They can't let go

[gilly8000]

Has anybody seen this yet. It was in my NAFC weekly email news. Talk about a power trip.


CONSERVATION OFFICERS FIGHT ICE SHACK PRIVACY RULES

Last month, a Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that conservation officers must get the occupant's permission to enter an ice fishing shelter on public waters. Now, the state Supreme Court is being asked to overturn this ruling.

Conservation officers argue that the new rule prevents them from enforcing fishing regulations and could ultimately hurt Minnesota fisheries.

If the Minnesota Supreme Court does not side with conservation officers, the Department of Natural Resources may require anglers to consent to unannounced inspections in order to purchase an ice shelter license.

[Bad Finger]

I'm 100 % behind the DNR on this one.

[Dave in Mpls]

I'm not. What is the difference between the DNR having to have permission or probable cause to enter an ice house and a police officer having to have permission or probable cause to search a vehicle that is driving on a public road? The police could claim they need to be able to search any vehicle at any time to enforce drug trafficing laws. JMHO.

Regards

[BlackSilver]

I want the DNR to have free access to inspect boats, ice houses, and the bucket that a shore-fisherman is sitting on. If that's currently against the law, then I support a change in the law.

SET the hook!!!

Hans

[BlackSilver]

There's nothing to hide in my boat, car, or fish-house. I have no problem with an inspection.

SET the hook!!!

Hans

[Bad Finger]

In my twisted little world you would give up those so called Rights when you choose to use the Priviledge to drive. Search Away. The guilty go to jail for the sake of me living to see another day of fishing!

[jw]

Search away!!!! I have no problem because I have nothing to hide. Do you Gilly?

[Dave in Mpls]

But, the fact of the matter is we do NOT give up those rights when we choose to drive. Nor are we required to waive those rights in order to get a drivers license.

Regards

[Bad Finger]

Like I said....In my twisted world...You would!

[gilly8000]

I've got nothing to hide. I just don't like the way some of them act when they do come in. It seems like they come in accusing you of doing something and then get upset and go on a little power trip when they don't find anything. Just makes for a few bad moments in a great day on the lake.
The only reason I posted this was because I wanted to hear some thoughts that are out there. Mission accomplished.

May the fish be biting

[MK]

I'm with Dave-Mnpls on this one.

Giving any law enforcement officer, DNR or otherwise, the freedom to search without probable cause goes against the constitution. The Supreme Court has held this up on many cases. Does having a hunting license give the DNR the right to search your house at any time without cause or should it? How about just during hunting season? Should paying the price of admission to a state park give a CO the right to search you or your car at any time? The courts have already said that simply driving down the road is not probable cause for a search.

Whats the difference between the DNR searching a car or ice house at random without cause and the state police searching your house without cause looking for drugs or illegal weapons? Surely the adundance of drugs and weapons in this country is having a much more serious affect on our way of life than someone catching a few too many fish. So why not allow random searches of homes?

I don't know about some of you, but I've encountered enough 22 year old, borderline neo-Nazis working for the state that I'd prefer them not to have an open checkbook when it comes to my rights. 95% of DNR and other law enforcements are professional, hard-working, underpaid people, but there needs to be limits on the other 5%.

Love 'em or hate 'em, the Supreme Courts have typically shown more wisdom on these issues than we give them credit for, and usually they side with the individual instead of the state when it comes to privacy issues. It should be interesting to see what happens on this one.

[Tom B]

Seems like I get checked on a fairly regular basis. It has never been a damper on an otherwise good day, just the opposite. Twice, we have taken a CO's advice, changed spots and caught fish. I have always welcomed CO's to my icehouse and boat and they have always been personable with me.

I say let them do their job.

I like a little twist in the world and would also like to see cops have the ability to pull people over and do random searches and breath tests. If you have a CDL, you must consent to random breath and drug tests, might as well be everyone. It is, after all, regular drivers that cause more highway deaths.

Tom B

[TBO/MN]

I tend to agree with Dave, and have documentation to support my opinion. There is this document that was created in 1789, it is called the Constitution, the first ten articles are called the Bill of Rights. One of them reads like this:

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

IMHO..when we let the stats violate this document, we give up our way of life.

Argue as you may, but I would implore you understand that this is "why" we are "what" we are.

Good Fishin'
TBO/MN

[Marble Eyes]

Those who would give up an essential liberty in exchange for some temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.


-- Benjamin Franklin --


God grants liberty only to those who love it and are always ready to guard and defend it.


-- Daniel Webster --

...for it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of ensuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion.


-- Alexander Hamilton --

The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are the constitutional rights secure.


-- Albert Einstein --

Democracy, the practice of self-government, is a covenant among free men to respect the rights and liberties of their fellows.


-- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Those who have long enjoyed such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men have died to win them.


-- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.


-- Frederic Bastiat --

[rock2me]

Bravo, Marbleyes, TBO and Dave in MPLS!

It is the typical liberal response, I have nothing to hide, compromise my rights any way you see fit. Hugh...?

I support the founding document of this great nation and its ammendments. Those who do not defend them are not Americans.



Good Luck!

[tj1n]

Hmmmmm.......:)

If they are checking your ice house for fish limits, would'nt they already have probable cause. Fish and Ice houses kinda go hand in hand. That would be like seeing someone sitting on a keg and wondering whether or not they been drinking?

Just my thoughts!

Travis J.

[TBO/MN]

That analogy then assumes that if you own a gun, you shoot people....................where did that come from?

Good Fishin'
TBO/MN

[Dave in Mpls]

If all they could issue citations for was over limits and other fishing violations, I'd have less of a problem with that. However, that is not the case.

In addition, using your logic, every person that walks out of a liquor store should be pulled over and given a breath test

Regards

[MNNICK]

Well done marbleyes,

I've got nothing to hide either, doesn't change the fact the DNR should have to follow the Const. like everyone else.

[EricCO]

Probable cause to seach won't stop them from searching, but would slow them in prosecution. If you have nothing to hide, you will consent to a search probably. If you have something to hide, you will not consent.

Probable cause is up to the enforcing officer.

Cops can search your car anytime they want. If you don't consent, then they hold you there till they get a search warrent.

Have you ever told a cop that you do not consent to the search or ever even been asked?



"Hunting 'eyes in the Three-O-Three"

[Dave in Mpls]

Actually, I HAVE told a cop that they could not search my car. Nothing they can do. They need probable cause for a warrant, as well. Judges don't just hand them out. In addition, they can not detain you while they secure a warrant. Don't you be Big-leaguein' me, Eric :)

[Cheech & Chong]

As a former Hoochy toker I can tell you the real issue with this is not checking to see how many fish you got in the house. If all they could do was check for fishing violations then it wouldn't be any big deal, but that is not the case. Do they need your permission to search your livewell?

[Eyez]

I don't think the argument is whether or not the act of fishing constitutes reason for a CO to check you. I think that's already been determined. I think that the issue is whether or not the privacy of a person inside an ice house is more important than the need to check them. As soon as that guy steps out of the shack, he's fair game, but as long as he's inside, he deserves the right to privacy that the shack provides, IMO.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" -- I think an ice house fits that description.


Eyez

[srj]

Touchy subject! In the past we have expected the walk-in checks. Like it or not. Constitution be ****ed. However, it is unreasonable to be in a fish house and not have to produce a license. Or is it? I know in my younger years I considered my larger fishhouses multi-function--catch some fish (try for sure) and maybe talk my sweetheart into some late night angling (often used wine for bait). There were a few times I would not have wanted any walk-in company. Perhaps the new law is too vague. I get along with most CO's and find them generally reasonable and often helpful. I don't get along with anyone abusing our resources and hope they get caught if they do. I haven't seen any new ideas put forth on this thread. How about some ideas?

[water_wolf]

I can certainly see both sides of this issue, however I see very little similarities between an ice shack and a permanent residence. You are using the states natural resources therefore I feel they have a right to enter your shanty without probable cause to check for liscence, number of lines being used, over limits of fish, etc. In NYS police can set up road blocks to check for DWI's. No probable cause involved there. Just my opinion.

Rich Ferguson

[EricCO]

Things must be different up there. I would never tell a Denver cop anything, but "yes sir" and "no sir". That is why if you got a crap load of amphetamines in your trunk, you run like h-e-l-l!

"Hunting 'eyes in the Three-O-Three"

[rock2me]

I would bet that setting up roadblocks will be ruled illegal eventually. They are trying to get by with that one by saying it is a random check. I don't see anywhere, in the fourth ammendment, a statement "If you search every third or fourth house that would be OK".

Some of you are to willing to give up your rights. I have nothing to hide but that does not mean the gov't needs to know everything about me.


Good Luck!

[observer]

Nice to see, once again, just like all the clowns over at FishingMinnesota,you are all a bunch of self appointed lawyers. The great thing about America is your interpretation of the U.S. Constitution is all that matters,regardless of the intent of the founding fathers,RIGHT? Funny, I thought the justices on the U.S.Supreme Court were the interpreters of the Constitution,not a bunch of fisherfolk on a forum with nothing better to do.

