Guests - If You want access to member only forums on HSO. You will gain access only when you sign-in or Sign-Up on HotSpotOutdoors.

It's easy - LOOK UPPER right menu.

Getanet

Poacher Skates on Technicality

24 posts in this topic

Conflicted on the news today that this blatant deer poacher is getting off on a technicality. Although I agree that law enforcement needs to follow laws and proper procedures, this doesn't seem to be anything to celebrate and I would certainly tell this lawyer that his client is anything but a "sportsman." I also think the county attorneys office needs to answer some pretty pointed questions about why they didn't recommend or require that a warrant be requested. A lot of resources seems to have been wasted on this case - not to mention all the animals this guy killed illegally.

www.startribune.com/judge-tosses-out-dnr-poaching-bust-over-tracking-device/375486921/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely with you Getanet.  Someone dropped the ball on this one.  And he is laughing his you know what off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A buddy of mine apparently knows the guy because they grew up in the same area.  Sounds like he's known around there and it probably won't be long until he's busted for something else.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Getanet said:

Conflicted on the news today that this blatant deer poacher is getting off on a technicality. Although I agree that law enforcement needs to follow laws and proper procedures, this doesn't seem to be anything to celebrate and I would certainly tell this lawyer that his client is anything but a "sportsman." I also think the county attorneys office needs to answer some pretty pointed questions about why they didn't recommend or require that a warrant be requested. A lot of resources seems to have been wasted on this case - not to mention all the animals this guy killed illegally.

www.startribune.com/judge-tosses-out-dnr-poaching-bust-over-tracking-device/375486921/

It wasn't a "technicality" exactly.  The DNR screwed up.  The requirements for using a tracking device were settled in 2012.   The government can't go around ignoring the Constitution.  And the sad thing is that they could have gotten a search warrant and didn't bother, for some reason.    DNR needs to train its officers and update its procedures.   But for years the DNR thought that the Constitution didn't apply to them.  Apparently they still do think that. 

And if they county attorney didn't know better, he/she needs to be reprimanded at a minimum. 

And what the heck is a "tracking order"?  Is that something the DNR invented? 

 

Edited by delcecchi
LindellProStaf and LMITOUT like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, delcecchi said:

It wasn't a "technicality" exactly.  The DNR screwed up.  The requirements for using a tracking device were settled in 2012.   The government can't go around ignoring the Constitution.  And the sad thing is that they could have gotten a search warrant and didn't bother, for some reason.    DNR needs to train its officers and update its procedures.   But for years the DNR thought that the Constitution didn't apply to them.  Apparently they still do think that. 

 

I'd like to know where the DNR get's their legal advise from ??

 

LindellProStaf likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, delcecchi said:

It wasn't a "technicality" exactly.  The DNR screwed up.  The requirements for using a tracking device were settled in 2012.   The government can't go around ignoring the Constitution.  And the sad thing is that they could have gotten a search warrant and didn't bother, for some reason.    DNR needs to train its officers and update its procedures.   But for years the DNR thought that the Constitution didn't apply to them.  Apparently they still do think that. 

And if they county attorney didn't know better, he/she needs to be reprimanded at a minimum. 

And what the heck is a "tracking order"?  Is that something the DNR invented? 

 

So technically it wasn't a technicality. I think a "tracking order" is what you use to see when UPS or FedEx will deliver something you bought online.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What this individual did was totally wrong and illegal, not very sportsman in my eyes. With that said I'm glad the judge threw this out. The DNR have way too much power and feel they can do as they please. A very easy conviction if the DNR would have followed the law themselves !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly wondered back then if this would be the outcome, my thoughts were I don't think you can put a gps/tracking monitor on a person's vehicle without some sort of (looked into the legality and it's ok),OK from above. I think it's hard to say how many animals this guy was responsible for, has he sold or given to friends or family any animals or mounts over the years idk. I'm guessing a lot of his poaching sounded like it was happening in the dark so if you do not drop an animal in it's tracks how many more ran off and were only found by crows, vultures and coyotes ? I hate to think of how many of these bucks never got a chance to breed in their final days as he was lynching them most likely before the rut and or during. Once again we're lucky they shed their antlers so buck poaching can only happen from Sept-February or it would be a year round thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the State Fair and Brainerd Fair they had a DNR trailer "wall of shame" with this guys whole story and some of the bigger mounts in it. I wonder if they have to stop showing that now or ay least without his name shown since he got off? :crazy:

Edited by leech~~

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, leech~~ said:

At the State Fair and Brainerd Fair they had a DNR trailer "wall of shame" with this guys whole story and some of the bigger mounts in it. I wonder if they have to stop showing that now or ay least without his name shown since he got off? :crazy:

That's pretty brave of the DNR to do something like that before a guilty verdict has been reached. I'm not one bit surprised though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Illegal search and siezure isn't a technicality.

