Addicting
Well-known member
He may be, but cell cameras placed anywhere just waiting for you to possibly do something is over reach.
Anyone have more information on this?
- Thread starter Hilljackoutlaw
- Start date
If this is merely a random act of officers, agents, deputies, wardens, USFWS placing a camera on private, whole heatedly agree.
However, most all settings LEOs have some level of suspicion set by their Dept, Agency, etc. necessary.
My suspicion is this was not a random, walk on property, place camera and hope to catch something.
Flatbrimmer
Well-known member
This doesn’t equate to speeding to keep up with someone speeding.
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,585
Except they weren’t breaking the law. The law explicitly stated they could enter private property.This doesn’t equate to speeding to keep up with someone speeding.
The law was ruled unconstitutional, but still no trespass was committed. It just means moving forward the TWRA officers cannot do this.
Flatbrimmer
Well-known member
Good!
EastTNHunter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2018
- Messages
- 1,802
There is more to this story. Short of it is that previous department policy did not require a warrant, but it has been ruled that this policy is not legal.
IIRC, the guy has been in trouble with wildlife violations in the past, had been caught and penalized, they had suspicion that he was up to no good again and they didn’t get a warrant to monitor. I think that this is a case of no winners. Wish that TWRA had gotten a warrant and none of this would have happened, but instead the bad guy gets to play the victim card and get off on a technicality.
IIRC, the guy has been in trouble with wildlife violations in the past, had been caught and penalized, they had suspicion that he was up to no good again and they didn’t get a warrant to monitor. I think that this is a case of no winners. Wish that TWRA had gotten a warrant and none of this would have happened, but instead the bad guy gets to play the victim card and get off on a technicality.
Bigjay73
Well-known member
I won't argue that. I'm assuming they had solid evidence that he was up to illegal activities.
Bigjay73
Well-known member
So the wardens did need a warrant? Well that changes things. He's still a shitbag poacher in my mind
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,585
Last edited by a moderator:
No, they didn't require a warrant PRIOR to the recent county circuit court, 3 judge ruling. However TWRA is appealing the decision.
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,585
Yes. It’s in the state appellate court system, and deals with the constitutionality of a state law under the state constitution.
That’s why it was significant the TWRA officer’s were investigating deer baiting. If they were investigating federal migratory bird violations under the color of the USFWS, this would not be a question. Open fields doctrine would apply.
"He took the camera down and found pictures of Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service agents on them — as well as himself.
From what I've read, and this is from the biased article, the above quote.. along with charges placed against the subject by USFWS - this means Open Fields Doctrine is in play. TWRA or any other State Fish, Wildlfe Enforcement, working in conjunction with USFWS - Seems a common practice.
From what I've read, and this is from the biased article, the above quote.. along with charges placed against the subject by USFWS - this means Open Fields Doctrine is in play. TWRA or any other State Fish, Wildlfe Enforcement, working in conjunction with USFWS - Seems a common practice.
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,585
Right. But, they also investigated deer baiting. Can’t cross the streams here.
Suppose we'll see where the State stands with their decision. It's where the decision belongs, IMO. A county court is far from the proper location to regulate State Officials, IMO. However, it hs to start somewhere.
Seems, if there was cause, along with USFWS cause to investigate criminal activity - this guy held some reasonable suspicion/probable cause and that is in line with the interests, both State and Federal. If that's the case, this is not a matter of random placement of cameras to randomly catch a criminal. It complied(ies) with the Tennessee Code 70-01-305 that grants(ed) Wildlife Officials the ability to protect wildlife within a vast privately owned State.
Other side of this: If they had time and the apparent cause to work jointly with USFWS, one would think they would have time to request warrant. The challege is the patrol aspect of protecting the wildlife.
Redmt
Well-known member
Question,,,,was there something on or in the camera that said "property of xxxxx"?
Some of the articles note the cameras as USFWS. If so, they are embossed/tagged with, "property of U.S. Government", least according to a Special Agent contact within USFWS.
Some perspective for enforcement of conservation laws: 14% of Tennessee is public land. This includes public land not available for hunting.
For contrast, U.S. average public land 40%.
A good review of the State (Not Federal) Constitutionality of this case from our friends at Meateater:
www.themeateater.com
However, not sure I follow Simms hypotheticals:
Example:
"Simms demonstrates that this new ruling will affect fishing regulation enforcement as well.
