Since we been on law enforcement, There is a some grips locally with fish & game or game wardens, conservation officers whatever you want to call them. Here are a few of the complaints 1. They seem to be able to search a automobile or atv or even a camp with not much grounds at all. The victim was told he was in a wooded area on dirt road and they had authority to search his truck. He was older and owned remote land had no gun with him. but they did go through the bed and cab pretty good. Next seems to be some of them go on private land even if posted to check for hunting or use it as a means to get to a pond for duck hunters. Next is very technical violations Writing some one for not quite enough hunter orange, tags not filled out correctly, Took to long to check the animal in. AND THE LAST TWO HAVE REALLY SAT OFF A FIRESTORM! Guy reported a dead deer on his land (might have been shot at night or car hit) he got a poaching ticket and last guy shot some birds near a farm field with crop remains and was cited for "hunting over bait" or some such. You get the picture is this the normal in your state????
- Thread starter JOCCO
- Start date
game wardens here in Va. have way to much authority to search . these laws need to be changed . even though I don't bother hunting and have never had a problem I have seen them set up a seach on a fourlane divided highway and just search every car that comes down the road . way to much authority .
gene bender
Well-known Member
Same old thing get along with them you dont know whats been rported and they are just doing their job RESPECT THEM AT ALL TIMES it doesent cost anything and makes thei job easier they are there to protect the people and the law. Why all of a sudden do we want to pic a bone with the law.
Tramway Guy
Well-known Member
". Stop you, even tear apart your cat,..."
Saves on food and changing litter boxes, though! 😄
Saves on food and changing litter boxes, though! 😄
Angle Iron
Member
I think that the over reach shall we say in law inforcement as well as game management has always been here. It is more widely heard about in todays digital world. The same can be said about the amount of poaching, early and late hunting as well as trespassing. Theft across the state would not have been known locally and therefore crime would have been lower in our view. Most officers are good hard working people trying to do their job, then the few who have a habit of being overbearing, rude, pushy and just plain nasty in general come into play and again we are in the digital age and its news instantly. I believe that in many cases game management oversteps the law as to the search of vehicles and property. Private property is just that and as with any other crime related search a search warrant should be required unless probable cause can be shown.
Goose
Well-known Member
A few years ago, a local deputy sheriff searched a farmer's pickup on some pretense and jailed him for carrying a concealed weapon when he found a hunting knife in a door pocket of the pickup. How many farm pickups have a hunting knife in a door pocket?
As I recall, the judge threw the whole thing out, but the farmer still was inconvenienced and spent a night in jail.
As I recall, the judge threw the whole thing out, but the farmer still was inconvenienced and spent a night in jail.
Growing up in Michigan I was always told DNR officers carried what amounted to an open warrant, meaning if they had reasonable suspicion all they had to do was fill in the blanks and they were legal to search at will. Two things going on, our government is getting more and more powerful day after day and this is at the cost of our liberty. The second is some individuals and agencies use their power as a government official to promote their agenda, wants, beliefs and desires. So you can have a conversation warden who good be a PETA wack job trying to shut down or stop all hunting, you could have a conservation officer who is bent for revenge because of some slight (real or perceived) or some guy who was bullied as a child and is using his position to get even.
The bottom line is this is supposed to be a government by the people for the people but with many of our citizens it's become to much of a bother. The price of freedom vigilance. If you have an abusive game warden if enough people write their state representative and state senator complaining about them AND follow up at election time with nothing more than a challenge in the primaries, how ever weak it may be it could set the wheels of government in motion to deal with the situation.
In theory we could litigate against the abuse but that's costly especially when you're litigating against the government. Two tactics-find a retired lawyer who wouldn't mind harassing the government in court, this might do nothing more than push the problem somewhere else. The second tactic is to appeal and fight in other venues, for the example of the folks who got cited after they went hunting on a field that had crop residue- have the landowner appeal his property taxes stating diminished value because it's no longer lawful to farm AND hunt. Yes one landowner won't make a difference but if several thousand across the state file and appeal on the same basis and won it could force the state to clarify the law to prevent future abuse. Even if the law isn't changed if a county takes $25,000 or $30,000 in lost tax revenue on claims of diminished value it might become more difficult for the game warden to get a conviction from the locally elected judge. I would also imagine the officer who wrote the citation won't be particularly popular if his over exuberant enforcement forces his agency to endure scrutiny from the state legislature and results in a change in the law making the job more difficult for him. his co-workers and superiors.
