Court Ruling Against the Minnesota DNR

[Jim McCullough]

There was an appeals court ruling this week in Minnesota changing conservation officer's authority to search boats. They now have to be sure that there are already fish in a persons boat BEFORE they can search it. Essentially, they have to see you catch something and watch you put it into the livewell before they can check if you have the proper amount of lifejackets, registration, fire extinguisher, etc... This ruling really affects us Muskie Fisherman, as most of us are catch and release. They wouldn't be able to check you, unless you gave them permission. This is the law of the land in Minnesota, until, and unless, the Minnesota Supreme Court changes it on appeal. They are also saying that this case will eventually end up before the U.S. Supreme Court as a Fourth Amendment case.

I learned some background of the case while listening to the Joe Soucheray show on the radio. A guy called in and said that it was filed by an Iron Range attorney who was stopped by a conservation officer while he was fishing on Rainy Lake. The guy on the radio, said that this officer has a reputation in International Falls for being unreasonable and rude. Allegedly, this is how he treated the attorney and the attorney refused to let him search his boat.

The DNR is really taking some blows in this state, as last Winter they were told they can no longer enter fish houses without permission from the occupants. What do you guys think about these rulings? Do you think that we are eliminating the DNR's ability to enforce it's regulations, or are we getting back rights that were guaranteed us by the Fourth Amendment? I have my own feelings on this, but won't give them yet as I don't want to influence the path the thread takes.

[Thick One]

Unfortunately this is something that will hurt the resource not help it. I can agree that some "Bad" conservation officers exist but for the most part I think they are concerned about the resource just as we are.

Other than that I plead the "5th".

[Thick One]

I lied.


How about they GIVE some power to th DNR to make regulations that protect the resource. (Like shoreline developments)

S_

[RoyC]

Jim,

I am a Minnesotan also and have heard about this in the news, but are you sure that you are interpreting the "probable cause" ruling correctly? I understood the ruling to mean that they have to see you catch and keep fish in order to search the livewell, not to check for safety equipment. I don't see where catching fish has anything to do with probable cause for safety equipment.

Overall, I am against the ruling. If you have fishing rods in the boat, then I believe that they should be able to search you for fishing regulation violations. I also believe that they should also be able to search fish houses for the same reason. What's the sense in having regulations if you can't enforce them? After all, in either case, you are on public property exercising a public privelege which requires a license and has associated regulations. It's not the same as entering your home without a warrant--that is private property.

Roy

[Jim McCullough]

Roy,

That is the way I understood the ruling. It only makes sense to me because it is the search that is the issue, not what they are searching for. This would jive with what I had drilled into me in my Constitutional Law class at St. Cloud St. (Whatever that's worth.) To get a search warrant, you usually have to describe the specific place you are going to search, and what you are specifically looking for. CO's are operating without a search warrant and it is my understanding that once they begin a search, they are not limited to areas that they can search. Also, if you give them permission to search your boat, you can't say, "Uh okay, but you can only search the rod locker and the livewell." Once you let them in, they can search anywhere they please. I was also told in a couple different law enforcement classes that CO's are the most powerful arm of the law in a state. The reason given was that they have broad search parameters that other officers don't. I know a couple lawyers frequent the boards, and if I am wrong on this, I am sure they will correct me.

[scubohuntr]

Roy-
You're on a public lake, exercising a priviledge, so the CO can ask to see your license and ticket you if you don't produce it. HOWEVER, your boat is your own private property, and therefore protected under the Fourth Amendment. If he's got a solid tip that you have something illegal going on, or sees you catching illegal fish, he's got probable cause and there's no problem. If he asks you and you give him permission, there's no problem. The only time there's a problem is when he's searching boats at random, without any good reason. All this does is shift a little of the burden onto us, where it should have been all along. These days, about everyone has a cell phone. Muskie fishermen and most other fishermen have cameras. If you see somebody breaking the law, use the camera, then use the cell phone. Now the CO has probable cause and he can search that boat all he wants.
There can be no compromise on Constitutionally guaranteed rights. If we let one go, we lose them all. If we are all innocent until proven guilty, there's no reason for a CO to search our boats anyway, is there? I've got nothing to hide, but I DO have my rights to protect. If a CO asks to check my boat, no problem, I'll let him. If he DEMANDS to check my boat, we have a problem. He'd better start producing warrants and/or probable cause. Courtesy goes a long way on both sides.
The really dangerous part about things like this is that it just sounds so reasonable to let the CO have a little more authority than the Constitution allows. After all, he could do his job so much better that way, and it doesn't really hurt anybody but the lawbreakers. Just one little chip at a time, and pretty soon the whole Constitution comes down. Nobody will be able to point to an incident that destroyed our nation, because every little chip just seemed so darn reasonable at the time. There is an extensive discussion of this issue over at Fishing Minnesota.

