Interesting Iowa DNR Story

[BenA]

How are wardens gonna get a warrant without being able to do their research? I have enough land away from sight where I could pile up several thousand pound cornpiles and shoot turkeys 365 days a year. I don’t do social media so I’m not one of the morons that posts hero shots every time I leave the house. If you can’t fly over or walk on my property I have carte Blanche to commit game violations and other violations without worrying about the authorities. I could easily cultivate 60 acres of opium without ever being visible to a road or neighbor. Additionally, whether we agree or not with it, this is the states game not the current properties owners where it happens to reside at that moment. In order to ensure our game is protected we have passed laws for that purpose. If we have laws we have the duty to enforce them.

I understand your thought process on this and want to keep people from breaking game laws. But, I also want my privacy and not allow government to control my personal freedoms. Knee jerk reaction, I would like to allow game wardens to fly a drone over properties to stop poaching. But, I also don't want to allow surveillance where I want privacy. It's a complicated scenario. If we allow surveillance in places, communications, properties, etc, where we should expect privacy just to make sure we aren't breaking the law, I believe that is government overreach. Using your example of cultivating opium, what if it was done in a warehouse? Would you want law enforcement to be able to come in or look at what is going on in there at any time? What about illegal activities done in homes? Do we expect privacy there? Where do we draw the line of where we expect privacy and where we expect surveillance? And, what type of surveillance; drones, electronic, thermal, wire tapping, data snooping...? It's a line that is hard to move back once the old line is erased.

 

[Westwind]

^^^ Good post. It IS complicated.

Where do we citizens have “an expectation of privacy”? I think thats different in the middle of my timber than it is in my living room or even my patio. And maybe different than my patio that is fenced in.

If it isn’t reasonable for law enforcement to drive around and look at buildings with a thermal scanner to look for the heat signature of an indoor weed grow, is it reasonable for a warden to drive up and down a gravel road to look into my timber with a thermal scope to see if me or someone else is illegally hunting at night? Does the open fields doctrine come into play here? In my state, how come it’s reasonable for a warden to be in an aircraft looking for spotlighters but he can’t fly a drone to do the same thing???

It’s complicated. At least the attorneys and judges make it that way.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

I understand your thought process on this and want to keep people from breaking game laws. But, I also want my privacy and not allow government to control my personal freedoms. Knee jerk reaction, I would like to allow game wardens to fly a drone over properties to stop poaching. But, I also don't want to allow surveillance where I want privacy. It's a complicated scenario. If we allow surveillance in places, communications, properties, etc, where we should expect privacy just to make sure we aren't breaking the law, I believe that is government overreach. Using your example of cultivating opium, what if it was done in a warehouse? Would you want law enforcement to be able to come in or look at what is going on in there at any time? What about illegal activities done in homes? Do we expect privacy there? Where do we draw the line of where we expect privacy and where we expect surveillance? And, what type of surveillance; drones, electronic, thermal, wire tapping, data snooping...? It's a line that is hard to move back once the old line is erased.

Surveillance on homes and businesses is done all the time. It has resulted in untold crimes being uncovered. I’m sure if one of us had a kidnapped relative or lived next to a drug house we’d be cool with whatever means necessary to get our desired result. The hypocrisies are almost laughable by the same people who want a law and order, anti defund the police government, remember gotta let the police do their jobs….
Do I love the idea of a warden walking all over my property or flying over staring at me or my stuff, hell no. But I also entered into that understanding when I become a landowner. I still fail to see how they can do their job from the public road. Additionally any warden not operating illegally (which should be prosecuted if one is) would be wasting a bunch of time on me. But I would thank him profusely if he busted one of my neighbors poaching.

 

[H20fwler]

“Is the government conduct/intrusion reasonable” is the question. And thats going to be different in every case.

Thats why I hate legal discussions on stuff like this in forums. Even the lawyers disagree

Is any government intrusion reasonable without consent?
Especially if someone has done no wrong.

And as far as drones, why would it be legal for anyone to snoop on another’s property without consent?
The Tech has outpaced the legal system and needs to be corrected.

 

[Howboutthemdawgs]

Is any government intrusion reasonable without consent?
Especially if someone has done no wrong.

And as far as drones, why would it be legal for anyone to snoop on another’s property without consent?
The Tech has outpaced the legal system and needs to be corrected.

Agreed with the second part. I’ve been beating the drone drum for years. I contacted the state 3 years ago as soon as I saw my first thermal drone in person and told them they better get out ahead of this. They said they had started working with a couple neighboring states to come up with some ideas…that was three years ago and I haven’t heard a peep.

