RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

GRNMTN:

Those scenarios involve (at least) reasonable suspicion and any policeman can briefly stop, ID, and pat down for weaponsin those circumstances without violating anyone's rights. When RSB mentioned "Terry stops," that is what he is talking about. (http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/terry%20v%20ohio.html)

Now there are gray areas with any right and that's why courts are constantly asked to defiine the contours of what is permissable and what is not. For example, read the Ickes case that I linked to in a previous post since it defined that right with respect to WCO's in Pennsylvania.

What ticks people off are stops made without reasonable suspicion -- something different from what you layed out.

RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

I'm still trying to find out why I was checked for taking a camera into the woods to film deer.

Why did I have to show my drivers license?

Why did they check my hunting license?

I could have been wearing my grandmother's hunting license on my back and it should not have mattered. I had no weapon on my person and was entering private property.

A few on here support this practice of checking and searching for no reason. So I ask you.

Why would two WCO's check my licence, driver's license, check out my video camera, pushing all the buttons and taking the video tape out. WHY?

RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

Because you are a radical and an anarchist and deserve it!!!

RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

There is no doubt that are some bad WCOs out there. There are bad apples in every profession. I will bet thereare more good than bad.

RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

I am not from PA and only hunted there once. However,I have read this thread and am honestly shocked at the resentment of a Warden checking licenses and tags. As a guy who buys multiple state tags for hunting and fishing annually, I would say that I would be angry for wardens that DIDN'T check licenses. I try and make sure i am legal in all matters and obey the regulations of taking game. Just because someone is not violating law does not mean they should not be asked for licenses. Otherwise my hard earned cashgoes wasted on some guy who refuses to buy license. If thats the case, then why should I buy one when I can follow the laws and not get checked??The cop-drivers license analogy dosn't stick with me. You drive around with a license plate for all the world to see and check. You also need all the current stickers which are also available to see. A cop has three things to check without even pulling you over!

Now that aside. I too have been victim to illegal searches by police, and "presumed guilty until proven innocent" by both wardens and police. I have never had a violation in these actions. Most where when I was young and where based on age/looks and nothing more. While I find police are more apt to do this than wardens. It is not acceptable at all, and I can understand the frustrations with that. Remember that your "rights" are to be debated in court if a fine is levied and thats where it should be done. If you feel you are under harrasment then bring that up with superiors. You have a right to defend yourself legally. However, an inconvience of a license checkis not harassment.

There is a big gap between these two compalints above. I see checking tags as the wardens protecting the game for honest, licensed sportsmen. Usually when I get approached by wardens, the license comes out before they even ask me.

Are there overzelous law officers?? Oh yes, and many of them. Is it all of them?? of course not. Sometimes these types get lost in their ego, or whatever. But remember, you have your option to say your defence in court and thats where you execerise your rights.

RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

IMHO, you arecorrect. The problem is usually not with the paid WCO's it's with the deputies. Based only on my ownpersonal ecperience, the majority of WCO's are reasonable guys with a job to do and the majoriy of the deputies are doing their thing with entirely too much ego and attitude. Couple that with a law that, till struck down, is basically over the constitutional line and you have arecipe for problems.

Unfortunately, I don't beleive that most WCO's seldom or never get to see the abuses of the deputies because the problems seem to arise when they're working alone.

RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

"I will bet thereare more good than bad (WCO's)."

And I would bet that there are very, very few "radicals and anarchists" among our hunting community.

RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

A policemandoes not know who is driving and cannot pull you over anddemand IDunless he has probable cause. We are talking here about situations in which there is no probalbe cause or even reasonable suspicion involved.

I am certain that if you are made out of money your rights will be vindicated. I suggest that you too click on this link:

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/opposting/cwealth/out/65cd01_5-24-02.pdf

RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

Yes, butcops still can check to make sure the vehicle used is legal on three checkpoints they can see. A warden has nothing but a license. If I came down to your state, hunted without a license, but stayed within the law as to not be checked by the warden would you be OK with that?? What else does a warden have to know I am licensed in some ways without checking?

Also, you hunt w.o a license and get a ticket and fines. You drive w/o license and get arrested.

Yes, all legal defence is costly. I can't change the system in that way. But it does allow a voice, and there are court appointed lawyers and other free legal assitance in every state. Its not perfect, but its there.

My overall point is that its not perfect. ButI would rather theycheck then give a free ride to all those that don't pay there share.

RE: A question for R.S.B.
 

jf5:
He could look at the license that hangs on your back. IMHO, that's equivalent to a cop running your license plates while you are driving. Search and seizure are not implicated unless he pulls you over.
If you drive without a license you may get arrested, but if the stop was made without probable cause you will not be convicted. In fact, you will have a cause of action against the cop.

Regular police do a good job without the crutch of suspicionless stops. I suspect that when the PGC finally gets taken to court on this one (by someone with money), that they will also do a good enough job without that crutch.