Legal question for you legal eagles....

[AquaMan]

Based on the recent issue regarding the DNR's ability (or current in-ability) to search a fish house, what is the law regarding your vehicle.

Scenario:

Driving down a MN highway with a duck boat in tow. You arrive at a temporary DNR check site and are told to pull in. An agent walks up and asks if you have any game. You tell him yes and he asks to see them. Can you deny access? Do they have to have probable cause to even stop you in the first place? Should they have a warrant? If you are given a ticket for improper transportation, is that legally acceptable or was this seizure without cause? I can see checking a hunter in the field or marsh, but while driving home?

What about the kid that does not have his Fed Stamp? He was not in the act of hunting when stopped nor does he have any game. Is that ticket right?

Just curious...some of you will remember this happened to me this Fall and it really chaps my rear that they had the right to do this. I think it was a scam then and now. A cop cannot stop you and search you vehicle without probable cause, how come the DNR can?

Just curious. Don't want to be on the wrong side ever, but this really is a little disconcerting.

AquaMan~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It all begins and ends at the water's edge...

[jerry]

My understanding, and I don't have any legal basis for this, is the DNR may search any vehicle/residence where evidence of a game violation may exist. No search warrant needed. I may be wrong, but this was something I was told years ago.

[Bad Finger]

Interesting Question Indeed....

I think it would take a brave guy to refuse the search, get arrested, hire a good lawyer and challenge the lagality of the stop/search in court. Appeal any adverse ruling to the Supreme Court. Then and only then would you have the same rights as the crackheads and meth lab guys.....maybe???

[fishinnut]

DNR can search based on reasonable suspicion, which is a lesser standard than probable cause.

[Westy]

This topic is extremely interesting to me. I was coming home with my wife from a day of fishing last summer and was pulled over by the GFP. I was on I-90 just west of Sioux Falls, SD. We didn't catch any fish. I was approaching an overpass and saw their truck sitting up on the on ramp. As I passed, they chased after me and pulled me over. It was the week of the Harley rally out in Sturgis so traffice on I-90 was nuts!! The guy was very friendly, but, I asked him why I was stopped. Here is the part that concerns me about any law enforcement... He said they were pulling over anyone pulling a boat for a spot inspection. I said, what if I wasn't fishing, just cruising? He didn't have an answer for that. Also, I was pulled over an hour away from where I had been. He asked me again if I had any fish and I told him no. He asked me if he could search my boat, I told him that he evidently could do whatever he wanted or I wouldn't be sitting there already. But, I told him that the traffic was too heavy to be out on top of my boat taking the cover off and messing around with it, so if he wanted to search it, he could help himself. But I also told him to put everything back the way he found it. Again, he was courteous, that was not my issue with the stop. I then asked him if he could stop anyone who was pulling a boat, what prevents him from stopping anyone with blonde hair, female, different race, etc... without a reasonable expectation that they may have done something wrong. He didn't have an answer for that. That is what bothers me most. I was stopped for no reason at all. That is wrong, in my opinion. After all was done, I went on my way, but it still bothers me. On the waters I fish, all you need to do is put someone at the ramp and you could probably catch violators all day long and not put people in danger on busy roads when they were doing absolutely nothing wrong.

[eyegetit]

Truly amazing. It takes probable cause to search for illegal firearms and narcotics, but only reasonable suspicion to search your vehicle for a dead duck. I think inner city police departments need to take a cue from the MN DNR.

[PRCHJERKER]

Pulling a duck boat during duck season would be probable cause.Just out of curoiusity how many ducks did you have on you?

[Dave in Mpls]

Out of the car, long hair - you're coming with me! I can see it now!

The whole fish house scenario brings up a host of interesting debates. On the one hand, the DNR has to have the ability to enforce our game laws. On the other hand, why should they be any less restricted in entering dwellings, etc than other law enforcement personnel? I could see if they could only enforce game laws, but that is not the case. The boy getting the ticket for no Federal stamp while not in the act of hunting is much the same as driving without a license while walking down the sidewalk.

Regards

[AquaMan]

Pulling a duck boat IS NOT probalble cause for seach and siezure. If you believe that then driving your car down the road is also probable cause to seach and breath test you as well. How about a search of your home because you live in a known drug dealing area. Gimme a break! A random seach of your vehicle is not warranted without some evidence that you have violated a law, right???? Is this not America wher you are innocent until...????