[Jim McCullough]

Scubo,

You make some good points. One area that is gray, is the point you made about your boat being private property and the whole random search issue. Again, this is going back to college around 1988, so I am going on memory and the law may have changed since then. There was a case that was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court with regards to the constitutionality of police pulling people over and doing random breathalizer tests. They found that it was okay, as long as they weren't just pulling over all of the whites, or all of the blacks, etc... They had to state ahead of time that they would pull over every 7th driver. (Or 3rd, or 10th, etc... It had to be decided on ahead of time.) Everyone went through the roadblock, but they could only test every 7th driver for alcohol. I am against drunk driving, but I have a problem with this one. Not enough probable cause for me to give up my rights to satisfy that type of search. This would be similar to the point you made about your boat being private property on a public lake. Your car could be considered private property on a public road.

[Da Bears]

Personally, I don't mind when a conservation officer stops and checks me, especially my safety equipment. There are a lot of idiot boaters out there that could greatly benefit by getting checked. Plus, if there are kids with on a boat, and an officer checks you out, you will be able to again stress the importance of safety to them, and also show that it is good to obey laws!

If an officer checks me, that means he is doing a good job, and he will eventually get the people that trash our sport of fishing! Besides, they can also give you tips and hotspots because they are constantly on the water!

Yes, some officers have that power trip, but all in all, most are decent people. I have gotten checked numerous times in northern WI, and they are always polite!

Mike

[JohnF]

Hi guys,

Check out: http://www.walleyecentral.com/cgi-bin/dcf/dcboard.cgi?az=read_count&om=20132&forum=generaldiscussion&viewmode=threaded

BIG discussion on this very subject. Lots of opinions.

Also, the court opinion: http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/coa/current/c7012181.html

John Flaherty

[JohnF]

Thank you.

I particularly liked your last paragraph.

John

[Jim McCullough]

WOW John! You weren't kidding about that thread being big. I think I will have to ask the wife for this weekend off so I can read it all. Since you have participated in that thread, would you mind summarizing the main points of that thread or at least tell us if we are on the right track? Thanks for the link.

[Searching]

If you have nothing to hide and obey all the laws let'em search the boat it can only help the resource in the long run

[RoyC]

I don't think that the Constitution explicitly gives the right to privacy to boats, cars, or ice fishing houses on public property. So I don't think that random searches of boats or ice houses on public lakes is a violation of our Constitutional rights. Perhaps this is a gray area, so I suggest that fishing licenses and ice fishing house registrations contain wording indicating that you agree to random searches on public waterways in exchange for the privilege of fishing on them.

I don't go along with the slippery slope idea that if we give up a little we eventually lose it all. I hate the term government being used in the third person--WE are the government, and it's up to us through our elected representatives to draw the line where it makes the most sense. People that want the ultimate protection of privacy can stay home. The rest of us have to give up a little now and then for a greater good, in this case, to protect the fisheries.

Roy

[scubohuntr]

Not really such a gray area. Stopping someone who is driving and checking his drivers license is legal; he's exercising a priviledge and must produce the permit for it upon request. Same with fishing or hunting. Apparently, someone has determined that checking blood alcohol is similar (IMHO, it is still flagrantly contrary to the Fourth Amendment, since they are, in effect, searching your person for evidence of illegal activity), but they can't look under the seat in your car for open bottles or drug paraphernalia without your permission. If they see evidence of illegal activity through the window or when you open the door, they've got probable cause and all bets are off. There is a law on the books in many states that refusal to take a breathalyzer test is admission of guilt (which would seem to contradict the Fifth Amendment), so if they ask you nicely and you refuse, you are admitting guilt. Win/win situation for them. I don't have a problem with that in a traffic stop situation, but I deeply disapprove of the whole checkpoint thing. Most of the damage to our Constitutional rights lately has been in the "war on drugs" and the "war on terrorism". We're losing both. Drugs are more available than they've ever been, and even if the terrorists never do another thing in the USA, they've changed our way of life. They don't need to take our freedom away; all they needed to do is scare us and we'll give it away.

[JohnF]

Hehe… Saw my name there did you?

