Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

This'll be interesting:

The case ofbear hunter who was accused of baiting has made it to the state supreme court. After a hunter checked his bear in at a check station, It seems the game warden got an anonymous tip,entered the guys property without a warrant even though it was posted and supposedly found bear bloodnear some apples close to the guys home.

If the guy baited the bear he should fry but whats wrong with the idea of that warden taking a few minutes to get a warrant? It could well be that game wardens will end up having to do just that.

Not sure where to land on this one. On one hand, I'm a big proponent of our right to privacy and private property should be just that, private. On the other hand, I could see a landowner with enough ground to hunt where he couldnt be seenmaking his owngame lawsand that wouldnt be good.

The PGC already lost a case regarding stopping you for no reason and demanding ID in May. The law allowing that was deemed unconstitutional. Could thiscase do the same to the law allowing wardens wanting to walk past no tresspassing signs on a hunch?

I read it in Pa outdoor news but here's a link on the web to the story.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2005/12/02/hunter_challenges_pa_game_commission_over_warrantl ess_searches/

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

game wardens do not need a warrant for anything.. they have more power than the FBI

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Game Wardens should have no place trespassing.

If he had reasonable cause to believe that a crimewas actually in progressthat would be an exception.

If the facts that you stated are correct then I see no reason that the Warden should have be allowed to enter the property without a warrant. Of course given the information provided he would not have had enough evidence to get one in the first.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

We have the right to bear arm but it has to be in a hard locked box or otherwise renderd usless, is that not unconstitutional?

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Yea uh they can go wherever they please whenever they please......they have so much more athority then a regular cop..

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Scary to impower anyone with that much leadway.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

OK, let's see if I have this one straight. The guy poached a bear over bait. He isn't claiming to be innocent, but wants the charges dismissed because the game officer found the evidence without a warrant. Does this one remind you of cases like where a murder or rapist gets off on a technicality because he has a smart lawyer? It does me. Most of us would whine and moan about the criminal getting off on a technicality, but it seems that in this case we are on the poacher's side.
I would agree with the supreme court deciding that in future cases game wardens must get a search warrant before going on to private land to search for evidence, but the warden in this case followed the law as it existed at the time. The guy who poached the bear should receive the full penalties under the law. Change the law if you think it is wrong, but don't let a guilty guy walk. Just my opinion.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

The guy is claiming that he didnt bait the bear. Based onthe two articles I saw, he sounds guilty but, then, I dont really trust any of the media.

I agree that it'd be a terrible shame to see him go unpunished if he did bait the bear. On the other hand, a law that give game wardens more power than the police is just plain wrong and should go bye bye. Unfortunately, if the law is deemed unconstitutionsl, thebaiting conviction goes out the window, no matter how guilty the guy may be.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

WCOs have no special powers. Theyare bound by the same constitutional limitations as any other LE officer. It's up tothe court to decide if the WCO stepped over the line on this one.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Good to see ya here, Denny. Merry Christmas.

Now, for the rest of you, here is what I want for Christmas:
Janis said it best, didn't she?

"Mercedes Benz"

Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends.
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a color TV ?
Dialing For Dollars is trying to find me.
I wait for delivery each day until three,
So oh Lord, won’t you buy me a color TV ?

Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a night on the town ?
I’m counting on you, Lord, please don’t let me down.
Prove that you love me and buy the next round,
Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a night on the town ?

Everybody!
Oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?
My friends all drive Porsches, I must make amends,
Worked hard all my lifetime, no help from my friends,
So oh Lord, won’t you buy me a Mercedes Benz ?

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Not exactly, while its true that the GW and otherLE officersare bound by the same constitution, the game code doesnt exactly follow the constitution and we are now beginning to see parts of it crumble.

The game code most definitely affords more powers to GW's than the police have.

One section allowing a warden to demand ID from anyone for any reason without probable cause or a warrant was just struck down in May.

This may or may not be gone but for yearswas even a section of the game code that made it a crime to refuse assist a GW if he asked you to help him in carrying out his duties.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

With regard to the ID check, a GW cannot just stop you and demand to see ID, but if he comes up to you and says he is doing a license check and asks for ID you have to show it to him. Law simply stays he has to have a reason as to why he wants your license.

With the bear poacher, how is this any different than any other law enforcement act. If a police officer gets a call about a suspected murder and drives up the driveway and sees the guy there with a gun, nothing illegal. Same goes for a game warden, goes to investigate information that he receives and sees evidence of a crime he reacts and arrests the subject. You cannot tell me you see fault in that. So the guy had no trespassing signs up, that should mean the GW has to leave and get a search warrant. He is doing an investigation. In this case the evidence was in plain sight, not like they busted the door to the cabin in to find it. Come on guys, a poacher is a poacher, behind no trespassing signs or not.