I deal with a similar situation at work, I work at an egg farm (factory) with inline breaking operations. Translated into English we're an egg farm that sells all of our product in bulk liquid form, if you call us up we can send you 50,000 pounds (tanker truck full) of liquid egg, what do you want whole egg, egg whites, egg yolk? You want natural proportion, standardized proportion and regular or cage free? But as such our breaking plant is USDA inspected, the basis or standards we have to meet that they enforce is the "USDA Egg Products Manual". The problem is sections of the egg products manual are so vague if the inspector decides he doesn't want us to run cause he's rather curl up in their office and take a nap we don't run. Example the egg products manual requires us to denature any inedible product we ship out. The preferred method is by adding caramel coloring. I went to ship a load I added caramel coloring, had the tank about the color of cappuccino coffee, only problem is the inspector that day decided she wanted espresso color inedible. She wouldn't write a notice of violation but also wouldn't sign the bill of laden so I could ship it. If she wrote a violation we could appeal get her overturned (in theory) and get her disciplined, so she enforces by obstruction, in reality at that location we added our DAF float (a waste water product) to our inedible, it could be argued that with all that sludge and solids AND the change in color we had denatured the product, it obviously wasn't whole egg or any variation of the yellow products we offered.
The situation I have had to live with in the last six months, but is now over, was one of our USDA inspectors was a former employee of ours who had been terminated for drug use on the job. With him I had to deal with a lot of aggression against the company (for firing him) as well as attacks he would make on employees he felt had wronged him while he worked for us. So to really make you feel safe and secure about your food supply let it be known the USDA hires stoners for inspectors.
The bottom line is this is supposed to be a government by the people for the people but with many of our citizens it's become to much of a bother. The price of freedom vigilance. If you have an abusive game warden if enough people write their state representative and state senator complaining about them AND follow up at election time with nothing more than a challenge in the primaries, how ever weak it may be it could set the wheels of government in motion to deal with the situation.
In theory we could litigate against the abuse but that's costly especially when you're litigating against the government. Two tactics-find a retired lawyer who wouldn't mind harassing the government in court, this might do nothing more than push the problem somewhere else. The second tactic is to appeal and fight in other venues, for the example of the folks who got cited after they went hunting on a field that had crop residue- have the landowner appeal his property taxes stating diminished value because it's no longer lawful to farm AND hunt. Yes one landowner won't make a difference but if several thousand across the state file and appeal on the same basis and won it could force the state to clarify the law to prevent future abuse. Even if the law isn't changed if a county takes $25,000 or $30,000 in lost tax revenue on claims of diminished value it might become more difficult for the game warden to get a conviction from the locally elected judge. I would also imagine the officer who wrote the citation won't be particularly popular if his over exuberant enforcement forces his agency to endure scrutiny from the state legislature and results in a change in the law making the job more difficult for him. his co-workers and superiors.
I deal with a similar situation at work, I work at an egg farm (factory) with inline breaking operations. Translated into English we're an egg farm that sells all of our product in bulk liquid form, if you call us up we can send you 50,000 pounds (tanker truck full) of liquid egg, what do you want whole egg, egg whites, egg yolk? You want natural proportion, standardized proportion and regular or cage free? But as such our breaking plant is USDA inspected, the basis or standards we have to meet that they enforce is the "USDA Egg Products Manual". The problem is sections of the egg products manual are so vague if the inspector decides he doesn't want us to run cause he's rather curl up in their office and take a nap we don't run. Example the egg products manual requires us to denature any inedible product we ship out. The preferred method is by adding caramel coloring. I went to ship a load I added caramel coloring, had the tank about the color of cappuccino coffee, only problem is the inspector that day decided she wanted espresso color inedible. She wouldn't write a notice of violation but also wouldn't sign the bill of laden so I could ship it. If she wrote a violation we could appeal get her overturned (in theory) and get her disciplined, so she enforces by obstruction, in reality at that location we added our DAF float (a waste water product) to our inedible, it could be argued that with all that sludge and solids AND the change in color we had denatured the product, it obviously wasn't whole egg or any variation of the yellow products we offered.
The situation I have had to live with in the last six months, but is now over, was one of our USDA inspectors was a former employee of ours who had been terminated for drug use on the job. With him I had to deal with a lot of aggression against the company (for firing him) as well as attacks he would make on employees he felt had wronged him while he worked for us. So to really make you feel safe and secure about your food supply let it be known the USDA hires stoners for inspectors.
farmerwithmutt
Well-known Member
In Wisconsin there is one heading to the Supreme court a man had a confrontation with the game wardens and ended in prison look up stietz and confrontation with d.n.r. it will be interesting to see how that turns out.
On the other hand I know a couple d.n.r guys that are friends and there job is a tough one its bad on both sides. But you also have to remember that there only trying to enforce the laws you voted for if there are bad apples don't throw out the good with the bad. One woman shopping in a grocery store was confronted by a man who had received a ticket from her husband he was way over his fishing limit and he was mad and screaming at her in the grocery store simply because he was told to share with others that's why there is limits.