If you are asking me if your thread is on the right track, that’s easy, yes. There are currently 12 posts in your thread and I feel they pretty well summarize the points of discussion in the monster thread.

Every opinion and every post in that thread is worthy of reading. If you would like to get a feel for an attorney’s opinion, check the TangledAngler posts; particularly the one near the bottom that gives his interpretation of the court opinion. (Note: I am not saying lawyers know how to run our country any better than we do, I just like exposure to the insight from a person that works within the system every working day.)

Also of interest might be KansasOutlaw who appears to have some law enforcement background.

By all means read the court opinion. It makes a lot of sense.

I’m a big believer in freedom. I’ve noticed lately that folks have softened on the issues of gun ownership recently. Seems that terrorism might be a good excuse to keep a gun handy. But, (had to be one I suppose) the Homeland Security initiatives have made some folks I talk with OK with the idea of eroding the 4th amendment. I still have my 2nd amendment soapbox at home; what do you think about my new shiny 4th amendment soapbox? (You can invoke the 5th amendment if you like. :))

My hope is to get people to consider what they may lose. There aren’t that many words in the 4th amendment, why does it seem so powerful? What does it REALLY protect? What would you give up your freedom for?

To paraphrase scubohuntr, we won’t die due to a large cannon round through the gut, we’ll be nicked and scratched to death.

John “Same box, different alley…”

P.S. I am all for catching poachers.

[Musk Rat]

Couldn`t agree more.

[Musk Rat]

If you have nothing to hide then why dosen`t everyone just let the cops come over once a week and take a look around the place if you don`t have anthing to hide. Sure why not let the cops pull over everyone with long hair or brown skin if they aren`t doing anything wrong whats the problem they should be able to tear apart your vehicle just to check. Your an american on american soil that makes you and all your stuff government property rite. I just don`t get those guys who feel they never do anthing illegal so it`s ok to give up there rites.

[ToothyCritter]

I am kind of on the fence with this one. On one hand I think that the officers need a way to enforce the regulations on the water, but on the other hand I think I have the right to a certain amount of privacy in my boat or ice house much in the same way I do in my home or in my vehicle. For instance what if my wife and I are out ice fishing and nature calls? Should a conservation officer be allowed to just barge in my ice shack while my wife is peeing in a bucket? I don't think so.
The whole idea of officers being able to check a boat or ice house at any time to me kind of throws out the whole concept of innocent until proven guilty. We may as well just install computer chips under our skin, and cameras everywhere so we can be watched at all times whether we are law obiding citezens or not.

[RoyC]

The Sunday Minneapolis Star Tribune had an excellent article about this issue that included an interview with a Minnesota DNR official. To me, the gist of it all is that without the ability to "randomly" check fisherman for violations, our current fishing regulations will be unenforceable. And this is significant since the article indicated that violation rates are at around 20% when random highway checks are done near LOTW. Could you imagine how many poachers we will have if the current rulings stand? Do we wish to keep our so called "privacy" on public lakes at the expense of maintaining quality fisheries? There has to be a reasonable compromise on this issue.

Roy

[scubohuntr]

OK, so we allow random searches of boats and icehouses. The CO doesn't need to have any reason at all, just "Open up, I'm searching your stuff." What about cars on public highways? Campers on public campgrounds? Your wife's purse in a public park? Just because you happen to be on public property does not mean you have to forfeit all your Constitutional protections. The law works on precedents, which is why the 'slippery slope' argument is valid. Once there is a precedent established, even if it is only applied to boats on public waters and Conservation Officers, it will be applied to other things. If a Conservation Officer can search your boat, your vehicle, or your ice house on a whim, why not the DEA or the INS? And why just boats and vehicles? Why not rental housing, hotel rooms, storage units...? And from there, how big a step is it really to move to private homes? After all, the precedent is well-established. If you want to allow a CO to search your boat, you still can. I probably would. If he had probable cause, I couldn't legally stop him. If he had no cause, I still don't understand why he would want to search my boat, unless he were assuming I was guilty. But since I am by law innocent until PROVEN guilty, he couldn't be assuming that, could he?

[RoyC]

I am not proposing that we let any government official search anyone anywhere at anytime. But I do think that it is reasonable for a fishing license or icehouse permit to have certain waivers associated with it, that is, you must allow Conservations Officers to search your boat or icehouse for fishing violations only. If you are not willing to give up that small degree of privacy, then you should not be allowed to fish on public waters. I don't understand why we cannot write these types of fishing and hunting laws that can be upheld by the courts under our existing Constitution. The evidence seems pretty strong to me that if we don't allow these types of random searches, we will have much lower compliance with the current hunting and fishing regulations with a resulting adverse impact on our wildlife.