“An officer is patrolling by boat on Nickajack Lake,” Simms suggested next. “The officer watches through binoculars as a man fishing on shore catches multiple largemouth bass, most of them smaller than the legal 15-inch size limit. Every fish goes into an ice chest. Yet, the officer is forbidden to set foot on the private land to enforce the law. Odds are, by the time he could obtain a search warrant, the illegal catch would be cleaned and eaten.”"
His hypothetical, appears to me, to meet probable cause and exigent to arrest, based on his hypothetical that evidence likely to be consumed. The officer (in this hypothetical) is not "forbidden" to enter private land to enforce the law. It's his/her duty.
The spotlighting hypothetical may *possibly stretch a bit into the "exigent" need to enter private property, if this county ruling holds up against TWRA's appeal. However, this too is based on the articulable information the LEO could easily present as probable cause exists... hypothetically speaking.
Additional note: Hollingsworth's attempt to take this federal: "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED."
Some key notes and my statement regarding open Fields doctrine countered content shared by some as a "fourth amendment violation" and "unconstitutional".
"The government's intrusion upon an open field is not considered a search of the "house," the reason being that "open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance" and, perhaps to a lesser extent, open fields "usually are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, an office, or commercial structure would not be." Oliver , 466 U.S. at 179, 104 S.Ct. 1735. All of which is to say that the Fourth Amendment does not "prevent all investigations conducted on private property," including investigations conducted in or from open fields. Id. Constitutionally speaking, "there is no constitutional difference between police observations conducted while in a public place and while standing in the open fields." United States v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 304, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987)."
A really fascinating situation and one that better aids people's understanding of the Fourth Amendment and the Open Fields doctrine.
Some perspective for enforcement of conservation laws: 14% of Tennessee is public land. This includes public land not available for hunting.
For contrast, U.S. average public land 40%.
A good review of the State (Not Federal) Constitutionality of this case from our friends at Meateater:
Tennessee Court Ruling Reduces Game Warden Powers
On March 22, the Benton County Circuit Court ruled that parts of the Tennessee Code regarding the abilities of game wardens to be unconstitutional under the state’s constitution. This invalidates laws that previously authorized the Tennessee Wildlife Resource Agency (TWRA) to enter private lands...
However, not sure I follow Simms hypotheticals:
Example:
"Simms demonstrates that this new ruling will affect fishing regulation enforcement as well.
“An officer is patrolling by boat on Nickajack Lake,” Simms suggested next. “The officer watches through binoculars as a man fishing on shore catches multiple largemouth bass, most of them smaller than the legal 15-inch size limit. Every fish goes into an ice chest. Yet, the officer is forbidden to set foot on the private land to enforce the law. Odds are, by the time he could obtain a search warrant, the illegal catch would be cleaned and eaten.”"
His hypothetical, appears to me, to meet probable cause and exigent to arrest, based on his hypothetical that evidence likely to be consumed. The officer (in this hypothetical) is not "forbidden" to enter private land to enforce the law. It's his/her duty.
The spotlighting hypothetical may *possibly stretch a bit into the "exigent" need to enter private property, if this county ruling holds up against TWRA's appeal. However, this too is based on the articulable information the LEO could easily present as probable cause exists... hypothetically speaking.
Additional note: Hollingsworth's attempt to take this federal: "Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED."
Some key notes and my statement regarding open Fields doctrine countered content shared by some as a "fourth amendment violation" and "unconstitutional".
"The government's intrusion upon an open field is not considered a search of the "house," the reason being that "open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance" and, perhaps to a lesser extent, open fields "usually are accessible to the public and the police in ways that a home, an office, or commercial structure would not be." Oliver , 466 U.S. at 179, 104 S.Ct. 1735. All of which is to say that the Fourth Amendment does not "prevent all investigations conducted on private property," including investigations conducted in or from open fields. Id. Constitutionally speaking, "there is no constitutional difference between police observations conducted while in a public place and while standing in the open fields." United States v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 304, 107 S.Ct. 1134, 94 L.Ed.2d 326 (1987)."
A really fascinating situation and one that better aids people's understanding of the Fourth Amendment and the Open Fields doctrine.
