CamoCop

in the state of florida, game wardens do not need warrants, all they need is REASONABLE SUSPICION. the reasoning behind this is land owners may own the land, BUT they do not own the game on the land. i'm not saying i agree with what the game warden did, just telling ya'll about Florida's stand point.

MassBowhunter

I just wanted to drop back in and say that I didn't mean tostir uptrouble or cause arguments by posting the USSC info earlier. There was another thread that sparked my interest on the topic so I wanted to research the warrantless search/trespass/4th Amendmentissue on a national basis and what I found seemed to fit in with this thread.

As far aseach statehaving it's own laws and precedents onFourth Amendmentrights it seems (to me) thatif the case is eventually appealed to the US Supreme Court the rulings are consistently on the side of law enforcement under the "open fields doctrine." I came to that conclusion after reading the original link I posted and then cross-checking the cases cited in it (as well as other cases I've looked into).The reason for the rulings seem to be based on the fact that the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the protection of ones "houses, papers, and effects" under the Fourth Amendment does not include land. As an aside, how your own land doesn't fall under the "effects" portion is beyond me.

Now I don't hold the title of Lawyer, Judge, LE Officer or anyone else involved in the judicial system.SoI'm not trying to come across as someone sitting on a high horsesaying anyone who disagrees with me is wrong.I'll be the first to admit thatI may be wrong and my interpretation of what I've read may be way off.

I just wanted to post what I thought was an informed opinionwith something to back it up.I've beentrashed before (not on this board) for stating thingswithoutoffering thelink or sourcethat supported what I said, especially without a high post count.Once you've been burned you fear the flames which is why I posted link. I figured that way you could all read what I read and maybe find something I missed or misunderstood.

Sorry for being so long-winded about it.
[/align]

DennyF

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.

*****************************

No manner of signage will keep LE officers from entering your property if they havereasonable cause to do so. All the implications have been discussed here and elsewhere, as to probable cause, search warrants, etc.

Short story long, if they have good reason to think something illegal is happening or has happened, they're coming in, whether it's posted or not. If they're acting on a tip or otherinfo that leads them to believe something has happened, they may get a search warrant. If evidence of illegal activity is right before their noses, they probablywon't need a warrant for the initial visit.

BTBowhunter

No, I have never tried to get a search warrant. Are you telling us that you have? If you are a law enforcement officer, maybe you could elaborate as to what it takes to get one.

In this case it seems the tip was credible and maybe there was enough detail that a warrant would have been issued, maybe not. We dont really have enough facts on this particular case to tell whether a warrant could have been obtained or not. The fact remains that one wasnt obtained because the law allowed the GW to enter the property at will.

As I said before, if all is as it seems, they guy should fry for baiting the bear. I'm watching this case with mixed feelings

Lets say you and your neighbor dont get along. He decides to drop an anonymous "tip" that you are baiting deer. So there you are in your treestand on your own property minding your own business and here comes the GW snooping around looking for your bait and disrupting your hunt in the process. I really dont see that as being much different than helping himself into your house. IMHO, for anyone to enter, your own private property, they should be required to have a valid reason. It appears that the current law allows a GW to tresspass without any specific reason other than "carrying out his duties".Invading our private property should require a better reason than that.

NJ_Bowhntr

Yes BT, I have been in the business of getting warrant for a while now. I can tell you this, no judge is going to sign off on a warrant based on an uncorroborated tip. A warrant is a serious intrusion into a persons liberty, and therefore takes some substantial probable cause to issue. That is why I say most game violations will not be investigated if warrants are need to look into the woods or fields...because Judges just don't issue them that easily, and they shouldn't. Warrants are serious business.

As far as going into the woods being the same as entering a house...you have to be kidding me, right? Here is an example for you. If you catch a guy tresspassing in one of your farm fields, does the fact that he is there give you the right to shoot and kill him? Now, put that same person in your house, it's no longer trespassing, it a burglary, home invasion, robbery, etc., and you can kill him, just because he is there. Someone coming into your house, whether it's the police, game warden, or criminal, is much different than someone going through your 500 acres 1/2 mile from your home. If you can't see that difference, and still think woods and fields should be treated as homes, I'm done here, nothing I can say will help you understand the reasons wardens don't, and shouldn't need warrants to go into woods and fields and on lakes.

BTBowhunter

"Kill him just because he is there?" Who's kidding who here? I understand that a few states afford a great deal of latitude to someone protecting his home but It's my understanding that the law is far more restrictive in most states than you just implied. In my home state you have to have reason to believe that your life or the life of another is in imminent danger. And guess what? That's the standard for deadly force if I happen to be out of my house as well!If you are a law enforcement officer,as you seem to imply,that seems like a pretty irresponsible statement to make in a public forum like this.

I didnt claim that there was no difference. You need to read before you react. That doesnt change the fact I believe there should be a higher standard applied than"in the course of his duties"or "he had a tip" when it comes to tresspassing on private property.

setter77

You just got to understand that the law, federal and state,says there is a diference between the house and it's curtilage (the area immediately surrounding the home) and the rest of a persons property. Short of a locked fenced in property, nothing restricts a LEO from going on to the property to speak to the subject of the investigation, if you happen to be dumb enough to let evidence of a crime out in plain site, sorry for you the LEO can seize it and use it in prosecuting you.

BTBowhunter

I dont think anyone would view the land around your house in the same way as the house itself. I know I sure don't. I also dont dispute that the currnet law gives a GW the right to walk on as he pleases. With what I've seen of this case, I also think the guy sounds guilty.

My whole point here is that I believe that the law as it stands, allows the GW too much privilege when it comes to invading private property. No tresspassing should mean no tresspassing. The exception to that would be when some reasonable evidence exists thst some law is being orhas been broken. Perhaps not the same standard asfor searching a house but certainly a tougher standard than "I had a hunch" "I got a tip" or "everyone knows this guy's an outlaw" or even " I dont like this guy so I guess I'll snoop around his property till I find something I can use"

Think #4 can never happen? Think again!

Rockfish1

thats part of the provisions of getting the permit, you giving them the right to come and inspect the animals and their accomidations to make sure you're taking proper care of those animals...

the way it looks is the tip was all the evidence needed...

usajag

I say the court will say no warrant is required. If the GW was going into his house, barn, or something of that nature i would say he needs to get a warrant. Think about it, we would have illegal baiting, drug cultivation, or whatever else we could come up with if no trespassing signs would keep out law enforcement.