[Texeye]

Observer,I just could not let your remark go without a few thoughts of my own.I thought this government of ours was..of the people,by the people,and for the people.Last I recall, we have the freedom to talk about anything we want,and if that talk is about our government,or our laws or anything else we wish to discuss so be it.Governments,laws, and ideas can only be changed by the majority of people in this great nation and the only way we can learn about these things is to discuss these issues.I don't know of anyone who has all the answers or even the right questions, so if it floats your boat ...talk on, and if it don't, go on down the road.

[MK]

Rock2me

"Random" sobriety checkpoints and "random" drug inspections have been thrown out in Indiana.

Part of the problem was that they were not "random". Drug checkpoints with sniffing dogs always took place in the sleazy parts of town and the sobriety checks were always at night between about midnight and 2:00 am on Friday or Saturday nights. There didn't seem to be anything "random" about them according to the court. If they were random, they would also happen in the rich part of town during the day,which they never did. This aside from the fact that they had no probable cause.

[Conditional license]

The DNR will likely get around this one by simply making it a condition of the ice house license that the wardens enter for proper reasons. No different than the DNR saying that your fishing license allows you to take X number of fish, or that you can't fish for certain species during closed periods.

I think the issue is that the DNR has violated the constitution but has only done so because they have not declared the terms of their contract (fish house license) with us anglers yet.

[Rod Holder]

Marble Eyes made an excellent post up above. In my opinion, humble that it may be, the Minnesota DNR is just about the nearest to Gestapo of any state's DNR. All the laws legislated, really, do no good if you have a populace that does not respect the rule of law. It takes an educated and moral population who desire to obey the law. This in turn allows for the need for far fewer laws. It would also seem to me that what happens is stonewalling on both sides. The DNR just has to have it, that "ultimate authority" and the people forget about being reasonable. In the case of large trailer type shacks pulled out on the ice and in which occupants just might be asleep in bed but have to crawl out at 1:30 AM to respond to a DNR officer's knock on their door, this is beyond the intent of the law. But, alas, we live in a new era where letter of the law has become everything instead of the intent. Just because we have nothing to hide, we should not have our privacy infringed. I would like to remain one who follows the fishing laws, take only that which I am allowed, and be left alone.

[BlackSilver]

I spent 21 years in uniform, including 49 months in which I was eligible for combat zone pay, and I still will gladly let the DNR guy inspect my boat, livewell, fishing shack, or whatever. I have nothing to hide.

SET the hook!!!

Hans

[Lundman1701]

"just like all the clowns over at FishingMinnesota"
What the heck is that? I frequent that site a lot, actually probably more than this one. I take offense at the kind of comment lumps all the people that use a particular site a bunch of "clowns". Do you mean to tell me that every person on this site, and on FishingMN are a bunch of clowns? I seriously doubt that is the case. I could see that comment if it were true. But it's not. And furthermore, what the heck is wrong with people expressing their opinions about something that effects their most favorite pastime. Nothing, in my eyes. Get a grip man. Just because you don't agree with everything that is said, doesn't make whoever said it a "clown".

Set the Hook!

Lundman

[Pitts]

Knock on the door OH NO!!!! there were no locks while occupied he came thru the door and shined a light on your face while in bed and asked to see your fish and license. You think a rattle reel spinning fast is a sudden awakening. Been there had that happen it is not fun. The interragation when you are half asleep is really confusing and in my mind not necessary and violates my rights.
I believe that there will be more laws written to help our CO's do a good job in the future like if you don't cooperate then that will be probable cause to seach your fish house or you will give up that right when fishing. This change happenend a short time ago there will be changes made in the other laws to compensate for the lost act of suprise with sudden entry which I believe does not stop illegal harvesting anyway. The guy that takes 100 walleyes at one sitting does not keep them in a bucket in his fishhouse because he would have been caught he will be moving limits of eyes from the house to a stash in his truck in order to keep from getting caught this is common sense so a sudden entry into a house does no good anyway except maybe to catch a dumb lawbreaker or a miscounted limit.
Game hogs will not be able to hide behind this law for long, things will change for the better and the neonazi antics of some individual CO's will end which is better for all of us.
I have had 10 good experiences with CO's to every bad one but that one always sticks out.
My .02 on this subject


Pitts

[rickn]

My friend at work complains of this al the time. This last weekend, he got caught with 4 lines down. He was alone.Glad he got caught. I have been pulled over 3 times last year for random checks while pulling my boat. All 3 times I was eastbound on I90, and got stopped 5-7 miles west of the S.d.-Mn border. Seems to me there aren't many sd fishermen there, only Mn fishermen going home. I think THAT sucks.

[tj1n]

Eyez and Dave,

I agree with both of you that our privacy is just that. My analogy may have been misstated, however what is the difference between the CO pulling his boat up to yours on the water to check vs. coming up to your ice house and knocking on the door to check. If it is for the purpose of protecting our conservation, then I'm all for it!

Yea you could get caught in the act of burning the midnight oil....with that special someone but, If you parked your pickup on the ice and pulled some curtains, what's the difference. We are on public property.... We don't own the land on which the houses are on. It would be different if you were fishing some pond on your land.

Travis J.

[punch1]

This is like the abortion issue. You will not convince one die-hard to believe otherwise. What some of you are forgetting or perhaps interpreting the wrong way is the definitions of "unreasonable" and "expectation of privacy". Don't forget that the Constitution only forbids "unreasonable" searches in those places that you have "an expectation of privacy".

I for one believe I have almost no expectation of privacy in my little shelter with windows on a body of water that I don't own. Secondly, I believe that those searches conducted by the DNR in an effort to enforce our fish and game laws are reasonable. How else do you suggest that they do their job? By doing eight hours of surveillance on you and you fishing partners and then going to a judge to complete a sometimes two to four hour process on obtaining a search warrant and then come back and check you? Give me a break. The warrantless search is the ONLY way they will have any sort of effectiveness on both apprehending and deterring those law violators. Warrantless searches are conducted all the time and have been rules legal when they meet certain criteria.

Until you can offer a better or in equally efficient way for a warden to enforce our laws how else do you expect him or her to perform their duty? It has been my experience that most people who hold such a narrowly strict interpretation of the Constitution are either smoking dope, hiding something or are over-zealous left-winged lawyers. Just another opinion!

[MNNICK]

That's cute, I spent four years in the Corps. and about 10 months of that I recieved combat pay.

What's your point??? I don't smoke the demon weed or break any laws either, but I still don't want ANYONE kicking in my doors for the chance I may be doing wrong. I too have nothing to hide.

But I am kinda fond of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

[MK]

Punch

It looks like the difference between you and some others is that it appears that to you there is the "state" and the "people". Personally when I'm on public land or lakes I tend to think that I as a taxpayer and citizen own these public places and that as a condition of using them I don't have to give up constitutional protections. I've read the constitution and found no reference to it being interpreted for the convienience of law enforcement.

Absolutely no one dislikes dope-smoking, over-zealous left-wing lawyers hiding things more than I, but they also have rights and I still think the supreme court will eventually find in favor of the individual.

To get around this I expect the states will eventually require as a condition to get a fishing license that you consent to random searches of your boat or shack. Then that will go to the supreme court. And so on.

[mossboss]

I have no problem with the law change either way. My beef is what the DNR says "will effect the Minnesota fisheries". BULL. The DNR could do alot of other things first that would have a greater effect on the fisheries than to open a few fish house doors with out warning. Fish stocking, water quality, lower limits, state wide slot and so forth. Last year in our county we have two lakes with handicap access docks. There were floating out on the lake from winter till the middle of June. When I called the DNR they were very busy and funding has been cut so thats the way it is. But when 160 acers of ground is available they have hundreds of thousand of dollars for that.

[TangledAngler]

As a lawyer who frequently uses the Fourth Amendment in my practice I can tell you this topic actually boils down to two separate issues.

First is the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. This principle is being eroded constantly. What people frequently forget is that this Amendment was created because when we were a fledgling nation struggling for independence, the British government would, without reason, invade the homes of the settlers. Our forefathers determined that we have to protect the public as a whole from unsolicited government invasions. The Fourth Amendment exists today to protect all citizens, including law-abiding citizens, from governmental invasions of area we hold to be public. These include our houses, hotel rooms, cars, boats and maybe ice hut (we'll see). Additionally, the Fourth Amendment is a check on our law enforcement officials so they just can't walk into your house while your watching TV every night and tear your house apart to make sure you are law-abiding. This concept gets muddied up when people say "I don't care, I have nothing to hide". Maybe so, but do you want to give the government the right to barge into your house, car, hotel room every night? I doubt it. The Fourth Amendment generally requires that, in order to barge into your areas of privacy, the law enforcement officers must have a search warrant, based on probable cause that a crime was committed, to get into your house, hotel, or car. There are exceptions but everyone of them requires some indicia of criminal conduct. The only way the government wins this one is if the Court determines that a person does not have an expectation of privacy in an ice-fishing hut. What if it were a car, truck, tent, camper or a cabin on public land. Do you expect some privacy in those?