We had 4 duck breasts in my truck. It is a long story, but suffice to say that my nefew cleaned them with the anticipation of eating them while we were at the in-laws. Did not happen. Last year my brother-in-law (His son cleaned the ducks) was told buy the DNR at the same stop that if the hunter provided a letter gifting these breasts to another "NON-hunting" party, transportation in that condition was legal. I don't want to debat that issue again, it was already done this Fall, here. But, I was not over a limit for the amount of hunters in our group, nor were all the people in the vehicle hunters. Technically we were not in violation and could have driven back up to LOTW county and probably won in court. But the $95 is about equal to the cost of that fight....and they know that! Trust me, I went back and forth with my wife over this issue as well. She said pay and learn. (Smart woman sometimes)

But the next time one of you gets tagged like this, you will wonder the same thing. Was this truley a legal practice? Will you open your cooler to the DNR that pulls you over on the highway comming back from Mille Lacs?

AquaMan~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It all begins and ends at the water's edge...

[Peanut]

Laws will vary from state to state, province to province. Without getting into "why", here's the short answers to your questions according to our laws in Saskatchewan:

1. You admit you have game, can you deny them access to looking at them? NO.

2. Do they need probable cause to pull you over in the first place? NO.

3. Should they have a warrant? NO.

4. Invalid/unlawful seizure? NO.

5. Legal to check a guy while driving home? Yep. No different than check stops for fish or DWI's.

6. Federal Stamp ticket - sorry, can't help you with that.

Probably not the answers you were looking for, but maybe your state is more liberal than my province?

Best of luck Eric.

derrek.

CANADIAN WALLEYE OPEN UP AND SAY "EH"!

[Hawgeye]

Wasn't our legal system based on "probable cause for search and seizure?" I feel there is a fine line between infringing on ones freedoms when DNR officials can basically come to your door and require that you allow them access to your freezer not to mention looking in your boat while you are driving down the road. I would like to hear from a lawyer on this issue. Sounds to be a little near the edge to me.

[Eyez]

I doubt any states are more liberal than that. SD sure isn't. I've been checked on my way to work before, while wearing dress pants, dress shoes, and a dress shirt, and the warden didn't believe me that I wasn't hunting, because my gun and decoys were still in the jeep. After a few minutes, he let me drive on because he realized that I hadn't been hunting, but if I'd been wearing jeans and a shirt, I'd have been on the side of the road emptying my decoy bag.

Police need probable cause to pull over a drunk driver, just seeing him walk out of a bar into his car is not probable cause, but yet pulling a boat down the road is cause for a wildlife officer to waste however much of your time he desires.

I understand that being a wildlife officer is a tough job the way it is, and that they're out there protecting wildlife for all of us, but these laws seem screwed up and backwards to me. There's gotta be a better way. When honest sportsman feel like they're being harassed and treated unfairly, something's not right.


<getting down off soapbox>

Eyez

[curt quesnell]

I suppose if you really wanted to see what would happen
you would have to refuse to show them anything, be arrested
and go to court prepared to spend lots on attorneys.

This whole deal started because gamewardens stumbled onto the
scene of other crimes. The crooks needed to fight the drug
crimes and the lawyers included the game violations in the
package when they proposed that a fishhouse was a legal residence.

I remember your story AquaMan and I am on your side regarding that
situation.

People have never gotten lawyers to fight game tickets..until now.

This is going to be interesting...

curt quesnell

[Jim Ordway]

In Waukesha County, in south eastern Wisconsin ( and perhaps the rest of the state) the cops do have the authority to set up road blocks to randomly search for drunken drivers and whatever else turns up. This has been challenged but the courts up hold this. Our DNR also has greater authority, and even though it is a slippery slope, I figure they may get more bad guys and I can live with it.

[eye guy]

I know it sounds like they shouldn't be able push you/us around like that. But I suppose they have fairly good reason to be able to search or stop at any time they have "suspicion". I know it gets to be a hassle when your on the way home,or out on the water when they stop you and check everything. But hopefully, just hopefully they catch some people who do make the wrong decisions. And it goes back to the old saying of If you aren't doing nothing wrong, you shouldn't be worried.... But I guess it still causes an inconvenience.... just roll with the punches, I guess.

[Mark]

I understand your anger about being pulled over and written up....A mistake was made and that happens....I have to always be extremely careful because people just seem to dislike tournament boats...although most of the time I think DNR knows most pros try to keep to the far right of the law....My point is personally, I would rather be pulled over and searched 10 times in a year rather than let poachers rape our fisheries...I saw a picture a client showed me of his poaching on the Saginaw. He and two friends had 200 walleyes laying in his driveway...many were over ten pounds and were snagged...It really made me sick to know I had truely worked to preserve those big hens so this criminal could do this...I'm not saying the search and seizure laws are right...My question is with one officer for 100's of square miles, how do we catch these guys and preserve our resources...and is it fair to those who try to stay on the far right of the law??? I think sportsmen should welcome DNR involvement, thank them and ask them what we can do to help...I don't think the reason they are hiding on the roadside is to bust innocent people...they are looking to make potential violators aware that they can get them anywhere...Just my two cents...

