chucker66
5 year old buck +
Thoughts on Open Field Doctrine? Its being challenged https://www.agweb.com/news/business...es-game-wardens-challenges-property-intrusion
Open Fields Doctrine
- Thread starter chucker66
- Start date
356
5 year old buck +
There are two sides to this issue, and the expanded use of drones and thermal detection complicate matters. As a landowner, I support the challenges and believe probable cause or reasonable suspicion should be the minimum thresholds for trespass by a law enforcement officer. My law enforcement friends cite the challenges of addressing drug and fencing operations on private lands and the challenges they would face securing warrants.
I like the wording adopted in South Dakota, as it is simple, and limited to Conservation Officers:
No conservation officer may, in the course of performing the duties of a conservation officer, enter any private land unless the conservation officer has a warrant or has the explicit or implied permission of the landowner or lessee. However, any conservation officer may enter any private land without permission:
(1) If reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists that a violation of a law that the conservation officer is authorized to enforce has been, is being, or is about to be committed on the private land;
(2) To dispatch crippled or distressed wildlife the conservation officer has personally and lawfully observed on the private land; or
(3) To respond to emergency situations, accidents, or other threats to public safety occurring on the private land.
I like the wording adopted in South Dakota, as it is simple, and limited to Conservation Officers:
No conservation officer may, in the course of performing the duties of a conservation officer, enter any private land unless the conservation officer has a warrant or has the explicit or implied permission of the landowner or lessee. However, any conservation officer may enter any private land without permission:
(1) If reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists that a violation of a law that the conservation officer is authorized to enforce has been, is being, or is about to be committed on the private land;
(2) To dispatch crippled or distressed wildlife the conservation officer has personally and lawfully observed on the private land; or
(3) To respond to emergency situations, accidents, or other threats to public safety occurring on the private land.
BenAllgood
5 year old buck +
I bet a neighbor or someone called them on him. Knowing the area (my mom lives 20 minutes away from there), you don't see wardens around that often unless there have been complaints. But, they should have waited at the gate. I'd be pretty upset if anyone came driving through my property while I was hunting.
chucker66
5 year old buck +
I think the freedoms of American citizens (In particular 4th Amendment) should out weigh any difficulties Law Enforcement (Feds, State or DNR) has in conducting their investigations. There is a process and if they gather enough evidence then get a warrant, otherwise stay the hell off my property, period! I think we have strayed too far form what the Founders originally intended for this country.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
No problem with it. I have nothing to hide. I want them catching poachers
Absolutely
So I don't like my neighbor and want to bust his balls, but figure the gooberment can do a better job of it.
Not how it's supposed to work IMO
We as gun owners argue for a strict reading of the Second Amendment. Shall not be infringed etc etc.
From the Fourth: “persons, houses, papers, and effects, (are protected), against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Where does that get us with a strict reading? I don’t see anything there protecting my back 40 from intrusion.
That being said, this guy is getting a lot of attention. How does that happen? Is Louisiana dripping with wardens? And if I’m a warden, I’m handling this better. I personally am not going on a property, repeatedly, dropping scent and spooking game without a really, really good reason. It begins to look like they are harassing this guy, even if they have good info that he is a bad actor. Gotta be careful of how it looks even if the wardens are in the right.
From the Fourth: “persons, houses, papers, and effects, (are protected), against unreasonable searches and seizures.”
Where does that get us with a strict reading? I don’t see anything there protecting my back 40 from intrusion.
That being said, this guy is getting a lot of attention. How does that happen? Is Louisiana dripping with wardens? And if I’m a warden, I’m handling this better. I personally am not going on a property, repeatedly, dropping scent and spooking game without a really, really good reason. It begins to look like they are harassing this guy, even if they have good info that he is a bad actor. Gotta be careful of how it looks even if the wardens are in the right.
