Bubblehide
WKR
- Joined
- May 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,929
I have no doubts that F&W can set you straight on it.
“Don’t shoot my dog” etc
- Thread starter Poser
- Start date
Your link makes reference to circumstances under which warrantless searches can be conducted (1.3).
txhunter581
WKR
“I guarantee I won’t shoot your dog…..
As long as you keep him on a leash.”
That comment is not only a good come back, but may serve to actually make people think about keeping them on a leash. Which everyone on a trail should do!
only hunting dogs that are actually in the act of hunting should be off leash.
As long as you keep him on a leash.”
That comment is not only a good come back, but may serve to actually make people think about keeping them on a leash. Which everyone on a trail should do!
only hunting dogs that are actually in the act of hunting should be off leash.
TreeStandAthlete
WKR
Non of which as far as I can tell allow an agent to conduct a search without probable cause because someone is headed to or from fishing/hunting.
Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk
That is referenced in 1.5B to instances which do not require probable cause, although it is unclear from the link specifically what sort of things described in sections 1.15-1.25 do not require probable cause:
"B. Under certain circumstances, there are exceptions to the warrant requirements for some types of searches and seizures. Other types of lesser intrusions do not require probable cause. We describe these circumstances in sections 1.15 through 1.25 of this chapter."
Those are standard exceptions to the search warrant requirement that are common to all LEO's. None of it confers any extra authority upon wildlife officers.
Does anyone really believe a court system that will suppress evidence in cases of violent felonies on the basis of an illegal search is going to suspend the constitution for a wildlife violation?
This issue comes up on here from time to time and I don't remember any of the active or retired game wardens who post here citing any statute or case law that gives them any search authority beyond that granted to any other officer. In fact, the USFWS rules of search and seizure posted above is EXACTLY the same WORD FOR WORD as for any other LEO. If they had any expanded search authority, it would be outlined in that document.
Wildlife officers make a lot of hay from people who consent to searches because they think they can't say "no." The next time a Warden asks to see anything beyond a license, tag, or stamp that is not in plain sight, just ask if you are required to comply or if it's voluntary. I guarantee most all of them will tell you straight out it is voluntary, and those who don't say so will try to weasel around it but won't come right out and say you are required to do it.
This issue comes up on here from time to time and I don't remember any of the active or retired game wardens who post here citing any statute or case law that gives them any search authority beyond that granted to any other officer. In fact, the USFWS rules of search and seizure posted above is EXACTLY the same WORD FOR WORD as for any other LEO. If they had any expanded search authority, it would be outlined in that document.
Wildlife officers make a lot of hay from people who consent to searches because they think they can't say "no." The next time a Warden asks to see anything beyond a license, tag, or stamp that is not in plain sight, just ask if you are required to comply or if it's voluntary. I guarantee most all of them will tell you straight out it is voluntary, and those who don't say so will try to weasel around it but won't come right out and say you are required to do it.
This is not a very good stand-alone section, but it describes one instance in which a Game Warden was given more latitude than would normally be permitted in a vehicle search:
“As we shall explain, California authority has interpreted the relevant statute as authorizing a stop of a vehicle occupied by an angler or hunter for such purposes, and the United States Supreme Court has held in a number of decisions that an administrative search or seizure may be conducted, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a violation of a statute or administrative regulation has occurred. Such administrative searches and seizures are permissible when (1) the governmental action serves a special and important state need and interest distinct from the state's ordinary interest in enforcing the criminal law, (2) the administrative rules or regulations that are required to achieve the state's interest are of such a nature that limiting inspection only to those persons reasonably suspected of committing a violation would seriously undermine the state's ability to meet its special need, and (3) the impingement upon the reasonable expectation of privacy of those subjected to the procedure is sufficiently limited such that the state's need to utilize the procedure outweighs the invasion which the search entails, thus rendering the procedure reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.”
caselaw.findlaw.com
“As we shall explain, California authority has interpreted the relevant statute as authorizing a stop of a vehicle occupied by an angler or hunter for such purposes, and the United States Supreme Court has held in a number of decisions that an administrative search or seizure may be conducted, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a violation of a statute or administrative regulation has occurred. Such administrative searches and seizures are permissible when (1) the governmental action serves a special and important state need and interest distinct from the state's ordinary interest in enforcing the criminal law, (2) the administrative rules or regulations that are required to achieve the state's interest are of such a nature that limiting inspection only to those persons reasonably suspected of committing a violation would seriously undermine the state's ability to meet its special need, and (3) the impingement upon the reasonable expectation of privacy of those subjected to the procedure is sufficiently limited such that the state's need to utilize the procedure outweighs the invasion which the search entails, thus rendering the procedure reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.”
FindLaw's Supreme Court of California case and opinions.
FindLaw's searchable database of Supreme Court of California decisions since
caselaw.findlaw.com
Another
law.justia.com
BETCHART v. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
BETCHART v. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, California Court of Appeals
law.justia.com
Been thinking on this a bit more. I grew up in Mississippi, I remember license check roadblocks where the State Trooper had a Game Warden at the roadblock so that they could open the truck of cars to search for illegal alcohol.