[Jimmy Mac]

You need "reasonable suspicion" to stop a car and "probable cause" to search it. Unlike dwellings, a peace officer generally does not need to document probable cause in a search warrant for motor vehicles.

Jimmy Mac

[Kaz]

Jim: Your the man who knows! Jim does a fish house, not portable, follow the residence rules, or is portable like a vechicle? I know a fish house that can be picked up and easily moved is the same as a vechicle, but a "Kroon special" that's another story isn't it? Florida IS WARM.....Kaz

[Ex Prosecutor]

Here's a couple oversimplified generalizations that are probably valid,(or where when I was prosecuting). Rememeber each state is a little different.
1. General rule for traffic stops is the police officer has to have some sort of probable cause (headlight out, crossed center line, et cet) to stop a vehicle.
2. But there is an exception if they set up a check point to stop everyone, like late Saturday night. Courts say they are not singling people out, not discriminating, everybody being treated equal.
3. Same rule for game checks, fishing checks during a time when hunting going on, fishing going on and so on. Argument again is we check everyone, so no probable cause violation.
4. Similar theory for license checks. If you are in a boat, they see you fishing, or see you in the field with a gun, so it is ok to verify hunting/fishing license. Then they can continue to see if there are other violations. No constitutiional violation.
5. It gets trickier if it is summer time, you are driving down the interstate with a boat. Maybe same rule applies, but you might be able to argue that is different. Is it probable you were fishing or duck hunting? Constitutional law applies to all of us, but each state may have slightly different twist, and also on the license laws of each state. I'm not familiar with the fishing house issue, but do know the courts traditionally give a higher scrutiny if the area being searched is your house. A car is mobile, so less scrutiny and less expectations of privacy. But your house is special. Is a fishing hut, or your camper, a house??

[Kaz]

Hi Curt: To through out another question. CO Jim D was out last Sunday, according to Larry, and pointed out he was over "The Line" by The Gap". He's a good guy and explained they should stay inside the "Blue Barrels", but how close do the Canadians call it out there?? Last year I think some of the resorts had their houses over the line, according to my GPS. Have you heard about this one?? Waiting for SPRING...Kaz

[Backwater Eddy]

Random is still much better then mandatory in my opinion.

In the field either hunting or fishing you can be anywhere so that is a hindrance to enforcement in that how else are you going to insure compliance except by a random non-profiles check of sportsman.

The alternative would be a mandatory game check in for all activities at a set station. Boy wouldn't that suck Eh. Every time you fished, hunted, or trapped you would need to go to the checking station to register your days take. Sounds darn silly but that could be a very real possibility if field checks were not the standard operating procedure.

The more we piss and moan about conservation enforcement officials doing there job the more likely this crazy scenario will find it's way into our daily life. There is no way we will return to self regulation by the sportsman themselves, so what other alternative is likely to materialize?

I am a firm believer in we do not need more laws, just enforce the ones we have fairly and universally.

Backwater Eddy ~ ~ ~><sUMo> ~ ><>

[Denied]

I will try and answer your questions; keep in mind my experience (retired 23 years in law enforcement) is limited to Ohio Law and may or may not apply to other states.

1. Wildlife Officer have been given by the state (Ohio) legislature, the power to operate check stations. Once you answered, "Yes" to the question, "Do you have any game?" he now had cause to check (search) you and your positions for that game.

2. Regarding the "kid" in the field with a gun and no fed stamp. Can't say for sure, state may require stamp during duck season. That not being the case, the officer most likely ask "where you been?", "what are you hunting?", etc. All these questions were to determine if a violation had occurred. Depending on the answers to the questions will determine if a violation has happened.

Keep in mind be you in a car, boat, bicycle or on foot any officer worth his/her pay can find reason to stop and talk to you. Depending on the answers they will most likely, let you go, issue a summons, ask for permission to search or IF they have REALLY GOOD CAUSE, hold you while going after a search warrant, assuming you refuse permission.
REMEMBER, you have the right to refuse permission to search. When this happened to me and I was on a "fishing expedition" myself, I would say thanks and goodbye. The last thing any officer needs is to go before a judge and ask for a search warrant while not having clear, “probable cause”.

[curt quesnell]

I remember that from last year. Didnt the ODNR give fair warning
about the houses too far over the line and give the resorters
a day or so to move them?