Look at the other side of this issue. Do you really want Conservation Officers hiding along the shoreline with high-powered binoculars watching you fish for a few hours to see if you put anything illegal in your livewell so that they will have probably cause? To me, that is a much, much greater violation of my privacy than an occasional random check.

Roy

[JohnF]

They can and do watch you with binoculars. This isn't a violation of anything because you are in public view.

John

[RoyC]

JohnF,

I agree that watching you with binoculars on public waters is legal and currently being done. But like the DNR official in the Sunday Star Tribune said, that is a resource-intensive way to determine probable cause and will severely limit their effectiveness at enforcing fishing regulations if they are limited to this method only. So if the court ruling stands, and watching us through binoculars is the only alternative to randomly checking livewells, have we really protected our privacy in a practical sense? To me this shows how ridiculous it is to expect privacy in your boat while on public waters.

Roy

[Cavity search's are fun]

It's been my experience that the people (attourney's excluded) that know the most about a law and it's precedents and argue the most about how it is a violation of their rights, have something that they don't want found out about by law enforcement officials. Not accusing any of you, it's just an observation about some people I know.

[RoyC]

I read the actual court ruling that was posted in a previous response at http://www.courts.state.mn.us/opinions/coa/current/c7012181.html
(thanks John F). To me, this puts this discussion in a whole new light. The ruling said that the Minnesota statute governing the inspection of places or vehicles for wildlife violations does not explicityly give Conservation Officers the right to do so without probable cause. Therefore, the 4th Amendment applies and probable cause is required. The ruling also stated that if the statute were to have clearly stated that granting a fishing license gives officers implied permission to inspect without probable cause, then these searches would be acceptable. In other words, since fishing is a regulated activity, the State can take away the probable cause requirement for inspecting boats and fish houses. But the State didn't explicitly do this, although probably inadvertantly. Therefore, it is up to the State to review this statute and decide if they want to modify it to allow random inspections. I hope that they do so.

[scubohuntr]

Sigh. I keep putting away my soapbox, and I always have to drag it out again...

>I am not proposing that we let any government official
>search anyone anywhere at anytime. But I do think that it
>is reasonable for a fishing license or icehouse permit to
>have certain waivers associated with it, that is, you must
>allow Conservations Officers to search your boat or icehouse
>for fishing violations only. If you are not willing to give
>up that small degree of privacy, then you should not be
>allowed to fish on public waters. I don't understand why we
>cannot write these types of fishing and hunting laws that
>can be upheld by the courts under our existing Constitution.
> The evidence seems pretty strong to me that if we don't
>allow these types of random searches, we will have much
>lower compliance with the current hunting and fishing
>regulations with a resulting adverse impact on our wildlife.

No, Roy, I am not willing to give up my rights to any degree. I am downright stubborn in that regard. I'm sure you're a reasonable guy. I like to think I am, too. If it were reasonable guys like us making and enforcing the laws, it wouldn't be a problem. However, there are darn few reasonable guys at that level. Most of the problems result from someone taking just a little bit of license with your freedom, always for the best of reasons.
OK, let's give the COs authority to search fishermen for narrowly defined fishing violations. No warrant needed; to heck with the Constitution; it's only fishing, after all. You bought a fishing license, and you signed away your rights with it. Now the CO checks a guy and finds out his livewell is full of ducks, and it's out of season. The judge throws it out because the narrowly defined fishing violations do not include hunting violations. So, we go back to the drawing board and re-write it to encompass all fish and game and boating safety violations. Now a CO checks an icehouse on Mille Lacs and finds a meth lab inside. Again, it's thrown out of court because drug offenses are not within the scope of the law as written. So we rewrite it to include any illegal activity observed during a random search. It's all very logical- we started out with a specific set of offenses that could be prosecuted. Obviously, the inclusion of hunting offenses with the fishing offenses must have been what was intended, right? Now since a Conservation Officer is a sworn peace officer, and since everyone is concerned about drugs, it's only logical to allow the CO to make arrests for drug offenses or any other illegal activity observed in the course of his duties. Now the CO has the authority to search anyone that could be reasonably suspected of hunting and fishing, without a warrant, and arrest anyone involved on the basis of whatever he finds.
At this point, the Fourth Amendment applies to everyone EXCEPT hunters and fishermen. THAT is a problem. It's not a problem that the CO has the authority to arrest people for non-fish-and-game offenses (he does). It's not a problem that he can call in the clans on drug activity observed in the course of his duties (he can). It IS a problem that he discovered evidence while searching without a warrant or probable cause- something that would not even make it to court in any other situation. If it's not OK for the county sherriff to poke through my garage without a warrant or probable cause, checking to see if I was doing anything illegal, it's not OK for a CO to do the same.
Yes, I'm worried about poachers and game hogs. I am much more worried about freedom, though. I WILL NOT allow my freedom to be compromised, even in a small way, for any reason. There are a lot of things we accept as a matter of course that fly in the face of what the framers of the Constitution intended. Each one of them started out as, "But it's just a little infringement on your freedom, and it will catch so many lawbreakers!" We've pawned away a large part of the freedom that thousands of Americans have died to defend, and we're no closer to eliminating crime. There has to be a line drawn, beyond which we will tolerate no more.
Instead of throwing away the Constitution, how about we get serious about penalties for fish and game violations, offer more rewards for tips, and lock up some of these morons who get caught with hundreds of walleyes over their limits? Don't just fine 'em- money means nothing to these people. Thirty days in jail means something. If there were real penalties for gross abuses (I'm not talking about the guy with one too many crappies or a walleye an inch outside the slot), and if fishermen and hunters like you and me would report violators, we could do more to stop poachers than we could by giving up any number of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