TreeStandAthlete
WKR
Most wildlife agencies are allowed to search live wells and trunks of cars to enforce possession limits of game. Since hunting and fishing is such a regulated activity it's been ruled in numerous states that an individual has no expectation of privacy of the places they store game. This would give the wardens the right to search your trunk without probable cause or a warrant, but to search a locked rifle case in said trunk would almost certainly require either a warrant or probable cause, especially for a rifle case that is obviously not for carrying or keeping game, you would most certainly have an expectation of privacy for anything inside that locked case.
Now even if it is an illegal search that doesn't mean if you challenge them on it they won't do it anyway, write you every chicken shit ticket they can come up with, take all of your gear and your car, and make you spend 18 months and a wad of cash to take it to court just to get all of your stuff that wasn't "lost in transit" back.
If they are doing chicken shit fishing expedition stuff with roadblocks or trying to keep you from getting into hunt before first light then they already aren't "one of the good ones" and I'd avoid unless you have some **** you money stashed away for a rainy day.
Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk
Bubblehide
WKR
- Joined
- May 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,929
Yet the type of weapon, ammunition, how many rounds the weapon holds are all highly regulated and OBVIOUSLY would fall under the same warrantless search authority.
This is not a very good stand-alone section, but it describes one instance in which a Game Warden was given more latitude than would normally be permitted in a vehicle search:
“As we shall explain, California authority has interpreted the relevant statute as authorizing a stop of a vehicle occupied by an angler or hunter for such purposes, and the United States Supreme Court has held in a number of decisions that an administrative search or seizure may be conducted, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a violation of a statute or administrative regulation has occurred. Such administrative searches and seizures are permissible when (1) the governmental action serves a special and important state need and interest distinct from the state's ordinary interest in enforcing the criminal law, (2) the administrative rules or regulations that are required to achieve the state's interest are of such a nature that limiting inspection only to those persons reasonably suspected of committing a violation would seriously undermine the state's ability to meet its special need, and (3) the impingement upon the reasonable expectation of privacy of those subjected to the procedure is sufficiently limited such that the state's need to utilize the procedure outweighs the invasion which the search entails, thus rendering the procedure reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.”
FindLaw's Supreme Court of California case and opinions.
FindLaw's searchable database of Supreme Court of California decisions since
It does appear they have expanded authority in California, but this case pertains only to California.
Another
BETCHART v. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME
BETCHART v. DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME, California Court of Appeals
This case has nothing to do with searches, only entry onto private property. The "open fields doctrine" sited in the decision is nothing new and dates back to English Common Law. I'm not aware of any law or case law anywhere that prohibits LE from entering private land, except residences and curtilage.
If they could search a locked trunk without PC or a warrant, they could search a locked gun case, too. How far do you think they could go if you didn't cooperate? Pry open the trunk with a crow bar just to take a look? Can you find any cases outside of California regarding storage of game?
If you aren't in violation of any laws, there is nothing for which they can ticket you. If you are violation, you deserve a ticket for whatever you are doing, whether or not you consider it to be chicken shit.
Last edited:
- Thread Starter
- #157
I went to college in MS and remember hearing that this wasn’t uncommon, however, by the ethics of the law, the wildlife officer has to have reasonable suspicion that you are in possession of game, otherwise, they can’t search you, so if you’re at a checkpoint and an officer has no reason to believe you have been out hunting/fishing nor are in possession of wildlife related resources, that is an illegal search, a blatant ethical violation on behalf of the state game agency and a clear violation of the 4th amendment.
Bubblehide
WKR
- Joined
- May 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,929
True, but if you have any fishing or hunting related items in plain view, that is enough to imply the intent to engage in such activities, and thus a search.
TreeStandAthlete
WKR
Those regulations only exist in the act though. It is illegal for me to have over the limit of pheasant anywhere in the state. It is perfectly legal for me to have a 12ga shotgun loaded with lead buckshot with a 7 round magazine, what's illegal is for me to shoot ducks with it. These warrantless search ruling specifically limit the power of that search to places like live wells where game is kept. F&W can't toss your entire boat just because you're out fishing and they certainly can't pry open locked containers without a warrant.
Sent from my SM-G996U1 using Tapatalk
Bubblehide
WKR
- Joined
- May 13, 2015
- Messages
- 3,929
I simply disagree and believe you are 100% wrong. If you look like you are fishing, hunting, going to or from, you are subject you search. If you refuse, your boat, vehicle... is subject to being impounded and then searched. If you refuse such a lawful search, you simply look guilty and will obviously be treated as such, i.e., you bring the results upon yourself. The courts have upheld such searches in multiple states; so I have no doubt that a warden would go about his job and search and simply tell you to tell it to the judge, as you would be at minimum be cited for refusing a lawful search. However, my guess is that any Warden that knows his stuff, will impound everything, as he or she would be within lawful authority to do so.
Similar threads
Featured Video
Stats
Latest Articles
-
WE WON!
-
Mule Deer Rut Update & Buck Story
-
Sitka Gear HyperDown Sleeping Bag Review
-
TT#42 Mark Denham with Outdoorsmans history and innovations.
-
Kryptek Traverse Merino Review
-
First Lite 308 Pant Review
-
Argali Selway 6P Tent Review
-
AGC Kobuk 2800 Backpack Review
-
Hunting The Leaf-off Window
-
TT#41 Jordan Budd’s Tips on Finding and Killing the Big One