The second issue is the effect of the fishing license. A government may require you to give up certain rights in order to enjoy certain privileges. Here in PA, if a police officer has reasonable grounds to believe that an operator was driving or in control of a vehicle while drinking, you are deemd to have implicitly waived your Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination and if you refuse alcohol testing you will lose your driving privileges and be fined. Importantly, the loss of license and the fine are civil penalties, not criminal penalties, i.e. no risk of a criminal conviction or jail time. I believe the government could do the same with a fishing license.

There is a more serious underpinning to this issue though. The question in my mind is that when you start giving up freedoms, you also increase the possibility for abuse of the new rights you create. For example, once a CO knows he or she can come in without any restriction, there's no guarantee that the scope of any "search or seizure" will be limited within the bounds of the law, e.g. looking for violations of the fishing laws. From experience, I can tell you that more often than not, the scope of the search always exceeds the authorized purpose. Defending yourself against overbroad searches is very difficult.

I've only touched the tip of this dilemma and I apologize for being so wordy.

Whatever happens, I'm glad it's not happening in PA!

[Marble Eyes]

I wonder just how many of those that say, 'Go ahead and search, I've got nothing to hide', would feel the same way if the DNR decided to strip search your wife or 16 year old Daughter under the same conditions. Suspicious(sp?) Behavior don't you know.....

Give em a inch, they attempt a Mile.

[Matt]

I can think of a lot better ways to hide fish:)

[Andy K]

No, but if you buy a license to hunt with that gun, you are supporting the DOW, and that includes inspecting your kill, inspecting you gun, your ammo, the method of taking the game, etc...... All in the name of CONSERVATION. If you buy a license/permit to put a "fishing" hut on a lake, what is the difference? Do you fish without a license? You buy a license to support the people who are making sure you have a place to fish in the first place. You don't think the rules of the licensing agency apply to you just because you are inside a fishing hut? I say, search away!!

[Conditional license]

Tangled angler you have clearly stated what I was trying to describe. Buy a fishouse license -- waive the right. Drive a car -- waive the right to be drunk. Not exactly a perfect analogy but the point is true. I think the DNR has simply just not made it a condition yet.

CL

[BlackSilver]

It was directed at the guy who made the noise about "defending the constitution".

Gentlemen can disagree without being disagreeable.

Semper Fi!

Hans

[punch1]

TangledAngler, I believe that you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the rational for the 4th Ammendmant being realated to when the British invaded our homes. The problem is some people's and some court's interpretations. I just can't envision anyone having as much expectation of privacy in a tent on a lake.

All this talk about giving them an inch and they'll take a mile and referring to strip searches of our wives and daughters is pure unfounded scare type tactics that unfortunately some people will subscribe to. When people can't deal with the one real issue at hand (the right of a warden to check your ice house without a warrant for fish and game viiolations) they have to play the "but where does this stop" game and using suspect analogies such as the scare tactics mentioned above.

This is in no way an endorsement of watered down 4th Ammendment, but rather an acceptance that not everything is black and white as so many would like to believe.

My question still stands. How do you propose that wardens do their enforcement part of the job in light of this development?

[AquaMan]

Boy, you are all on the list now and you know where I stand! <grin>

I think that to give up rights for liberities is all A$$ backwards.

See you at the game check!

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

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

[JohnF]

It is not OK.

Errosion of the fourth amendment is a serious matter.

Since it can be shown that drunken driving happens most often by people behind the wheel of an automobile, should we make it a condition of those getting license plates that the automobile can be pulled over anytime to check for drunkeness? The operator has already consented to the test.

If we allow this kind of errosion to happen then pretty soon we won't need a constitution since we will have consented through all of the licensing and certificating required to do anything. Is this hard to see?

View the problem from the other side. I think we can all agree that a police state is a bad thing. We don't want that... Why would we then accept police state behaviour at any level?

I'm really not sure I can say anything as profound as the quotes given to us by Marble Eyes.

Someone had mentioned that folks on these lists seem like self appointed lawyers and that their interpretation of the constitution is invalid since we have a supreme court to intrepret it for us. How do you know they are doing it right then?

Remember, our (to the Americans in the group) government is based on a very complicated set of checks and balances of which you are a very big part. The first (and second at least) admendment is there to protect your capabilities of playing this role. Don't give it away.

If you would all like to see the same arguments taking place in written form albiet a different time, read The Federalist Papers. Check out from where the Constitution came.

[MK]

I propose that they enforce the laws in the same manner as other law enforcement officials. Through the application of probable cause and/or warrants. I can't speak for others, but I find it irritating that a crack dealer has more rights than a fisherman. Cops can't stop suspected drug dealers without probable cause but the DNR can? Where is the logic in this? Do the ends truly justify these means? I can't be convinced that potential fishing regulations violations are crimes that demand suspension of constitutional rights. Surely harvesting an extra walleye or perch is no more of a crime than robbery, murder, etc. then why is the DNR allowed more latitiude in their search procedures? I'd be willing to bet that if someone was selling drugs out of a van parked on a public street, the cops would need a warrant or at least probable cause to search the van. I don't see the difference.

[suzuki]

Frankly I don't see the differance between checking license, fishing method and fish caught in boat and doing the same in an ice house.

[WAZ]

Nazis' Communist and taliban "Authorities didn't need a search warrant or probable cause to search a vehicle or ice house or your underpants. They are all prospering ......Duh? Should we be like them? NOT

[Andy K]

So you must know many people who live in fishing huts, on public lakes, that have no intention of fishing? Right? The sole purpose of buying a permit to put a "fishing" hut on a public lake is to "fish". And by fishing, you are giving every wildlife officer the right to check your creel for limits, to check the number of holes you are fishing, and what types of fish you have in your possesion. Now, park your fishing hut in your driveway and do whatever you want in it, and I'll agree with your point.

[eyegetit]

Excellent debate taking place here (with a few exceptions). When this thread first got rolling I was willing to hitch my wagon to a few of the earlier posts. Glad I didn't. Many good arguments on both sides of the aisle.

[Skillz]

I wonder...

If the current situation goes unchanged for the next couple years, meaning, the DNR will not have the right to search ice houses, what kind of impact will this have on the fish populations? Does the one person who keeps every fish, 3-4 limits, etc... destroy the fish population?

Will the conscience of the individual who fishes with 3+ lines down
eventually change by magic? Sportsmanship is the idea here....

Will the person who catches, and CLEANS 50 walleyes enjoy them that much more?

Or-

Will the extra fish they kept end up in the bottom of a dumpster because "I am just sick of cleaning fish..."

Will the sport of fishing be compromised for the few jokers who ruin it? I look forward to taking my unborn child fishing with me someday. Will he/she be able to catch anything with any size?


Will the person whos rights were violated pay their fines, or take it to court and waste that much more of the States' money. (my thoughts are if you are willing to break the law, be willing to pay the fines associated with doing so)

Tough questions... Insightful responses. Keep 'em coming!!

skz

Good Fishin'!!!!

[Marble Eyes]

I believe there are more instances of abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpation's.


-- James Madison --

It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of citizens and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The freemen of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much ...to forget it.


-- James Madison --

[The Great Guide]

I buy my license. I follow the rules. I see no reason why a law enforcement officer should have the right to conduct a search of my ice house with no more cause than because I am present.

Sorry DNR, but the court was right. You are wrong.

Knock, Knock, Knock.........Thank you

TGG

[Andy K]

No more cause than just being there? The sole purpose of putting an Ice house on a lake is to fish. By engaging in the act of fishing, you are giving wildlife officials probable cause to do their job, (which is the conservation of what we all here hold true and dear--FISHING!!!)


Andy K/CO

[Paul]

What if I'm there to study, enjoy the outdoors, read a book, bop my neighbors wife, or am living there for the winter?

[Andy K]

Then you have more problems to worry about than having a wildlife official stopping by! You bought a permit to put a "fishing" hut on a "public" lake. Not a residence on private property.

[David Anderson]

Dave,

That's correct. This is not a case of CO's entering to deal with conservation issues. They used the conservation issue and because they were smoking crack, the original intent changed. I don't agree with the legaleze, but if they were over the limits, nail them. If they were smoking crack, call the cops or the correct authorities to handle the situation. Too often the right side of the law tends to be their own worst enemy. I am afraid this is what happened here. If the CO's have the authority to bust you for issues other than conservation violations, then they must also live by those rules.

[River_eye]

TBO, how many guys do you know that have shacks out on a frozen lake without holes in the floor for fishing?

I say, if the fishery is being damaged, and the DNR can help that, let them go for it, they aren't looking for you or me, just the guys who don't follow the rules.

If there is no conservation problem and the lake is thriving, then there's no need to search any shacks

depends on the lake we're talking about.

[Backwater Eddy]

If you look back a ways and consider once the primary reason to not allow ice houses to be locked while in use, you would soon find it to be a safety issue (and law), and not solely a enforcement issue.

Safety on the ice in a shack, as in the unobstructed ability to flee the shack in case of a emergency. Carbon monoxide build up or other health risks are other good reasons to keep access open to someone who wish's to enter, or for you to egress.

As a law in order to check to see if the doors are unlocked while in use how would you logically go about it? "Hello in there, is you door unlocked?" If a enforcement official needs to check for compliance he must try the door. That is the only way I can think of to check?

