Not a hunter but a question just crossed my mind

[ZeroJunk]

um, no they really don't.

Did you read the link ?

However, neither case requires the officer who wishes to conduct an inspection stop to have any suspicion that the individual may have committed a criminal offense. This is obviously different from the typical "Terry stop" which requires at least reasonable suspicion.

[Art Eatman]

In general, but for a few exceptions, any hunting in Texas requires the basic license. Game animals, varmints and ferals.

Game animals are primarily deer, antelope and in the Panhandle, aoudad.

In SW Texas, aoudad are still legally feral, as are all elk. Native Texas elk are extinct. Landowners can charge an arm and a leg to allow an elk hunt on their land. These elk are descendants of imports from New Mexico or Colorado.

No restrictions on non-commercial hunting of predators or varmints. Coyotes, cougars, foxes, bobcats, badgers, etc. Sale of furs requires a license.

Game wardens can enter rural land without a warrant. I'm dubious that they could enter a house without probable cause and a warrant.

[egor20]

Only time Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries agents have been on my property is for poachers. My property's posted every 100 feet with" NO Hunting or Trapping" signs, hell I don't even hunt on my own property. So basically the only time they've been here is when I've called them.

[44 AMP]

Murder is only a Federal offense when it happens on Federal property or involves crossing state lines

I'm not certain, but I think the Feds also step in if the murder is of a federal employee in the performance of their duties.

I recall hearing something about how killing a Federal Poultry Inspector is a crime, over and above mere murder of a citizen. Perhaps someone else knows more about that kind of thing?

[Snyper]

I'm not certain, but I think the Feds also step in if the murder is of a federal employee in the performance of their duties.

That's probably correct.

My main point was "murder" is generally a state offense under most circumstances

Many game law violations are also Federal offenses if they involve migratory birds

[jughead2]

it is in black and white in tenn. statute warden has to have a warrant to search ones house. one 3-4 a
arguements over that.

[TimSr]

Did you read the link?

A NC state attorney general's policy paper does not trump the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. Having said that, though the link is 20 pages of legalese, and when you wade into it deep enough, it basically says they can do random stops of to check licenses and inspections, makes no metion of entering private property unless the reasonable cause threshhold is met. An "inspection" is not a "search" and is limited to what is externally visible or volunteeered.

Murder is usually a state crime, but does't matter for the point being made that city police can and do enforce state law, though it is the state that actually files the charges and prosecutes. Same with GWs enforcing federal game laws. As a sidenote, the whole "hate crime" controversy argued mostly out of ignorance, has only one purpose which is to put state crimes deemed to be "hate crimes" under federal jurisidiction, and the main argument against that is that federal courts have not executed anyone in decades.

[Art Eatman]

Let's stay with game laws. Avoid other issues.

[22-rimfire]

Same game laws apply to private property overall. There is lots of illegal hunting that goes on. That also includes shooting a rabbit or squirrel out of season. Many hunters will turn you in to fish & game if they know you hunt illegally.

[ZeroJunk]

makes no metion of entering private property unless the reasonable cause threshhold is met

Not sure what you consider private property. But if you read the SCOTUS ruling on open fields and forest any LEO can enter property other than curtilage as part of doing his job.

In such cases, the “Open Fields Doctrine” applies. In Oliver v. United States the United State Supreme Court has held that when law enforcement officers are on private property outside of the curtilage of a dwelling, they are not conducting a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.9

This is like any other legal argument where even the Supreme Court rarely agrees more than 5 to 4 . But, if you poach a game animal in NC and the Wildlife Enforcement Officer is fairly certain that you did it if you think he won't come in your house after you and the animal good luck in the contest. Now, obviously they are not going to start a shootout over it, but they usually manage to get what they need.

[tahunua001]

so you're saying that game wardens do not have to obey and adhere to trespassing laws or vacate property if asked by a landowner?

[dayman]

Basically, no.
Or rather the threshold for "reasonable cause" to search rural land is so low that they can effectively ignore "posted" signs.