Actually think the story is in the game news from when the incident happened.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

You just reinforced the original point that I made, when I noted that a court will decide if the WCO stepped over the line by enforcing that particular part of the wildlife code in the way that he did.

Laws, regulations and ordinances are enacted on a regular basis by various levels of government. All may be enforced until such enactments are ruled against, if challengedat some level of the court system.

In the ID case, the WCOs were investigating a claim of hunter harassment when they demanded proper ID from the suspect at his home. IIRC, the court ruled that they had no probable cause to do so, under the circumstancesin whichthey showed up at his door. The state's case was that all LE officers first need toestablish exactly to whom they are speaking, the court disagreed.

It's no different than the modifications LE agencies had to make when courts ruledon procedures forreading a suspect his rights when an arrest is being made or any of several other adjustments made necessary, when courts bend over backwards to ensure citizens are afforded as much protection aspossible.

We can argue about some of this stuff 'til the cows come home, but it makes no sense to me to make LE's job more difficult by throwing more obstacles in their way. If I call the police to reportvandalism, the first thing they want to know is who I am and generally ask for ID.

Be fairly stupid for an officer to take down all the info on a purported crime and not have the brains to firstfind out who he is talking to. Someone suspected of committing a crime should be held to the same standard of providing ID. Sounds like common sense to me. I may be wrong.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Here is the relevant section of the code. Number two below is the item in question.
G

Sec. 901. Powers and duties of enforcement officers.
(a) Powers. - Any officer whose duty it is to enforce this title or any officer investigating any alleged violation of this title shall have the power and duty to:
[ul](1) Enforce all laws of this Commonwealth relating to game or wildlife and arrest any person who has violated any of the provisions of this title while in pursuit of that person immediately following the violation.
(2) Go upon any land or water outside of buildings, posted or otherwise, in the performance of the officer's duty.
(3) Serve subpoenas issued under the provisions of this title.
(4) Carry firearms or other weapons, concealed or otherwise, in the performance of the officer's duties.
(5) Purchase and resell game or wildlife, or any part thereof, for the purpose of securing evidence.
(6) Stop and inspect or search, at any time, any means of transportation within this Commonwealth. Any officer who stops any means of transportation shall be in uniform and present a badge or other means of official identification and state the purpose of the inspection or search.
(7) Inspect and examine or search, at any time or place, any person or means of transportation or its attachment or occupants, or any clothing worn by any person, or any bag, clothing or container when the officer presents official identification and states the purpose of the inspection or search.
(8) Inspect and examine or search, at any time, any camp, tent, cabin, trailer or any means of transportation or its attachment being used when the officer presents official identification to the person in charge and states the purpose of the inspection or search.
(9) Secure and execute all warrants and search warrants for violations of this title or, with proper consent, to search or enter any building, dwelling, house, tavern, hotel, boardinghouse, enclosure, vehicle or craft or any attachments thereto, to open, by whatever means necessary, any door, compartment, chest, locker, box, trunk, bag, basket, package or container and to examine the contents thereof and seize any evidence or contraband found therein.
(10) When making an arrest or an investigation or when found in the execution of a search warrant, seize and take possession of all game or wildlife or parts of game or wildlife which have been taken, caught, killed, had or held in possession, and seize all firearms, shooting or hunting paraphernalia, vehicles, boats, conveyances, traps, dogs, decoys, automotive equipment, records, papers, permits, licenses and all contraband or any unlawful device, implement or other appliance used in violation of any of the laws relating to game or wildlife.
(11) Administer any oaths required by the provisions of this title or relative to any violation of any law relating to game or wildlife and, where game or wildlife is found in a camp or in possession or under control of any individual or hunting party, question the person or persons, under oath, relative to the taking, ownership or possession of the game or wildlife.
(12) Operate or move any vehicle, permanently or temporarily equipped with a type of flashing or rotating red light or lights or audible device or both, approved by the commission, upon any street or highway within this Commonwealth when performing duties within the scope of employment.
(12.1) Operate any vehicle owned or leased by the Commonwealth and used for law enforcement purposes, equipped with flashing or rotating lights of such color and combination and audible devices as authorized in the definition of "Emergency vehicle" in 75 Pa. C.S. §102 (relating to definitions) and approved by the Commission upon any street or highway within this Commonwealth when performing duties within the scope of employment. Drivers of Commonwealth-owned or Commonwealth-leased vehicles equipped with lights and audible devices as authorized in this subchapter may exercise the privileges and shall be subject to the conditions as set forth in 75 Pa. C.S. §3105 (relating to drivers of emergency vehicles).
(13) Demand and secure assistance when the officer deems it necessary.
(14) Demand and secure identification from any person.
(15) Enforce all the laws of this Commonwealth and regulations promulgated thereunder relating to fish, boats, parks and forestry and other environmental matters, under the direction of those agencies charged with the administration of these laws.
(16) Require the holder of any license or permit required by this title or by commission regulation to sign the holder's name on a separate piece of paper in the presence of the requesting officer.
(17) When acting within the scope of the officer's employment, pursue, apprehend or arrest any individual suspected of violating any provision of 18 Pa.C.S. (relating to crimes and offenses) or any other offense classified as a misdemeanor or felony. The officer shall also have the power to serve and execute warrants issued by the proper authorities for offenses referred to in this paragraph and to serve subpoenas issued for examination. All powers as provided for in this paragraph will be limited by such administrative procedure as the director, with the approval of the commission, shall prescribe. The regulations shall be promulgated within 90 days of the effective date of this paragraph.
(18) When acting within the scope of the officer's employment and under the procedures outlined by the Executive Director, to use a facsimile in the enforcement of the provisions of this title and the regulations promulgated hereunder.
[/ul]

