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

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.

Try what again?

The point I'm making is that infringing on our rights seems to be a first resort.  Have other less objectionable actions been taken to address the issue?

-Allen

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.

But that's just a bunch of hypotheticals.  The courts would have to decide again that:

(1) the state's interest in protecting and preserving the wildlife blankety blank (mushrooms, gold flakes?) of this state  .... 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 law enforcement officer could stop, and could demand to be shown all fish or game widgets that have been caught by, only those anglers and hunters who the warden obtained by whoever reasonably suspected had violated the fish and game laws, whosits

and
(3) the governmental action serves a special and important state need and interest distinct from the state's ordinary interest in enforcing the criminal law,
(4) 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
(5) 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.

As those who know me can attest, I'm most certainly not now, nor will I ever be, a conspiracy theorist.  And I definitely do not see any conspiracy here.

Replace fish and game with "natural resources".

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.

Try what again?

The point I'm making is that infringing on our rights seems to be a first resort.  Have other less objectionable actions been taken to address the issue?

-Allen

What less objectionable actions are there?  Warrant?  Catch them in the act only?  The original case lends itself to the specific situation when a warden would need to use this power of search.

I'm pretty sure wardens don't just go through your stuff willy nilly.  They ask first.  You can choose to object.  They can then choose to look anyways if they want to. 

I believe the less objectionable action is the asking.  Wardens have asked to search my backpack, boat and kayak before, I've always said yes.  If they asked to search my car, I'd say yes.  I'm always willing for them to look, because there would never be anything for them to find. 

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.

In the '90's, the PoPo never pulled you over in your new Acura Integra for Driving While Asian (DWA), and threatened you with jail and a severe ass kicking, not to mention bashing your quarter panels with a maglight?  Such a formative event during your youth will adjust your attitude right quick.

Replace fish and game with "natural resources".

yes, but it still has to fit within all the parameters of the ruling. 

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.

In the '90's, the PoPo never pulled you over in your new Acura Integra for Driving While Asian (DWA), and threatened you with jail and a severe ass kicking, not to mention bashing your quarter panels with a maglight?  Such a formative event during your youth will adjust your attitude right quick.

Like I said before, never had a problem.  I'm about as straight as an arrow as they come.  But that's my personal experience only.  If I had a problem before I might feel different about it, but I haven't, so I don't.

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.

Try what again?

The point I'm making is that infringing on our rights seems to be a first resort.  Have other less objectionable actions been taken to address the issue?

-Allen

What less objectionable actions are there?  Warrant?  Catch them in the act only?  The original case lends itself to the specific situation when a warden would need to use this power of search.

I'm pretty sure wardens don't just go through your stuff willy nilly.  They ask first.  You can choose to object.  They can then choose to look anyways if they want to. 

I believe the less objectionable action is the asking.  Wardens have asked to search my backpack, boat and kayak before, I've always said yes.  If they asked to search my car, I'd say yes.  I'm always willing for them to look, because there would never be anything for them to find.

The same ones I stated many posts ago ... education, other enforcement options, and deterrent options.  All are pretty standard ways of increasing compliance with laws.

Just because you're willing to be searched for no good reason, doesn't mean that I'm willing to, and I have nothing to hide either.  Am I willing to go to jail over it?  I dunno yet.  The point however, is that a dangerous line is being crossed here.

-Allen

Well here's a poll question:

How many of us have been asked by a warden to open up a hatch/backpack/whatever and how many of us actually said no?

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?

It has to do with your proclamation thst fishing and hunting is a privilege, specifically.  Fishing and hunting are a means to provide food. 

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?

It has to do with your proclamation thst fishing and hunting is a privilege, specifically.  Fishing and hunting are a means to provide food.

How much money does it cost you to go fishing/hunting each year?  In gas cost, bait, equipment, etc? Vacation time off work, lost wages?  Does the value of what you bring home equal or exceed the amount of money you spend to chase game?

Face it, fishing and hunting are recreation, the food that you bring home from it is just a byproduct.

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?

It has to do with your proclamation thst fishing and hunting is a privilege, specifically.  Fishing and hunting are a means to provide food.

How much money does it cost you to go fishing/hunting each year?  In gas cost, bait, equipment, etc? Vacation time off work, lost wages?  Does the value of what you bring home equal or exceed the amount of money you spend to chase game?

Face it, fishing and hunting are recreation, the food that you bring home from it is just a byproduct.

Thats a red herring. Fishing and hunting is fundamentally a right to eat. For most of us it might be recreation, but that doesnt change this. Nor does it mean anyone can harvest as much as they want or that a public resource should not be regulated.

Thats a red herring. Fishing and hunting is fundamentally a right to eat. For most of us it might be recreation, but that doesnt change this. Nor does it mean anyone can harvest as much as they want or that a public resource should not be regulated.

And I still think of its as a privilege.  Not necessarily one that someone needs to earn, but one that people need to respect so as not to lose.  I heard the same argument when I last discussed this three years ago and I've yet to see any reason to change my opinion on it. 

I most certainly defend the ability of people to hunt, gather and fish to support their families but for the vast majority of us that's not really why we do it.  It's not like we're in Alaska where they give people subsistence quotas or anything.

It's amazing to me that we as fisherman will fight for our right to fish, fight for our right to hunt, yet allow our 4th Amendment rights to be constantly violated.

Seems appropriate. ....

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.

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?

It has to do with your proclamation thst fishing and hunting is a privilege, specifically.  Fishing and hunting are a means to provide food.

How much money does it cost you to go fishing/hunting each year?  In gas cost, bait, equipment, etc? Vacation time off work, lost wages?  Does the value of what you bring home equal or exceed the amount of money you spend to chase game?

Face it, fishing and hunting are recreation, the food that you bring home from it is just a byproduct.

So much rage. Don't project your experience on the rest of us.