Court upholds warrants for F&W officers

[Wrench]

I've had some scary stops by wardens over the years. One time a POV Cherokee passed us and stopped sideways in the middle of the road with barely enough time for us to get stopped. They jumped out and checked our rifles to see if they were loaded.

Had another where a warden hammered a kid because a bied bag had a duck feather in it. The bag was at least 20 years old and had years of blood and feathers. The kid was a mess.

Beyond that, I have worked with and had many many great encounters with enforcement guys. Most are similar minded and pretty sharp.

The biology side is where I shake my head. I have worked with them and seriously believe that they mine data to support whatever it is that they wish to push. Our very own conflict specialist is such a wackjob that she is the star on a podcast by double u titled 911, what's your emergency.

She's nuts.

 

[TSAMP]

A reasonable person might ask why you wouldn’t want the warden to look in your cooler? Not allowing the warden a simple peek might raise some suspicion if he were to call a judge


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could play this game all day. I think the same logic applies to the warden as it does to me and have been in this very scenario. Cooler was buried in topper behind dog boxes and I said such and that they're welcome to crawl in if he must take a peek. He declined and we moved on.

I've also fallen for the ole Warden chopping it up trick and thought we were having a friendly conversation about deer hunting ( on an area at which I was currently at and finished squrriel hunting) only to realize just as we finished He had been probing me to see if I recently had hunted it or planned too (for deer) as he now disclosed sombody complained I was actively running off deer while they hunted and he was there investigating that.

In that instance I was unknowingly proving my innocence but I am more careful with my words now. felt a little dirty after that encounter even though I recognize he was doing his job. I'm a straight shooter so the tactic didn't sit well with me.

 

[Dos Perros]

Unfortunately when it comes to fish and wildlife law, yea


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ya, that's bullshit (as in you're wrong).

 

[Marble]

After a good long career in law enforcement and writing, probably 1000 search warrants, I am shocked that law exists.

Courts have found that for a long time, the government can not usurp the law because of resources, obstacles, or a special need. There are two exceptions to needing a search warrant to search someone's home. Exigency and consent.

I'm glad the court found like they did.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

Let’s say you’re glassing from your truck, all legal, and a warden stops, and asks to look in your cooler. You say no. What judge would grant a warrant for that?

The answer is no. With the facts presented, there still is no crime to investigate.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[Marble]

And that's what bugs me right there... If he had probable cause, he didn't need to ask to have the dog sniff. So in this case, he was just out to find something without enough cause to detain you. WTH?

That's what their job is. They are looking for crimes. Nothing wrong with him asking.

The dog can sniff wherever he can legally be, like the side of a road or a parking lot. But he can't climb into the back of the truck sniff without permission.

But in my experience, most anything in the back of a truck the dog would be able to smell within reason. Their noses are just amazing.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

That's what their job is. They are looking for crimes. Nothing wrong with him asking.

The dog can sniff wherever he can legally be, like the side of a road or a parking lot. But he can't climb into the back of the truck sniff without permission.

But in my experience, most anything in the back of a truck the dog would be able to smell within reason. Their noses are just amazing.

Sent from my SM-S918U using Tapatalk

Roger that, but I've also seen where the false positive rate of dogs is surprisingly high, and sometimes they "alert" when simply guided/directed by their handler. Dogs want to please their owner, so if they are given direction, they often "alert" for approval/reward vs. actually finding something.

 

[JohnJohnson]

Roger that, but I've also seen where the false positive rate of dogs is surprisingly high, and sometimes they "mark" when simply guided/directed by their handler. Dogs want to please their owner, so if they are given direction, they often "mark" for approval/reward vs. actually finding something.

My favorite part of law enforcement is the fact that 99% of forensics is pseudoscience. If you want your blood pressure to go up, check out those false positive rates.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

But in my experience, most anything in the back of a truck the dog would be able to smell within reason. Their noses are just amazing.

I agree their noses are amazing. Nothing is more satisfying than watching my bird dog work. However, he points animals other than roosters too. FWIW, read this piece...

