Warrantless search

[WisBorn]

So, how much land do you own which you don't mind them entering at will?

Just a forty. I don't break the law and really don't worry about it. With the neighbors around us its over 400. We have owned it 29 years. I will let you know if a Warden shows up! That would be the first time.
I have been licensed checked many times fishing and hunting public land. I follow the rules.
I did ask a warden once while turkey hunting about shot types. I was upfront with him. I hunted the head of the McCann for geese in the morning and then drove over to some paper company land to hunt turkeys. So I had illegal shot in my truck with legal shot on my person. He explained that I was fine with the shells left in the vehicle as long as what was on my person was legal to hunt with. If I had shot a goose he said a Warden would have the right to check it for legal shot.

Wardens are there to help us and only are doing there jobs to protect ethical law abiding sportsman.
If they are teaming up to catch criminals breaking non game laws then I don't agree with them coming onto peoples property.

 

[eastbank]

there have been a few wardens around here who have diven thru a field to the edge of the woods to take a walk thru the woods looking for violators and thats legal here, but its also legal for the farmer to spread cow poop on that field 30 minutes later. the drive out sure adds to the looks and smell of the wardens car. i would never do that, but it has been done and there is nothing the warden can do about it.

 

[buck460XVR]

So, how much land do you own which you don't mind them entering at will?

Why in God's name, would anyone mind wardens on their land if they had nuttin' to hide, regardless of how much or how little they owned? What are they harming? Odds are very slim to none that they would time to wander around on private land, during the hunting season unless they had suspicion about something. If they do have serious suspicion, they can come on your land anyway. Having them familiar with me and my property, would tend to make me more comfortable, then being strangers. Our DNR does a lot to protect landowners and the game on private land, why and when are they the enemy?

 

[Hugger-4641]

Why in God's name, would anyone mind wardens on their land if they had nuttin' to hide, regardless of how much or how little they owned? What are they harming? Odds are very slim to none that they would time to wander around on private land, during the hunting season unless they had suspicion about something. If they do have serious suspicion, they can come on your land anyway. Having them familiar with me and my property, would tend to make me more comfortable, then being strangers. Our DNR does a lot to protect landowners and the game on private land, why and when are they the enemy?

Evidently you haven't read the article, the proposed law, or the events that helped precipitate it.

 

[jmorris]

Why in God's name, would anyone mind wardens on their land if they had nuttin' to hide, regardless of how much or how little they owned? What are they harming?

Well, some people think their property is actually theirs. It’s actually a common misconception as people seem to call their rent to the State “property tax”…

Probably being possessive, like not liking people hitting on their Wife or Daughters…

 

[Buzznrose]

Why in God's name, would anyone mind wardens on their land if they had nuttin' to hide, regardless of how much or how little they owned? What are they harming? Odds are very slim to none that they would time to wander around on private land, during the hunting season unless they had suspicion about something. If they do have serious suspicion, they can come on your land anyway. Having them familiar with me and my property, would tend to make me more comfortable, then being strangers. Our DNR does a lot to protect landowners and the game on private land, why and when are they the enemy?

I’m not a land owner, but I am a fan of the 4th Amendment. If I ever become a landowner of property, I absolutely would not want anyone, law enforcement, game enforcement, trespassed, criminal, vagrant, etc. or otherwise on my land without my permission.

The whole “if you have nothing to hide, why oppose?” is a vulnerable position to take. What if there is something on your land that they take exception to, maybe something planted/placed on your land, that they run across before you do. What if they bring charges on you?

I have no problem if a landowner extends an open invitation to local
Game wardens to come in and patrol anytime, but that wouldn’t be my choice of action.

I’m not a lawyer, never played one on TV, and have no idea about the tangled web or depth of stupid laws our legislatures have produced. I honestly do my level best to not break any laws, game or otherwise.

I guess there are scenarios where having LEO type folks enter your property is a positive thing, but it just feels a lot like some police state to me.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

