Court upholds warrants for F&W officers

[jayhawk]

Here’s the synopsis:

A while back there was a case in which TWRA believed someone was poaching, but lacked sufficient evidence They entered onto his private property and placed cameras without a warrant. Legally, they were permitted to do this because (at least in TN) wildlife officers are given more leeway than other LEOs.

The cameras were found and the landowner challenged TWRA in court because, he argued, warrantless searches violated the law.

He won the case. TWRA appealed the decision to a higher court (after all, they have the money) and….lost again.

Appeals court: Wildlife officers' warrantless searches of private property are unconstitutional • Tennessee Lookout

A Tennessee appeals court has ruled the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency warrantless searches violate the state and U.S. Constitutions.

tennesseelookout.com

 

[doc holiday13]

#like

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

The IADNR officers have similar jurisdiction (all 99 counties) and expanded powers. I sincerely appreciate them for the difficult job they perform, but some take it a little too far.

 

[yfarm]

My son had a similar experience in Iowa, was an Iowa resident hunting on our family farm, was driving my truck which had Tx license plates. Was parked next to our cabin,not visible from the road and 2 wardens drove in the lane, claimed they could see antlers projecting above the pickup box which were not and interrogated him for 15 minutes about the legally tagged deer after showing them his id and license. Their behavior sent me over to the other side on this issue. Florida F&G and Texas P&W have the same authorities to enter your boat,camp,truck and search without a warrant. Don’t understand why we have given them authority not given all other leos.

 

[yfarm]

As an aside, TPWD wardens have told me there is a no more humorless individual than a federal game warden. My experiences hunting draw hunts on federal refuges parallel their comments. The employees on the refuges are wonderful, helpful people.

 

[180ls1]

Good, the implications of an otherwise ruling are downright scary, far more than just hunting. They can get a damn warrant if there is probable cause.

 

[jjohnsonElknewbie]

My son had a similar experience in Iowa, was an Iowa resident hunting on our family farm, was driving my truck which had Tx license plates. Was parked next to our cabin,not visible from the road and 2 wardens drove in the lane, claimed they could see antlers projecting above the pickup box which were not and interrogated him for 15 minutes about the legally tagged deer after showing them his id and license. Their behavior sent me over to the other side on this issue. Florida F&G and Texas P&W have the same authorities to enter your boat,camp,truck and search without a warrant. Don’t understand why we have given them authority not given all other leos.

In Iowa there is only one warden for every few counties, so I'm guessing that is the reason for the expanded scope of operations/authority.

My buddy had a similar experience as the above a couple years ago. Iowa game warden drove through an open gate all the way out into the middle of a 2x3 mile section where an old barn stands. You cannot see the building from the road as it's in the middle of the section and well downslope from the gate on the highway. This is where my buddy's group hangs all their deer during 1st gun season. They party hunt on this farm and for convenience hang all the deer in the same barn. It can be a hell of a drag or if you're lucky a short four wheeler drive to the barn with the deer.

DNR said he had "probable cause" to come check in at the barn even though you can't even see it. How did he even know they were hunting back there that day? What did he have probably cause to check? What if the gate was shut and locked?

He checked all their licenses and deer and then left a few veiled threats about seat belts, speeding, open containers, and drinking and driving on his way out.

 

[Dos Perros]

I've often wondered, but not researched, how game wardens manage to get around our 4th Amendment rights. It seems like this shouldn't be the case, yet it is.

 

[Andrew12gauge]

I've often wondered, but not researched, how game wardens manage to get around our 4th Amendment rights. It seems like this shouldn't be the case, yet it is.

Usually it is fine print on the hunting license that you sign essentially waiving your 4th amendment rights to fish and wildlife enforcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dos Perros]

Usually it is fine print on the hunting license that you sign essentially waiving your 4th amendment rights to fish and wildlife enforcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sure. What if you don't have a license? To my knowledge, just wearing camo or hunter orange is grounds enough for a warden to perform a vehicle stop. How in the world is that legitimate?

 

[Wyo_hntr]

Warrants are pretty easy to get, since pc is a low bar. Wardens should be required to obtain a signed warrant, but it's not a big deal.