On the other hand I know a couple d.n.r guys that are friends and there job is a tough one its bad on both sides. But you also have to remember that there only trying to enforce the laws you voted for if there are bad apples don't throw out the good with the bad. One woman shopping in a grocery store was confronted by a man who had received a ticket from her husband he was way over his fishing limit and he was mad and screaming at her in the grocery store simply because he was told to share with others that's why there is limits.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Because many are on a power trip and are over stepping the law. It's about power and ego. Charge the public with everything and if they are innocent let them pay to prove it in court with their own after tax $$$ to fight unlimited state $$$.
We had one that though they could walk into a our cabin without probably cause or a warrant. He seemed surprised and disappointed that somebody knew the law and stuck to it.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Pull out the smart phone on video , pull out the little black book, start asking questions and the tables soon turn on the bullies.
A good number of years ago two young DEC men stopped a gentelmans' car during deer season.Asked him if they could search his car? H e said go ahead. They found a handgun,cased, along with ammo in the trunk.This man was and is licensed to carry in this state and has been for many years,no problem there.But they said we could charge you with poaching ,you have all the equipment for it.Gent says "you could charge me for rape,I've got all the equipment for that too".Needless to say he wasn't charged with anything and was sent on his way.
Pair-a-dice farm
Well-known Member
I've never personally had any trouble with them but I seldom hunt or fish. A neighbor once got a ticket for fishing in a pond on his own property that he had built and stocked with is own funds. He beat it in court but he had to hire a lawyer and missed a day of work. That cost much more than the cost of the ticket but it was for the principle.
Like any law enforcement, a couple of bad ones can give the whole force a black eye.
Like any law enforcement, a couple of bad ones can give the whole force a black eye.
Billy Shafer
Well-known Member
Same in my part of Texas. They do come by the feed store often. Just to pick up a few things,visit and check up on folks. See if anyone is having any
problems. We did have one Barney Fife. But he didn't last long.
problems. We did have one Barney Fife. But he didn't last long.
Doug - Iowa
Member
We had a DNR officer years ago that had some serious ego issues. Folks even took to putting up signs around the area to tease him. He showed up at my door one night with a deputy to cite me for tagging a deer illegally. I asked him when I was suppose to have done this and he told me the date and the general time I was seen. Wanted to see the deer. I said write the ticket. Just happened that on that date I was travelling for business and was out of the state. Next day I took the ticket along with my flight voucher, hotel receipt, and my unused deer tag to the county attorney's office and asked her what my next step was. She looked at the officer's name and said get out of my office, this charge is dropped. They finally relocated him to another area I lost track of him. Good riddance in my book.
buickanddeere
Well-known Member
Our outfitter just had some of his clients harrassed by a young small puncture wound of a CO. They had fish fillets ready to cook for supper and he busted them for no leaving the scales on to be able to ID the fish.
Wisbaker is essentially right. In MI, if they have the idea that you're up to something, they can each your stuff if they want. I went through all the motions to become a MI conservation officer at the same time I was trying for the job I have now. The job I have now is a better fit for me. If I was to have accepted the CO job, I wouldn't have known which county I would work in until about 6 months into the job, and you are required to live in the county you work in. There was many openings in the UP and around Detroit, so even though you could fill out a "preferred area" your chances of actually getting it right away were very slim. I was told some guys only had to wait a couple years to get to where they wanted to be, and it took some guys 15 years to get to the area they wanted. It just didn't fit, I would have loved the job, but would have most likely had to give up farming and everything else I have at my home. All of the ones around my area have been great, you can go on ride alongs if you like. I wish they'd search my neighbors that are always treating everything and and everybody else's land like they are entitled to it, so they can hunt with no restrictions. They always work in 3's so someone is always on the lookout.
Way too much authority, and unlimited resources to fight you in court. Things will get worse before it gets better....much worse. Had a local DNR officer. Nice man but couldn't see the beyond his badge. I was cooking chicken with friends along side a building one of them owned in a small town, just hanging out. He pulled up said that smells good how do you keep it moist when cooking it. I told him it how we cooked it said, our recipe only works with chicken don't try it on bald eagles or spotted owl. He immediately went off on us, even though it was a joke.
Funny but here a judge took away a lot of the power DNR tried telling everyone they had. For example DNR claimed that if an officer wanted to look in your freezer he could, no warrant. 2 cases back to back. The first involved ice fishing and drugs. DNR said that 1. an occupied fish house the door had to be unlocked and 2. the DNR officers could walk in unannounced. DNR officer walking into an ice house and caught 2 guys smoking some pot. Now MN DNR officers are also sworn law enforcement officers. The court ruled that the arrest was illegal and that a fish house in property protected under the 4th Amendment. From then DNR would have to knock and announce who they were and be allowed in the fish house by the occupants/owner. They next one really knocked DNR for a loop! A DNR office stopped a boat on a lake and made the owner open the live well. The guy was over his limit. He had money and got a lawyer. The court toss that one because the officer in question admitted that they had not observed this guy putting the fish in the live well and had just done as DNR claimed and searched without probable cause or warrant. Ruling was illegal search. That much like any other personal property they have to have a warrant or probable cause. The SCOTUS did rule that if you are pulled over and arrested that they can search your vehicle as the arrest gives probable cause but being pulled over for a traffic violation isn't probable cause.