In Pa the Game Wardens used to be our friends, we all went to the same church, went to school with their kids and so on.
We raised 500 Pheasants a year for the State and we would have all the Game Wardens and deputies come over to catch them and crate them after 6 weeks.
There used to be a Co-op of sorts in Pa that the Game Commission sponsored and if you left your land open to public hunting you got certain perks, like 500 free trees to plant on you ground, usually pine, nothing great but most of the people respected other peoples land and it stayed that way.
Those were good times.
But after 1977 the State did away with all the programs including raising and stocking Pheasants and things and they started hiring Game Wardens of questionable backrounds.
It just kept getting worse and worse until it came to a point that some of the local lawyers ran an add in the paper that they would defend anyone that was written up by them for free.
Finally came to a point that the Game Warden was getting death threats, and people were painting KILL ________ across public highways.
Finally this Game Warden decided that two Collage girls were breaking the law by walking across a bridge in their bikinis to get to their car to go home.
He took their towels and made them stand on the bridge soaking wet while the sun started going down while he called the State Police.
When they got there, they arrested the Game Warden instead and left the girls go. They had enough of him to.
He lost his job in that county but the Game Commission just moved him to a different county so he could set up shop again.
After all this settled there was a major push to post all the land in that area so the Game Wardens would have no right to access it.
Then the land owners started busting the Game Wardens for trespassing, for coming on their land for no reason took them to court, and won.
They had no right to go on land posted for no hunting unless they chased someone on there. But if someone was hunting on posted land it became a police matter because the Game Commission wouldn't respond from a land owner call if the land was posted.
If it was posted as "written permission only" then hunting was still taking place even if it was just the land owner and the Game Wardens would still patrol the area because of it.
I don't know what it's like up there now because I moved out of there in 2008.

 

[buck460XVR]

Evidently you haven't read the article, the proposed law, or the events that helped precipitate it.

I have read the linked article, and I understand the proposed law and the events that preceded it. I also have read the numerous stories of abuse of the older "no warrant" type laws. Some of those stories (as in the bikini clad "collage" girls) took place on public property and have no relevance other than another "bad" warden. "Bad" wardens will still be abusive even with the change in the law. Where the change needs to be done is to make sure those "bad" wardens are not around, not tie the hands of the majority of "good" wardens that respect the rights of land owners. Once again, I see the emphasis put on the rights of criminals and the actions of a very few wardens that have abused the privileges granted to them.

Well, some people think their property is actually theirs. It’s actually a common misconception as people seem to call their rent to the State “property tax”…

Probably being possessive, like not liking people hitting on their Wife or Daughters…

Depending on the state's definition of who owns the game on private property, while you own the dirt and any improvements, you may not have a granted right to the game on it. Kinda why in most scenarios, land owners need to buy licenses/tags and follow season dates and defined hunting rules. Some of it (like the not hitting on wives and daughters) is common courtesy and respect.

Maybe it's because of where I live and the wardens I have known over the years, but my negative experiences with "bad" wardens is limited. I have experienced many more unannounced accesses by utility workers, meter readers and utility markers than by game wardens, on any private property I have owned or hunted on. Those folks turn in more illegal "grows" and other violations than responsible game wardens just doing their job. Besides, with drones and other high tech surveillance methods, the actual putting boots on the ground is going to be a thing of the past.

Just my opinion, others are free to feel differently. If the law says "no warrantless searches", then I believe law enforcement, whether wardens or general LEOs, need to obey, like every one else.

 

[rust collector]

I guess we must just be lucky, but have had only good relations with state wildlife enforcement folks (called conservation officers here). I have been told where they are catching fish or complaining of too many deer, offered a seat and coffee in a CO's truck when stomping around in crappy weather, and always treated with respect. We did have one fellow who figured everyone was guilty. Asked for my fishing license while I was a magistrate judge, and seemed disappointed when I produced one. He went on to become a federal warden, caused some commotion, and was transferred out. He might be one of the bad experiences noted above.

Our locals mostly went for the job because they enjoyed the outdoors and hunting and fishing. They figured out early that when one is dealing with heavily armed people, being a jerk had a poor prognosis. Many landowners here would like to emulate Kevin Costner in Yellowstone, but the wild things do not belong to whoever happens to have title to the place this week.

 

[Fooey]

It doesn't matter if a land owner doesn't care if Wardens come on his property or not. The Wardens swore an oath to the constitution and must abide by the laws also. And to go on private land they must have permission, a warrant, or exigent circumstances or they are violating somebody's 4th amendment. Many sheeple don't care if their 4th amendment is violated. Doesn't matter. The Wardens still have to follow the law. Just what I think of it!

 

[jmorris]

Depending on the state's definition of who owns the game on private property,

I am not sure that is the case. For example the The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the take (including killing, capturing, selling, trading, and transport) without authorization of the Department of Interior U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Federal).

 

[tightgroup tiger]

Where the change needs to be done is to make sure those "bad" wardens are not around, not tie the hands of the majority of "good" wardens that respect the rights of land owners.

