Did Game Warden Have the Right to Search My Car?

And when we talk about the 4th amendment, there are tons of exceptions to it.  This is not the first time and it won't be the last when limitations have been set on it. 

And I think we should fight expansion of the traditional exceptions.

Exactly, and thats what the case is really about, right? Congressman cant help, only the courts can. Hopefully it gets appealed.

your right this clip has nothing to do with this discussion...

And when we talk about the 4th amendment, there are tons of exceptions to it.  This is not the first time and it won't be the last when limitations have been set on it. 

And I think we should fight expansion of the traditional exceptions.

Exactly, and thats what the case is really about, right? Congressman cant help, only the courts can. Hopefully it gets appealed.

It is being appealed?

I'm feeling like the worst infringement on my rights is when I try to watch a youtube clip but the video ad drowns it out.

The US Supreme Court denied certiorari without comment. That means it won't be reviewed, and is the law of California until changed by the legislature or citizen initiative.

I think the confrontational open carry advocates are obnoxious are aren't doing anyone any favors.

I still support your right to do it, I just think you are a douchebag.

I think the confrontational open carry advocates are obnoxious are aren't doing anyone any favors.

I still support your right to do it, I just think you are a douchebag.

 

I think the confrontational open carry advocates are obnoxious are aren't doing anyone any favors.

I still support your right to do it, I just think you are a douchebag.

 

I'm in agreement with you on that one pole "?"

The US Supreme Court denied certiorari without comment. That means it won't be reviewed, and is the law of California until changed by the legislature or citizen initiative.

Thanks crash.  I wasn't up to date on where it went after the CA Supreme Court.  Wonder if they cared at all or just considered it a state issue since its a state regulation.

Bmb I almost see where u are coming from by saying you give consent to search by purchasing a fishing license.
But it's wrong.
It's not a CA drivers license which when you have one you are REQUIRED by law to consent to blood or alcohol WHEN SUSPECTED of DUI. if you don't give you lose license. Period. DMV takes care of that.
But that requires you to be stopped by LE and accused of DUI with PC present, ie failing FST, etc.
BUT, when hunting or fishing why should we be subject to a pat down or a Terry frisk? That's not anywhere on our license, no where in the reg books, and only done by a select few.  This has never happened to me in 35 years plus of fishing, and a doZen or more encounters with FNG while armed in the field hunting.
That simple pat down and search is a 4th Amendment violation I never gave consent to when purchasing my license.

I don't say this because I have anything to hide. If I was patted they would find my badge and see my agency and is be on my way. I am making a stink outa this because I like others who took THE OATH uphold it all! Not the parts I want to but every bit of it. LE is under scrutiny everywhere, which is good, because obviously without folks being informed of their Constitutional rights they allow same to be violated.

People need to read the Constitution . Before it's watered down by a bunch of pussies who want us all to do what they say and how.

Bmb I almost see where u are coming from by saying you give consent to search by purchasing a fishing license.
But it's wrong.
It's not a CA drivers license which when you have one you are REQUIRED by law to consent to blood or alcohol WHEN SUSPECTED of DUI. if you don't give you lose license. Period. DMV takes care of that.
But that requires you to be stopped by LE and accused of DUI with PC present, ie failing FST, etc.
BUT, when hunting or fishing why should we be subject to a pat down or a Terry frisk? That's not anywhere on our license, no where in the reg books, and only done by a select few.  This has never happened to me in 35 years plus of fishing, and a doZen or more encounters with FNG while armed in the field hunting.
That simple pat down and search is a 4th Amendment violation I never gave consent to when purchasing my license.

I don't say this because I have anything to hide. If I was patted they would find my badge and see my agency and is be on my way. I am making a stink outa this because I like others who took THE OATH uphold it all! Not the parts I want to but every bit of it. LE is under scrutiny everywhere, which is good, because obviously without folks being informed of their Constitutional rights they allow same to be violated.

But I don't think pat downs or frisks are covered by the court's ruling. 

Wardens are allowed to look into your car, boat, house, fishing receptacles etc. specifically for the purpose of enforcing dfg regulations.  That's why the court felt that the invasion of privacy was limited. For the vast majority of experiences, they're going to just be looking into your ice chest, your fishing bucket, maybe a hatch.  The chance that they'll go farther than that would generally be only if the LEO has a reason to suspect so.  While they may be allowed to do so, I doubt in practice they'll be doing so.

(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. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1571450.html#sthash.jhHL5x3G.dpuf

 If a warden is asking for a pat down or frisk, he'd be doing it for a different reason.

Bmb check your pm's.
Out fellas. This was a nice polite talk. Good luck.