Did Game Warden Have the Right to Search My Car?

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?

How many of us have been stopped by the highway patrol just to check that we have a license.  And oh, while we're at it, may as well check under the hood for illegal smog modifications.

-Allen

But none of that is covered by the court's ruling.   Look I understand the idea of the "slippery slope" - but I've yet to see it. While those who have the innate ability to root out conspiracies will see this as the first step towards martial law, I see it as a specific application of a court's ruling on one particular situation.  When you read the original case, the guy was caught red handed.  Instead of admitting to his breaking the law and paying his fine, he decided to sue, even though the warden had at least some suspicion.  It's not like the warden walked up to him randomly and asked to search his car, he was watching the guy.

When I think of the situations when I might be affected by this, I just can't see it being a problem.  Wardens don't just go running around searching cars willy nilly (at least I hope not).  In the court case it specifically mentions circumstances when this type of search is allowed.  The ruling can be considered at the same time as very broad and extremely narrow.

Now, if a cop does a warrantless search or racial profiling without cause, I hope to gosh that he gets crap for it.

Thats nice. Create an opponent "those" and give them a radical position such as "conspiracies" and "martial law". Classic straw man. The only one mentioning conspiracies is you, and no one, i think, is claiming we are on a slippery slope to martial law. But there is no doubt that the case history, including the one in question, around the 4th ammendment is strengthening more and more the executive, and thats a troubling trend which should matter to everyone. Whether you have "something to hide" is completely irrelevant.

But the simple question is this:

In what practical situations do you see this ruling as being a problem? 

I love hypotheticals as much as the next guy, but I'm talking about practical application of the law. 

If we're not talking about the slippery slope to the next infringement on our rights then what are we talking about?

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.

I don't agree.  I think I break even or slightly better, certainly on specific fisheries, crabbing and local rockfishing come to mind.

And your belief that it is "just recreation" explains to me some of your support of unlawful searches.  It's no skin off your back.

-Allen

Trust me, I hope to break even too.

But to me there's a difference between fishing/hunting to put food on your table to feed your family and fishing/hunting as a choice to put delicious, healthy, locally caught seafood onto the table.

And there you go again. You are projecting your experience on the rest of us. You don't get to do that if you want to argue that this rule is a-ok.

I really don't see how I'm projecting my experience on the rest of the world, but I'm sorry if I have.  I'm stating my personal opinion as I've said all the way through.  We're all allowed to make our own decisions and I've made mine.  I'm making arguments that are specifically applicable to me, and why I have no problems with the court's ruling.  Remember, they made the ruling, not me. I didn't lobby for the outcome of the ruling, I had no stake in it either way.  I didn't write letters to the court to say, "please allow the DFG to do whatever they want". 

Look, and this is not targeted towards you or Allen (you might be able to surmise who this is targeted to).  But I find it very difficult to be lectured by someone for the "right to feed your family" by someone who is pushing $3,000 MSRP kayaks.

Your capacity for logicall fallacy is astounding.
And putting forth propositions in a lively debate is not lecturing.

But the simple question is this:

In what practical situations do you see this ruling as being a problem? 

I don't like being searched against my will. Even if I have nothing to hide.

But the simple question is this:

In what practical situations do you see this ruling as being a problem? 

I don't like being searched against my will. Even if I have nothing to hide.

And what if they just ask first?  Would you consent?

Have you ever been searched or asked to be searched? Did you consent?

edit: by a warden

But the simple question is this:

In what practical situations do you see this ruling as being a problem? 

I don't like being searched against my will. Even if I have nothing to hide.

You have the 4th ammendment right not to be.

But the simple question is this:

In what practical situations do you see this ruling as being a problem? 

I don't like being searched against my will. Even if I have nothing to hide.

And what if they just ask first?  Would you consent?

Have you ever been searched or asked to be searched? Did you consent?

edit: by a warden

I've consented to searches of my kayak before, but I know that they can search it anyway, even before this ruling. I have not yet been asked to consent to a vehicle search. I fully expect that day is coming.

But the simple question is this:

In what practical situations do you see this ruling as being a problem? 

I don't like being searched against my will. Even if I have nothing to hide.

And what if they just ask first?  Would you consent?

Have you ever been searched or asked to be searched? Did you consent?

edit: by a warden

Yes I have, by both a leo and a warden. Did not give consent. Leo had no reasonable cause and let me go, warden searched because he saw a couple of flies on my center console.

Hold on a sec while I refill my mug and load up with more popcorn.  OK! I'm set. Please continue. Seriously! 

But the simple question is this:

In what practical situations do you see this ruling as being a problem? 

I don't like being searched against my will. Even if I have nothing to hide.

And what if they just ask first?  Would you consent?

Have you ever been searched or asked to be searched? Did you consent?

edit: by a warden

I've consented to searches of my kayak before, but I know that they can search it anyway, even before this ruling. I have not yet been asked to consent to a vehicle search. I fully expect that day is coming.

And if they were to ask nicely (and don't seem to be d*ckish), would you consent? 

But the simple question is this:

In what practical situations do you see this ruling as being a problem? 

I don't like being searched against my will. Even if I have nothing to hide.

And what if they just ask first?  Would you consent?

Have you ever been searched or asked to be searched? Did you consent?

edit: by a warden

I've consented to searches of my kayak before, but I know that they can search it anyway, even before this ruling. I have not yet been asked to consent to a vehicle search. I fully expect that day is coming.

And if they were to ask nicely (and don't seem to be d*ckish), would you consent? 

No.

No.

Then I apologize in advance for any inconvenience that this has caused.  Sorry to sound like an airline 

And look guys, I completely support your rights to have opinions on the matter, even if mine do not coincide.  Like I said, I have no skin in the game so to speak since I don't think I'll ever be searched against my will.

Hopefully another case will come along and the lines in the sand will be set more clearly.

Im still curious as to how a choice of kayak has anything to do with the validity of an opinion. Should I bust out a dugout and handline in order to be able to talk sbout fishing to eat?