They're not going to able to go into your house without a warrant, but if they feel there a reason they need to check out your posted woods lot they don't need to get permission to do it.
I imagine if you were there, there was no evidence of anything illegal, and you asked them to leave they'd probably be obligated to do so.
In my experience they do most of their searching when people aren't around. I don't imagine it's fun confronting poachers in the woods.

[ZeroJunk]

so you're saying that game wardens do not have to obey and adhere to trespassing laws or vacate property if asked by a landowner?

I'm not really saying anything other than what the Supreme Court said.

The law of trespass recognizes the interest in possession and control of one's property and for that reason permits exclusion of unwanted intruders. But it does not follow that the right to exclude conferred by trespass law embodies a privacy interest also protected by the Fourth Amendment. To the contrary, the common law of trespass furthers a range of interests that have nothing to do with privacy and that would not be served by applying the strictures of trespass law to public officers.11
(Emphasis

[giaquir]

In New Hampshire,one can deer hunt on his own land
without a license but has to follow F/G rules.I have enough land to
hunt on and see many deer but I'm afraid what will
happen if I don't drop them in their tracks.Then I would
have to go hunt the deer down on someone Else's land
unlicensed. As far as C.O's coming on my land,one come up to me
a couple years ago and mentioned every tree stand I had
and it's location.I feel why get them ticked off at you which
will encourage them to put you on the watch list.

[reynolds357]

A game warden has the same authority that any other law enforcement agent has. Search and seizure law is determined by the 4th Ammendment of the COTUS ant the Supreme Courts rulings on the COTUS.
A game warden is often able to perform searches without warrants due to: 1. Exigency of circumstance and 2. Expectation of privacy doctrine.

Game wardens have no special powers of search and seizure. They can not search your house without a warrant any easier than any other L.E. officer can search your house without a warrant. It can legally be done, but the circumstances in which it can be done are very, very, very, rare.

Considering I do not violate any game laws, I like having the "Rabbit Sheriff" around. We have a lot of out of state hunters coming into our area. Most of them hunt over bait. (illegal here) I call the "Rabbit Sheriff" quite often.

[ZeroJunk]

Well, we can all argue what the law is until we are blue in the face. But, I can tell you that in practice wildlife officers in this state get a lot of leeway in enforcing wildlife laws. Exigent circumstance can be as wide as a barn door if that is historically accepted procedure for enforcement. The seasoned hunters in this state know full well that the wildlife officers here can get right in the middle of your business, whether it is right or not.

[TimSr]

A traffic cop lawfully needs cause to pull you over, but that doesn't mean its not easily abused. That doesn't change what the law is.

Expectation of privacy issues are not much different than looking in the windows of your car, to visibly spot "reasonable cause" for a search. Same applies to open land. He cannot wander onto private land looking for violations. Anything he can see that "might be a volation" without setting foot on your land, may contitute probable cause to enter your land.

Game warden at son's hunter safety class clarifed teh myth here that you could enter private property without permission to track a wounded. He said its not only false, but that HE did not have the authority to enter private land to retrieve. He encouraged hunters to call the GW office if they killed a deer that died on neighboring property, and could not get permission to retrieve it, and he would intercede and talk with the property owner, and offer to accompny you, but said, if the owner is unwilling to give permission, he can't enter either.

I have no doubts that some agencies frequenty violate Constitutional rights as a matter of policy, and they mostly get away with it because most people don't have the means or knowledge to legally challenge it. The US Constitution applies to ALL government agents, state, federal, and local, whther they obey it or not.

[tahunua001]

and here is where I probably get this thread shut down, with civil disobedience and all, but historically accepted behavior has no bearing on legal and illegal, right and wrong. just because militaries have just about always raped their way across whatever country they are fighting in, does not mean that rape is a condoned, or legal action for individual soldiers to take. just because there are still isolated areas in the US where it is still legal to beat your wife on the city hall steps on sunday mornings does not mean it is the right thing to do. people should not just sit aside and watch as LEOs of any department run amock for no other reason than "it's always been like this".