[RoyC]

Sorry Scubohunter, but I just don't see it the same way as you. I am not worried about the government slowly eroding at my right to privacy. According to the Federal court that made this ruling, the State can take away your right to probable cause when fishing, but they didn't do that properly when they enacted the statute in question (see Post 24 below). If the state inserts a little appropriate wording into the fishing statutes, then the conservation officers will be able to search your livewell at will and it will be constitutional, at least according to the court that made this ruling. The states have already done this in many cases, such as the special license plate case that was referred to in the ruling and many other licensed activities. In other words, whenever you are engaged in a licensed activity, you can lose some rights to privacy.

Do I hope that they change the statute to allow random searches for fishing and hunting violations? Yes. Do I want them to extend it to be broader, which you see as a likely next step? No. And I don't think that they will even consider that.

Roy C.

[JohnF]

>JohnF,
>
>I agree that watching you with binoculars on public waters
>is legal and currently being done. But like the DNR
>official in the Sunday Star Tribune said, that is a
>resource-intensive way to determine probable cause and will
>severely limit their effectiveness at enforcing fishing
>regulations if they are limited to this method only. So if
>the court ruling stands, and watching us through binoculars
>is the only alternative to randomly checking livewells, have
>we really protected our privacy in a practical sense? To me
>this shows how ridiculous it is to expect privacy in your
>boat while on public waters.
>
>Roy

I'm having a hard time responding. My problem is that I could change the scope so easily; say, from fishing regulation violations to jewelry theft. The job of law enforcement, no matter which kind of law enforcement, would be easier if they simply could know everything about everyone.

But to answer your question. Yes. Actually, they have more alternatives than binoculars, but yes, protecting privacy is protecting freedom.

John

[JohnF]

I'll play the slippery slope game too. Just change the parameters a bit and see what happens.

Note: I'm not trying to be alarmist. Just playing a little thought game to see where things could go...

Setup:

We wish to protect our fishing resources. Poaching is thought to be out of control. Law enforcement needs easy tools that improve their catch rates. Poachers aren't stupid.

The decision is made that COs can search livewells of boats on public water at will. Certainly a simple and should be effective means of getting poachers.

Let it roll:

First thing we note is the rise in cooler sales. A CO doing his duty and searching a boat comes across a liner that built into a storage compartment in a boat full of illegal fish. This one gets thrown out because it wasn't a livewell and besides, the COs just know those coolers are for something.

Let's change the law and include the whole boat and coolers that are on the boat.

COs are reporting that boats are throwing coolers onto the shore as they approach. Sure, the blanket makes it look like it might be a picnic but it is felt that the poachers are moving then to get around the statutes. A CO that mans a very busy public lake gets one of his cases thrown out because he did his search on the ramp after the boat was removed from the water.

To simplify the COs life it is decided that the law should be: allow COs to search entire boats and the containers within them while on the water or after seeing them leave the water.

No, make that when on the ramp and if the boat is wet.
It would be easier if it were anywhere in the parking area... or the road to/from the ramp.