When you talk search, again how else do look for compliance of the laws then by observation. We entrust them to be our enforcement officials and protect out resources. How well can they do that job if they loose their most valuable asset, there intuition in the field?

All this storm trooper talk is ridiculous and inflammatory.

Backwater Eddy.......><,,>

[River_eye]

Very good point Andy.

These guys would also say that if you have a cabin in your boat, and you see the resource officers coming, you should be able to go below, shut the door and hide from them.

They aren't going to strip search you, they are going to check your fish, if you have too many, then they will write you a fine, not throw you in jail.

I think if that's what it takes to weed out the unlawful sportsmen, then it must be done, it will only make the resources stronger for the lawful sportsmen.

[BlackSilver]

Punch1,

You nailed the issue perfectly. An ice house on a public lake is no different from a boat on a public lake. The DNR ought to have unrestricted authority to examine your catch, your license, how many lines you have in the water, etc.

The dump huck who talked about strip searches is waaaaaaaaay out to lunch.

SET the hook!!!

Hans/MN

[Bucko]

Because so many people have given their lives, some of them friends,
to protect my rights, I would never give them up so freely. To do so would be an insult. "I have nothing to hide. Look for whatever you want." That statement makes me sick.
Bucko

[BlackSilver]

Yeah, and while they're at it, they can quit all these searches of people who just want to get on an airplane, or cross over our borders. Where do they get the right for all this searching anyhow?

[EricCO]

Same could be said about one's house. I prefer to draw the line far away from my front door.

I'm happy that the idea of stormtroopers still is kinda ridiculous.

"Hunting 'eyes in the Three-O-Three"

[gremlin266]

I've read all the responses and there are arguments on both sides. However, being a law enforcement officer myself I don't believe the majority of the officers out there start their shift thinking "How many people can I screw with today". Most and I stress most, of the officers are going to act on SOME sort of reasonable suspicion if not probable cause (ie tips from sportsmen, visual cues, etc.) before demanding access to your icehouse, boat, or vehicle. Remeber that most all of the guys & gals doing DNR work got into that field because they love the outdoors the same as civilians do. The best enforcement we have is fellow sportsmen/women reporting these nuts so we can do the job we're paid to do. The last thing most officers want is to tread on rights & freedoms. I think most outdoor enthusiasts realize this. Just my thoughts.

[Silver/MI]

All you "rights preservers": If your sitting in a 3-sided shelter you can be checked, but four sides and you can't? That really makes sense. Now as a wind shelter fisherman my rights are violated, because the officers are profiling exposed fishermen! Does it need a roof? A shanty is nothing more than an oversized coat when you're on the ice. Don't want checked? Fish out of your toilet or get your own pond. How about this: You're trolling along with 2x legal posession in your boat. You spot a CO coming your way, so all you have to do is put up the bimini top and zip it and presto, you can't be touched. Makes real sense. I'm sure those brave men all gave their lives so you can fish with too many lines. And ask yourself this. Is the DNR the law? IS OSHA? Why can they show up at a factory un-announced and start looking around. I GUARANTEE the DNR will win this one. Why? It is impossible to ever establish probable cause like you can with vehicles or homes.

[chadk66]

TBO,
You couldn't have said it any better. Most of the people that agree with the free inspections of the houses make a valid point that they don't have anything to hide so search away. But, the bill of rights is what this country is based on and thats just the way it is. If you want to let the DNR search you go ahead and let them. You can bet that if somebody doesn't agree with a search, they will find another way to catch these individuals if they are breaking the law. They just have to be a little creative. There's no way we should scratch away at the bill of rights just to convenience any law enforcement agency. There is plenty of wiggle room in the current laws for them the way it is.

[Westy]

I guess I can see both sides of the equation. In SD, if you are asked by anyone, you must produce your hunting or fishing license. It doesn't matter who it is, you must produce it. I do, however, have a problem with random checkpoints. I was stopped last summer going down I-29 pulling my boat, the GFP told me that they were stopping anyone pulling a boat for game checks. I don't have anything to hide and told him to go ahead, but put the cover back on my boat the way he found it. I also asked him that what prevented him from stopping any blond haired person, african american, native american , woman, teenager, etc... because they wanted to. He didn't have answer... I had a friend who participated in drug stops in Sturgis during the Harley ralley. There was a sign on the highway that said "drug stop ahead, drug dogs in use" there weren't any dogs or an offical stop. But, they had people in the ditches and in the trees watching for those who threw contraband out the window in anticipation that they were going to be stopped. Therefore, self incriminating themselves. They were then called in to the police a mile or so down the road and arrested. This, I feel, was entrapment, but then again, what the heck because they were carrying contraband. Later, this process was over ruled by SD courts as illegal and are now not allowed. But, random traffic "safety checks" are allowed for catching DWI's. I guess that my feeling is that if I don't have anything to hide, then why object. However, then again, if we let law enforcement, the military or government overstep their boundaries, we could be facing the onset of a totalitarian government that oppresses our freedoms. This was not the intent of our forefathers when establising our natural rights. Nazi Germany began with the restriction of rights under the undertone of protectionism and we all know where that ended. I agree with some who have posted, if you don't have anything to hide, why worry? However, in the country that we live in, if I don't have anything to hide, why do I have to prove it?

[Suzuki]

WAZ-Are you saying it should not be legal to check out fisherman in a boat as well?

[TangledAngler]

Like I said earlier, I only touched upon this issue and I don't plan on getting into too much depth here.

There are other considerations that can override the Fourth Amendment since it only applies to "unreasonable searches and seizures".. A law enforcement official is entitled to condcut certain searches when the safety of a person is important. Additionally, you can always consent to a search. But, those of you criticizing the "strip search" people aren't seeing the big picture. It does happen. I have had a 19 year old girl get stripped searched because she was at an underage drinking party. She was never charged with anything. As you can guess, her parents were very happy about law enforcement actions on that night. I have had a client get dragged out of his house, handcuffed, and beaten with SAP Gloves until he lost control of his bowels in front of his neighbors. Guess what? Wrong guy. That police deparmtent paid a hefty sum to settle that mess.

Are these rarities? Sure. Do you want the opportunity to become a "rarity"? I don't.

Gremlin, the majority of law enforcement officers take their jobs seriously. However, there are bad apples too. Look what's happening in New York, Philadelphia, Los Angeles. It's happening in alot of places. The cloak of authority causes problems when the power is abused. It sure is abused. Ironically, I've defended police officers accused of constitutional deprivations. They're the first ones to cry "constitution" when they're on the other end of the hit parade. It's not pretty. They have a very tough job and often have to make split second decisions in the pursuit of doing what's right. I wouldn't want that job. But, there has to be a balance.

I know the law but as an avid angler, I'm not 100% convinced that we should have an expectation of privacy in an ice fishing hut. I'm am certain that the government can make you agree to certain conditions if you want to obtain a license to operate one. I think that's their best enforcement policy.

The paradox in our society is that the alleged criminals are the ones who commonly use the Fourth Amendment as a shield. The detractors use this as support for their arguments. However, those same Fourth Amendment rights do protect law abiding citizens as well, they really do. It's just easier to complain about the perceived absuridity of protecting the rights of the guilty.

[The Great Guide]

So what you are saying is that it's Ok that I have my constitutional rights trampled on because I'm fishing. Thus when I fish I move to a different class of citizen.

What you may not understand is that the DNR created a rule. A citizen said the rule is wrong and asked a judge to decide if the DNR had overstepped its authority. The judge is there to protect the citizens of this country from any goverment agency that oversteps its authority. There was a trial and the facts of law were presented both for and against. The judge decided that the DNR was wrong.

I always thought they were.

TGG

[Marble Eyes]

Well said!

[sdmike]

As always the enforcer of the laws, WANTS to make the law. The laws need to be written by the people for the people, not by the enforcer of the laws for his convenience. People make it seem so easy to give up a little bit of their rights all the time until there isn't any rights. My personal thoughts is that I could give up a little now, but whats going to be left for my childern. Whatever we do, don't let the enforcers of the laws write them. Bad deal when that happens.

sdmike

[sdmike]

You miss the point. The resources are your resources not the states resources. They just manage it. If it was the states resources you might be located in Siberia ice fishing. You people forget who that this is a free country.

sdmike

[sdmike]

Thats the same warden from Minnihaha County. He only has three lakes in the county to check and they are small. He's bored

[bob oh]

Yeah Hans, an airplane and an ice shack are comparable!! Try a little common sense.

[JohnF]

I agree!

[Andy K]

>So what you are saying is that it's Ok that I have my
>constitutional rights trampled on because I'm fishing. Thus
>when I fish I move to a different class of citizen.
>
TGG

WHAT? These people are trampling "your" rights? These people are protecting the rights of all of us to have a place to fish. Free from freeloaders, poachers, and over indulgers who abuse the system. You are NOT on private property, and you are engaged in a sport that is licensed and controlled for a reason. Like a previous post said, it's more likely that the offenders are the ones putting up all the fuss about their rights being trampled. Like I said in another post....Keep "your" fish house in "your" driveway and you are right. It wouldn't supprise me if you fish without a license because you think it's unconstitutional.