Before these court cases if you were in my boat and did not have a fishing license and I had more than one rod in the boat they would write you up for fishing without a license even if we were just boating and not fishing. Now they have to see you fishing!
Our rights are at this time still intact. WE. US! Us citizens just have to be prepared to take the time to take it to court.
On a side note. The year after those 2 cases were tossed, MN DNR (do nothing right) tired to get the MN house and senate to pass laws giving them the right to do what they had been doing. Our politicians refused! That year DNR announced that officers would no longer just walk into someone's property without cause.
Rick
Before these court cases if you were in my boat and did not have a fishing license and I had more than one rod in the boat they would write you up for fishing without a license even if we were just boating and not fishing. Now they have to see you fishing!
Our rights are at this time still intact. WE. US! Us citizens just have to be prepared to take the time to take it to court.
On a side note. The year after those 2 cases were tossed, MN DNR (do nothing right) tired to get the MN house and senate to pass laws giving them the right to do what they had been doing. Our politicians refused! That year DNR announced that officers would no longer just walk into someone's property without cause.
Rick
I've heard the old wives tale that a Game Warden doesn't need a warrant for years. It's bogus. You cannot violate the law to enforce the law. You have to have probable cause and reasonable grounds to proceed with a warrantless search. That isn't to say it doesn't happen, but if it does it's illegal and up to the people involved to raise a stink. There are certain times a warrantless search can be conducted, but it's all spelled out in your state criminal procedure laws and the US Constitution and Bill of Rights.
dr sportster
Well-known Member
Saw two boat cops hiding on the side of the ST Johns river. The way they were treating boaters it made me decide I did not want a boat. However I was under the impression that boating was where you were supposed to drive drunk. What do I know.
They may have something in state law that says something to the effect that if a person has a hunting or fishing license they are obligated to provide certain information or to submit to certain requirements under a specific circumstance (think being obligated to have a license and insurance to drive on a public road) but I don't see anyway way they can claim to have blanket authority to conduct a warrantless search of a vehicle or property without proper cause. That simply goes against any training I received over a 20 years career.
Bret, I completely agree and so did the court that shut them down. But that is what they claimed and after the court ruling they tried to get the state to pass a law saying that by buying a license you were consenting to search of property, home and vehicle. The legislature rejected that idea. Now before those court cases several cops I know, city, county and state were telling people to fight DNR on it because of the 4th Amendment. The older DNR officers were pretty angry about those decisions but the younger ones here in my area seem to be pretty decent and OK with how things are now. Under the old system, with the way DNR was operating, I would have had to really think about using the poaching hotline.
Rick
Rex Simpkins
Member
That's why I sold my boats and got into tractors
Well, none of these anecdotal situations are remotely legal. That doesn't mean that many LEO don't get away with it, just that they are blatantly illegal search and seizure. It might get past a local/muni judge, but a county or state judge will toss 99.9% of them, the problem is the cost to get it in front of the right jurist.
There are two well known, and semi-respected exceptions to the 4th amendment. First is the 100 mile border rule for CBP(18 USC, 1357(a)). However, this is starting to change as more and more CPB warrantless searches are being overturned. In some cases, other agencies are working in a 'co-op' with the CBP in an attempt to legitimize searches outside the realm of border or customs enforcement. The most notable is with the FAA and their private plane intercepts which sometimes happen hundreds or a thousand miles from the border. A private plane will fly a course through or originate from an airport which is within the 100 mile rule, but land far away. Soon after the CBP/FAA/DEA/FBI plane will land behind the private plane and attempt to search. Most pilots give in, but recently there have been several cases tossed out, and the FAA has been admonished to stop enabling these obvious fishing expeditions well inside the US(slippery slope).
Next is the IRS special assets seizure regs(31 USC, 5313 and 18 USC 1956/57) allowing the civil asset seizure of property without due process, and in the method of seizure, there is a statutory obligation to search for illicit or illegal substances(drugs, etc). In the case of the IRS this is also coming under scrutiny for the same type of slippery slope as is happening with the CBP exclusion. Basically, the IRS can seize any asset and then go prove their case later. Or, in many cases the individual just forfeits that asset as it will cost too much to defend the right of ownership. Case law, and finally statutory law was changing in mid-2015, and the courts have taken much more aggressive stands in protecting people from these seizures. Several cases of 'structuring' deposits or withdrawals from banks have given the IRS a black eye in the more conservative fed circuit courts, but it's a crap shoot. First thing is, you better be clean as a whistle from a criminal standpoint to beat the breast of innocence with the IRS.