False alerts in the field[edit]​

In Harris, one of the major points raised by a number of the amici curiae is that a dog's training or certification does not necessarily reflect that dog's reliability in the field. They point to what they say are "the most comprehensive data available on the rate of false alerts in real-world settings"[4] – several years' of studies undertaken by an independent government agency in Sydney, Australia, under the Police Powers (Drug Detection Dogs) Act 2001.[25][26] Police dogs went through an initial 6 weeks of training to detect cannabis, ecstasy, methamphetamine, cocaine and heroin, received additional training weekly, and were tested and re-certified every three months. The police dogs would randomly sniff individuals at train stations, licensed premises, on streets and sidewalks, at nightclub strips, shopping centers, concerts, and other public locations – the dog would sit next to a person if it alerted. In the first 9 months of 2011, dogs alerted (and police searched) 14,102 times, and drugs were found only 2,854 times—a false alert rate of 80%. Those results, they say, are surprisingly consistent – in 2010, the false alert rate was 74%.[3] Further still, the study found that individual dog's performance varied wildly, with accuracy rates ranging from a high of 56% to a low of 7%, with two-thirds of the dogs performing below the average. The New South Wales' Ombudsman summarized his report by saying:

Despite the best efforts of police officers, the use of drug detection dogs has proven to be an ineffective tool for detecting drug dealers. Overwhelmingly, the use of drug detection dogs has led to public searches of individuals in which no drugs were found, or to the detection of (mostly young) adults in possession of very small amounts of cannabis for personal use. These findings have led us to question whether the Drug Dogs Act will ever provide a fair, efficacious and cost effective tool to target drug supply. Given this, we have recommended that the starting point, when considering this report, is to review whether the Drug Dogs Act should be retained at all."[27]

Prosecutors, on the other hand, say that does not prove anything. They point to "residual odors", meaning that the individuals may have in fact been in contact with drugs earlier and the drugs were no longer present, or the drugs may have been extremely well-hidden. In a reply brief, P.J. Bondi, Attorney General of Florida, wrote:

When you enter the kitchen and smell popcorn, the fact that someone has already eaten all the popcorn and put the bag outside in the trash takes nothing away from the fact that you accurately smelled popcorn in the kitchen."[28]

Decision[edit]​

The United States Supreme Court returned a unanimous decision on February 19, 2013, ruling against Harris and overturning the ruling of the Florida Supreme Court.[29] In the unanimous opinion, Justice Elena Kagan stated that the dog's certification and continued training are adequate indication of his reliability, and thus is sufficient to presume the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using the "totality-of-the-circumstances" test per Illinois v. Gates. She wrote that the Florida Supreme Court instead established "a strict evidentiary checklist", where "an alert cannot establish probable cause ... unless the State introduces comprehensive documentation of the dog's prior 'hits' and 'misses' in the field ... No matter how much other proof the State offers of the dog's reliability, the absent field performance records will preclude a finding of probable cause."[30]

The Court did not, however, rule out the questioning of reliability where specific grounds are present.[29] Kagan also stated that "a defendant must have an opportunity to challenge such evidence of a dog's reliability, whether by cross-examining the testifying officer or by introducing his own fact or expert witnesses. The defendant may contest training or testing standards as flawed, or too lax, or raise an issue regarding the particular alert."[31]

 

[Andrew12gauge]

You could play this game all day. I think the same logic applies to the warden as it does to me and have been in this very scenario. Cooler was buried in topper behind dog boxes and I said such and that they're welcome to crawl in if he must take a peek. He declined and we moved on.

I've also fallen for the ole Warden chopping it up trick and thought we were having a friendly conversation about deer hunting ( on an area at which I was currently at and finished squrriel hunting) only to realize just as we finished He had been probing me to see if I recently had hunted it or planned too (for deer) as he now disclosed sombody complained I was actively running off deer while they hunted and he was there investigating that.

In that instance I was unknowingly proving my innocence but I am more careful with my words now. felt a little dirty after that encounter even though I recognize he was doing his job. I'm a straight shooter so the tactic didn't sit well with me.

That’s the thing, if you’ve nothing to hide you can have a perfectly pleasant interaction with a warden and go on about your day, if you get defensive and start trying to hide things, your day is probably going to be ruined.