That's not realistic. Sounds good on paper but it ain't gonna happen. Once these bad actors are in their positions, they are in there for life unless they commit a felony or something.
The State has no intensions of taking them out of their positions, they put them in there on purpose for (their reason).

 

[buck460XVR]

It doesn't matter if a land owner doesn't care if Wardens come on his property or not. The Wardens swore an oath to the constitution and must abide by the laws also. The Wardens still have to follow the law. Just what I think of it!

Exactly how I think too, tis why I included this in my post.......

If the law says "no warrantless searches", then I believe law enforcement, whether wardens or general LEOs, need to obey, like every one else.

[

That's not realistic. Sounds good on paper but it ain't gonna happen. Once these bad actors are in their positions, they are in there for life unless they commit a felony or something.
The State has no intensions of taking them out of their positions, they put them in there on purpose for (their reason).

Not very realistic to believe that states put "bad" wardens in the field intentionally.

QUOTE="tightgroup tiger, post: 12319142, member: 148770"]Once these bad actors are in their positions, they are in there for life unless they commit a felony or something.[/QUOTE]

^^^...and this is where the change needs to be. If a warden or any LEO breaks the law, within reason, they should be done. Period. No pension, no paid leave while they are being investigated, nuttin' but the door hitting their backside. Being abusive to those folks, who indirectly pay their salaries, is not a quality that should be tolerated. But....folks need to realize, those folks still need to do their job. Folks need to realize that anytime someone receives a ticket, odds are, that person is going to think they didn't get treated fairly, unless they get let go, Scot free.Far too many folks have a big chip on their shoulder when confronted any any LEO/warden. Many times it's that chip that makes the difference between a warning and a ticket.

 

[tightgroup tiger]

Not very realistic to believe that states put "bad" wardens in the field intentionally.

Don't agree, but I'll say, if they had to pass a phycological exam like the State Police in Pa do, those people wouldn't hold that position to begin with.
That would be something else that would help the problem.

 

[Sniper66]

1. I've hunted for the better part of 65 years and have had my license checked once. It was during a pheasant hunt. The GW was polite, thanked me and went on his way. Most land in Kansas where I hunt is so distant from a KDWP office that I'll be really surprised if I ever see a GW.

 

[d2wing]

Game wardens here do a good job against heavy odds. We are overrun by minority groups that ignore game laws and hunters that think they are entitled to break every game law. Yes, they have search authority that is questionable under the Constitution, but I do support them. Nearly all are great guys doing a hard job. A national wildlife area near the cities is nearly empty of game of any kind.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

I've only had good interactions with the DLNR enforcement here.

I have, too, but that's really not the point. The Constitution is a limit on the government's power regarding what it can do to you. We need to keep it that way.

if you are driving around dressed like Elmer Fudd

People still hunt that way!? I get absolutely ridiculed and chastised for wearing blaze orange from the waist up. Most hunters I see are wearing tactical garb as though they were hunting moose in Iraq.

I find it hard to believe the state wardens can violate Federal 4th amendment protections.

I agree, but the courts have upheld it for decades now. Remember, the Constitution says whatever the courts say it says. That same court system once upheld imprisoning Americans of Japanese descent without trial.

An INSPECTION is NOT a SEARCH!

Yes it is. You're arguing semantics over substance. If A game warden opens the topper on my truck bed, pulls out my coolers, and looks at my fish, with no probable cause of my having committed a crime, it's an "inspection." If a police officer opens the topper on my truck bed, pulls out my coolers and looks for evidence of a crime, with with no probable cause of my having committed a crime, it's a search. It's the same exact thing, under the same exact circumstances, and both are a violation of the 4th amendment.

Re: private property!

Remember, the air, running water, and wildlife resources are not held in private ownership.

Public highways are also not held in private ownership, yet we rarely see police officers conducting warrantless searches without probable cause.[/QUOTE]

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Anyone suggesting compliance with an illegal search if you have "nothing to hide" needs to think again. Do you have any idea how many local, state, and federal laws are on the books and have authority over you? Do yo know every one of those laws? Then how do you you know that you are in compliance with every single one of those laws? Just some food for thought.

"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

 

[DukeConnor]

Anyone suggesting compliance with an illegal search if you have "nothing to hide" needs to think again. Do you have any idea how many local, state, and federal laws are on the books and have authority over you? Do yo know every one of those laws? Then how do you you know that you are in compliance with every single one of those laws? Just some food for thought.

"Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime."

Every day of our lives we probably violate some obscure law.