 

[BenA]

Surveillance on homes and businesses is done all the time. It has resulted in untold crimes being uncovered. I’m sure if one of us had a kidnapped relative or lived next to a drug house we’d be cool with whatever means necessary to get our desired result. The hypocrisies are almost laughable by the same people who want a law and order, anti defund the police government, remember gotta let the police do their jobs….
Do I love the idea of a warden walking all over my property or flying over staring at me or my stuff, hell no. But I also entered into that understanding when I become a landowner. I still fail to see how they can do their job from the public road. Additionally any warden not operating illegally (which should be prosecuted if one is) would be wasting a bunch of time on me. But I would thank him profusely if he busted one of my neighbors poaching.

I think in those cases, they had reasonable cause to conduct the surveillance on those particular homes or businesses. I don't think they should be allowed to just conduct surveillance anytime or anywhere without cause. It's the cause that needs justifying.

 

[Westwind]

Is any government intrusion reasonable without consent?

The simple answer is yes.

Governmental intrusion is permitted if it is reasonable. Happens when the interests of the government outweigh the interests of the individual. Your rights end where my nose starts and all that.

“Reasonable” is something the courts decide. Eventually the U.S. Supreme Court decides that.

And I will point out that the search of a residence or vehicle WITH consent may not be “reasonable”.

The search of a residence with a search warrant is “reasonable”. The warrantless search of a vehicle after a drug canine alerts on it is “reasonable” without a warrant in most jurisdictions. (Not all.) Government restrictions on the ownership of hand grenades and explosives have been found to be “reasonable”.

And as far as drones, why would it be legal for anyone to snoop on another’s property without consent?

I’ll go back to what I posted above. (And this is a comment on MY state and it will be different in every state.) Why can a warden be in a single engine Cessna and fly around looking for poachers but it is illegal for him to fly a drone to do the exact same thing? Because we are afraid that aerial surveillance would become too accessible for law enforcement I’m guessing. Even though in both situations the effect is exactly the same. “Reasonableness” is still the way we decide that.

 

[Westwind]

I think in those cases, they had reasonable cause to conduct the surveillance on those particular homes or businesses. I don't think they should be allowed to just conduct surveillance anytime or anywhere without cause. It's the cause that needs justifying.

Yes. The standard for “reasonableness” will vary depending on the jurisdiction.

 

[Westwind]

I gotta go get something done. I’’l leave this to all of you to figure it out and I expect that to be done when I get back to my computer, lol!

 

[bwoods11]

When I was watching MTV “I want my 80s” I kept thinking how much simpler like was back then in the 80s! What a great time to grow up !

No drones, no Facebook, no social media , no AI….

 

[swat1018]

I understand what the legal system allows. However, a warrantless search is not automatically reasonable just because it has color of law. I believe my initial statement is still correct
In your example of an officer performing a normal drone patrol and observing what they believe to be an illegal grow, it would still be prudent to get a search warrant unless they can show exigent circumstances.

Agreed, but not required.

 

[hillrunner]

I can't help but wonder if all this drone talk will be a mute point someday when everyone has access to a live satellite feed. That's a nightmare that would change everything.

 

[Mortenson]

I can't help but wonder if all this drone talk will be a mute point someday when everyone has access to a live satellite feed. That's a nightmare that would change everything.

Yeah I mentioned that earlier. It's already daily so I would think live isn't too far off.

 

[Telemark]

We're at the point where a rotating drone swarm and a satellite constellation can cover most of the inhabited area of the country, and AI can detect and report just about any anomaly you want identified. It doesn't even have to be manned, it can just run constantly and report to enforcement officers who show up in the morning and check the report and plan their day. I think they are running something like this in Ontario already.

 

[Skeeter]

Yes. The standard for “reasonableness” will vary depending on the jurisdiction.

I think you are conflating reasonable and legal. There have many things throughout history that have been legal, yet unreasonable. Again, just because something has color of law, it does not automatically become reasonable.

 

[gjs4]

If the world was as simple as good guys and bad guys this would be easier....here in NY theyll fly a drone looking for tax codes all day, poachers dont matter. Your neighbor who is 13 or 31 may be flying one over your kids in the pool too...... wont get any help with that. Our government has gotten so much control and we have lost so many civil liberties that we are the skinny kid up in the air on the teeter totter trying to figure out what will help us level things out. Sorry boys and girls ....this aint a Disney movie, their isnt one villain and the sheriff may play for more teams than a free agent in the alphabet people softball tourney

Drone will be used against you...like it or not. The libertarian side of me says learn to fly one and know the actual laws related to them. All of this matters.