 

[180ls1]

Sure. What if you don't have a license? To my knowledge, just wearing camo or hunter orange is grounds enough for a warden to perform a vehicle stop. How in the world is that legitimate?

Preponderance of evidence.

Its probably not grounds in a walmart parking lot.

However, if you're in the woods, have a hunting sticker on your truck, its early in the AM, etc....

There are shades of grey in between and they will push but knowing your rights plays a big part.

 

[Bubblehide]

I've often wondered, but not researched, how game wardens manage to get around our 4th Amendment rights. It seems like this shouldn't be the case, yet it is.

I've written about this in different threads here on Rokslide. Fish and Wildlife laws are Prima Facia laws.

The following is taken from a legal site on the internet and edited by me to only include what applies in cases like the one presented here:

The Latin expression prima facie means “at first sight”, “at first view", or "based on first impression." In both civil and criminal law, the term is used to denote that, upon initial examination, a legal claim has sufficient evidence to proceed.

• Prima facie cases are typically civil cases (in this case it is not civil), where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
• The court will likely dismiss the case if the plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to support their claim.
• If the court determines that a prima facie case exists, the defendant must present evidence that overcomes the prima facie case to prevail

In short, if it appears that you are on your way to, or from fishing or hunting, or engaged in hunting, a F&W officer has a legal right to engage you and search. In understanding why this exception exisits, one must consider that in person on person crimes, there is almost always a complaintant, as such in general, [person on person crimes get investigated and if warrented, prosicuted. In person on animal crimes, i.e., poaching, there is seldom a complaiant. As such, without the ability to engage and search, few poachers would ever be convicted.

The article in question states the following:
1). State law allowing TWRA to “go upon any property, outside of buildings, posted or otherwise” in order to “enforce all laws relating to wildlife” is constitutional, but not as applied by TWRA officials, the appeals court ruled.

2). The court concluded that the state law does not apply to property that is in active use, such as for hunting, fishing, farming, camping and land that is posted and gated — a not-uncommon description of properties owned in rural areas of the state that are used entirely for farming or recreation even if unoccupied full-time.

3). “When considering uses of real property other than as a home, there is nothing in the Tennessee Constitution that suggests a lesser regard for uses of property more common in rural areas than those more typical of urban or suburban areas,” the court wrote.

4). The ruling does not apply to privately-owned acreages that are left wild and unused — land the U.S. Supreme Court has dubbed “wild or waste lands” and concluded in a so-called “open fields doctrine” are not subject to traditional search and seizure Constitutional protections. The open fields doctrine has long allowed law enforcement to enter such properties without a warrant.

It appears reasonable to conclude that the officers did not have sufficent evidence to enter the property and place the cameras. But moreso, the court concluded that F&W still has authority to do this exact same thing, under reasonable suspision (looking like you are hunting, for example) if #4 applies; but not if the property is inhabited and does not have "wild or waste lands". As such the title is very misleading.

 

[Dos Perros]

I've written about this in different threads here on Rokslide. Fish and Wildlife laws are Prima Facia laws.

The following is taken from a legal site on the internet and edited by me to only include what applies in cases like the one presented here:

The Latin expression prima facie means “at first sight”, “at first view", or "based on first impression." In both civil and criminal law, the term is used to denote that, upon initial examination, a legal claim has sufficient evidence to proceed.

• Prima facie cases are typically civil cases (in this case it is not civil), where the burden of proof is on the plaintiff.
• The court will likely dismiss the case if the plaintiff lacks sufficient evidence to support their claim.
• If the court determines that a prima facie case exists, the defendant must present evidence that overcomes the prima facie case to prevail

In short, if it appears that you are on your way to, or from fishing or hunting, or engaged in hunting, a F&W officer has a legal right to engage you and search. In understanding why this exception exisits, one must consider that in person on person crimes, there is almost always a complaintant, as such in general, [person on person crimes get investigated and if warrented, prosicuted. In person on animal crimes, i.e., poaching, there is seldom a complaiant. As such, without the ability to engage and search, few poachers would ever be convicted.

The article in question states the following:
1). State law allowing TWRA to “go upon any property, outside of buildings, posted or otherwise” in order to “enforce all laws relating to wildlife” is constitutional, but not as applied by TWRA officials, the appeals court ruled.

