undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

now that the title has you lost, here's the scoop: a couple of people that i know were recently caught in an undercover sting in Maine. a warden befriended them( i met him too, seemed nice enough) out of the blue, and the guys let him talk them into doing some illegal things. they know they should have said " no way", but they didn't, and now are willing to pay the price for it. if a warden goes undercover, and witness's several offenses in a short period of time, should he arrest the people at that point, or see how many charges he can rack up? if he commits crimes while undercover, should he be prosecuted, or should the entire case be thrown out? i feel if he sees a lot of offenses being committed in a short amount of time, say a week or so, that should be good enough. if he commits crimes himself, like taking game out of season, the case would to me be questionable at best.
Pat

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Any who breaks game laws should pay the price. Most adults know right from wrong.

Yes. Are you saying he did?

No way not if they broke laws

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

Sounds like the people you know may have been specifically targeted by DNR law enforcement. If so, they have probably been under suspicion (and rightfully so it seems) for a while. I'm not sure what the law allows in terms of what wardens can do to gain the confidence of the lawbreakers, but would suspect that these people will have their day in court to find out.

I would also suspect that the warden didn't have to "talk them into it" very hard. After all, youstated he just met them out of the blue. Sounds like these people were very culpable and I think the warden not only has the right but the obligation to uncover and investigate as many crimes as possible. Sounds like the guys should have the book thrown at them from your initial post. want to explain a little further?????

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

A game warden, or any other type of law enforcement officer for that matter, cannot persuade someone into committing a crime and then arrest them for it....its called entrapment. Even though the guys who broke the law should be prosecuted or fined or whatever, if these guys hire a decent defense lawyer, the most likely scenario would be that the charges would be thrown out.


In regards to "how far cana warden go when undercover," it all depends on the case. If the people who are under investigation are suspected of multiple offenses or very serious crimes, the warden will be allowed to bend the rules a little as long as it builds up evidence to prosecute them to the fullest. If these people are suspected of hunting during closed seasons for example, an undercover warden isn't going to bust them for something minor. He's going to wait until enough evidence builds up against them that it would be difficult for them to get off. But the warden still has to follow some rules. For example, he can't drive out to a field at nite, pull over and spotlight a deer for someone to shoot and then try to arrest them for it...that is entrapment.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

IMO when a warden sees some breaking the law, then that person/s
should be busted right then and there. Like a drunk driver running
a stop light. You don't wait to see if he hits another car and perhaps
kill someone. As, with the warden he is there to protect wildlife and
not wait until it is gone to say I wanted to get those guys. If he sees it being comitted and can prove it then bust them. If he's a part of it and
he can not win it unless he is tried on it too. Either way he should be done working with the warden service as a result.
I'm not sure what case vtbuck is talking about. But,one case here was more of a personal vandetta against a Maine Guide where the guide was
encouraged to cook up a short bass for dinner. All because the warden
wanted his guides licsence and cost the courts, taxpayers,lawyer fees,
the guides reputation and the bit. Just to have the case thrown out.
Reason being they ate the evidence.IMO for what this nonsence cost us
taxpayers it should of cost this wardens job. I believe once the bass was dead it would of been enough to convict why wait. This guide buisness
has picked up due to the publicity of it all.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

My guess is that we got the story from the point of view of the guys who were arrested, with some details polished up a little bit to make them look like victims. Law enforcement officers get a bad rap that they usually don't deserve with this sort of thing. I suspect that these guys were targeted because they have a hisory of such stuff. Of course, I don't know any more than anyone else. This is just my suspicion, because this is the way such stories get told here in PA.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I suspect that these guys were targeted because they have a hisory of such stuff

You may be right I do not know for sure either as I'm not part of it in any manner. But, I believe if something is being done that is wrong then there
is no need to wait until more is done. There are laws here that could result in lisences be suspended for 1yr, 5yrs, 10yrs, and for a lifetime so
why wait until it costs all these taxpayers dollars to flopp it up?

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

I don't believe in intrapment. You still have a choice no matter what. Either you broke the law or you didn't.

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

this is the case that happened up in washington county. the warden service heard some things were happening up there involving these guys. what they heard about were acts committed years earlier, when the guys were young and dumb. the warden met them,and myself, introduced himself. got their confidence. asked them if they could trap him a bear. asked if we could help him to get a wood duck. asked if he could shoot seals. he participated in all of the above. asked me, after i legally got my bear, why don't i go back out the next night for another? i wasn't that stupid. i the course of a few weeks, they commited a couple of offenses, enough to prosecute. he did an investigation from sept. to dec. he shot from vehicles, carried loaded weapons. took a rabbit from a vehicle, drank and drove. plus more offenses. in my veiw, that made him no better than the guys he was trying to bust. but the question still remains, how ong should a normal investigation go on for, if enough evidence is discovered quickly?

RE: undercover wardens: when should they sting?
 

with all due respect Phil, if the warden was undercover, why should he reveal himself to arrest these guys for a minor infraction when obviously they suspected them of greater fish&game crimes?
By that reasoning, an undercover cop who has infiltrated a mob or drug gang should reveal himself and arrest them for the 1st law violation that happens (ex. drunk driving) when he is really after them for drug trafficking???? I don't think so.

If the warden had some personal greivance against these guys and was using his office for illegitimate purposes, then he and them should be prosecuted, but if this was a legitimate operation then the lawyers can hash it out as to whether the warden went too far.


If there is legitmacy to the investigation then, imo, it should go on long enough to where the guilty parties dig themself a hole they can't get out of too easily. If the investigation is legitimate then I'm sure it had objectives.