[Dave in Mpls]

How DARE you suggest that those of us that are opposed to the COs being less restricted than other law enforcement officers are likely the offenders. Just because you choose to live your life with blinders on sure as he!! doesn't mean the rest of us have to....

[Wawajake]

I don't think we can avoid "profiling " any more in society its here to stay. Whether it is in the airport and they pull over the middle easterner and extreme search , or by the Insurance companies that for years now decide whether a 60 year old pays less than a 20 yr old , or a Jeep YJ driver pays more than a Chevy 4 wheel drive pickup same vehicle value. Society uses demographics and perhaps slanted statistics to make decisions all around us. As long as common sense prevails , the MNR in USA or Canada has to make judgement calls when to search a vehicle or a shanty , their goal is to protect our right to have fish to fish. What other means can they use considering the magnitude of the job.
Hopefully the officer doesn't let the power go to his head.If every tenth search finds a law breaker then it might be the cost of freedom we have to allow for.
Just a humble liberal Canadians point of view.


jake

[Andy K]

>How DARE you suggest that those of us that are opposed to
>the COs being less restricted than other law enforcement
>officers are likely the offenders.

COs are not less restricted than other law enforcement officers. I'll bet a CO needs a search warrant to come into your home to check your freezer, right? For that he needs to show probable cause that you must somehow have too many fish in possesion or maybe an endagered species, or heaven forbid big game that was taken illegally. He cannot just walk into your home because he wants to. He has to have probable cause to get a warrant. But, then again, we are not talking about your home, are we? If you are engaged in the act of fishing, you have already given them probable cause to look at your license, equipment, etc.... Just as if you were fishing from a boat or on the shore. A little box out on the Ice doesn't give you more rights than anyone else, does it? Like I said, you are not on private property. As far as suggesting anything, I've only repeated what was previously stated in other posts. I'm sorry if it came out the wrong way. Sometimes the shoe does fit, although nobody will claim it.

[TangledAngler]

In reviewing this thread, I had a couple thoughts. To those of you relying on our Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, let me ask you this: If our Supreme Court had a Democratic majority, how do you think the Florida recount would have went down? I bet it would have been different. Even the Supreme Court is susceptible to politics (there is rarely a unanimous Supreme Court decision).

[Goldpig]

Interestingly enough Andy, the reason this issue was brought to light in MN is that someone was caught smoking crack in a fish house and argue the legality of the DNR arrest. My guess is that this guy had no intention of fishing. But, it certainly is a very small minority who are there for something other than fishing.

[Paul]

I'll go with Dave on this. Of course COs are less restricted than other law enforcement officers. If not, how can they perform game checks, pulling vehicles with boats over to check for possestion violations, etc, etc. Pull your head out of the sand, man! You claim we give up our rights if we are not on private property. Do I give up these same rights if I choose to tow a boat down the public highway?

[MK]

Tangled Angler

Good point. Just look at the difference in opinion between the Florida Supreme Ct. and the US Supreme Ct. on the election issue.

At some point, a decision will be made and then it will be up to the individual to decide if they can live the decision. To fish or not to fish based on their agreement/disagreement with the enforcable regulations.

I've never agreed with the DNR being able to stop and check boats at random. I see absolutely no difference between random stops on the highway (which are not allowed) and random stops on the water (which are), but I continue to fish knowing that the searches will happen. I won't let it bother me enough to quit boating or fishing. If you have a legally registered boat or car, and are operating it in a legal manner, driving with a license or fishing with a license, why should one activity be subject to random searches and the other not?

Law enforcement should have the same rules, wet or dry. However it's decided, it won't affect me because I will continue as in the past, fishing and boating within the rules.

By the way, has anyone else noticed that many of the Photo-Radar and Photo-Stoplight enforcement has been tossed out by various courts around the country for violation of privacy.

Just thought I'd toss this into the mix.

[curt quesnell]

Yes Dave.

I agree with you.

We got some guy up the page a little bit telling us which ones of
us are Americans. Who the h*ll is he..

I dislike Game Warden bashing and many are hopping on to this
for that reason. Its not about a Game Warden who was a jerk one time.


We all want to do whats right. Like it or not it looks like things
will change. I will shake my head and support our laws and law
enforcement.

Thank You

Curt Quesnell (American)

[Andy K]

I have NEVER heard of anyone being pulled over going down the highway by a wildlife official just because they are towing a boat. I'll bet if anyone has ever been pulled over by a wildlife official it was because they were turned in by someone and they got their boat off of the water before they could be questioned. If that is the case, they had probable cause when the witness turned them in.

[Hawgeye]

One point that I don't think has been mentioned is that because I own a fish house, bought a house permit and am fishing, does that mean that I am fishing illegally? Because I am fishing is NOT probable cause that I am doing it illegally. Because I am driving a car, own a car and have a license, does this mean that "probable cause" is that I "could" be doing something illegal?

I believe that probable cause would be that another angler saw me take fish out to my car, drive away and come back 20 minutes later and start fishing again, called in and said that something fishy is going on. I think as sportsman it is our obligation to notify authorities when we know something is not right. If we help law enforcement, it will make things easier.

I am not sure but define probable cause, the act of fishing legally, is that probable cause?

I remember the days when the Game Warden would sit on a perch with binoculars and watch me hunt. I knew he was there but he did not necessarily think I knew he was there. After several ducks were dropped and picked up, decoys picked up and the vehicle loaded, he ascended from his perch and asked to count my game. He did his homework, I was legal but he did not know for sure if I had any more ducks prior to his arrival. At least he knew that I DID hunt, did get some game and was done. Maybe that was probable cause...I am not sure.

[The Great Guide]

Cheap shot. I've always bought a license and I have NEVER violated any game law. Let's keep this discussion on the up side. This will be my last word on this thread. If the DNR has cause to think I'm a poacher then they should do their job, but they should first get a search warrant if they want to enter my house. The could wait till I leave the lake.

[Andy K]

They are throwing out cases here in Colorado of "photo radar vans" that park along busy streets and snap photos of people speeding. These are not being thrown out because of privacy laws, but instead because the photos were taken by a non-police agency, (they farmed it out to the lowest bidder I'm sure). So the fact that police are the only ones who can inforce speeding tickets, sent these other individuals and their "photo radar vans" packing.

[Hawgeye]

Silver,

Don't confuse businesses with personal rights. They are not the same and not the same constitutionally.

[Jim Carroll]

Andy- It happens all the time...They call it a "Game Check" and usually have a highway patrol or other law enforcement officers with the DNR guys looking for impaired drivers or other violations.

[Andy K]

So the reel question is, (pun intended), is this:
Is the actual act of "fishing" grounds enough for a wildlife official to ask to see your license,count your catch, check your equipment, etc...? Yes. Does putting yourself inside of a fish house, or boat for that matter, change any of that? NO.

We pay good money for our licenses, and that money goes towards protecting the sport/hobbie that we love. Yes, we do pay the wages of the fish-cops, and if they were not around, we wouldn't have any fisheries to speek of. I believe that these people are just doing their job, and trying to make the fisheries better for all of us.

[Hawgeye]

I am not sure but to me, legal anything is not grounds for probable cause. I think there has to be some sort of evidence to check and see if you are legal.

That is where I am in a quandry as to how much should we be investigated. If we are fishing, that means we could be fishing without a license, therefore;probable cause to check. Since houses do have a registration on them, they can check in records to see if the owner has a fishing license without ever entering and asking for it. Unreasonable?, maybe. Same as registration on a license of a vehicle. It is easily determined if said owner has a valid drivers license by checking the license and registration. Does that mean the driver is the actual owner, no.

I am undecided on the subject but am leaning to agree with the "constitutional rights" comments. We are giving up way to many freedoms. I don't want to lose any more.

[Greg P]

Wow, there are some excellent points made for both sides of this issue.

Great information TangleAngler! Thank you for the insight into this controversial issue.

Many good arguements have been made for both sides.

My opinion is to allow the unrestricted searches while in a ice shack that is on a lake, or a boat that is on a lake. The reason I feel this way is that for the greater good of enforcement, I am willing to allow an officer to enter my fishouse, unhindered. This does NOT mean I condone searches of my house. There is clearly a distinct difference between my fishhouse on a lake, and my private residence.

Specifically, I believe that by giving this right to enforcement officers, it will have be a deterant for poachers. And in the end, our fishing will improve. I am willing to make a small sacrafice for this goal.


Some of the people responding to this issue need to brush up on logical analysis. Allowing an officer to enter your fish house is not the same as strip searching your wife. There are several lines of reasoning like that used on this topic. Please stop wasting peoples' time with that type of arguement. By using an analogy that is that far off base discredits everything else you say, be it true or not. It also diverts attention away from what is really at issue.

p.s.
If a strip search is the same to YOU as an unhindered enterence to YOUR fishouse, then, I for one am very thankful that YOU are not in law enforcement.

[WAeyes]

What if I am in my truck and my doors and windows are closed???

[MK]

I know somewhere else the courts threw them out because the company that installed them did so at no cost and was getting a cut of each ticket. They got something like $90 out of each $250 ticket.

I was suprised at the recent privacy one only because it suprised me. I personally don't have a problem with these, especially the stop light ones.

[JonM]

Two points for anybody that's against the CO's having access.