2). The court concluded that the state law does not apply to property that is in active use, such as for hunting, fishing, farming, camping and land that is posted and gated — a not-uncommon description of properties owned in rural areas of the state that are used entirely for farming or recreation even if unoccupied full-time.

3). “When considering uses of real property other than as a home, there is nothing in the Tennessee Constitution that suggests a lesser regard for uses of property more common in rural areas than those more typical of urban or suburban areas,” the court wrote.

4). The ruling does not apply to privately-owned acreages that are left wild and unused — land the U.S. Supreme Court has dubbed “wild or waste lands” and concluded in a so-called “open fields doctrine” are not subject to traditional search and seizure Constitutional protections. The open fields doctrine has long allowed law enforcement to enter such properties without a warrant.

It appears reasonable to conclude that the officers did not have sufficent evidence to enter the property and place the cameras. But moreso, the court concluded that F&W still has authority to do this exact same thing, under reasonable suspision (looking like you are hunting, for example) if #4 applies; but not if the property is inhabited and does not have "wild or waste lands". As such the title is very misleading.

Thank you for this.

I guess I challenge the thought that, absent these powers, poachers couldn’t be prosecuted. Is that a legitimate reason to award powers that seem to be antithetical to our Constitution? I don’t think so, but I’m just a dude.

 

[11boo]

If you are wearing orange, camo or packing a fishing rod they can pretty much do what they want. Yes, they catch a few lawbreakers. I wonder what the percentage is compared to the guys who were just legally doing their thing.

Here’s a pro tip. I was stopped once on BLM coming out from a shooting session. CPW had a truck pulled over and all their gear was laid out in the dirt, occupants were standing around.

Officer friendly just waved at me to stop and asked me what I was doing. Target shooting sir. Ok, do you have a hunting license?
No, and I’m late for dinner. Anything else?

Nope, have a nice day. And I did.


This was in the middle of summer btw.

 

[fatlander]

As an aside, TPWD wardens have told me there is a no more humorless individual than a federal game warden. My experiences hunting draw hunts on federal refuges parallel their comments. The employees on the refuges are wonderful, helpful people.

In a past life I worked in fisheries management at the state level. We had a federal game warden give us a rash of s*** while conducting an electro fishing survey in a state owned tidal creek one day. We turned off the generator, told him we had a collection permit and gave him the deuces on the way bye.

I also had a new to the office game warden come check my fishing license one day while I was fishing at lunch time dressed head to toe in the same agency uniform as him, driving the same truck sans lights and weewoo. He asked for my license like a traffic stop, checked it, and then walked away.

Cops are people too and some of them are weird.

Coolest game warden I’ve ever met was a federal warden. He checked me and some buddies while we were tailgating during lunch. Hung out with us so long I had time to take a nap, wake up and he was still chopping it up with the boys.

 

[Bubblehide]

Thank you for this.

I guess I challenge the thought that, absent these powers, poachers couldn’t be prosecuted. Is that a legitimate reason to award powers that seem to be antithetical to our Constitution? I don’t think so, but I’m just a dude.

That is a fair challenge. I live in geographical area that has a ton of poaching going on. I've directly seen the ramifications of excessive poaching, and the subsequent decline in wildlife populations. Granted, poaching has not been the only cause, but a very significant factor. As for me, I keep it legal, and willingly accept the inconvenience of being checked. In all my years of hunting, all wardens I've encountered have been professional, except for one, very long ago. I've called the tip line several times when witnessing poachers leave carcasses. From my experiences, the poachers seldom get caught, and when they finally do get caught, they only get charged for what is known and enough evidence exists; still keaving them getting away with the majority of crimes.

 

[cnelk]

I believe Rokslide has a retired warden that frequently posts.

Maybe he has some insight?

 

[Unckebob]

As an aside, TPWD wardens have told me there is a no more humorless individual than a federal game warden. My experiences hunting draw hunts on federal refuges parallel their comments. The employees on the refuges are wonderful, helpful people.

I got to hunt a Wildlife Reguge this season for the first time. I called the TX game warden who was incredibly helpful.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

Honest question. Does this mean that if you've done nothing wrong and see a warden launch a drone that comes over your place, can you shoot it down?