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.