Northeast ME, NH, VT, NY, CT, RI, MA, PA, DE, WV, MD, NJ Remember, the Regional forums are for hunting topics only.

Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

Old 12-24-2005, 01:44 PM
  #21  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 75
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

They have no special rights over the constitutiom of america...Who gave them the power to tresspass on private property?The constitution didn't.Law officers or not,without due process they are guilty of breakng the law.When in the hell did an animal become more important than the peoples liberties? They got the state games to walk around on and check on people.When it comes to search private persons and property without a warrant,it is a bigger crime than killing a bear over bait.If you don't believe that I would say that you are anti-constitutional american.In that case you don't stand for liberty for the people of this country....
turkey jerky is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 03:06 PM
  #22  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 317
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

It is fairly obvious that you didn't bother to go to the link the guy provided in a previous post or you wouldn't have posted what you did. The opinion on the subject is written by the Attorney General of the state of South Dakota, but his opinion is based upon previous US Supreme Court decisions, which he cites. Here it is again. Go there and find out the facts. It helps to make one seem more intelligent.
http://www.state.sd.us/attorney/applications/documents/oneDocument.asp?DocumentID=636

Just in case you don't like to do research, here is the salient point made. This material appears at the end of the page. You will have to read more from the opinion to find out what the US Supreme Court interprets as an "open field."

CONCLUSION:
In light of all the above, it is my opinion that a duly sworn and certified or probationary conservation officer has the authority to enter privately owned "open fields," without suspicion, probable cause, consent or permission, or a search warrant to perform duties of conducting license checks and enforcing wildlife laws.Furthermore, such entry by a conservation officer does not constitute an illegal trespass.
patrkyhntr is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 05:22 PM
  #23  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 75
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that "the right ... against unreasonable searches and seizures … shall not be violated." Two hundred years of case law and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 provide that if the government wants to eavesdrop on your conversations or search your possessions for the purposes of bringing criminal charges, it must first provide a judge or magistrate with evidence of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. No probable cause, no wiretap, no warrant, and no quickie search just for the fun of it.
turkey jerky is offline  
Old 12-24-2005, 05:46 PM
  #24  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location:
Posts: 317
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

ORIGINAL: turkey jerky

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that "the right ... against unreasonable searches and seizures … shall not be violated." Two hundred years of case law and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 provide that if the government wants to eavesdrop on your conversations or search your possessions for the purposes of bringing criminal charges, it must first provide a judge or magistrate with evidence of "probable cause" that a crime has been committed. No probable cause, no wiretap, no warrant, and no quickie search just for the fun of it.
I guess you still didn't want to read the referenced material. While what you state above is correct, you failed to mention that the incident occured outside the cabin, and did not involve a search of same, just the area around it. No wiretaps, no eavesdropping on conversations,and no search of posessions was involved. Sorry buddy, but when I need a lawyer, I won't be hiring you. I guess you just don't understand the idea of judicial precedent. The supreme court has already ruled on this. No warrant is needed if the WCO is not searching the house or car or other posessions of the person. Read the part about the "open fields." Of course, maybe you did and just didn't understand it. I guess what you want is a country in which poaching is legal, so long as you do it on posted land. If that were to be the case, what sense would there be in having any game laws at all? As you might have guessed, I am not on your side on this one.

Since the jerkovski in question shot the bear over a pile of apples out in the open outside his cabin, the "open fields" doctrine applies. I for one am hoping that the more liberal elements in our supreme court don't manage to override past precedent on this one and that they let his conviction stand. It is a shame that he won't have to do serious jail time for poaching, but will only have to pay a fine and lose his license.

Now, this has been fun, but if necessary, you may have the last word. Please try to make it factual.

Merry Christmas
patrkyhntr is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 01:31 AM
  #25  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 75
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

My daughter would shut you down right now.The courts have no no saying over the bible that relates to the constitution
turkey jerky is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 04:08 AM
  #26  
Giant Nontypical
Thread Starter
 
BTBowhunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: SW PA USA
Posts: 7,220
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

Patrkyhntr,

I did read your link and it makes it quite clear how the courts view the US constitution as it may relate to this situation. I did notice in one of the articles on this case that the PA constitution may actually favor private property rights a bit more in this case.