#1 Your on public property!

#2 What do you have to worry about unless your doing something illegal?

I'm all for more CO's and more checks done to help trim down the fools that don't care about ethical fishing whatsoever.

[Lou in Alex.]

Interesting- In the few years I've popped in and out of this site, one thing has become clear- those frequenting this site are true walleye lovers.They've put the mighty walleye on a pedistal- the holy grail of fish.Tempers have flaired in debates about limits and slots and regulations all in the effort to improve walleye fishing and time spent fishing for them.Yet- surprisingly enough, many now take a stance-which can only be detrimental to their cause.How do you expect COs to enforce the laws if you take away the tools they need to do it?
Checks and searches are absolutely neccessary.When I buy a fishing or hunting lisence- I assume that by doing so- I will be required to follow regulations related to that activity.If I'm in my fishhouse, I'm fishing- a CO has every right to search if they feel it neccessary to ensure I'm not breaking any game laws- thats his/her job- I expect them to do it, and am glad they do.Is it a unreasonable search?A trampling of the 4th amendment? No-I'm fishing- that constitutes probable cause. I'm not afraid of the "give an inch" horror mentioned in the thread- I am not sacrificing any civil liberties here. If houses are allowed to be locked- how many extra lines would be in the water?How many extra walleyes would hit the hole like a lawn jart while the CO is waiting outside the door?For those of you who are worried about your privacy on the lake-well- certainly there are better places to get frisky with your gal.To those who are worried about getting caught smoking a fattie while you fish- blow the smoke out the window and keep it in your pocket like everyone else- if you get caught its your own fault- dont wine about it.Im a proud American and am greatful for the rights I have- Im not willing to give them up.I dont see a CO doing a check as anything other than a person doing their job- the results of which are to my benefit.If anything- a clearer understanding needs to be stated- where upon the purchase of a lisence-that person agrees to be held to a standard- as well as those charged with enforcing those game laws.Just my 2 cents- if that. Lou in Alex.

[Andy K]

Amen! Well said

[Andy K]

Thanks Lou! You said it all!

[TangledAngler]

Some of you are saying that fishing in an ice hut by itself is "probable cause" to search. Well, you are paraphrasing "probable cause" and ignoring its definition in the context of the Fourth Amendment. The correct phrase is "probable cause to believe crime was or is being committed". There is no such legal theory limited only to "probable cause" as some of you are saying. If you take out the part about the criminal activity, there is no such thing as "probable cause".

I find the argument that buying a license and then fishing is probable cause in and of itself to make no sense whatsoever since probable cause necessarily must involve some observation of criminal activity in order to pass constitutional muster. That's why I believe the only possible way to make these searches fly is for the Court to determine there is no expectation of privacy in a hut or to make it a purely licensing issue (which requires no Fourth Amendment analysis whatsoever. The problem is that the actual court decision will probably not directly address the licensing issue since I don't believe that the license possessed at the time of the search specifically required a fisherperson to implicitly consent to searches of their huts. That has to be codified by statute. That change in law would then have to be addressed for licenses sold in 2003.

I do think this is going to be a very tough issue for the Court to decide. In PA, very few people actually sleep in their huts. I understand that it is different further northwest. The more the hut becomes like a hotel room, the harder it gets to deny an expectation of privacy. For those of you following this issue closely, please let me know what happens.

By the way, the "they should be able to search because you're on public property" argument doesn't fly. We all have privacy interests while on public land. Think about it, most streets are owned by some level of government. Parks, public transportation etc. are too. Do you want to give the government unfettered discretion to search your person while walking down the street? How about you car, tent, cabin, motorhome anytime they want to? Well, they aren't allowed to do that.

[Andy K]

I don't believe that the license
>possessed at the time of the search specifically required a
>fisherperson to implicitly consent to searches of their
>huts.



So you don't believe that a fishing license specifically requires a fisherperson to follow the rules set forth by the governing agency? So according to you, if you are in a little box on the ice, you don't need a fishing license at all. You can fish with as many poles as you want, and screw the limit, because it's nobodys business what I'm doing in my little box on the ice.

[Hawgeye]

Thank you tangledangler. It is nice to hear from someone in the legal profession. Your knowledge on the Constitution is very welcome and unfortunately, not enough people in this country know the first thing about it which is a shame. You reiterated my point on "probable cause". Just because you own a fish house or have a license is NOT probable cause that you are doing something illegal. I understand that the 4th ammendment was written to protect individual rights against big government controlling our lives. In the early days in Rome, the tax collectors could come into peoples' homes and take what they saw fit for the good of the government. This is one of the history lessons about why as a country need to protect these freedoms and why the constition needs to be kept pure. It was written over 2 centuries ago and is still as modern as the computer we type on. CO's or Game wardens, what ever you want to call them, have a difficult job, I think it is our duty as sportsmen to help nail the illegal fisherman. I truly beleive that it is very difficult to get away with illegal fishing without someone knowing about it. I have seen it happen and have sat on my hands. I am now going to program in the phone numbers of the CO's office to my cell phone and take a proactive approach to help nail these "poachers". SOrry for those of you that think it is not an inconvenience to be checked but I have been treated very disrespectful quite frequently by CO's that assume they are going to find something that I am doing wrong and I don't appreciate it. They have even scratched my boat while checking me which I should have sent a bill to their office for the repair. Next time I will!

[Dave in Mpls]

Did he SAY he didn't believe that fisherpeople aren't required to follow the rules? Did he SAY if you are in a fish house, you don't need a license at all, and can fish as many lines as you would like, and the limits don't apply? What he SAID was, by possessing a fishing license, we don't implicity consent to a search. Understand the difference? Based upon your reply, I guess not. Of course, you have NEVER heard of someone getting pulled over for a game check because they were pulling a boat, either. That only happended to me twice on my way back from Horsetooth in the ten years I lived in CO.

[TangledAngler]

Andy,

I have no idea what you're talking about.

You have to follow the laws regardless of whether you have a license or not. The license may on its face require you to follow the rules but even non-licensees must follow them as well. A license gives you certain rights and, more importantly, it can limit certain rights.

I think your concern is whether the act of licensed fishing in and of itself should give rise to the goverment's right to search the hut. No way. There is no doubt that a license can require you to give up rights though as a condition to enjoying the privileges associated with the license. However, prior to forcing you to give up certain rights, there must be a law that provides for the specific waiver of such rights. Also, government can't retroactively force you to waive constituional rights. It's called the Ex Post Facto Clause. A valid license can impose a requirement that "if you wanna fish in a hut, you have to consent to a search" in order to get the license. I don't think that was done. They can do that in the future but not apply it retroactively because nobody was given the opportunity to voluntarily waive their rights. The theory is, if you don't want to let them search you, don't fish in a hit. You have to be given the chance to make that choice.

[Andy K]

But their job is to search you, weather or not you are in a hut, you are fishing. So they search you if you are standing out on the ice but they can't search you if your in a hut? ( search you as in checking license, etc...) I don't understand what the difference is between fishing from a hut, boat, shore, or out in the open on the Ice. Fishing is still fishing, and is governed by a certain set of rules that apply to all that are engaged in it regardless of what you are in at the time.

[Andy K]

Hey tangled, I just read this under the fourth amendment annotations. Isn't this the same for fishing huts because of their function-fishing, they do not serve as a residence, and they are in "plain view" (with the exception of occupants and contents). Or is that the whole ticket? occupants and contents having to be in view?


''the configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles often may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property.'' 59 '''One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects. . . . It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.'''

[TangledAngler]

Andy,

You're on the right page. I personally don't believe the "plain view" exception would apply since "plain view" maens what it says. If they can't see in, the area to be searched is not in plain view.

I don't know what their job description is, but it would seem to me that it would be to legally enforce the fishing laws. It's similar to a police officer. They enforce the Crimes Code but they just can't search anyone they choose. They have to follow the rules.

But, you're comments about why they're there, to fish, is among the reasons why I think there's a good question about whether one would have an expecation of privacy in an ice fishing hut. That's the real constitutional issue. I'm going to try to find the case and see what the Court said in that case.

What you have cited in relation to the Fourth Amendment is a commentary on the law, it's not the law. In fact, while the degree of our expecations of privacy in various areas may differ, the fact is we definteily have an expectation of privacy in a car or a truck. Can't just barge into one.

[TangledAngler]

I found it and for those of you who want to shoot me for posting this, don't read it. This is verbatim from the Minnesota Court of Appeal's opinion. As I suspected, the holding rested on the fact that the court found that there is an expectation of privacy in a "fishhouse". I swear that I have never seen this opinion before this but the whole opinion touches upon alot of what I have said in my prevous posts (public property, rights to privacy, purpose of CO's, etc.). If anyone wants the whole opinion, I may be able to email it to you. Just ask. TangledAngler@aol.com

From State v. Larsen, 637 N.W.2d 315, decided December 26, 2001:


I. Right of privacy

The state argues that occupants of fish houses, unlike other building structures, have no expectation of privacy and, thus, the normal constitutional constraints on law enforcement investigation, detention, and search and seizure do not come under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and to the Minnesota Constitution, Article I, Section 10.