I heard the barrels out this year were put out by Adrians to keep
everyone informed how close they were.

Also waiting for spring....


curt quesnell

[Kaz]

Curt: I didn't hear about that last year, but maybe that's why the blue barrels this year. It's a good idea and may save some US guys a fine or two. Take care and I'll see you next spring....Kaz

[water_wolf]

Ditto!

[Arab American]

I feel for you guys.......I got the "royal treatment" last time I flew for business. I know how you feel. The officers involved said nothing, answered no questions about the search, why they were doing it. I cannot take this up to a higher power because of the cost and I could not afford to have these guys come to my place of employment.....for obvious reasons.

[Ode]

I thought I might respond to this. I was up in the boundary waters (Basswood Lake) with 2 law enforcement officers and was stopped by the Canadian MNR. They wanted to search our cooler, my friend who is in law enforcement said " Go ahead, you don't mind if we video tape this?" The MNR guys got mad and told us to move on. I was under the impression that the DNR or MNR in that case could search the old "freezer" anytime they wanted. The guys with me have been in law enforcement for over 20 years and they say that is an old wives tale!! I am not an attorney, just wanted to tell my story.

[T Shirt Guy]

ildlife Conservation Act

The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act is the main provincial law regulating fishing. This
Act is used to create different types of fishing licences and also to regulate such
things as ice huts. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act is enforced by conservation
officers and deputy conservation officers.

The penalties for fishing offences against the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act can
include:

General ....................................$25,000, 1 year imprisonment, or both
Commercialization or Export/Import ..................$100,000, 2 years imprisonment, or
both


Conservation Officers

Conservation officers have powers of inspection, arrest, search and seizure under the
various statutes they enforce, including the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act and the
Fisheries Act. When carrying out his or her duties, or investigating an offence under
these statutes or the corresponding regulations, a conservation officer may do the
following:

Stop and inspect a vehicle, boat or aircraft;
Ask questions relevant to the inspection;
Inspect buildings or other places;
Search with a warrant;
Search without a warrant in circumstances requiring immediate action;
Seize items related to an offence;
Arrest anyone the conservation officer believes has committed, is committing, or
is about to commit an offence of these Acts.

Conservation officers operate random "Fish Check Stations" throughout the year. At
these stations, conservation officers collect information on fish caught by anglers and
make sure the regulations are obeyed in order to manage and protect Ontario's
fisheries resources.
These are Ontarios laws right out of the book. They can and will search without a warrant and be within the law. The same goes for booze on the boat. They can and will search without a warrant.

[Slippery Slope]

They might not have been COs. A CO would have searched with or without a camera. The bluff would have been called.You are being confrontational with an officer (and asking for trouble I might add) with that attitude. They are trained for this sort of thing. They would have been polite as they were being taped and smiled as they found something wrong. It would have been an even bigger smile off camera in the cruiser as they recollected the look on that guys face as we wrote him up. These guys are just doing their jobs protecting our fish and wildlife.Cut them a little slack.

[Woodsman]

Ontarios alcohol laws.

r License Act:

Sec. 32 (3) No person shall operate or have care or control of a boat that is underway while
there is contained in the boat any liquor, except under the authority of a licence or permit.

Sec.32 (4) Exception-Subsection (3) does not apply if the liquor in the boat, (a) is in a container
that is unopened and the seal unbroken, (b) is stored in a closed compartment.

Sec. 32 (5) A police officer who has reasonable
grounds to believe that liquor is being unlawfully kept
in a vehicle or boat may at any time, without warrant,
enter and search the vehicle or boat and search any
person found in it.

Sec.32 (6) Definition-In this section, "boat" includes
any ship or boat or any other description of vessel
used or designed to be used in the navigation of
water.

CONSUMING LIQUOR IN A BOAT, ONTARIO LIQUOR
LICENCE ACT REGULATION 718

Reg. Sec. 3 (7) A boat with permanent sleeping accommodation and permanent cooking and
sanitary facilities, other than a boat used to carry passengers for hire is considered to be a private
place while the boat is at anchor or is secured to the dock or land.

DRINKING AGE: The legal drinking age in Ontario is 19 years old.

[Ode]

I am sorry you feel that way, we were not being confrontational. What I should have added was: 1. They had checked our fish, being on a stringer and 2. We had no alcohol with us. I have no problem with CO's doing their jobs. I felt there was no reason to check our cooler. They also were dressed in uniforms from the Ontario MNR. I have been to Canada on lots of occasions. Not trying to ruffle feathers on this board, probably why I very seldom do post a response on this site.

[Pitts]

Eyes seeing you in a suit and tie??? I don't believe it :)


Pitts