Here is a link to the ruling:
https://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OpinionsPDFVersion/RainwatersTerryOPN.pdf
The court determined that the statute is constitutional because it has valid applicability (to wild or waste land areas) but that the way TWRA applied the statute was unconstitutional because the lands in question were not wild or waste lands.
What I find bothersome is the following TWRA position:
"Officers enter private property, sometimes conceal themselves there upon, and look for violations of wildlife laws. In determining which properties to enter to investigate suspected violations of hunting laws, TWRA officers sometimes rely on having previously seen hunters on the property, on word of mouth, or on listening for shots. TWRA officers also enter upon and cross property not under investigation to reach land they intend to investigate. The TWRA indicates its officers investigate property for suspected hunting violations when they have reason to believe that hunting activity is occurring or has occurred."
The TWRA asserts that its officers have “the statutory authority to go upon any property, outside of buildings, posted or otherwise, in the performance of . . . their duties to enforce wildlife laws.”
It appears that the act of participating in hunting makes a person suspect of criminal activity in the minds of TWRA and no warrant was required. The court did not agree.
I hope this ruling drives changes in other states with the same attitude displayed by TWRA, either on the initiative of those states or in response to similar law suits.