We disagree firmly with the state. The courts' and legislature's definition of the term "dwelling" [*7] covers fish houses. See, e.g., Minn. Stat. § 609.581, subd. 3 (2000) (defining "dwelling" in the context of burglary). "Dwelling" means a building used as a permanent or temporary residence. Id.

For decades, case law has included within this definition much more than single-family homes. See, e.g., State v. Walker, 319 N.W.2d 414, 417 (Minn. 1982) (determining that structure attached to dairy barn that provided shelter for calves and would shelter people from the elements was a building); State v. Vredenberg, 264 N.W.2d 406, 407 (Minn. 1978) (holding that houseboat cabins were suitable for human shelter and therefore were buildings); State v. Bronson, 259 N.W.2d 465, 465-66 (Minn. 1977) (concluding that basketball arena being converted to ice arena was a building, even though one wall had been removed when burglary was committed); State v. Gerou, 283 Minn. 298, 302, 168 N.W.2d 15, 17 (Minn. 1969) (concluding steel warehouse used as shelter by those who worked in it was a building); State v. Edwards, 589 N.W.2d 807, 811 (Minn. App. 1999) (finding apartment [*8] of recently deceased tenant who had been murdered in apartment was "dwelling"), review denied (Minn. May 18, 1999); State v. Hofmann, 549 N.W.2d 372, 375 (Minn. App. 1996) (holding motor home was building within meaning of burglary statute because it was suitable for affording shelter to human beings), review denied (Minn. Aug. 6, 1996); State v. Hendrickson, 528 N.W.2d 263, 265-66 (Minn. App. 1995) (concluding definition of "dwelling" in burglary statute includes appurtenant structures), review denied (Minn. Apr. 27, 1995 ); In re Welfare of R.O.H., 444 N.W.2d 294, 294-95 (Minn. App. 1989) (concluding mini-storage unit without heat, electricity, or plumbing could nevertheless afford shelter for human beings and thus was a building within meaning of burglary statute). The courts recognize and accept that, for purposes of burglary, both "building" and "dwelling" are broadly defined. The law confers an expectation of privacy on a wide range of structures.

Here, a word needs to be said about just what is a "fish house," meaning an ice-fishing house or a fish house. Just like the word "home," no single word describes the [*9] simplicity or the complexity, the amount of space or the lack of space, or the presence of amenities or the lack of amenities that may exist in a fish house. While some fish houses are basically canvas and/or thin wood enclosed shed-type structures, it is not uncommon for fish houses to have a rudimentary and, at times, even a sophisticated-type interior heating system. While ice fishing can take place during the day, it can also commonly take place during hours extending well after midnight and into the next day. It is not uncommon for a fish house, even a simple one, to contain a cot for resting and sleeping. Fish houses often contain chairs, portable radios, and portable televisions. Many fish houses are built larger and for more than the basic one or two holes in the ice. Some have the equivalent of beds, televisions, refrigerators, and some elementary method of heating food. The occupant of a fish house has an expectation of privacy exceeding that of someone sitting in a car or an open fishing boat.

The district court's memorandum of law in Krenz is instructive.

The range of legitimate activities that can take place in a fishhouse which people could expect to be private [*10] is greater than the range of activities that can reasonably be done privately in a car. Lakes are usually less crowded than highways, and the solid walls of a fishhouse offer more visual privacy than the windows of a car. Society should also accept that expectation of privacy as reasonable. The risks of harm to the citizens of this state from a fishhouse are far less than the risks involved with a boat or car.

State v. Krenz, No. K7-00-1214, slip op. at 8 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Mar. 16, 2001); see also In re Welfare of R.O.H., 444 N.W.2d 923 at 924-25 (concluding a mini-storage unit without heat, electricity, or plumbing could nevertheless afford shelter for human beings and thus was a building within meaning of burglary statute). Thus, if the seminal test for a dwelling in the context of the serious crime of burglary is that the structure needs only to be able to "afford shelter for human beings," then certainly fish houses, whether simple or elaborate, provide shelter for human beings. As a matter of fact, the state concedes that fish houses provide shelter for human beings, but it then dismisses the argument by calling fish houses "just shelters from the wind." We conclude [*11] that an enclosed shelter from the wind, the cold, and the eye of the public, where one can fish, sleep, eat, watch television, and cook (depending on how much work the occupant puts into the shelter) fits the definition of "able to provider shelter for human beings."



That's only a portion of the opinion.

[Andy K]

Thanks Tangled....It is great that we live in a place that we can agree, dissagree, or agree to disagree, and learn from all aspects of situations. It makes our country what it is....GREAT. This was a great spirited discussion. I hope I haven't offended anyone. If so...Sorry.

Do you think they'll ever make walleye fishing part of the Olympics?

HAve a great one!!

[TangledAngler]

No offense taken. I never said I agreed with the laws. lol

Have a good one.

[Bartender]

NM

[FrankfromPa]

If Andy K drives his 32ft motorhome into a state owned campgroud and parks for the night, should the local wardens and state police be able to barge in on him at 3 in the morning for a for a check of his creel or if he has alcohol ect? What if Andy had his grandma with him on that night when the wardens came crashing in and all they found was a legal limit of fish and grandma lying on the kitchen table converted to a bed wearing nothing but her bloomers? Would Andy say {It's OK grandma, we're on public property}? We can expect this sort of thing nowadys. I've seen ice shantys pushing 30ft long up in Newhampshire.These things have bedrooms and full kicthens.Your privacy should be protected at all times period.

[Weyes1]

I agree with the courts ruling on this. Unfortunately there is a double standard in law enforcement. What does everyone think about the DUI Check Lanes that some States have. Is this a violation of our rights? I beleive it is. Am I guilty of driving under the influence if I drive home after 9:00 p.m.? What if I work the late shift? What if I am driving to the hospital because my kid is having a seizure? Should I allow them to stop me when my kids life is at stake? This is one law that I strongly feel that is a violation of our rights.
I think the State should make it so that when someone need to get a license for their ice house or shanty, make them sign an agreement of search. This way they are not violating your rights. If you refuse to sign the waiver, then you must be doing something suspicious. If you have nothing to hide then why not sign.

Just my two cents!
Weyes1
Kevin Clark
weyes1@wamego.net

[jigmeister]

I agree with you 100 %. PEOPLE NEED TO SEE WHAT THE REAL PROBLEMS OF THE WORLD IS! Let's all pray for those that perished on September 11th and never forget the simple things in life. Those that want to ban or limit our way of living are ignorant because not only do they not have the knowlegde , they do not care to learn . The problem is not with the fisherman/women, it's with the one's who think they can do what we cannot.We release our fish , what do you think they do with theirs? I rest my case as I know everyone respectavly knows what I am speaking of. Safe fishing to all '2002'.

[Andy K]

The act of camping in no way constitutes fishing so why would a wildlife officer need to stop? And if I had a 32ft motorhome,(I wish), I would certainly never take it on any ice around here (colorado) LOL

Andy K/CO

[gremlin266]

Tangledangler...first it's very obvious to me you were/are a defense attorney:) Second, reference your response (#114), THANK YOU for reminding me why I moved out of the state of Minnesota!!! 34 years of liberalism was enough. It is comforting to know however that I can return to Mn and set up a cardboard box in any public park and expect a right to my privacy (everyone else be ****ed...this is my park!!!) I've found thru my career in law enforcement that the pendulem swings back & forth. Right now we are so far to the left that criminals are given more consideration than the victim. This is the fault of the people! There will come a day when people say ENOUGH, and the pendulem will swing back to the right. Extremes are bad on both sides, somewhere in the middle is the ideal. That being said, what is so wonderful about our constitution is that it IS ever changing. Our forefathers were wise enough to know they did not have all the answers (727s flying into buildings???), therefore they did not write it in stone. They left us a way to make changes. All these posts ARE what make our country great and this is how change in the laws will come about. Whew!~

[sheez!]

check me out when i come out of my ice house!if you have probable cause which would be to ask me if i've been fishing. don't break in at 03:00!
there is such a thing as the make my day law....sorry your honor i was asleep and this guy came into my ice house and i was a afraid for my life and i shot him dead.
colorado dow has more authority than any thing/any one ought to have.
game checks are standard operating procedure...will put up asign telling you to pull over if you have been fishing.wyoming does also..
you don't have to stop,but if you have been fishing it would behoove you to.
if you violate peoples rights then you are asking them to pursue the legal system and and have their rights restored...

[Dalia Lama]

Happy is he who obeys the law.

[TangledAngler]

Gremlin, Pretty perceptive. I am currently a defense attorney but I have also been a prosecutor. I have prosecuted and defended law enforcement officials so I like to think I have a broad perspective on these things.

Have a good one.

[Bradson]

I'd like to pick up where sdmike left off.

This is a NO BRAINER.

Rule#1:
As TangledAngler is more than capable of telling any of you, the system of laws in the Unites States builds upon PRECEDENTS. If anyone (obviously SOME folks within the Mn DNR L.E. in this case) were allowed to be excused from obeying the letter of the law because of special circumstances, soon no law is worth the paper it is written.

Some of you are obviously alert to the flaw in this case.