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Amendments 1-10 of the Constitution
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added, and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution;
Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two-thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States; all or any of which articles, when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the said Constitution, namely:
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

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.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X[align=left]The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.[/align][align=left][/align][align=left][/align][align=left][/align]

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Where we run into disputable territory is with amendment number four. What constitutes an "unreasonable search and siezure?" Under the game law and regulations, if the WCO has reason to suspect that a crime has been committed, that is a reasonable assumption. We shall just have to wait and see how the courts come down on this one.

I, for one, think that we have lost sight of what is important. Mr. Russo (as reported in the PA. OUTDOOR TIMES) had a pile of apples at his cabin. There was bear blood and tissue found near the pile of apples. The blood and tissue was determined to have come from the bear in question. Mr. Russo says he didn't bait the bear. These seem to be the facts in question. You may believe what you want to believe, but I believe Mr. Russo broke the law. JMHO. Anything else is irrelevant. I can't believe he would be proud of his bear.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

He sounds guilty based on what I've seen.

In the bigger picture, I'm still kind of uncomfortable with a GW being able to walk on your property without probable cause or a warrant. The Pa game law doesn't state that either are necessary. Thats my problem with it. I read it as saying that a GW can go where he wants when he wants without having to answer to anyone about why he is there or what "duties" he's carrying out. The law allows other LE officers to search if they have cause but it doesnt allow them to randomly search just incase they see something illegal. The questionseems to be about whether your rights to privacy extend outside the walls of your house to your land as well. (I'm assuming that the evidence the GWfound in this case would not have been visible from outside the property)

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Their job is to police hunting and fishing,and hunting and fishing regulations. They have to be able to go where hunting and fishing is done, and the overwhelming majority of that is private land.

I'm a very staunch supporter of our right to privacy, but even I cannot see any expectation of privacy in an open forrest. Now, turn it around a little. Say the GW got a tip of someone baiting a bear, found the bait, with blood near it, but can't confirm the guy has the bear. He then would need a warrant to enter the subjects HOUSE and search for the bear carcass, or parts.

The nature of the job mandates they be granted permission to go on private land, just not in "persons, houses, papers, and effects" as protected by the Fourth Amendment. Otherwise, private land hunters would be free to make their own seasons, bag limits and such with no fear of being caught. Remember, even though fish and game live on private lands, they are a public resource, and that resource is being policed by Game Wardens, no matter where they happen to live.That is also why if you are going to fence them in, or keep them in your HOUSE as a pet, you need a permit...then a GW would need a warrant to check up on animals you have a permit to keep.

Don't make more of this than it is...a poacher got caught, and is trying to weasel out of it...that's all it is.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Here is a link to check out regarding the generalissue. There's a lot of reading and cross-checking with the actual court cases brought before the USSC, but it's my interpretation that evenwith the dissent ofsome USSC Justices the court has consistently held that the "open fields" portion of the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless searches onto private/posted property by law enforcement.

The link is in regards to a question posed by a S. Dakota resident but the cases referred to are USSC Cases.

http://www.state.sd.us/attorney/applications/documents/oneDocument.asp?DocumentID=636

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

As a law enforcement officer he had every right to go to the property and investigate the crime. No different than any police officer in any state, no trespassing signs or not he does have a rightto go and investigate. This guy was was dumb enough to bait in the front yard of the cabin for all to see as they approach the cabin. The GW had the right ot go on the property and if evidence is in plain sight, so sorry too bad for the poacher.

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....

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.

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.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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

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

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!!

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.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

Obviously, you have never tried to get a search warrant. :DA 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.

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.

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.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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]

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

"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.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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.

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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!

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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...

RE: Pa Bear hunter case in the supreme court
 

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.