Game Wardens on Private Land Bill in Wisconsin

[Northwoods Labs]

Just letting Wisconsin guys know that a bill is being introduced by Adam Jarchow which would restrict game warden's ability to enter private lands and enforce game laws. In my opinion this is a terrible idea and would only lead to an increase in poaching on private land in our state. I have had only positive experiences with game wardens in our state and do not wish to make their difficult job even harder.

https://www.wpr.org/bill-restricting-when-game-wardens-can-enter-private-lands-be-introduced

 

[sneakypete]

I would not be in favor of this bill anywhere, the outdoors is All about honesty, integrity, and obeying the law.

 

[shootbrownelk]

I believe the G&F wardens in Wyoming have the right to enter private property if they feel there is unlawful activity. Maybe I'm wrong on this though. Ranchers have considerable clout in the legislature.

 

[JM77]

I believe the G&F wardens in Wyoming have the right to enter private property if they feel there is unlawful activity. Maybe I'm wrong on this though. Ranchers have considerable clout in the legislature.

Law enforcement cannot enter private property without probable cause or a search warrant. It has to be more than a feeling Shoot. There is much misconception that game wardens have more authority and that is false.

No one, especially me, wants to give poachers and law breakers the upper hand, but we have the 4th Amendment in this country, and if it is not adhered to, they(lawbreakers) will walk anyway.

 

[shootbrownelk]

Law enforcement cannot enter private property without probable cause or a search warrant. It has to be more than a feeling Shoot. There is much misconception that game wardens have more authority and that is false.

No one, especially me, wants to give poachers and law breakers the upper hand, but we have the 4th Amendment in this country, and if it is not adhered to, they(lawbreakers) will walk anyway.

I didn't know that the G&F was hamstrung by the Wyoming legislature. Thanks for the info, but I don't agree.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

Point taken JM77, but I would still disagree with this bill. It would make it virtually impossible for wardens to check hunting licenses, illegal baiting and feeding, etc. Also, Wisconsin is very different than Wyoming based on what I know. In Wyoming it seems you have more large scale ranches where hunting pressure in limited or leased to an outfitter. In Wisconsin, we have lots of chunks of small private land acres. Most of the hunting in the southern half of the state is done on private land, especially deer hunting which is when most people are out. This bill would make it very hard for wardens to enforce anything. All Amendments are not limited, and in this case the status quo in Wisconsin protects a public interest

 

[hank4elk]

Not in WI , but against this idea.
CA wardens seem to be more drug enforcement officers than game wardens from what I was witnessing 8 yrs ago. But they do alot of survelance & usually have local law with them on a bust.
NM wardens are real hamstrung by just area to patrol, no budget and a terrible justice dept.,and little to no help from local law,let alone Staties.IMHO

 

[COEngineer]

JM77, I'm not sure that's right. I think game wardens do have different powers than other LEOs, at least in some States. I haven't done a ton of research on the subject, but this website agrees with me so I'll quote it

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/do-game-wardens-have-the-same-powers-as-police-officers.html

"In some instances, game wardens may actually have more power than police officers when it comes to warrantless searches of persons or vehicles.

Typically, police officers must have probable cause or consent to search a person or a vehicle without a warrant. A 2012 California Supreme Court case found that even when a game warden lacks reasonable suspicion that a person has violated an applicable fish or game statute or regulation, they may still stop the suspect's vehicle and demand the suspect display any fish or game in the suspect's possession."

 

[JLS]

JM77, I'm not sure that's right. I think game wardens do have different powers than other LEOs, at least in some States. I haven't done a ton of research on the subject, but this website agrees with me so I'll quote it

http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/do-game-wardens-have-the-same-powers-as-police-officers.html

"In some instances, game wardens may actually have more power than police officers when it comes to warrantless searches of persons or vehicles.

Typically, police officers must have probable cause or consent to search a person or a vehicle without a warrant. A 2012 California Supreme Court case found that even when a game warden lacks reasonable suspicion that a person has violated an applicable fish or game statute or regulation, they may still stop the suspect's vehicle and demand the suspect display any fish or game in the suspect's possession."

Both of you are correct. It varies a lot by state. MT and WY do not allow game wardens on posted private property to inspect licenses, etc without probable cause that a violation occurred. Other states allow entrance to private property if the warden can articulate reasonable suspicion there was hunting and/or fishing activity taking place.

Some states allow warrantless searches of vehicles, coolers, boats if there is probable cause a violation has occurred. Other states allow administrative stops/inspections of vehicles/boats if reasonable suspicion exists there was hunting/fishing activity. Yet, other states do not allow stops absent probable cause a violation has occurred.

As you can see, there is a very wide gamut of authority and the urban legends about "unlimited police powers" are usually bullshit.

 

[brownbear932008]

I didn't know that the G&F was hamstrung by the Wyoming legislature. Thanks for the info, but I don't agree.

I wouldn't say they are hamstrung by the. Wyoming legislature. It is the 4th amendment as well as case law that prohibits any law enforcement official from conducting unreasonable search and seizures. I am all about helping LEO's but at the same time I know there must be a line to protect our freedom's as American's. What kind of society would we be living in if government officials could do anything they please at anytime they please?

 

[Zach]

Law enforcement cannot enter private property without probable cause or a search warrant. It has to be more than a feeling Shoot. There is much misconception that game wardens have more authority and that is false.

No one, especially me, wants to give poachers and law breakers the upper hand, but we have the 4th Amendment in this country, and if it is not adhered to, they(lawbreakers) will walk anyway.