In your examples:
1) you offered to let him look in the cooler and at that point he declined
2) his simple questions and your responses gave him no reason to be suspicious so he moved on about his day

I guess the real question, as to the original question about sitting on the side of the road glassing, doing nothing illegal and the warden asks to look in your cooler there are 2 options

1)you say yes, maybe he takes a quick peek and you both go on about your day
2)you say no, now he has reason to be suspicious that you may be hiding something, so he starts making calls to try and get a warrant, in the meantime he likely isn’t going to leave your side so your day is pretty well ruined until he does get that warrant

I would pick option 1 every time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[*zap*]

In order to be 'detained' law enforcement needs reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime has been, is being or will be committed. Game wardens get around that and other issues by their 'special' powers.....

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

2)you say no, now he has reason to be suspicious that you may be hiding something, so he starts making calls to try and get a warrant, in the meantime he likely isn’t going to leave your side so your day is pretty well ruined until he does get that warrant

Again, this is the rub. He knows that he can tie you up all day, and he knows you know this. So rather than pushing back against the unnecessary search, they assume (attempt to ensure) you just comply. Or else...

"If you're not breaking the law, you got nothing to worry about." Until you do...

For example, say I go to CO for a long weekend and indulge in some cannabis. While I'm in CO, I'm 100% legal to possess the cannabis while I'm in the state. Cannabis has a very strong odor in green form, and say I store some in my vehicle over the weekend.

On my way back to Iowa, say I get pulled over in NE for whatever reason. Say the trooper doesn't write me a ticket for a traffic violation, but sees my out of state plates and asks for permission to search the vehicle. Say I decline and then he asks to step out of the car, due to detecting the scent of canabis.

Now, even though there is no canabis present in the car, just residual odors, the trooper has cause to search and seize my personal property- guns, cash, etc... What started as a benign traffic stop without ticket turns into a potential search and seizure with no crime being committed.

Using loophole Seward County Nebraska seizes millions from motorists without convicting them of crimes

 

[JohnJohnson]

He knows that he can tie you up all day, and he knows you know this.

If he does it long enough he'll start getting paid ludicrous amounts of overtime so he's fine to be there all night.

That’s the thing, if you’ve nothing to hide you can have a perfectly pleasant interaction with a warden and go on about your day, if you get defensive and start trying to hide things, your day is probably going to be ruined.

I think this is a horrible mindset to have. We should all care about our rights. Would you be cool with a cop grabbing your phone and going through your private text messages because you have nothing to hide?

 

[*zap*]

Know your rights and exercise them daily.

 

[Crowmangler]

That’s the thing, if you’ve nothing to hide you can have a perfectly pleasant interaction with a warden and go on about your day, if you get defensive and start trying to hide things, your day is probably going to be ruined.

In your examples:
1) you offered to let him look in the cooler and at that point he declined
2) his simple questions and your responses gave him no reason to be suspicious so he moved on about his day

I guess the real question, as to the original question about sitting on the side of the road glassing, doing nothing illegal and the warden asks to look in your cooler there are 2 options

1)you say yes, maybe he takes a quick peek and you both go on about your day
2)you say no, now he has reason to be suspicious that you may be hiding something, so he starts making calls to try and get a warrant, in the meantime he likely isn’t going to leave your side so your day is pretty well ruined until he does get that warrant

I would pick option 1 every time

GOVERN ME HARDER DADDY!

 

[isItFallYet]

That’s the thing, if you’ve nothing to hide you can have a perfectly pleasant interaction with a warden and go on about your day, if you get defensive and start trying to hide things, your day is probably going to be ruined.

In your examples:
1) you offered to let him look in the cooler and at that point he declined
2) his simple questions and your responses gave him no reason to be suspicious so he moved on about his day

I guess the real question, as to the original question about sitting on the side of the road glassing, doing nothing illegal and the warden asks to look in your cooler there are 2 options

1)you say yes, maybe he takes a quick peek and you both go on about your day
2)you say no, now he has reason to be suspicious that you may be hiding something, so he starts making calls to try and get a warrant, in the meantime he likely isn’t going to leave your side so your day is pretty well ruined until he does get that warrant

I would pick option 1 every time


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you let LE search your home for no particular reason? How about your phone or browser history?

 

[*zap*]

Do you know why I pulled you over?

 

[IDVortex]

Do you know why I pulled you over?

No sir.

 

[*zap*]

"I do not answer questions".

 

[maxx075]

Do you know why I pulled you over?

Depends on how long you were following me.