[buck460XVR]

For the most part, rouge Wardens that break more laws than they enforce are like similar rouge cops.....far and few between. While some would like others to think that those in law enforcement have no respect for the law themselves, this is not the case. Most Game Wardens are hard working individuals that have a lot of territory to cover. They are exposed everyday to people teed-off at them, that are in possession of firearms. In some case those individuals are not the most outstanding citizens. Wardens generally do not have time for personal vendettas unless their target is a career poacher. Wardens spend more time on public land than private for the same reason we go to our favorite hotspot to hunt/fish.....that's where we find the most game.

[ZeroJunk]

The problem with laws is that they are often contradictory or murky.
But, the notion that a wildlife enforcement officer can't patrol private property is ridiculous. If that was the case there would be no point in having a game warden in this county or the next one up, there is no public land in it.

And tahunua, you are getting off in the weeds. Nobody is talking about randomly checking hunter's property to see what they have or raping or beating wives. A more fitting example would be following three poachers back to their motel room in Eden where they had three deer iced down in the tub, seriously. And no, they did not get a warrant.

[TimSr]

A more fitting example would be following three poachers back to their motel room in Eden where they had three deer iced down in the tub, seriously. And no, they did not get a warrant.

They don't need one if they followed them there.

[tahunua001]

the notion that a wildlife enforcement officer can't patrol private property is ridiculous.

not it's not.

4th amendment of the constitution.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

your property, any property, is protected from search or seizure, including land, meaning, if they don't have your explicit approval, they can not patrol it, period. this is also found in the final section of the 5th amendment,

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

although it mostly covers self incrimination and right to fair trial, the statement, "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property", meaning your property is your property and you are free to treat it as you deem fit and if they means barring any law enforcement official who does not have a warrant, it means you can.

And tahunua, you are getting off in the weeds.

no we really aren't. you are basically stating that game wardens are free to do almost anything they want, where they want, and that it's always been that way. I was stating specific areas where "it's always been that way" does not constitute whether they actually have the legal, or social right to do it.

Nobody is talking about randomly checking hunter's property to see what they have or raping or beating wives. A more fitting example would be following three poachers back to their motel room in Eden where they had three deer iced down in the tub, seriously. And no, they did not get a warrant.

following a bunch of poachers to a hotel room in no way equals patrolling their happy selves through your alfalfa fields without your consent. now, if you see a group of guys climbing a fence next to a "no trespassing" sign then that may constitute probably cause in which case he may approach you and ask if you would allow him to investigate or he may follow if you've already supplied written permission, but unless it is part of an active investigation and he has probable cause, he can't just drive through your tractor access roads like he owns the place.

[Doyle]

Tahunua, in your example of standing behind the 4th amendment you missed one very important thing. In the 4th amendment, you'll notice the word "unreasonable".

US court system has long held that warrantless searches of private property to enforce game regulations are reasonable.

[TimSr]

US court system has long held that warrantless searches of private property to enforce game regulations are reasonable.

I'd like to read summarires of some of these cases. I'm surprised any US court has even heard any case concerning game regulations, but maybe you are considering poaching endangered species as game regulations. Anyways, can you possibly cite one or two of these cases so I can read up on them before commenting further?

[ZeroJunk]

Some on here seem to know more about it than the Supreme Court.

A good example would be a dove hunt. They routinely patrol with airplanes and if they see a congregation of vehicles and hunters around a field an entire group of officers will come in and check everybody there. I have been checked at least a dozen times over the years. And, they certainly don't have to ask anybody's permission and they will write up the landowner as well if he has broken any rules.

I would advise anybody to avoid taking legal advice about what they can and can't do on the internet. Your pocketbook probably won't like it if you use some of this advice thinking you can get away with something nefarious just because you are on private property and think they won't come after you just because you get your door shut.