Ok, People are quickly throwing coolers off the boat and are putting them in the tow vehicle. The must be hiding something. Also, it would be more efficient if a the search could happen at the park entrance as this is a place where one officer can effectively monitor all 10 ramps.

So the law changes: Include tow vehicles, on any public road.

Suddenly it becomes apparent that people must not be using coolers anymore. They aren't found on the boats or the tow vehicles. They must have migrated to all the other vehicles that we aren't searching, like the RVs. You know you need to get a permit to camp...

You pick it up from here.

John

[JohnF]

That is a sad sentiment. Is there any way to convince you otherwise? You've basically told me that the only people you know who know the rules are the cheaters. If that is true, then I understand your point of view.

John

P.S. It isn't true, by the way.

[GMan]

I couldn't easily read all the posts under this topic since they don't all scroll up at once (too many, I guess), but I have read the Court decision invovled, and I do know a bit about this area of the law. I think some of you have got the facts a bit confused, and the actual ruling of the case. The boat in question was not on the lake, but was being towed to a boat landing by a truck driven by Sean Oveson. When Oveson stopped at the landing, Conservation Officer Lloyd Steen, who was standing nearby, approached the boat and asked John Colosimo (the boat's owner)if they had been fishing. Colosimo said they had and discussed the types and amounts of fish they had caught and were transporting. The CO then asked to inspect the boat/fish. When Colosimo asked CO Steen to articulate a reason for stopping and detaining his fishing party, and to explain why he had a right to inspect the boat, Officer Steen replied that he did not need a reason and, because he knew they had fish on board, he had a right to inspect the fish. After a lengthy conversation and Colosimo's continued refusal to allow the inspection, Officer Steen ticketed Colosimo for refusal to allow inspection of a boat.

The Court ruled that just knowing they had fish in their boat was not sufficient grounds to require a search/inspection of the boat. The CO must have "probable cause" to believe that the fish were taken in violation of the law before he can require the inspection. Whether you agree with this or not, its largely a question of our right to be free from searches when the CO doesn't have probable cause that a crime has been committed. I wouldn't want to be a CO in Minnesota.

[Musk Rat]

I am realy scared now this is the attitude that erodes our rites. Only people who do wrong worry about there rites. No innocent person has ever had there rites violated no law enforcement official has ever abused his power no crooked prosocuter has ever rigged a case. I never do anthing that is wrong so I have nothing to worry about very naive. Just wait till someone sees you doing something they don`t aprove of with your kids and reports you then we will see how you feel. Ever heard of Nicholas Bissil jr. A crooked prosocuter who ruined countless lives in N.J. He rigged cases planted evidence accepted bribes commited extortion. Many INNOCENT people went to jail and this slime ball killed himself to aviod prosocution.I`m no Al Sharpton fan but when people don`t ask questions or defend their rites they lose them very dangerous thinking in my mind. Andy Moraller
P.S. Thanks Al and to all others who aren`t affraid to defend our rites I for one appreciate it.

[Esox Maniac]

I'm really in a quandry here. Criminal's need to be acountable and law enforcement needs to be able to take them off the streets/lakes. But how far is to much? If the CO sees a violation-OK you're busted. If someone else see's a violation and will attest to it in court, I think there might be probable cause-> if they find evidence you're busted. But to be subjected to random search is a bit much. Next we'll have random searches of our homes. How about a early morning raid at your house, just might ruin your whole sex life and give your kids a complex. Maybe this is a poor analogy but it illustrates how each of us needs to help protect our freedom's (I don't think that violating the law is a freedom). If I see you violate the law- you're busted. We each have a duty to protect each other and our environment.


"First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.


Pastor Martin Niemöller "

I respect the CO's/DNR/MNR Officers', they perform a valuable service, i.e., protecting our environnment and it's resources. Safety check on my boat- no problem. Searching every nook and cranny without any probable cause, I don't thnk so. I also don't think you need to let a bad apple spoil the whole barrel, i.e., don't condem all of the CO's/DNR/MNR officers because of a minority. Law's aren't for the minority, they're for the majority. If the law's and rules are fairly applied, the bad apples will fall out. The worst crime is complacency, i.e., its someone else's responsibility. If you saw your neighbor's house being burglarized by someone- would you take any action. What about someone violating conservation law's? What's the difference???? We really don't need new law's, just more responsible citizens.



www.youdontknowhowtowatchtv.com


"It's your choice to Catch'em & Let'em Go!" :)

>< ))))*>

Al Warner

[RoyC]