I also agree that we dont want to see any yahoo with enough ground able to make all his own rules but in this case, the GW had a tip. Why not take a little time and get a warrant?

Merry Christmas to all!!
BTBowhunter is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 08:21 PM
  #27  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 139
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

As you said it was tip, you really think you can get a seacrh warrant on a tip? Search warrant requires probable cause, a tip is not even close to probable cause.

Imagine your a GW and you get a phone call from a person who gives his name and number and says hey I heard this guy shot a bear over bait, near his cabin, here is where his cabin is and here is hios name. What is your first step, check and see if he registered the bear. Ok he did, said he shot it in X twp in X county, ok that is the same county and twp as the tipster said. Do you have probable cause to get a search warrant? Nope you don't. What do you do now? Well it is still bear season so you would want to see where the bear is shot, how are you going to find out the exact spot where he shot it. Well you go pay the guy a visit, hear his story and get the info on where he killed it. Does he have to tell you, nope he doesn't but you hope he does. So you drive to the cabin to pay the guy a visit and lock him in to a story. Yeah there is no trespassing signs on the property, but in the course of your offical duties, like any police officer does, you may go on to the property to talk to the person. Once you get there you walk in the driveway to the cabin, which you are prefectly legal in doing, no search warrant required to walk onto anyones property for the purpose of speaking with someone. Now as you walk in the driveway you see a pile of apples, lying in plain view, now this draws your attention cause apples can be used as bait, deer and bear,and are not in season (apples would have long since fallen from the tree and turned to mush by now). You walk over to the apple pile and see bear prints in the ground around the apple pile and notice a gut pile from a bear nearby. Do you now have probable cause to geta search warrant for the property, yes you do. Do you have probable cause to arrest? Pretty darn close. Should you continue your investigation? Yes.

No where in this little story have you violated anyone rights and commited an illegal act. Maybe you don't agree, but the law is the law. I certainly hope that this guy does not win. A ruling like this would dramtically hamper law enforcement.
setter77 is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 08:25 PM
  #28  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: NJ USA
Posts: 237
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

ORIGINAL: BTBowhunter

I also agree that we dont want to see any yahoo with enough ground able to make all his own rules but in this case, the GW had a tip. Why not take a little time and get a warrant?

Merry Christmas to all!!
Obviously, you have never tried to get a search warrant. A tip is not nearly enough, nor should it be. Think about it...your neighbor gives the police a tip that you are growing pot in your basement...the tip may be wrong, but hey, lets get a warrant to find out.

In reality, it's tough to get a search warrant, and it should be. If wardens needed to get search warrants to check out your neighbors 250 acres when you call them about a poaching complaint, you would never see them there. Right now, if you hear rifle shots on the neighboring property during bow season, then see a deer being loaded up, you can call the warden and he can go check it out. They would never be able to get a warrant for what you've reported, so 99.9 percent of all violations would go uninvestigated under your warrant requirement. Is that what you want?

Remember, we aren't talking about going in peoples houses, barns, sheds, cars, trash cans or any thing other than taking a walk through the woods or a field.
NJ_Bowhntr is offline  
Old 12-25-2005, 08:42 PM
  #29  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 139
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/opposting/cwealth/out/1050cd04_1-7-05.pdf


Here is a copy of the Commonweath Courts decision to deny the appeal.
setter77 is offline  
Old 12-26-2005, 01:27 AM
  #30  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: PA
Posts: 14
Default RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court

I live in pa but what strikes me most about this story is that the guy had up " NO TRESPASSING" signs everywhere. Well i belong to a hunting club which has are own hunting grounds and because the club decided to put"POSTED" signs everywhere. That no game warden can come on that ground.
pa_redneck is offline  

Quick Reply: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court


Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.