Now, on to the lower class of scum LEO - namely game wardens, DNR officers, constables, etc. Most of these people are the dregs of LEO community, and are failed patrol, or Corrections Officers, but they still want that power of the badge and gun. My advice, for all it costs you is always, always be polite but firm in NOT GIVING CONSENT. further, nowadays you must actively protest the attempt at search and seizure. This will provide the grounds for me to stand up in front of a judge later and say 'the boat/gun/knife/rod/bow owner said in a clear, unambiguous, non-threatening English voice that they do not consent to this search, and directly told the (fill in LEO) to leave the premises'.
Example: "Sir, I do not consent to your investigative search, and I am advising you that you must now leave the property/boat/cabin/hut/vehicle. Am I free to leave?" If you are NOT free to leave, it is now custodial, and you would again politely advise that you will not be cooperating anymore. "Sir, I understand that you will not allow me to go on my way. I'm offering no resistance, but will not assist in your investigation, and again demand you stop your search."
This is going to make Barney upset, so be polite. They have the badge, and the gun, make them follow the law. if(really when) they don't follow it, you will be happy that you spoke up when confronted. But - don't get uppity. Just speak in a normal tone of voice and whatever you do - never get into a dialogue. Just stand and look at them, and demand your privacy. Most will back down. Those that don't will face the judge eventually.
There are two well known, and semi-respected exceptions to the 4th amendment. First is the 100 mile border rule for CBP(18 USC, 1357(a)). However, this is starting to change as more and more CPB warrantless searches are being overturned. In some cases, other agencies are working in a 'co-op' with the CBP in an attempt to legitimize searches outside the realm of border or customs enforcement. The most notable is with the FAA and their private plane intercepts which sometimes happen hundreds or a thousand miles from the border. A private plane will fly a course through or originate from an airport which is within the 100 mile rule, but land far away. Soon after the CBP/FAA/DEA/FBI plane will land behind the private plane and attempt to search. Most pilots give in, but recently there have been several cases tossed out, and the FAA has been admonished to stop enabling these obvious fishing expeditions well inside the US(slippery slope).
Next is the IRS special assets seizure regs(31 USC, 5313 and 18 USC 1956/57) allowing the civil asset seizure of property without due process, and in the method of seizure, there is a statutory obligation to search for illicit or illegal substances(drugs, etc). In the case of the IRS this is also coming under scrutiny for the same type of slippery slope as is happening with the CBP exclusion. Basically, the IRS can seize any asset and then go prove their case later. Or, in many cases the individual just forfeits that asset as it will cost too much to defend the right of ownership. Case law, and finally statutory law was changing in mid-2015, and the courts have taken much more aggressive stands in protecting people from these seizures. Several cases of 'structuring' deposits or withdrawals from banks have given the IRS a black eye in the more conservative fed circuit courts, but it's a crap shoot. First thing is, you better be clean as a whistle from a criminal standpoint to beat the breast of innocence with the IRS.
Now, on to the lower class of scum LEO - namely game wardens, DNR officers, constables, etc. Most of these people are the dregs of LEO community, and are failed patrol, or Corrections Officers, but they still want that power of the badge and gun. My advice, for all it costs you is always, always be polite but firm in NOT GIVING CONSENT. further, nowadays you must actively protest the attempt at search and seizure. This will provide the grounds for me to stand up in front of a judge later and say 'the boat/gun/knife/rod/bow owner said in a clear, unambiguous, non-threatening English voice that they do not consent to this search, and directly told the (fill in LEO) to leave the premises'.
Example: "Sir, I do not consent to your investigative search, and I am advising you that you must now leave the property/boat/cabin/hut/vehicle. Am I free to leave?" If you are NOT free to leave, it is now custodial, and you would again politely advise that you will not be cooperating anymore. "Sir, I understand that you will not allow me to go on my way. I'm offering no resistance, but will not assist in your investigation, and again demand you stop your search."
This is going to make Barney upset, so be polite. They have the badge, and the gun, make them follow the law. if(really when) they don't follow it, you will be happy that you spoke up when confronted. But - don't get uppity. Just speak in a normal tone of voice and whatever you do - never get into a dialogue. Just stand and look at them, and demand your privacy. Most will back down. Those that don't will face the judge eventually.
Sounds like a lawyer speaking here!
That is basically what the LEO's I know are telling people. One of those guys refers to DNR officers as "carp cops".
