Does Checkpoint Violate Our Fourth Amendment Rights?

Losing_Sanity

Losing_Sanity

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
1,060
Location
Sometimes, I don't even know.
i believe the wyoming game and fish checkpoint signs say "all hunters must stop" right?

i've actually never encountered a colorado checkpoint.

though colorado will set up check stations where all but commercial traffic is required to stop, non hunting traffic is very quickly then rerouted back on their way.

i don't have a problem with it. it provides one quick screening process to potentially determine if someone is lying about having been hunting or not. the officers are not searching you if you have not been hunting, but if you lie about having been hunting the officers might find visual evidence you were and then probable cause for search and seizure suddenly exists.

i like as much enforcement of game laws as we can possibly muster.

there is a parallel to drunk driving checkpoints no?
 
It is interesting considering it was factually identified he was neither hunting nor fishing when stopped for not stopping at a mandatory F&G checkpoint...

My initial thought was due to hunting and fishing, as a State privilege - not a right (maybe subsistence is a right(?)), the person's decision to legally hunt/fish is predicated on the acceptance s/he would abide by F&G laws including mandatory checkpoints. However... this is not the case here...

Only LEO based exemption to the 4th amendment (outside immediate need (reasonable S&S) I'm aware are U.S. international borders and the nexus to borders.

Interesting.
 
TOGIE said:
there is a parallel to drunk driving checkpoints no?
Click to expand...
DUI checkpoints are not legal in ID.

For anyone with more legal knowledge than I have: If you're stopped at a checkpoint you are technically being detained by law enforcement, correct? With the purchase of a hunting & fishing license for a particular state we could be bound to stop at a checkpoint/station, but I'm surprised this can legally apply to other motorists.

I'm not arguing against these checkpoints, I'm all for enforcement of laws pertaining to protecting our fish and game. Just doesn't seem like solid legal footing to this layman.
 
No more than your standard Run of the Mill Truck Scale safety inspection.

Long standing history of "check points". Your argument is invalid. if you want to argue go to law school.

I predict a lock in 12 hours...
 
JeffJ said:
DUI checkpoints are not legal in ID.

For anyone with more legal knowledge than I have: If you're stopped at a checkpoint you are technically being detained by law enforcement, correct? With the purchase of a hunting & fishing license for a particular state we could be bound to stop at a checkpoint/station, but I'm surprised this can legally apply to other motorists.

I'm not arguing against these checkpoints, I'm all for enforcement of laws pertaining to protecting our fish and game. Just doesn't seem like solid legal footing to this layman.
Click to expand...

i guess that's the sticking point then, what exactly constitutes detainment. as a united states constitutional issue how can that vary from state to state?

@VikingsGuy ? any other attorneys?

i've gone through dui checkpoints coming north off park avenue in denver at 12:30 in the morning, pain the ass. but i don't have a problem with it.
 
I think most IDFG checkpoints are "all hunters must stop", not everyone. Pretty sure I have only went by one and I did not stop because I was not hunting/fishing that day. Depending on the location and time of year, for example November on the edge of the national forest in Boundary County ID I think it would make sense to stop everybody with the assumption that they are hunting. A couple quick inquiries and the individual can be on their way.

Based on a quick google, it looks like this guy has a bit of a reputation with the courts:
law.justia.com

Steve Tanner, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Debra A. Heise, Individually and As Magistrate Judge, 1stjudicial District; Peter B. Wilson, Prosecutor for City Ofbonners Ferry; Garth Tenney, Individually and As a Deputyof the Boundary County Sheriff's Departm

Steve Tanner, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Debra A. Heise, Individually and As Magistrate Judge, 1stjudicial District; Peter B. Wilson, Prosecutor for City Ofbonners Ferry; Garth Tenney, Individually and As a Deputyof the Boundary County Sheriff's Department; David Kramer;harry Shearer, Individually...
law.justia.com law.justia.com
 
It's important to put this decision in context, too. Tanner (the guy who didn't stop) was not convicted of anything--the charges against him were dismissed because the criminal court magistrate judge determined there was no probable cause. It's only after Tanner then brought a civil suit (you know, to make some money) that a different court determined that his constitutional rights had not been violated. I'm not saying this same second judge (Nye) would have reached a different decision if he had been the one deciding the criminal case, I'm just saying as a general matter, we tend to feel a lot more protective of our criminal justice rights than our rights to be compensated in civil court.

As to whether game stops are legal under the 4th amendment, my take is, probably--so long as they are just that. But if you say you haven't been hunting, and there's not immediately (as in, without a search) visible evidence to contradict that, I think if the stop lasts any longer, you probably have been subject to an unlawful search/seizure.
 
westbranch said:
Based on a quick google, it looks like this guy has a bit of a reputation with the courts:
law.justia.com

Steve Tanner, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Debra A. Heise, Individually and As Magistrate Judge, 1stjudicial District; Peter B. Wilson, Prosecutor for City Ofbonners Ferry; Garth Tenney, Individually and As a Deputyof the Boundary County Sheriff's Departm

Steve Tanner, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Debra A. Heise, Individually and As Magistrate Judge, 1stjudicial District; Peter B. Wilson, Prosecutor for City Ofbonners Ferry; Garth Tenney, Individually and As a Deputyof the Boundary County Sheriff's Department; David Kramer;harry Shearer, Individually...
law.justia.com law.justia.com
Click to expand...
Could be, but I'm not wanting to blame the person here. It's an interesting subject that some/most support and some don't.
 
