Did Game Warden Have the Right to Search My Car?

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

Is this really saying what it seems to imply?  That somehow they've exhausted all other education, enforcement, and deterrent options ... to the point that they have justified infringing on our rights?

-Allen

So is eating a privilege as well?

And how does that have anything to do with following rules and regulations or letting a warden search you?

Because we eat what we take?

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

Is this really saying what it seems to imply?  That somehow they've exhausted all other education, enforcement, and deterrent options ... to the point that they have justified infringing on our rights?

-Allen

That isn't just implied. It's pretty clearly stated in the part you bolded.

Yes certainly.  But how do you think that would go over?

-Allen

I think it would go over as well as you would imagine.  I don't think they're taking a public resource through pictures so I can't support that unfortunately.  However if they are not careful and trampling on public grounds irresponsibly, fine the sh*t out of them!

I think just because they don't "take" an animal, doesn't mean they don't have an impact on them.  Look at any National Park these days ... death by overuse.

In our case, the impact is managed.  In the other, it is completely unmanaged.  Which is better and which is worse?

-Allen

Neither is better.  They just are.  If I believed birders/hikers were a significant problem then I'd probably support causes for limiting them too. 

National parks are different - its like Disneyland.  But at least some of them are trying to limit environmental impact, like the new proposals for Yosemite Valley.

Look, we all know that CA is a large state with an expanding population.  Rules need to be in place to prevent bad things from happening.  I completely support providing law enforcement with all the tools/resources/abilities they need to enforce the laws. 

Perhaps I'm a little biased since I've never been placed in a situation where I've felt my rights are violated, or maybe I'm just the type of person with a lot lower need for personal privacy.  Who knows.  But very little will change my line of thinking, just as I know those who strongly oppose privacy intrusions will never change theirs.  That's just the way of the world.

So is eating a privilege as well?

And how does that have anything to do with following rules and regulations or letting a warden search you?

Because we eat what we take?

No, I understand that.  But how does letting a warden search you interfere with someone eating what they take?  Does that really mean that you can't legally take the state imposed limit? 

Or is the problem that the state shouldn't be setting or enforcing limits?

And the ruling says that dfw can search your car if they think you've been hunting or fishing even if they don't have a reasonable articulable suspicion that you have violated the law.

Sorry, I had to delete that one message I tried to respond to.  I f***ed it up too far from what Allen was asking.

So is eating a privilege as well?

And how does that have anything to do with following rules and regulations or letting a warden search you?

Because we eat what we take?

No, I understand that.  But how does letting a warden search you interfere with someone eating what they take?  Does that really mean that you can't legally take the state imposed limit? 

Or is the problem that the state shouldn't be setting or enforcing limits?

The problem is the unreasonable search.

The court ruling opens up the prospect of suspicion less searches when any highly regulated activity is involved. It can logically apply to way more than hunting and fishing. Any regulated consumptive activity is fair game. Mushroom hunting. Gold panning. Etc.

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

Is this really saying what it seems to imply?  That somehow they've exhausted all other education, enforcement, and deterrent options ... to the point that they have justified infringing on our rights?

-Allen

Try again.

Like I said before, I personally agree with the court's decision here.  Whether it was correct in law, I don't know.  I'm not a judge or a lawyer and I wouldn't pretend to be.

I don't know what the court was trying to imply with its ruling. But I think what they are stating is clear, just like crash said.  DFW enforcement officers may search your property without a warrant.   The court's statement says that they do not believe it is infringing upon our rights, as we have chosen to participate in the activity.  The law may choose to do these searches if they have a reasonable suspicion that we've violated the F&G laws, but not for other reasons.  So a DFG warden can't go knocking down your door warrantless if they think you have a grow operation in your garage, but they can go in if they think you shot a deer off season.

So is eating a privilege as well?

And how does that have anything to do with following rules and regulations or letting a warden search you?

Because we eat what we take?

No, I understand that.  But how does letting a warden search you interfere with someone eating what they take?  Does that really mean that you can't legally take the state imposed limit? 

Or is the problem that the state shouldn't be setting or enforcing limits?

The problem is the unreasonable search.

The court ruling opens up the prospect of suspicion less searches when any highly regulated activity is involved. It can logically apply to way more than hunting and fishing. Any regulated consumptive activity is fair game. Mushroom hunting. Gold panning. Etc.

I think think you're correct.  But is Mushroom hunting a regulated activity?  Is gold panning?

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

Is this really saying what it seems to imply?  That somehow they've exhausted all other education, enforcement, and deterrent options ... to the point that they have justified infringing on our rights?

-Allen

Try again.

Like I said before, I personally agree with the court's decision here.  Whether it was correct in law, I don't know.  I'm not a judge or a lawyer and I wouldn't pretend to be.

I don't know what the court was trying to imply with its ruling. But I think what they are stating is clear, just like crash said.  DFW enforcement officers may search your property without a warrant.   The court's statement says that they do not believe it is infringing upon our rights, as we have chosen to participate in the activity. The law may choose to do these searches if they have a reasonable suspicion that we've violated the F&G laws, but not for other reasons.  So a DFG warden can't go knocking down your door warrantless if they think you have a grow operation in your garage, but they can go in if they think you shot a deer off season.

No. They don't have to have suspicion of a violation. Only that you have been participating in this perfectly legal activity. That's the problem.

So is eating a privilege as well?

And how does that have anything to do with following rules and regulations or letting a warden search you?

Because we eat what we take?

No, I understand that.  But how does letting a warden search you interfere with someone eating what they take?  Does that really mean that you can't legally take the state imposed limit? 

Or is the problem that the state shouldn't be setting or enforcing limits?

The problem is the unreasonable search.

The court ruling opens up the prospect of suspicion less searches when any highly regulated activity is involved. It can logically apply to way more than hunting and fishing. Any regulated consumptive activity is fair game. Mushroom hunting. Gold panning. Etc.

I think think you're correct.  But is Mushroom hunting a regulated activity?  Is gold panning?

Yes, both are regulated. Permits and limits for mushrooms on USFS land. Equipment and season restrictions for gold extraction.

No. They don't have to have suspicion of a violation. Only that you have been participating in this perfectly legal activity. That's the problem.

You're right there.  I still don't have a problem with it, but I suppose others could.

Why? I trust our DFG wardens to do the right thing.

Yes, both are regulated. Permits and limits for mushrooms on USFS land. Equipment and season restrictions for gold extraction.

I think we're getting away from the original topic, but are those state regulated or federally regulated?  Doesn't it make a difference?

Yes, both are regulated. Permits and limits for mushrooms on USFS land. Equipment and season restrictions for gold extraction.

I think we're getting away from the original topic, but are those state regulated or federally regulated?  Doesn't it make a difference?

This case opens up a whole new avenue of unreasonable searches.  It's exactly the problem.  The logical application of this rule extends much farther than just fish and game laws.