Part of the problem we had is it clearly stated in the hunting and fishing regulation books DNR passed out for free that refusing to cooperate with a DNR officer in any way was illegal and would subject you to arrest. Most often the DNR officers pulled their garbage on people they knew couldn't afford a lawyer and would just pay the fine. Like I said a couple of the carp cops got that shut down when a county judge ruled in favor of the 4th Amendment.
Rick
Well, I haven't read the regs, but here's the deal. If you do not cooperate with an LEO, you need to have a really, really, really good reason. If a DNR officers tells you that a trail is dangerous and you cannot snowmobile on it, as long as it's public land, you have to cooperate by not riding down there. So, technically the handbook may be entirely correct. Now, here's the limitation. Cooperation does NOT mean that you must assist or allow them to violate any of the constitutional protections afforded each individual.
So, if they ask you about those 35 ducks visible in your boat, and the pump action on the deck, you do not have to tell them 'yes sir, I used that pump action and shot all those ducks this morning'. You just admitted to a violation of the bag limit! You can always decline to offer information about anything you did. Let them figure it out. So - yes, cooperate but protect your rights. What will work best is if they threaten you with arrest if you don't offer up an explanation. Tell them to go ahead and arrest you, it absolutely won't stick for refusal to admit to a violation. Now, violating the bag limit might stick, but then again - maybe it won't. However, if you admit it, that can be used against you, even if you haven't been Mirandized.
I can't speak to all the various poorly trained LEOs across the nation, but I haven't seen much in the way of blatant violations of search and seizure laws in my state over my 20 year LE career. What I have seen is a heck of a lot of lying by people who did in fact give permission for a search, which was based on a reasonable suspicion, who then had to face up to the consequences of getting caught with an illegal deer or loaded gun in the car or drugs or whatever. I would just ask that people take some of the anecdotal "evidence" of breaches of search and seizure laws with a grain of salt. People tend to get mad and stretch the truth a bit when they get caught doing something stupid. I'm sure some violations do occur and I've run into Barney Fife a time or 2 myself. But that doesn't mean every bar room story is dead nuts accurate in every detail.
People lie about stuff all the time. Many of them right in front of an LEO. Which is what my little diatribe above was all about. No where would I advise anyone to lie to an LEO. However, the smart play is to say "NO SIR, you may not".
It's also very easy for an LEO to not see or not hear something. I absolutely love new smart phones! Cameras, audio, video. It's a gold mine in showing how LEO has ignored, misunderstood, misinterpreted, misheard, the word no. Which is strange, because it is a small, simple, easy to say word.
If you feel uncomfortable saying it, try asking for a warrant. Do not accept substitutes like 'I can have one here in 10 minutes' or 'we don't need it for exigent circumstances'. Ask for the warrant, if they don't have it, ask what the exigence is. Do you hear someone screaming? Do you see a body, body part, blood, or actual evidence in clear view of license/bag limit violations?(prior to that darn consent I mentioned, like the 35 ducks in the hull of the boat! hehe)
Lots of stupid people make it easy. A certain number of them are LEOs with a poor understanding of the rules of criminal evidence gathering and procedure.
Example: I landed a plane at a local lake and was swimming off the bow when F&G pulled up and said I'm not allowed to land here, and he was going to search my aircraft. Oh? Based on what suspicion? He advised it was unlawful to operate a plane off this lake. Well, show it to me. Find it in the USC, state, local statute and show it to me. Of course - it's not in there. So, he's hunting around for some operation violation about speed on the lake. Go ahead, but -- don't forget that applies to WATERCRAFT. This is a federally registered AIRCRAFT. I advised him to start looking in part 91. He demanded to see my license, which I"m required to present, and I guess he did some checking on the radio. Within 10 minutes, nothing to be found, so he advised me to 'operate in a safe manner around here' and sped off to some other violator. Like I was gonna go operate in an unsafe manner. yikes.
It's also very easy for an LEO to not see or not hear something. I absolutely love new smart phones! Cameras, audio, video. It's a gold mine in showing how LEO has ignored, misunderstood, misinterpreted, misheard, the word no. Which is strange, because it is a small, simple, easy to say word.
If you feel uncomfortable saying it, try asking for a warrant. Do not accept substitutes like 'I can have one here in 10 minutes' or 'we don't need it for exigent circumstances'. Ask for the warrant, if they don't have it, ask what the exigence is. Do you hear someone screaming? Do you see a body, body part, blood, or actual evidence in clear view of license/bag limit violations?(prior to that darn consent I mentioned, like the 35 ducks in the hull of the boat! hehe)
Lots of stupid people make it easy. A certain number of them are LEOs with a poor understanding of the rules of criminal evidence gathering and procedure.