I always get a kick out of legal debates on the internet....They solve nothing and usually just highlight how both sides of the argument can be perceived as ignorant.

I don't think any of us have to like the laws, but we are supposed to follow them regardless of what we personally believe.

There is very little detail in the article, but in this example, the guy should have stopped, then fought it afterward if he felt his rights were violated. Instead, it sounds like he refused to stop and in doing so, potentially committed several other violations.
 
Umm no to be straight on the OP question. It falls under implied consent. Hunting, fishing, and driving your car are all privileges and not a right in most states. By signing your license, you agree to comply with all game and fish laws just as when you sign for your drivers license, you give consent for cops to stop you and check for drivers license and insurance and that. And the law in Wyoming requires that you stop and comply with requests at game check stations. Driving laws have been tightened up considerably requiring warrants in many cases where they were not required before. But game and fish laws still fall under implied consent in most cases. They can stop you and check if you are hunting and fishing and verify your licenses. To search a vehicle or closed containers however, requires a search warrant or your permission or in some cases, simply probable cause of a violation is enough to search.
 
I have no problem requiring all hunters and anglers to stop - its a small price to pay to partake in a joyous activity. But I am not sure about requiring ALL motorists to stop. Seems a bit too much, but maybe not. Can't forget to include AIS (or whatever your state calls them) check stations too. We had to stop at one this year to have our inflatable paddle boards (which were deflated and put away at the time) checked. Kind of a pain but the law is the law. The inspector was quite nice to us. Overall a positive experience.
 
They don't bother me, but I could make an argument that staffing them takes away from the enforcement in the field, if there are LEO officers there. I've only encountered one in Wyoming. It was staffed by two biologists and a warden showed up while I was there and then left. We don't have them in NY. You simply call in to report your kill.
 
Carl 9.3x62 said:
I have no problem requiring all hunters and anglers to stop - its a small price to pay to partake in a joyous activity. But I am not sure about requiring ALL motorists to stop. Seems a bit too much, but maybe not. Can't forget to include AIS (or whatever your state calls them) check stations too. We had to stop at one this year to have our inflatable paddle boards (which were deflated and put away at the time) checked. Kind of a pain but the law is the law. The inspector was quite nice to us. Overall a positive experience.
Click to expand...
But you are not required to stop. When you look at the California check points, you are not required to stop. However, if you do not stop and agree to be check for agriculture stuff, you may not enter California either.

I have said repeatedly that at least in Wyoming, it's kind of an honor system. Unless they flag you down or use their red lights or siren to stop you, you are not required to stop. Only those engaged in certain activities are required to stop. And that is all on the honor system. Why people would push constitutional rights on this is a losing proposition. There is no rights to certain privileges like hunting and that can be revoked at anytime for a variety of reasons.
 
WyoDoug said:
But you are not required to stop. When you look at the California check points, you are not required to stop. However, if you do not stop and agree to be check for agriculture stuff, you may not enter California either.

I have said repeatedly that at least in Wyoming, it's kind of an honor system. Unless they flag you down or use their red lights or siren to stop you, you are not required to stop. Only those engaged in certain activities are required to stop. And that is all on the honor system. Why people would push constitutional rights on this is a losing proposition. There is no rights to certain privileges like hunting and that can be revoked at anytime for a variety of reasons.
Click to expand...

I think the point could be that you should not be treated like an enemy of the state. Like the Gestapo in an old German movie. Not everyone is a criminal or has criminal intent.
 
WyoDoug said:
just as when you sign for your drivers license, you give consent for cops to stop you and check for drivers license and insurance and that
Click to expand...
I'm going to step out of this convo though just want to share this portion is inaccurate. "Reasonable Suspicion" (articulable) is required for a traffic stop.

Note: This is a PDF. Do not click if you do not want the pdf downloaded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cheeser
Press Release February 7, 2024 Legal action launched to protect wolves in northern Rocky Mountains
Replies
1
Views
756
bayoublaster7527
B
cheeser
House of Representatives votes to remove gray wolves from endangered species list
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
ismith
ismith
W
ID Poaching Case
Replies
0
Views
2K
westbranch
W
I
Idaho "Motorized Hunting Rule" 101
Replies
4
Views
4K
Irrelevant
Irrelevant
S
Montana Region 2 - Elk B season not over yet...
Replies
3
Views
3K
sacountry
sacountry
MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
113,670
Messages
2,029,084
Members
36,277
Latest member
rt3bulldogs

Share this page

Back
Top