Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What A Tx Game Warden Told Me

But then there is their "trespass" on private land.

Word around here is you can't carry your rifle in the woods during deer season without a tag.

During the November firearm deer season, only hunters with a valid unfilled deer permit may hunt wildlife other than deer with centerfire rifles or centerfire handguns.

State law in Nebraska bars carry of loaded centerfire rifles during firearm deer season if you don't have an active deer tag.

That's 'cause they can't, and never could, although they sure tricked a lot of people into thinking so. The Constitution says otherwise.

The claim of an unconstitutional search by a San Diego fisherman who got caught with an out-of-season lobster was rebuffed Monday by the U. S. Supreme Court.

In denying review, the high court let stand a California Supreme Court opinion in June that people who hunt and fish have fewer of the privacy rights guaranteed by the U. S. Constitution�s Fourth Amendment.

The state high court granted game wardens the authority to stop, question and search citizens without a warrant or even without probable cause to believe a law has been broken.

All the warden needs, the California court ruled, is knowledge that a person is or has been fishing or hunting.

The need to protect wildlife for future generations outweighs the comparatively minor intrusion on a citizen�s Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure, wrote state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye.

The opinion overturned rulings by two lower courts.

Those kinds of laws are bullshit. If hogs are considered shoot on sight vermin, why should I have to pay the state's deer toll to shoot the hogs off my property?

Well, hogs aren't shoot on sight vermin in Nebraska. We don't have feral hogs, and if you do run across one and shoot it you'll be prosecuted. But let's stick with coyotes, which are shoot on sight..

You have 356 days a year to hunt and shoot them. 9 days a year you are restricted from hunting them unless you have a deer tag. State sets the rules.

His answer: "YEAH, BUT IF WE DO, WE DAMN WELL BETTER FIND WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR".

The above is correct, especially in a WMA or National park, National Forest or refuge. You have no rights in these places nor in a boat.

I had a Game Warden search the toolboxes on my truck at a game check station once. I thought he was looking for tape to re attach the tag to my deer. He said no, he was just checking to see if I had other game I hadn't claimed.

I asked 2 friends of mine what the legal requirements are of Game Wardens. One was a judge, the other a highway patrolman. They both told me that Game Wardens had to abide by the same laws as any other law enforcement agency. I think actions like this helps smear the reputation of Game Wardens, they choose to do this on their own...

Calhoun,

The Supreme Court ruled the officer had probable cause.

http://www.wonews.com/t-PerspectiveReport_DFGWardens_090111.aspx

That is the basis of all warrantless searches.

That was what the OP was stating as well.... I asked him once if it was true that they were the only officers who could search a home without a warrant.

That means if he didn't have probable cause he couldn't conduct a warrantless search.

For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Court of Appeal erred in determining that, under the applicable California statutes and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a game warden may make such a vehicle stop only if the warden is aware of facts that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the angler or hunter has violated a fish and game statute or regulation.   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.

Applying these principles in the present context, we conclude that (1) the state's interest in protecting and preserving the wildlife of this state for the benefit of current and future generations of California residents and visitors constitutes a special and important state interest and need that is distinct from the state's ordinary interest in crime control, (2) the administrative regulations that are required to serve this interest � involving, for example, limits on the number, size, and species of fish or game that may be taken at different times and in different locations � are of such a nature that they would be impossible to adequately enforce if a game warden could stop, and could demand to be shown all fish or game that have been caught by, only those anglers and hunters who the warden reasonably suspected had violated the fish and game laws, and (3) the impingement upon privacy engendered by such a stop and demand procedure is minimal because (i) the stops are limited to those persons who have voluntarily chosen to engage in the heavily regulated activity of fishing or hunting and as a consequence have a diminished reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to items directly related to such activity, and (ii) the required demands are limited to items directly related to fishing and hunting and do not require disclosure of intimate or confidential matters as to which such persons retain a substantial privacy interest.

Even if we assume that a game warden's stop of a car in which an angler or hunter is riding entails a greater intrusion on privacy than a stop of an angler or hunter who is on foot, we conclude that when, as in this case, the vehicle stop is made reasonably close in time and location to the fishing or hunting activity, the encroachment upon an angler's or hunter's reasonable expectation of privacy resulting from a brief vehicle stop and demand is nonetheless rather modest, and no more intrusive than other actions by game wardens that have been upheld in past California cases.

Here is what the Supreme Court said:



"As noted above, after stopping defendant's vehicle Fleet asked defendant whether he had any fish or lobsters in his car and defendant responded that he did not. Because Fleet had personally observed defendant catch either a fish or a lobster on the pier, place the item in a black bag, take the bag to his vehicle in the pier parking lot, and drive out of the lot, Fleet reasonably believed that defendant was lying to him when he denied having any fish or lobsters in his vehicle. Under these circumstances, Fleet had probable cause to believe (1) that defendant was in violation of section 2012 requiring a person to exhibit his catch upon demand, (2) that evidence of that violation was reasonably likely to be present in the black bag into which the game warden had seen defendant place his catch, and (3) that the black bag was reasonably likely to be in the vehicle defendant was driving away from the pier.



Accordingly, Fleet's ensuing search of defendant's vehicle for the black bag, his search of the black bag itself, and his discovery and seizure of the unlawfully taken lobster from inside the bag all were supported by probable cause and thus did not violate the Fourth Amendment."