Bszweda
5 year old buck +
In Illinois the game wardens can pretty much search your property with out any warrant.I guess it's so they can actually catch poachers as it would be difficult to do without it. The whole surveillance with cameras is taking it a little to far. Also when does it become harassment. I'd be upset if it continually happened to me.
Teeder
5 year old buck +
This is where I'm at.
Howboutthemdawgs
5 year old buck +
Agree and I think anyone would be. And you probably would have a legitimate case if it did and they could never turn up anything. But locking wardens out of private land makes it almost impossible to catch bad actors harming our wildlife impacting our enjoyment. Was challenged in Tenn too and the guy was a known poacher.
He is arguing his case under the constitution of the state of Louisiana which lists property as one of the items protected against unreasonable search or seizure, according to the article.
bigboreblr
5 year old buck +
I know in NY there has been infringement of rights done by the enviromental officers. The cops were more interested in non enviromental crimes, like drugs, muder, etc. However, they used enviromental cops in liew of search warrants. Not done often, but seen in papers from time to time over the years.
I know hunting game farms, there are several in my old house's area. I guided pheasant hunts for one. There are both true and false rumors folks investigate. Both for hire places and private enthusiasts back 9, much like most of us talk about on here. I know my old boss used to be vaugue where the guests can hunt. He'd put them on neighboring land from time to time. And sweep idiot's messes under the rug, like shooting a doe when it's buck only..... He'd take care of the deer, but put him on the do not reserve list..... I got a promotion at work, so the extra money was less desireable. Also got permission to hunt other spots on my day off too. Glad I left that nutty place. Fun at times though. Reminds me of an old Dylan tune Maggies farm.
Everything I do is legal, except for maybe driving the roads with an ATV. I've been pulled over for that, but not ticketed or really bothered. Towing a mower to the next spot at camp.
I know hunting game farms, there are several in my old house's area. I guided pheasant hunts for one. There are both true and false rumors folks investigate. Both for hire places and private enthusiasts back 9, much like most of us talk about on here. I know my old boss used to be vaugue where the guests can hunt. He'd put them on neighboring land from time to time. And sweep idiot's messes under the rug, like shooting a doe when it's buck only..... He'd take care of the deer, but put him on the do not reserve list..... I got a promotion at work, so the extra money was less desireable. Also got permission to hunt other spots on my day off too. Glad I left that nutty place. Fun at times though. Reminds me of an old Dylan tune Maggies farm.
Everything I do is legal, except for maybe driving the roads with an ATV. I've been pulled over for that, but not ticketed or really bothered. Towing a mower to the next spot at camp.
Yep! I absolutely get that- it definitely adds an interesting layer to any constitutional discussion! I’m in a state that follows “limited lockstep” with the U.S. constitution. Makes life a little easier.
It’s kind of tough to discuss stuff like this online- definitely varying levels of understanding. And not much nuance most of the time, lol
BenAllgood
5 year old buck +
Wardens have a tough job of enforcing regulations concerning the take of public property living on private property.
I bet the poachers would love it if they knew there was no legal way for a game warden to access the private land they are on.
I really don't think that 99.9% of the game wardens would waste their time randomly going after a guy who was following all the laws. If they received a tip from the anonymous turn in poachers line, that should be all they need to go in and check things out in person. There really isn't a way to get proof of a crime without going on the property, so I would expect poaching to increase dramatically if the open fields doctrine is removed.
I really don't think that 99.9% of the game wardens would waste their time randomly going after a guy who was following all the laws. If they received a tip from the anonymous turn in poachers line, that should be all they need to go in and check things out in person. There really isn't a way to get proof of a crime without going on the property, so I would expect poaching to increase dramatically if the open fields doctrine is removed.
swat1018
5 year old buck +
The open field doctrine stems from the constitutional principal that "open fields" don't offer the same expectation of privacy of one's home, which most would agree with. Many cases are made by Conservation Officers patrolling private grounds. Baiting cases, following up on tips, etc. The wildlife are all of our resources and they have an already tough job protecting the resources.
