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

Not any different than any other LEO.

They really take advantage of that myth. You'll notice that they'll normally word their delivery with something like "Alright, can I look at your fish, now?" or something like that. It's technically a request for consent, and perfectly legal. The problem is that most people don't realize they have the right to refuse.

Yeah, they tend to use verbal consent to search, at least more than other peace officers.

I very rarely used verbal and got them to sign a written consent to search.

Very surprisingly most guilty people would sign that. (Did they think I was going to miss finding the evidence?)

Good link. Everybody needs to read it.

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

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

This is a pretty good explanation of what wardens are allowed to do and not do.

It all hinges on probable cause, as with any other search by a peace officer.

http://www.okgamewarden.com/PastIssues/2005-Issue2/Search_and_Seizure.html

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."

Looks to me like the reporter was quoting the SC ruling. Not making it up as he went...

But, whatever.

So, you can't walk around your property with a concealed handgun during deer season if you don't have a hunting license?

Bullsheit.

Missed that at the end. Thx.

So:
1) The ruling states unequivocably that wardens can make administrative searches without probable cause.
2) But in this specific case, the warden is judged to have had probable cause.

So.. again, that state has a ruling on the books that wardens can make an administrative search without probable cause in order to verify possession and size limits.

Which is exactly what I've been told by Nebraska wardens that they can do. They can't search a residence, but they have the right to search any coolers/freezers/etc of anybody with a hunting or fishing permit. Said the Fourth Amendment didn't come into it because your purchase of the hunting/fishing permit was basically a contract stating you would allow such searches.

But.. IANAL.

So, you can't walk around your property with a concealed handgun during deer season if you don't have a hunting license?

Bullsheit.

I think you would find that the limit of that administrative search would be be regulated to someone a conservation officer sees either hunting or fishing.
IE: if he sees someone fishing, he can then stop and search them for fish, a fishing license and such.

Or possibly more related, a boating safety inspection. Simpky being on the water in a boat is enough to get stopped and "checked"

37-607. Conservation and peace officers; duty to arrest; powers.

It shall be the duty of every conservation officer and any other peace officer to arrest any person whom he or she has reason to believe has committed a violation of the Game Law and, with or without a warrant, to open, enter, and examine all camps, wagons, cars, stages, tents, packs, warehouses, stores, outhouses, stables, barns and other places, boxes, barrels, and packages where he or she has reason to believe any game, fish, or raw furs, taken or held in violation of the Game Law, are to be found and to seize the same, except that a dwelling house actually occupied can be entered only upon authority of a search warrant.

So, is "reason to believe any game, fish, or raw furs, taken or held in violation of the Game Law" the same as probable cause?

Here is the exact Nebraska law:



So, is "reason to believe any game, fish, or raw furs, taken or held in violation of the Game Law" the same as probable cause?

Yes, and I suspect that some of the listed places that can be searched without warrant will not stand if challenged, at least without exigent circumstances.

Yes, and I suspect that some of the listed places that can be searched without warrant will not stand if challenged, at least without exigent circumstances.

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?

So.. an anonymous tip would let him search outbuildings/vehicles/etc without a warrant, but not a house. Which is more power than a normal LEO, right? Just not a huge amount of additional power.

So.. an anonymous tip would let him search outbuildings/vehicles/etc without a warrant, but not a house. Which is more power than a normal LEO, right? Just not a huge amount of additional power.

Most states don't require a license to hunt your own property.
Don't believe all the crap you read here without checking the real facts first

As an example.

While not Game law related. Some months go I was dispatched to a residence to speak with a cab driver who stated he was stiffed on a fare when he dropped the guy off at the house I responded to. I knocked on the door, guy opened door, and in plain viee was a stack of cash and 3 kilos of Heroin. At that point I could enter the house and seize the contraband without a warrant. Because

I was in a aplace i was legally permitted to be( on the porch, knocking at the door to speek with an individual named in an investigation.

B. i had legal access to the contraband( when he opened the door the coffee table came into "plain view".

C. There was sufficient cause to believe the subject matter was contraband.( Size, shape, and color of packages were indicitive of narcotics, the money, digital scales and packaging materials were indicitive of drug distribution paraphanalia.

Name a fee States that don't require a license to hunt your own land, aside from farm tags

Yeah, I really liked THIS part: " a person's home mosque is the most sacred and protected place under Fourth Amendment law."

As an aside.
Technically you are not lawfully present inside his house and therefore can't seize his drugs unless he invited you in.
Plain view is a seizure exception not a search warrant exception. You would need to argue exigent circumstances in order to enter. But this is all way off topic.

Name a fee States that don't require a license to hunt your own land, aside from farm tags

Not true. They only need probable cause. See State v. Boyer

Name a fee States that don't require a license to hunt your own land, aside from farm tags

The sad part is that in most instances, the armed citizen exercising his right to defend himself in his home is reluctant to fire his gun. The cops don't show that restraint, and the wrong guy gets killed.

Name a fee States that don't require a license to hunt your own land, aside from farm tags

Landowners here can hunt their own land without a license except for game which is required to be tagged [deer and turkey] and migratory birds.

Leastwise, that's how it used to be.

Which is stupid though. One should be able to hunt their own property without a license.

WTF does that have to do with anything? I don't give a sheit about 1900. I didn't say anything about limits changing.

Can a 14 year old drive a hay truck around the 1000 acre farm without a driver's license?

With all due respect, going to disagree. Around 1900 there were about 100 deer left in the entire state of Nebraska, and they decided a change was needed. Too many greedy and stupid people out there who ruined it for everybody.

Lots of things would be a lot better without the large percentage of idiots we have in the population.

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

Name a fee States that don't require a license to hunt your own land, aside from farm tags

These threads about "rights" tickle me.

This country hasn't had a functional Bill of Rights since Lincoln declared that a state which voluntarily joined the Union couldn't voluntarily leave the Union.

It probably goes back ever farther than that,...but that's enough for any reasonable person to understand that he's owned.

Of course,....you can always take the moral high ground and feel satisfied for doing so while you sit your ass in jail,...but for all practical purposes, you have no rights.

The laws took the place of rights a long, long time ago.

Your fantasy land never actually existed, you do know that, right? George Washington / Whiskey Rebellion? John Adams / Sedition Act? Etc, etc.

It's been a balancing act since day one. You can throw up your hands and say "It's ruined and not worth saving", or you can join the fight to reduce the encroachment and even reverse it.

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

What limits are you talking about? There are currently two limits for deer hunting in Nebraska:
1) You can only shoot 2 bucks a year
2) You can only shoot as many does as you have permits for

If anybody should be able to hunt their land without permits, how many deer are you going to allow them to shoot if they don't have permits? Unlimited does?

Unfortunately, you are WAY too correct regarding the restraint differential. There have been too many recent examples of police seemingly going way beyond reasonable measures. Maybe it's just that we are seeing longstanding reality because of personal media devices and the internet. That stuff sure can make it rough on the good cops.

On your OP, I wish our G&F troops here would behave like those in some other states - as game wardens - instead of the heavy LEO emphasis with the armament, strutting, etc. When we (deliberately) ask themn questions about game, ranges, habitat, etc. they show little to zero knowledge most of the time. But, they seem to know everything about their "regs" and the law, and every road checkpoint is a dismal negative.