I am amazed at how many of you are afraid of our government. How you can imagine that inspection of your boat for illegal fish can lead to random searches of your house is beyond me. Right now, you need a license to fish, isn't that taking away some freedom? And if a CO sees you with a fishing pole, he can ask for your license. Is that a violation of your right to privacy? To put a requirement on that license that you agree to random searches of your boat for sole purpose of checking for fishing violations does not seem excessive to me by any means nor a violation of the Constitution. There are a lot of game poachers out there, small time ones and big time ones, and I believe that random searches helps keep the problem under control. I agree that you should report violations whenever you see them, but how effective can that be? And would you really rather have CO's hiding in bushes with binoculars, rather than randomly checking your boat? I personally haven't had that happen in 20 years of fishing.

If this ruling stands, and everyone knows that they can't get caught with illegal fish (unless they are incredibly stupid and brag about it to others), how many additional poachers will we create? How many additional CO's with binoculars will we need to get the same level of enforcement? Do you want to pay more for your fishing license?

Why would legal random searches of boats and icehouses for fishing violations lead to random searches of your home? The courts would never allow it. I don't think you would vote for a legislator who sponsors such a law. Where's the connection?

When I entered the U.S. from Canada this summer, they searched my boat. Last time I got on a plane, they searched my body and my luggage. They had no probable cause. What happened to my right to privacy?

Sorry guys, but we have no absolute right to privacy in this country. There are limitations to it, and I don't mind these limits being increased slightly to protect our security and our fisheries. And I am definitely not worried about this leading to a complete loss of my rights. How can any of you compare this issue, especially in this country, to what happened in Nazi Germany?

Roy

[RoyC]

John,

Prior to this court ruling, CO's could inspect boats (or at least everyone thought they could) on the water and at public landings. I believe that they could even inspect boats and cars on highways, but I could be wrong about that. I doubt if these inspections were necessarily limited to livewells, and I am sure that coolers were checked also. But none of the things that mentioned above happened to my knowledge. So why would they happen if we change the statute to allow random inspections again?

Roy

[RoyC]

John,

You cannot just change the word from Fishing to Jewelry, there just is no analogy there. You don't need a license to wear jewelry. Jewelry is not harvested off of public property. As a result, why would anyone propose a statute allowing random checks of people in public who are wearing jewelry to see if it was stolen?

But upon further reflection, I agree with your analogy, not jewelry to fishing, but jewelry to cars. Your car has a license plate and the police can randomly check it in public to see who owns it and if it is stolen. Therefore, they can do the same with jewelry. Obviously, licensing automobiles and displaying plate numbers is a violation of privacy and we should declare it unconstitutional!

Roy

[RoyC]

John,

I agree that that is a sad sentiment also. However, I do believe that we need reasonable enforcement policies (like random searches in this particular case) to keep honest people honest.

Roy

[scubohuntr]

John,
It's good to see that I'm not the only one who is a little cynical about the motives of government. Apparently there are still a lot of folks naive enough to believe that all they will want is this one little concession, and no more.
One of the lakes I fish has a boat ramp at a public rest stop. Now, assume I have just pulled out after yet another fruitless attempt to catch some of the mythical fish in this lake, and RoyC's Brave New World regulations are in place. On one end of the rest stop are twelve lowriders with California plates. The tables on that end are filled with members of the Crips, wearing colors and counting cash. On the other end are four Ryder trucks. The tables on that end are occupied by Al-Qaida types poring over blueprints of the Mall of America and reading "Popular Explosives" magazine. Of all the people at that rest stop, I would be the only one subject to search without a warrant. Everyone else is protected by the Fourth Amendment. Sure, it's a silly example, but I think it needs considering. Why would anyone deliberately volunteer for second-class citizen status just because he's a fisherman? A PETA mole, perhaps?
CO's CAN do their job without unconstitutional search and seizure powers. Other law enforcement agencies do. They rely on tips. Anybody who has gone fishing a dozen times (or twice, on Mille Lacs) has witnessed game law violations. Have you called in every one of them? I know I haven't, and I should.
Not only is it unconstitutional for a CO to demand to search my boat, it's a waste of time when he could be out catching violators. Until they put a possession limit on "nothin'", I rarely have anything to inspect. When I do, it's well within all the limits.

[RoyC]

Scubo,

Let's finish your scenario. The CO quickly looks in your livewell and discovers no violations, which is a relief to him since two out of the last 10 he checked in the last half hour had violations (from what I heard, that is currently about the average). He then observes the activities at that rest area, and calls the State Police to report the suspicious activity and they in turn contact the FBI and set up surveillance. Eventually they get enough information for probably cause and a search warrant and avert the bombing of Sears Tower.

