder or is it involuntary manslaughter. However, our game and fish laws are Prima Facie (based on the first impression unless proven otherwise). This directly relates to why a Warden does NOT need a warrant to search if you appear to have been or about to engage in fishing or hunting.

But hey, here is the Ca law:

California Code of Regulations (CCR, T14)​

• Take game birds, game mammals or furbearing mammals except as permitted by regulations. CCR T14-250.
• Hunt with a crossbow during archery season (except with a Disabled Archer Permit). CCR T14-354(g).
• Possess a firearm while hunting during archery season or while hunting during the general season with an archery-only tag. CCR T14-354(h).
• Take spike buck. CCR T14- 351(c).
• Pursue, drive, herd, or take any bird or mammal from any type of motor-driven air or land vehicles, motorboat, airboat, sailboat, or snowmobile, except when the motor is off and/or the sails furled and it is drifting, beached, moored, resting at anchor, or is being propelled by paddle, oar or pole. CCR T14-251.
• Knowingly feed big game mammals. CCR T14-251.3.
• Take game birds and mammals within 400 yards of any baited area. This does not apply to the taking of game birds and mammals on or over standing crops, croplands, or grains found scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural operations or procedures. CCR T14-257.5.
• Take bears within 400 yards of any garbage dump or bait. CCR T14-365(e).

There is NO knowingly in that section of the law; there however is for the regulation above, only applying to feeding big game.

My point in previous responses is that the law must be measurable to be legally enforced, for example, Dawn and Dusk are not measurable that is why Sunrise and Sunset are used in the regulations, as they are precisely measurable, and thus enforceable.

No your post was not.
So does the OP live in CA, because I thought he lives in Arkansas.
In order to break the law, you have to knowingly do it. But this does not apply to all crimes as it is not always a valid excuse.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[MattB]

That’s basically what it says here, but I don’t see where we showed “intent”. Warden told me there’s no set distance from bait either which sounds absurd. How can I be guilty of something I didn’t even know we did. Just crazy.

Not set distance? So, it could be in a neighboring state where baiting is legal? I would look up the regulation because I am virtually positive that can't be true.

 

[MattB]

No your post was not.
So does the OP live in CA, because I thought he lives in Arkansas.
In order to break the law, you have to knowingly do it. But this does not apply to all crimes as it is not always a valid excuse.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Do you have any citations of case law regarding the requirement around knowing you broke the law for it to be enforceable? That seems like a concept that only exists on internet chat boards.

 

[boonez40]

Do you have any citations of case law regarding the requirement around knowing you broke the law for it to be enforceable? That seems like a concept that only exists on internet chat boards.

Yes, I do as once I was charged with possession of a controlled substance, no proof of insurance and invalid license plate.

I was driving a company truck, I asked the owner if it was legal, he said yes. I got pulled over and they found a couple roaches in the ash tray.

The law states in WV that you shall not knowingly drive a vehicle that is not properly licensed, insured and inspected. Law also states your shall not knowingly have in your possession less than 15 grams of Marijuana.
The judge was nice enough to read the law to me several times and even ran his finger under the part about knowingly doing this kind of behavior and then asked me how do I plead.
I plead innocent and stated I did not knowingly know any of the things I was charged with.
The judge then declared me innocent of all charges.

Again this does not apply to all crimes but it did apply to my crimes as I did not knowingly know. I drove the vehicle in good faith that it was legal and as I do not do drugs and would not think to ask if any drugs are present in the truck.

Same applies to the OP as he does not hunt over bait, he presumed there was no bait present therefor he had no intent and would not dawn on him to check another person's feeder to see if they was baiting. Further more, it is not his duty to police someone's else's equipment and is not required to put himself in harms way to molest someone's else's property. He is not bound by law to neither put him self in that position nor is he bound by law to be responsible for some one else's action.

I was in law enforcement for approximately 10 and a half years and I recently stayed at a Holiday Inn. So I know a little bit about a little bit.

The only fault of the OP is he should have kept his mouth shut and never offered any relevant info. Deny everything and make counter accusations. Never presume anything. Fall he knew, they very well could have shook the corn out of the feeder after he passed by.


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Bubblehide]

Yes, I do as once I was charged with possession of a controlled substance, no proof of insurance and invalid license plate.

...

Same applies to the OP as he does not hunt over bait, he presumed there was no bait present therefor he had no intent ...


Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Clearly you do not understand the concept of our Fish and Game laws being Prima Facie laws. You may want to go back and read through my posts.

 

[fwafwow]

Again this does not apply to all crimes ...

The only fault of the OP is he should have kept his mouth shut and never offered any relevant info

The first sentence above is the most relevant part - knowledge isn’t an element of every crime or violation.

Deny everything and make counter accusations. Never presume anything.

The advice to keep your mouth shut and to deny everything are inconsistent and can get one in more trouble if you do the latter instead of only the former.