For those of you who agree with the DNR advocates who support unqualified searches, take a very close look and COMPARE to WHAT TYPE of societies in history it matches (none of which ever changed the rules overnight- see precedent):

DNR Regulator A (as in "American"): Until recent decades, a regulator thought of themselves as a forest ranger. They'd keep an eye on things, but they in no way expected themselves to keep an eye on everything. If something went seriously wrong, such as a forest fire that threatened people's lives or property, they'd swing into action, but unless there was a specific emergency, they'd let nature take its course. Fortunately, many in law enforcement still identify with this process.

DNR Regulator B (as in "Bureaucrat"): This regulator is like a farmer, responsible for the crops in his manicured field. If a few weeds pop up, they are pulled so the useful plants can flourish. Over generations the plants become less RESILIENT. What would happen to them if returned to a wild (free) environment?; they'd die. So the field must be irrigated, etc and the farmer has to keep a very close eye on everything. Given the increased level of supervision, he can only handle a limited amount of land (requiring more regulators)compared to the ranger who is able to love the wilderness in all its chaotic glory.

The problem with the farm model is that people aren't plants: they have to grow themselves. If people/ societies are treated like vegetables, that is how they end up- vegetating.

[Bradson]

I sure as heck didn't intend to include the smiley face.

[Gus Topo]

Good , Tonight in the wee hours we will inspect your house. Where did you say you live again? :)

[EyeJacker]

Amen, Amen, Amen!

[omerjim]

The DNR already has as much power as the state police here in Mi. I see no reason for them to search without a warent. They are already free to check anyone coming and going on or off the ice. I too obey the laws, but why should I have my afternoon-evening broken up by a DNR officer on his/her own fishing trip?

[Al]

You will all talk big until your area gets some monster of a prick as a game officer. Right now my area has one who checks guys over and over. He has nothing on them, yet he checks the same guys all the time in the same woods. These guys have no prior convictions, or violations. He's even checked them more than once in a single day. It's become regular occurance. His supervisor has been called, but the man still lurks around them constantly. These guys have nothing to hide, and have done everything to the letter of the law. Would you want a guy like this checking your house all time. Forget I asked that. You've established that you don't care what they do.

Unless they have something on you, they should have to get permission...period. One of those old dead white guys who had a lot with the founding of this country said it best "Those who sacrifice freedoms for the feeling of safety deserve neither." More true words have never been spoken.

[Al]

Since you cite those documents, I suggest you ask the "ERA" crowd just how easy it is to change things. This "living breathing" document BS is pretty sad. They made it difficult to change these things for a reason...because of the pendulum you mention. Popularity polls, and what feels good would drive everything if they hadn't made it so difficult to change.

[Scott Richardson]

Actually no rights in the Constitution are absolute. Just like we have no lawful right to yell Fire in a crowded theater, there have been laws passed that allow certain police powers to be extended. One of those is the right to search. Without a warrant, it's a limited power, but it is there.

For example, in Illinois, motorists give up the right to say no to police if they ask us to take a breathilizer. We agree to it when we get our drivers license. If we refuse, then we lose our license for 6 months, twice as long than if we take the test and are found under the influence. If they are towing our car, they can search it to inventory what's inside.

Same already goes for fishing. If you want a license, you agree to inspections. How many times have I been stopped by DNR and asked to open every compartment on my boat while they look to see if I have proper mandated safety gear. Also, police powers the legislature has given DNR to regulate the fishing resource requires them to be able to check to see if someone is over limit. I don't know why the presence of canvas walls should deter that. A shanty is not the same as a house or even a travel trailer. The courts will not afford it the same protections.

Best fishes,
Scott Richardson

[TangledAngler]

Scott,

Read the opinion. The courts have already afforded ice shacks the same protections as your house. I'm not sure I agree with the courts but the opinion is pretty well-reasoned.

For practical purposes, Constitutional rights are, indeed, absolute. It's the interpretation of those rights that changes. This interpretation changes over time with the introduction of new personnel on the Supreme Courts of our states and federal government. There's only one way to alter a constitutional right, that's an amendment to the consititution. Congress isn't allowed to make a law that runs afoul of the constituion, that's why certain laws are struck down as unconstitutional. That's also why our constituion has governed this country for over 200 years. I assure you there will be no consitutional amendment that either permits or prohibits searches of ice huts

In PA, police still need a reasonable suspicion of driving under the influence in order to justify pulling a car over for dui before you even get to the breathylyzer. That has to be the same in Illinois.

Lastly, here in PA, the mere act of purchasing a fishing license does not give a law enforcement officer the right to conduct an unlimited search of your person. I'd like to see the law that gives that right in Illinois.

[srj]

For what it's worth: several years ago we were duck hunting in western MN. It started raining before shooting time and little was flying so we picked up our decoys, loaded the grumman and headed for the campground in Appleton-I had a pop-up camper on the truck. While still on a dirt road a warden pulled us over and wanted to inspect us--including the camper. We were ticked. No shots fired, just real wet. I refused, he threatened a search warrant, I countered his name and badge number would be on a desk in St Paul on Monday. He blustered, we continued dripping. Finally I told him we were leaving but he was welcome to follow us to the campground and check out the camper. He followed us about 10 miles and made a u-turn after we met another rig pulling a duck boat. I did complain, got an apology from the DNR but it left me somewhat soured by the experience. Most of the CO's do a good job. Some don't. We are guaranteed certain freedoms-sometimes the courts need to decide what they are. Personally, I don't know what is proper with fishhouses--I surely don't want the resource abused nor do I want my rights abused. In my area of MN, typically the CO's do knock before opening. Didn't the law used to forbid the door being locked?

[Practical Person]

If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and sounds like a duck why would you have to get a judge to tell you its okay to call it a duck. The public is being protected by police officers profiling drunks. If the rich areas are not being targetted then write a letter and complain.

[Scott Richardson]

First, nothing is absolute in practice. All rights contained in the Constitution have been limited by the courts.

Second, if the courts gave the same protections to an ice shanty as a house, DNR would need a search warrant to enter a shanty and probable cause to believe you are doing something wrong to get one. Since they don't need a warrant, I guess they're gonna come in, in the words of the Grateful Dead.

Third, I never said they can check "your person." But, I would love to see what happens when you tell the DNR police no, they can't check your bucket or your boat for fish. I think you could take up bridge after that. If police searching for fish found drugs, would the drugs be quashed because they didn't have a warrant? No, not here. They have the legal power to check the fish and safety gear so anything they find inadvertently while carrying out that lawful duty is fair game.

Illinois drivers give limited permission to check for drunkenedness. Illinois fishermen, and I believe fishermen in every state, give tacit permission to check fish in possession. Otherwise, length and creel limits would mean nothing.

Frankly, I agree with the posts that say if you don't do anything wrong, why worry? If police overstep, that's why they make courtrooms and judges.

Nice chatting,
Scott Richardson

[TangledAngler]

Sorry Scott.

Please identify the constitional rights that have been limited by our courts. Everything starts with the Constitution. No law is valid unless it is authorized by the Constitution. The ONLY way that Constitutional rights are altered is by amendment. That's done by Congress. Constitional rights aren't limited. The Courts just continue to define them.

Courts do give the same protections to an ice shanty as they do a residence. Read the opinion. In fact, the case everyone is talking about in this thread dealt with the officers barging into a hut, searching it, and finding marijuana and the defendant using three poles. Guess what, evidence suppressed and the defendant went on his merry way. Why? No warrant. That's the current law. They either need a warrant or the facts must fall into one of the exceptions to a warrant, otherwise they can't get in. It's in black and white.

I discussed the driver's licensing issue above, at length, and I'm not going to rehash that now. Suffice it so say that police officers just can't pull you over and mke you undergo testing. They must have some basis to pull you over in the first place. The Illinois statute requires it.

Now, there's a big difference between an officer checking your creel limit as opposed to ripping a boat apart to search it. They can certainly check your livewell or your bag. They need probable cause to go further.

[gremlin266]

OK, one more response then I banish this thread from my computer. Scott as much as I agree with the idea that "I'm not doing anything wrong so search away", I have to agree with Tangled. I've been a cop for many years (city). I cannot pull you over just to determine if you've been drinking/are intoxicated without some sort of reason, ie left of center, improper taillights, no license plate light, take your pick out of a thousand.

You are correct in the fact that once I have determined you have been consuming alcoholic beverages, I can offer you a chance to take a chemical test (blood,breath,urine). By the way, You don't get a choice of which one. If at that time you refuse, here in Indiana you lose your license for one year plus I cite you for refusal (C infraction), then take you to jail.

Having said that, remember cops are like mechanics, you've got good ones & bad ones. I don't agree with the fact that ice huts afford one any expectation of privacy, the current laws however do and I must abide by them. Any cop or CO worth their salt, if they believe you are up to no good, will find a way within the system to do their checks. One other point, when a vehicle is towed an inventory is done to insure items of value in the vehicle are protected & documented...it is NEVER a search. The vehicle is now under my control and no longer mobile. If I wanted to look into say a set of suitcases that are in the vehicle, I now need a search warrant, and rightfully so. The laws aren't perfect, but they are better than anywhere else in the world.

Can't we all just get along and fish:)