Example: I landed a plane at a local lake and was swimming off the bow when F&G pulled up and said I'm not allowed to land here, and he was going to search my aircraft. Oh? Based on what suspicion? He advised it was unlawful to operate a plane off this lake. Well, show it to me. Find it in the USC, state, local statute and show it to me. Of course - it's not in there. So, he's hunting around for some operation violation about speed on the lake. Go ahead, but -- don't forget that applies to WATERCRAFT. This is a federally registered AIRCRAFT. I advised him to start looking in part 91. He demanded to see my license, which I"m required to present, and I guess he did some checking on the radio. Within 10 minutes, nothing to be found, so he advised me to 'operate in a safe manner around here' and sped off to some other violator. Like I was gonna go operate in an unsafe manner. yikes.
They no longer put in the books. This was 15 or so years ago. And the carp cops ran with it. They did in fact tell people that if they had record of you buying a license that they could walk into your home and check your freezer without cause or a warrant and that it was illegal to tell them no. At the time or neighbor and long time family friend was a retired state cop and the active county sheriff. He was outraged by the way the carp cops were conducting themselves.
Bret, I commonly take what people claim about LEOs with a grain of salt. But about 2 years after I retired from the Army I got a taste of MN DNR officers. No, I didn't do anything illegal! I was in my deer stand on my property. About 10 minutes before time to shoot I heard a shot. Couple of minutes later I hear a vehicle in the field about 100 yards behind me which would be on my farm. So thinking maybe my wife needed something I got out of my stand and walked back there. It was our local carp cop. He right away accused me of shooting! I had not even loaded my rifle yet. Then he threaten to arrest me if I didn't admit to shooting too early. Now my rifle had been cleaned after it was shot the last time so I handed him my rifle and told him to check it to see if it had been fired. Then he handed the gun back to me and ask who else was hunting my property and which one had shot early. When I told him who else was out there and where they were located he called me a liar and threaten me again. So totally screwing up opening day for me I took him around and showed him that indeed only one other person was hunting and from where he said heard the shot fired he was in the wrong direction and the carp cop had in fact seen him in a stand 1/4 mile away on the other side of the highway when he pulled in my drive! I did send a letter to DNR complaining about his actions and got a reply that he had been within his authority. The same season he ticketed a guy I know who did illegally shoot a deer. He had a buck only tag. His daughter on her first hunt had an either tag youth license was with him and he tagged it with her tag. Thing is according to the regulations she had to shoot it herself. When the carp cop stop them to check them he, without consent, pulled her away from her father and questioned her. According to her (14 YO) he said that he knew he father had shot the deer and if she didn't tell the truth he would jail her dad. Now according to our neighbor it was illegal for law enforcement to question someone under the age of 16 without the consent of a parent or guardian and that said person or a lawyer had to be present during questioning. Her dad just paid the fine because he couldn't afford to fight it. Gary, my LEO neighbor was outraged over that and told her father that he would have helped pay for a lawyer had he known before the fine was paid!
Rick
Oh, now my head hurts with all the mistakes made here. And I'm not talking about the DNR LEO!
A) No dialogue! You were accused of "shooting" on your own property. 1. It's not against the law to "shoot" on your property, but - it IS against the law to "hunt" outside of the date/time restrictions. 2. If he threatens to violate you, just say 'go ahead'. 3. He was there investigating a potentially legitimate hunting violation, but - again, shooting is not the same as hunting. Goes to intent. 4. You voluntarily handed him your weapon? GAH! No, no, no, no. Make him ask for it. 5. Ask for the warrant. He will not have it but we do have an 'exigency' in this case, because 6. you ADMITTED to hearing someone shoot. He may TAKE your weapon, but not with your consent. 7. You know his the south end of a north facing horse, so suppose he chambered a round, fired it in the air, and then took you off to the hoosegow? 8. You then involved a 3rd party, disclaiming your own guilt, but putting someone else in the crosshairs(so to speak).
B) The right way.
LEO shows up on your land. accuses you of 'shooting'. So what? You ask him politely to leave. He will not, and use the sound of the shot as pretext for investigating. Tell him again, you want him to leave, and that you are going back up in your blind. He will DEMAND to see your weapon. Ask for the warrant. He will tell you to put your weapon down, and step back(or, he may cuff you, it's now custodial). He might start asking a lot of questions, you are under no obligation to answer any of them. He'll check your weapon. If not fired, he'll want to know if you have other weapons in your blind, or other hunters around. Again, advise that you want him to leave, and ask to go back about your business. If he does chamber and fire your weapon, you're still ahead of the game, as his prints will be on the cartridge(or there will be NO prints on it when it gets to the evidence locker, hmmmmm?)