I hope they really nail the bast#*d good next time.

Edited by DrJill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was working in that area when this went down and talked to a few locals. The feedback I got was that he is not very well liked and people around there knew what he was doing.

 

There is a lot of wide open and remote terrain in that area and over into south Dakota and the deeper you get the smaller the DNR presence. I can understand why they might resort to what they did but I agree with the ruling.  Hopefully they can bust his butt legally next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, leech~~ said:

At the State Fair and Brainerd Fair they had a DNR trailer "wall of shame" with this guys whole story and some of the bigger mounts in it. I wonder if they have to stop showing that now or ay least without his name shown since he got off? :crazy:

I would imagine that the DNR has to give everything back to the guy now. Wonder if the dumba$$ learned anything from this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, jerkbait said:

I would imagine that the DNR has to give everything back to the guy now. Wonder if the dumba$$ learned anything from this?

I'm not sure that they do. The game was still taken Illegally even though he got off on the charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the article:

Quote

Barring an appeal — which the DNR is considering — the head-and-shoulder mounts, or racks, of 37 dead deer that officers confiscated from Liebl, 38, along with 37 guns, an intact piebald white-tailed fawn and other wildlife, must be returned to Liebl, along with his truck.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jbell1981 said:

From the article:

Barring an appeal — which the DNR is considering — the head-and-shoulder mounts, or racks, of 37 dead deer that officers confiscated from Liebl, 38, along with 37 guns, an intact piebald white-tailed fawn and other wildlife, must be returned to Liebl, along with his truck.

That's is the most crazy thing I have ever heard, next to OJ was innocent! :crazy:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He would be pretty stupid to keep on how he has been.  The DNR will likely be watching him like a hawk now.  Almost think with some of the money that gets wasted they may get this guy his own satellite now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's been doing it forever, its not new news to Dawson, MN. Many opening morning "stiff" bucks have been in his truck. Lesson learned? I doubt it. My guess is he will do it again. Funny how his whole family backs him on everything and his so called "legal" trophy mounts. Come on people, I don't care if he's your son, brother, cousin or bar buddy, the guy is guilty. Own up to it and don't feel upset when everyone in town is upset that he got the charges dropped. I know me being and avid hunter if my relative did something like this, I wouldn't say he's innocent or back them on their wrong doings. If they're "legal", he's got some hella good hunting land...He was caught with a dead deer in his pickup in October, killed by a high power rifle bullet for gods sakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree with him getting off on the charges at all especially when the DNR applied for what the county attorney told them they needed which was a tracking order and not a search warrant.  So they catch the guy literally red handed and because they filed for the wrong piece of paper even though they would have been granted both this POS gets off raping the land and stealing animals for the legal law abiding citizens of the state of MN?  I get that if they didn't file for anything and just went rogue and caught the guy but it is not like they didn't consult the proper powers that be and get approval for what they were doing.  Basically a simple clerical error on the county attorney's end let him walk free.  How about the other evidence that he purchased licenses illegally or explain how he had so many mounts yet only has registered 4 deer since 04?  The DNR has to follow rules and I get that but in this case they went through the proper channels to get approval and were misinformed and that is talk to let this guy go without holding him responsible for his actions!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The county attorney said they didn't need a search warrant?  Has he explained why he said that, given the Supreme Court ruled differently in 2012?   Or is this one of the "It's the DNR so none of the regular rules apply", like it was with their checkpoint roadblocks and warrantless searches of boats and fish houses.  

They even had a law that you couldn't lock your fish house door!

The people should be furious with the DNR and the county attorney. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Del, you had asked earlier what a tracking order is. I still have no idea, but according to a previous article in the Strib it says, " But the DNR didn’t have enough evidence to arrest Liebl until District Judge Dwayne Knutsen granted the agency’s tracking device application."
 

I guess that's why I consider it a technicality. To someone such as myself, not well versed in the law, it wasn't like someone went rogue. The DNR requested a tracking order, a judge signed it.  It would be really interesting to know what a tracking order is and how it differs from a warrant. I really can't find any information about a tracking order online. It would be nice if an outdoor reporter clears that up soon, because many of us would like to better understand how this got so screwed up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The DNR asked the judge to sign something, and he did.  I blame the DNR for not getting their procedures straight and training their people.  

In fact, upon searching I don't even see any reference to a "tracking order" as a legal thing.   I wonder what kind of document they did get signed. 

Edited by delcecchi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The law protects those that may or may not have broken it. In this case someone screwed up and the person charged used the law to avoid the crime. This just shows that both the innocent and the presumed guilty are protected by certain parts of the constitution. That's why your innocent until proven guilty through the justice system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now