By the way, I have been fishing for about 20 years and honestly can't remember seeing any violations. If I ever see a gross violation, especially poaching for profit, I will surely report it. However, I don't want to be put into the position of calling the DNR if I see some guy with an extra walleye at the boat landing. I prefer to see the possibility of random checks being used to keep these guys honest.

Roy

[JohnF]

The change in perspective is fair. We are talking about controlling (or actually catching) people that have willfully disrespected the rules of property of the society in which they live. Licensing, in this example, is being used as one tool used in this war. Whether an asset is owned for the licensed use of a society or private use of an individual does not change the nature of stealing, which is the basis of my comparison.

License plates on the other hand are used for two purposes. They are a form of identification that is made public and they verify that vehicle has met the requirements set by the public to be used on the public’s roads. (This can be: paid up taxes, emissions checks, etc.)

Requiring a license plate be displayed is not unconstitutional by any stretch of the imagination. Requiring that you hand over the registration for the vehicle associated with the license plate upon request isn’t unconstitutional either. If you tell the officer that you don’t have it and then the officer decides to search the vehicle because “it has to be in there somewhere”, then that is unconstitutional.

John

[JohnF]

This ruling didn't change anything. It only reaffirmed what was already there. COs could and can check boats and coolers if people let them. COs (and all other law enforcement officers) are really good at asking you a question and kind of making it sound like a command. "Will you show me the contents of your livewell please?" You can just say no. Most people don't.

For my example to actually happen a lot of publicity followed by huge emotional attachment would have to occur.

I'll touch on some of the finer points when I respond to scubo...

John

[JohnF]

I think cynical might be a strong word for me.

I'm not anti-government. In fact, I'm very pro-government because I think anarchy would suck. Civilization and society need government.

I'm just concerned about what we can do to ourselves. Remember, here in the USA we are the government and to say that the government is doing a bad job is to say that we are doing a bad job.

In my example above, I let the law make a few leaps. People let that law make those leaps. The goal is a simple one, catch poachers, the problem is that it is very very hard to draw a line as to where we can risk civil liberties to reach that goal. My point was that when we draw a line the bad guys will find a way to operate beyond the line. The only absolute method to reach the goal is absolute control. This means no liberty.

By the way, in many of my posts in this thread and the monster thread at walleye central I've used the term freedom in places I really should have used the word liberty. They really are different concepts. I stretched the meaning a bit to touch the emotional side of the issue.

John

[JohnF]

You don't need to keep honest people honest.

Honestly,

John

[smally]

Roy, I couldn't agree more. I think what what you're seeing is either mass paranoia, or people with things to hide. I can't believe anyone could compare this to Nazi Germany. Take heart, the supreme court will knock this baby out faster than the fat kid in dodge ball

[RoyC]

Honest John,

I disagree with that completely. We have lots of laws and do lots of things to keep "honest" people honest. Without some level of deterrence, a lot of "minor" laws would be overlooked by a lot of basically honest people. Perhaps you would disagree that these people were "honest" to start with, but I guess that would be arguing semantics. However, we do have laws against entrapment to protect those "honest" people.

I have really enjoyed this discussion, but I am getting worn out trying to follow all of these frayed threads. No wonder the server has been bogging down. Oh well, Jim McC started this whole topic so he gets what he deserves!

Roy

[RoyC]

Thanks for the support Smally. I get nervous when I am alone on an issue!

But I don't even think that this is a Constitutional issue that requires the Supreme Court. If I read the court ruling correctly, the only issue is that the State fishing statutes didn't explicitly give CO's the power to conduct random searches in exchange for a fishing license. The ruling itself said that if the statute did include this provision, than random searches would be legal. Therefore, I am merely arguing that the State should change the statutes so that they can go back to random searches for hunting and fishing violations. Perhaps then it would go to the Supreme Court, and it would be interesting to see the outcome.

Roy

[JohnF]

LOL. And this is a small one, you should have been swimming in the big discussion on Walleye Central. Hard to keep up with oneself let alone others.

Yes semantics. Really we are delving into the world of philosophy and would be led into the ideas of morality, will, law, ...

What is honesty anyway? Right?

Keep in mind that our laws are like our money. Just a piece of paper unless we agree on the value.

I'm not honest because you legislated it. I'm honest because it fits my principle.

John