Saw several variations of "probable cause" used by the CA F&G green jeans. One resulted in the loss of a legal kill confiscation only to have the head "disappear" once the "suspect" was cleared of wrong doing by the crooked warden.

 

[utah400elk]

I am in law enforcement and the California F&G case is interesting read but a lot of people misunderstand that case.

To recap: a game warden watched a guy fishing (for abalone if my memory is correct) in a closed area. He watched the guy and believed the guy was fishing. He saw the guy put somethin in a catch bag. He followed he the and stopped him and asked to inspect his catch. The guy denied fishing. The officer searched his car and found the abalone.

The guy fought the search based on 4th amendment. The court said the stop to inspect the fishing license and catch (admin stop) was good to go. Once the guy lied about having abalone the officer (based on his observations) amounted to PC. Any police officer with PC can search a vehicle (mobile connivance) without a search warrant. In reading the cali Supreme Court decision one of he judges goes out of his way to say that their decision does not say whether or not a Game Warden can search a car without PC. It is often misunderstood even by game wardens. To be clear, they can stop and check licenses and inspect your catch but can't search your car without PC. As a caveat, they can develop PC during an inspection stop. Like stopping for a guy for an inspection stop and seeing blood on his hands and asking to inspect the game. If suspect said there was no game the warden would have PC to search.

I am all for catching poachers and think the bill is a bad idea. All LE are subject to 4th amendment. States can be more strict in their statutes but can't undermine the US constitution. Also Law enforcement can enter private property without a warrant. You can't stop the police from knocking on your door by putting a no trespassing sign by your driveway. It's all about reasonable expectations of privacy and there are a lot of court cases about the curtilage of your property.

Sorry for the long explanation but I believe it is very important for people to understand their constitutional rights. I have run into more than a few over zeleous game wardens in my day.

 

[Zach]

I am in law enforcement and the California F&G case is interesting read but a lot of people misunderstand that case.

To recap: a game warden watched a guy fishing (for abalone if my memory is correct) in a closed area. He watched the guy and believed the guy was fishing. He saw the guy put somethin in a catch bag. He followed he the and stopped him and asked to inspect his catch. The guy denied fishing. The officer searched his car and found the abalone.

The guy fought the search based on 4th amendment. The court said the stop to inspect the fishing license and catch (admin stop) was good to go. Once the guy lied about having abalone the officer (based on his observations) amounted to PC. Any police officer with PC can search a vehicle (mobile connivance) without a search warrant. In reading the cali Supreme Court decision one of he judges goes out of his way to say that their decision does not say whether or not a Game Warden can search a car without PC. It is often misunderstood even by game wardens. To be clear, they can stop and check licenses and inspect your catch but can't search your car without PC. As a caveat, they can develop PC during an inspection stop. Like stopping for a guy for an inspection stop and seeing blood on his hands and asking to inspect the game. If suspect said there was no game the warden would have PC to search.

I am all for catching poachers and think the bill is a bad idea. All LE are subject to 4th amendment. States can be more strict in their statutes but can't undermine the US constitution. Also Law enforcement can enter private property without a warrant. You can't stop the police from knocking on your door by putting a no trespassing sign by your driveway. It's all about reasonable expectations of privacy and there are a lot of court cases about the curtilage of your property.

Sorry for the long explanation but I believe it is very important for people to understand their constitutional rights. I have run into more than a few over zeleous game wardens in my day.

If you're referring to my CA reference, nothing to do with abalone. Just an unscrupulous warden who couldn't get a buck in his own backyard...

I should add, to keep the OP's topic at the forefront. I don't see a problem with requiring the warden to have a reasonable cause for entering private land.

 

[JWP58]

You need reasonable suspicion for a stop, provable cause for search. Says the constitution and supreme court case law.

 

[Idahoarcheryhunter]

You need reasonable suspicion for a stop, provable cause for search. Says the constitution and supreme court case law.

Some Idaho wardens don't understand this either.

 

[utah400elk]

Sorrry,

I was talking about the landmark case for game and fish search and seizure. It's a California Supreme Court case.

 

[Northwoods Labs]

You need reasonable suspicion for a stop, provable cause for search. Says the constitution and supreme court case law.

How would you define reasonable suspicion? If wardens are not allowed to check for license compliance, or your livewell, or your bird vest, etc. without some kind of proof you are guilty then that would be the end of game and fish compliance as we know it. We would go back to the days of self compliance, and I think we all know how that will pan out based on history. Also, the 4th amendment deals with personal property. Conservation wardens are protecting the wildlife and resources which are owned by everyone

 

[utah400elk]

There is court precedent that allows for administrative check points (DUI and game and fish check points). The 4th amendment also applies to the person not just property. The game wardens can check for regulatory compliance. It's a delicate balance and a bit complicated.

 

[JLS]

How would you define reasonable suspicion? If wardens are not allowed to check for license compliance, or your livewell, or your bird vest, etc. without some kind of proof you are guilty then that would be the end of game and fish compliance as we know it. We would go back to the days of self compliance, and I think we all know how that will pan out based on history. Also, the 4th amendment deals with personal property. Conservation wardens are protecting the wildlife and resources which are owned by everyone

In most states all a warden needs to conduct a compliance check is reasonable suspicion the person was engaged in the act of hunting, fishing, and/or trapping and does NOT include the necessity a violation took place.. Reasonable suspicion is a rather low benchmark to meet.

Search and seizure case law is an ever evolving set of rules.