 

[Westwind]

I think you are conflating reasonable and legal. There have many things throughout history that have been legal, yet unreasonable. Again, just because something has color of law, it does not automatically become reasonable.

“Reasonable” is a legal standard that peppers courts analysis of fourth amendment questions and use of force by police and the public.

Stolen from the net:


“Reasonable” or “Reasonableness” is a legal standard used throughout many areas of law. It commonly appears as the “reasonable person” standard, which helps courts assess whether conduct was appropriate under the circumstances.

Key contexts where “reasonable” is a legal standard:

1. Tort Law (e.g., Negligence):
   • Courts ask: Would a reasonable person have acted this way in similar circumstances?
2. 
   
3. Criminal Law:
   • Used to evaluate things like use of force or self-defense (e.g., Did the person reasonably believe they were in danger?).
4. 
   
5. Constitutional Law (Fourth Amendment):
   • Determines if a search or seizure was lawful (e.g., Was it reasonable under the circumstances?).
6. 
   
7. Contract Law:
   • Used to assess “commercial reasonableness” in performance or dispute situations.
8. Common related legal standards

• Reasonable person: A hypothetical, objective standard.
• Reasonable suspicion: Used by police to justify brief stops or detentions.
• Beyond a reasonable doubt: Highest standard of proof in criminal cases.
• Reasonable accommodation: In employment and disability law, employers must make accommodations unless it creates undue hardship

Summary:
“Reasonable” is a flexible but foundational legal benchmark. Courts use it to evaluate fairness, judgment, and lawfulness in a wide range of legal areas.


Skeeter, I see what you are saying. I’d say it this way- Just because you CAN do something it doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. And I agree with that.

 

[Skeeter]

“Reasonable” is a legal standard that peppers courts analysis of fourth amendment questions and use of force by police and the public.

Stolen from the net:


“Reasonable” or “Reasonableness” is a legal standard used throughout many areas of law. It commonly appears as the “reasonable person” standard, which helps courts assess whether conduct was appropriate under the circumstances.

Key contexts where “reasonable” is a legal standard:

1. Tort Law (e.g., Negligence):
   • Courts ask: Would a reasonable person have acted this way in similar circumstances?
2. 
   
3. Criminal Law:
   • Used to evaluate things like use of force or self-defense (e.g., Did the person reasonably believe they were in danger?).
4. 
   
5. Constitutional Law (Fourth Amendment):
   • Determines if a search or seizure was lawful (e.g., Was it reasonable under the circumstances?).
6. 
   
7. Contract Law:
   • Used to assess “commercial reasonableness” in performance or dispute situations.
8. Common related legal standards

• Reasonable person: A hypothetical, objective standard.
• Reasonable suspicion: Used by police to justify brief stops or detentions.
• Beyond a reasonable doubt: Highest standard of proof in criminal cases.
• Reasonable accommodation: In employment and disability law, employers must make accommodations unless it creates undue hardship

Summary:
“Reasonable” is a flexible but foundational legal benchmark. Courts use it to evaluate fairness, judgment, and lawfulness in a wide range of legal areas.


Skeeter, I see what you are saying. I’d say it this way- Just because you CAN do something it doesn’t mean you SHOULD do it. And I agree with that.

In the context of the thread, the idea of reasonableness is subjective, is not tied to another qualifier, and has no bearing on the legality of a search. The question for a search is does probable cause exist or some exigent circumstance.

I would slightly refine the last part to, Just because the current legal system allows the government to do a thing does not mean that it is not infringing on the rights of an individual. Again, numerous examples throughout history.

Also curious about what happened with points 2, 4 and 6?

Perhaps we are each trying to define a particular word in the way that best suits our argument, so I will just choose slightly different words. Warrantless searches are an infringement on the rights of individuals. It has nothing to do with what the current legal system allows. It does not change depending on geography. I know in our modern, overly litigious, godless age it can be difficult for some to understand that government is not the ultimate arbiter of right or wrong, but I assure you, it is not.

 

[Westwind]

It was a copy and paste that came over with giant spaces between the lines and weird formatting. I messed it up deleting out the spaces.

All I can comment on is the current system and my understanding of how it works. I don’t know about the rest of that stuff.

 

[Turkish]

Surveillance on homes and businesses is done all the time. It has resulted in untold crimes being uncovered.

Give us an example.

Looking for something where visual surveillance inside (or entrance of) the home was used without a warrant. I’ve never heard of this. I don’t support it if it’s being used.