Now, he's got a decision to make. How far to push it. He is likely within his power to go up in your blind to check for other weapons, BUT you've asked him to leave already, so now we get into a very murky area of evidence. Very murky indeed, since your first weapon was NOT fired. Eventually, you'll be standing there, face to face, not answering anything, and he's got to make a decision about arresting you with ZERO evidence, and likely knowing that he's way, way out on a evidentiary limb here. No dialogue!
A) No dialogue! You were accused of "shooting" on your own property. 1. It's not against the law to "shoot" on your property, but - it IS against the law to "hunt" outside of the date/time restrictions. 2. If he threatens to violate you, just say 'go ahead'. 3. He was there investigating a potentially legitimate hunting violation, but - again, shooting is not the same as hunting. Goes to intent. 4. You voluntarily handed him your weapon? GAH! No, no, no, no. Make him ask for it. 5. Ask for the warrant. He will not have it but we do have an 'exigency' in this case, because 6. you ADMITTED to hearing someone shoot. He may TAKE your weapon, but not with your consent. 7. You know his the south end of a north facing horse, so suppose he chambered a round, fired it in the air, and then took you off to the hoosegow? 8. You then involved a 3rd party, disclaiming your own guilt, but putting someone else in the crosshairs(so to speak).
B) The right way.
LEO shows up on your land. accuses you of 'shooting'. So what? You ask him politely to leave. He will not, and use the sound of the shot as pretext for investigating. Tell him again, you want him to leave, and that you are going back up in your blind. He will DEMAND to see your weapon. Ask for the warrant. He will tell you to put your weapon down, and step back(or, he may cuff you, it's now custodial). He might start asking a lot of questions, you are under no obligation to answer any of them. He'll check your weapon. If not fired, he'll want to know if you have other weapons in your blind, or other hunters around. Again, advise that you want him to leave, and ask to go back about your business. If he does chamber and fire your weapon, you're still ahead of the game, as his prints will be on the cartridge(or there will be NO prints on it when it gets to the evidence locker, hmmmmm?)
Now, he's got a decision to make. How far to push it. He is likely within his power to go up in your blind to check for other weapons, BUT you've asked him to leave already, so now we get into a very murky area of evidence. Very murky indeed, since your first weapon was NOT fired. Eventually, you'll be standing there, face to face, not answering anything, and he's got to make a decision about arresting you with ZERO evidence, and likely knowing that he's way, way out on a evidentiary limb here. No dialogue!
Quite an imagination you have there. Here's the right way- He hears the shot and investigates, which is what he is paid for, and you try and help him find the jerk violator that is harming our hunting and gun rights in the first place. You aren't an idiot, the Fish Cop wasn't an idiot. Thats the right way.
No, actually I don't. Would you come to my job and help me do it? Didn't think so. Was he hunting? You want to talk about rights, but you don't want to respect the very basis of rights.
Look, I don't care if anyone takes advice. I get paid either way. What I'm trying to avoid, is the goober who screws up his life by blathering his way into an arrest and then coming on a forum and complaining about LEOs and outrageous enforcement activity. What troubles me is the ever increasing violations of civil rights I see and hear. And I will stop there, to comply with the rules of this forum.
Having been raised with manners, and with the idea that LE were the guys in the white hats, and having actually spent a career in LE and having people assist me in my attempts to find the BG, I find your assertions sketchy at best. Yes, absolutely I would help you do you job if it involved something important I could assist with. If your airplane was broken, I'd try and help you get help to fix it. If you were a fish and game cop and were requesting information about something illegal in my area I would absolutely help you out. And if you were a lawyer requesting information on an actual illegal search where I had information, I would help you there too. IMO that's part of being a good citizen. You seem to have the idea that helping the police to find the actual BG is not something anyone would do. My experience is just the opposite.
As far a erroding rights, that's as much due society and the courts as it is to anything else. In fact, I would say our rights are far more intact in most cases than they were 40 or 50 years ago, much less 100 or 150 years ago. Tankers anecdote involving the DNR having to back off their claims of a right to perform warrantless searches is an example.
But I do agree with you on one thing. I wish we had had car and body cameras back when I was still on the job. Video evidence of just how drunk people were or how bad their driving was or of the way they acted during an interview or interrogation, of just exactly what they said or appeared of had on their person on in their vehicle , much less of how they responded to me, would have saved me hours and hours of testimony undergoing a defense attorneys accusations that I was lying dirt bag trying to frame his poor, innocent client for whatever it was he got caught doing.
GeneMO
Well-known Member
- Location
- Pilot Grove, Mo.
My hunting buddy is a retired "possum cop", so I don't get messed with.
Gene
Gene
And this has what to do with warrantless searches by F+G cops? If these people were legal, and if a warrant was issued, there has to be more to the story than is told. Without that, all you have is a story half told. If the cops and judge were wrong, fry them. But in most cases like this we usually find out some time later that, oh!, there was a lot more to the story than was told.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy