Carl 9.3x62
Well-known member
Correct, in Wyoming anyway. But the OP's example was in Idaho, where according to the article ALL vehicles are required to stop (unless I read it wrong). I have no idea what other state's laws are, except Wyoming.
Does Checkpoint Violate Our Fourth Amendment Rights?
- Thread starter Losing_Sanity
- Start date
WyoDoug
Well-known member
I hear you there. They had several state supreme court cases in Colorado over the blanket DUI checkpoints they used to do. Now in Colorado, they have to put warning signs out and you can detour and void the checkpoint, though other officers are likely patrolling for that and will snag you if you appear to be DUI. I would object to absolutely everyone having to stop, but my experience has always been "I am not hunting or fishing" and they wave me on.
Losing_Sanity
Well-known member
I think it's only if you have a hunting/fishing license. But I have seen it where everyone in remote areas. I think they were attempting to find someone specific.
406dn
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2019
- Messages
- 2,244
As to the original plaintiff,,, he strikes me as a wind mill tilter,, based on my read of his past. I suspect a conversation with him would show a mindset not unlike the Bundy clan. Montana puts up check stations every fall. They are there as much for data collection as law enforcement. Nearly every stop I have had to make has lasted no more than a couple of minutes. If they last longer than that,,, it's because my curiosity has caused my to ask a few questions.
I can't remember the last time they didn't just take my word as good enough. It's been forever since I had to show anyone a license to prove I was legal.
I can't remember the last time they didn't just take my word as good enough. It's been forever since I had to show anyone a license to prove I was legal.
I hear ya, Doug, and look, I would have stopped (for a number of reasons). But I do think that part of the reason we have such a strong body of criminal law protections is precisely because people are willing to challenge things like this. Is this particular one constitutional? Probably, sure. But is it far enough away from one that isn't constitutional that it's not worth challenging it? I find that a harder argument. We are blessed in this county to have a legal system that allows aggrieved citizens the opportunity to have their cases heard and tried against the constitution. Now, is this guy a role model for that? Sounds like far from it. But only fighting the "winning" propositions means you don't challenge anything. Nothing is a sure deal...except death, taxes, and the fact that I will never play professional sports.
huntid73
Active member
So in Idaho, ALL HUNTERS AND FISHERMAN are required to stop, not all motorists. That being said, there are a few LEO's at the stations I have been to (In SE Idaho), who will watch for trucks with ATV's & boats trying to pass by. Then, they can engage in a pursuit. It is in Idaho Code that you must stop at these check stations. Here's a link from IDFG (I know its older) https://idfg.idaho.gov/press/all-stop-check-stations
Yep. I drive by one of the busiest IDFG checkpoints in the fall. Hunters/anglers must stop, not everyone else. They will chase down obvious offenders.
I laugh when I stop coming in the opposite direction of deer/elk hunters and IDFG checks Chukar I shot outside the area. The biologist always want Chukar wings.
huntid73
Active member
They're usually also willing to give you the numbers or general success if you ask! I stopped at one last year and the officer and I talked for about 20 mins on what units they have been seeing successful hunters coming from and checking deer.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Lacking any legal expertise or law enforcement experience, but merely as a citizen tired of the hollow rhetoric wannabe US Constitution experts, I wish other citizens would appreciate freedoms and privileges and quit hollering about "constitutional rights" at every minor inconvenience!
@Straight Arrow Did I miss something? Sorry SA, flew over my head. Are you mocking, tossing some adverse comment from the snip of a larger comment I made or supporting the snip you pulled or... adding to?
R
rwc101
Guest
Just tell them you are a sovereign citizen and that you are traveling instead of driving and were pursuing game rather than hunting.
Should end well.
Should end well.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
Lots of moving parts on this thread, I will try to respond to a few points.
- Obviously the 4th Amendment applies to federal action, but since 1961 it also applies to state action via "incorporation" through the 14th Amendment. The 4th amendment is not an absolute right (there are none in our constitution) that is explicitly in the amendment itself bounded by a test for "reasonableness". I am not aware of any federal court cases about F&G stops, but the last time SCOTUS looked something close was DUI stops - SCOTUS found that society's need to ensure safe driving conditions made such searches "reasonable". I am not sure F&G compliance rises to such an urgent risk, but my guess is this is a 50-50 question for the current court when you take out the human health risk element of the ruling.
- Some states have their own constitutional rules about searches. MN has one that is almost word for word the same as the Fed, but the MN Supreme Court has ruled the MN language does preclude DUI spot checks. So, in MN F&G checks would be dead on arrival. Obviously this allows for 50 different answer depending on what state you are in.
- Since the ID stops impose upon non-hunters as well, those who are calling out an "assumption" or "consent" to search are way off base on this one. A hunter may consent, but a non-hunter certainly doesn't and the ID rule apparently treats both class of people the same, making consent or assumption irrelevant.
- For those who think this is mere whining and a minor imposition, I could not disagree more. Our 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 14th some of our most precious rights and the government should be held to a very high standard of behavior when they cross paths with these five. These types of rules should be challenged on principle, not because I believe they are absolute, but because we need to keep the boundaries as tight as possible.
- The "privilege" not a "right" argument also rings hollow. The question is not if driving a car or hunting is a privilege or a right. It is if it is constitutionally unreasonable to stop and search all cars absent specific grounds in the interest of furthering F&G laws? While the circumstances of what you are doing are relevant to the "reasonableness" inquiry, by itself, your activity does not waive the 4th amendment just because your activity itself is not an otherwise a constitutionally protected activity. Otherwise, the 4thA would only protect activity under 1A, 2A, 15A and 19A - which is clearly wrong.
<edit: thumb up for your share of content and appreciation for your perspective and... mostly agree with your position as we've discussed before. Not a tribal, thumbs up type person
>I disagree...
Take for instance the following from Montana Supreme Court: (State vs Boyer 2002)
<snip split sentence>
This is a snip from the following: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2011/Minutes/House/Exhibits/juh27a04.pdf
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
As I said, this context is weighed in the reasonableness inquiry, which goes to whether or not the 4thA right even exists under those circumstances in the first place - but it is NOT a direct waiver of the right itself.
As for your cited case, they are doing the exact weighing I mentioned - and there are other state courts (MN for example) that disagree with the MT court - so the outcomes will vary.
Agree - as with any court responsibility. they should weigh the reasonableness. Your State holds a different standard than ours.
@Straight Arrow I take it you were originally taking a swipe at my comment re: "privilege"... If that was not your intent, my apologies however, maybe from this, you can take some inference as to the brief portion of a sentence you pulled to make your post.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
<edit: thumb up for your share of content and appreciation for your perspective and... mostly agree with your position as we've discussed before. Not a tribal, thumbs up type person
I disagree...
Take for instance the following from Montana Supreme Court: (State vs Boyer 2002)
View attachment 154025
<snip split sentence>
View attachment 154023
View attachment 154024
This is a snip from the following: https://leg.mt.gov/bills/2011/Minutes/House/Exhibits/juh27a04.pdf
And as to the MT court's specific logic, I find it very very odd. So the 4th amendment prevents the police from stopping cars to find a murderer or search a house to investigate a child pornographer, but if it is an extra walleye in the cooler - well that is the place where society is willing to take a stand and cut short your rights. I am not saying I am "Pro-Poacher" - I am just saying we really struggle to consistently apply our principles and make disproportionate exceptions in my view.
WyoDoug
Well-known member
There is plenty of case law that refers to hunting, fishing, and driving as privileges. It don't take long to search the district courts, state supreme courts and SCOTUS cases. I could do it, but I feel I am wasting my time arguing with people who think it is a constitutional right or rights are being violated with these game checks. Argument that it don't hold water is false in itself as @VikingsGuy points out. There are however, some states where the legislatures and/or activists have succeedded in making it a constitutional right in those state though. Tale a look at Texas.
In Wyoming, they do not have to issue you a license if they believe you have been doing anything illegal. True they have to be able to have articulatable reasonable suspicion, not just because. Wyoming can cancel seasons on a dime for a variety of reasons. Lion and bear are perfect examples. You are supposed to check in every day and call a number to verify the season is still open before going out hunting that day. Wyoming can revoke your license to hunt for a variety of reasons (usually you done something and pending court).
In Wyoming, they do not have to issue you a license if they believe you have been doing anything illegal. True they have to be able to have articulatable reasonable suspicion, not just because. Wyoming can cancel seasons on a dime for a variety of reasons. Lion and bear are perfect examples. You are supposed to check in every day and call a number to verify the season is still open before going out hunting that day. Wyoming can revoke your license to hunt for a variety of reasons (usually you done something and pending court).
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
There is no doubt that hunting rights are viewed as a "privilege" and if you read my post carefully I did not say otherwise so no need to post a bunch of google fu cites. What I am saying is that in a careful parsing of the law this only goes to the "reasonableness" of society's intervention as it relates to the meets and bounds of the 4thA and does not create some type of absolute waiver of right by a hunter by its mere fact. Even where states win these cases they do not argue that all drivers have waived their 4thA rights - they argue that it is reasonable to constrain those unwaived rights due to the importance of protecting wildlife.
Similar threads
