Search my boat ??

[wastewaterguru]

The requirement that a CO officer establish a probable cause prior to any action (except checking licenses) is a safeguard to prevent the abuse of power that led to the creation of search warrants, miranda rights, etc.

I agree that they shouldn't be able to search your equipment/person/etc, unless probable cause is established.

------------------
I fish.....Therefore I grovel.

Here....Fisheeeeeeee!!

[huskminn]

Spike, I'm with you.

My position on this situation has been made evident, so here are my proposed solutions, much as Spike already stated.

Since it has recently been determined that CO's must operate within the same bounds as all other law enforcement officers, we need to give them the same tools and advantages.

We need more CO's and we need to equip them with state of the art surveillance technology. Probable cause for search comes from when a CO sees someone keep a walleye that appears to be an illegal fish. Thereafter, the legal search is on.

There are costs to be shouldered for more CO's, but I, for one, would pay double for the privelege to fish and hunt in Minnesota.

Because we as anglers/hunters/outdoors-people have a specific, vested interest in conservation, we have a responsibility to ensure that our children, friends and even strangers are abiding by the game laws--even if we may not agree with them in totality. I'm not suggesting citizen arrest scenarios (especially when hunting!), but I'm suggesting use of the TIPS line and reporting any and all violations that one sees.

There is a POSSIBILITY that I would support a "sign-off" of sorts when purchasing a license that would make it legal for a CO to search my boat/vehicle/fish house without probable cause or a warrant, but I think that would be difficult to justify constitutionally. There does seem to be some precedence for this in commercial vehicle regulation, though.

[Hoyter]

With all the talk of "right to privacy" and so on (which I tend to agree with most arguments), how is it that the DNR can set up road blocks? Have I always had the right to refuse them a look at my fish/game? How about DWI road blocks?

[SpikeRoberts]

Dave,
While my post ignored the fact, I agree that it's unlikely that we'll add more COs in the near future UNLESS we are willing to be a little more vocal on the issue. Like huskminn, I'm willing to pay more for my license if that's what it takes to help preserve the resource. In the overall budget of most anglers, the contributions to the protection of the resources are small in comparison to the equipment expenditures -- maybe we need to re-think that equation if we really want to maintain our fisheries.

[Guest]

I have been reading all these posts and have just 1 comment. The comment about more CO's I agree with, as of right now for the rough numbers they gave 2.1M fishing and 600,000 hunting and 140 CO's that breaks out to 19,285 hunting/fishing people to 1 CO. And that is a average, not talking about a certain area that probably has more people in one area that a CO works and another CO might have les people. Just a question, with the new restriction how much drive would a CO have to do his job now? don't fire away at me just a observation.

Broncosguy.

[Guest]

I have been reading all these posts and have nothing to hide. But the comment about more CO's I agree with as of right now for the rough numbers they gave 2.1M fishing and 600,000 hunting and 140 CO's that breaks out to 19,285 hunting/fishing people to 1 CO. And that ia a average not talking about a certain area that probably has more people in one area that a CO works. Now with this how do you think it will drive a CO to do his job and well, could get them to burnout quicker. just my 2 cents worth dont bash me.

Broncosguy

[Guest]

Broncosguy-
I agree, there are not nearly enough COs to go around. However, any CO that is less enthusiastic about his job just because he can't do the Gestapo thing is one we can do without. How much difference will this ruling really make to the average CO? Probably not a lot. He can still ask for your license, and ticket you if you don't produce it. He can still count and measure your fish with your permission. If he gets a call that a boat with registration ##### has been keeping too many fish, he's got probable cause and can check your vehicle, your boat, and your camp/cabin/house. He's got to make sure the tip will hold up in court, and will probably get a warrant before searching your house, but he would have done that before, too. The only ones this will really impact are those few who abuse their authority to humiliate and frighten law-abiding people. What it DOES do is shift more of the responsibility to the rest of us. If you see somebody keeping too many fish, or fish that are out of season, don't just gripe about it to other fishermen. Take pictures and call it in. If everyone who knows something about illegal activity would pick up the phone and do something about it, the COs would be too busy for random searches anyway.

[Dave]

With the way SOME lawyers are today (you know which ones I mean and don't mean to offend any that are here) I'd suspect if CO's are spying with binocs or something, the next case will be invasion of privacy.

[Guest]

BP,
Stop and think for a minute. Preferably before you post. You went on and on about how terrible it is that American citizens would insist on their full Constitutionally guaranteed rights. You claim you "believe in innocence until proven guilt" (sic). You tout the safeguards in our system, then chastise anyone who insists that those same safeguards be applied equitably.
The one question in your post that deserves a thoughtful reply is, "What in the heck is so overly intrusive about a C.O. asking for a look at your fish or for a quick peak in your fish house? They have been doing it for years!"
The last sentence, of course, is easily dismissed. What was so wrong about segregation? They'd been doing it for years! What was so wrong about Auschwitz? They'd been doing it for years! Extreme examples, yes. Point is, a long history of something wrong does not make it less wrong. Of COURSE the court cases involve criminals. DUH! They're the ones who get arrested! When a drug dealer gets off on a "technicality", it's usually because a police officer was careless with the Constitution. Yeah, it ticks me off, too. The drug dealer will end up back in jail again (you think the police don't remember who got off on a technicality, and watch them extra close?), and your freedoms are not weakened. If we were to allow abuse of the Constitution by law enforcement, how long would it be before your door got busted down at 3 AM so the FBI could search your closets for kiddie porn and illegal literature, because somebody who doesn't like you phoned in a 'tip'? Or is that OK, since you have nothing to hide?
When I buy a fishing license, I am buying a license to exercise a priviledge, not a right. Therefore a CO can come up and ask to see my license if I am fishing. He can't forcibly search me to get it, nor can he search my property. My boat, you see, is my property. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the sanctity of my person, my home, and my property against unreasonable search and seizure. Note- it does not GIVE me that right; that right is assumed to predate the Constitution and be inviolable, as are the rights guaranteed by the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The amendments simply forbid the government from infringing upon my God-given rights as a free person. Back to the topic at hand. If a CO asks to look in my live well, he is assuming I am guilty. If he assumed I were innocent, he would have no reason to check my livewell or anything else. Just as a police officer can ask to see your driver's license (driving is a priviledge), he can't search you vehicle or your person without:
1. Your permission,
2. Probable cause, or
3. A signed search warrant.
The sanctity of my private property is a RIGHT, guaranteed by the Constitution.
This is one of the most important freedoms we have, and one of the most endangered. Every time there is a terrorist incident, new bills are brought before the legislature that are in direct contradiction of the Bill of Rights. "But what do you have to hide?" is one of their major arguments. "We all have to sacrifice a few conveniences for security" is another. THERE is your talk. Of course, those bad ol' Libertarians fight each and every one of them. Heck, if not for those obstructionist morons we would have a national ID card by now, with all your medical, financial, legal, and personal information encoded on it. Banks would be required to draft a "profile" of each of their customers, and report any transactions outside the profile to the FBI. The IRS would file your income tax returns for you and just send you a bill each year. The armed forces would be patrolling the streets, arresting people suspected of "terrorist activity", and trying them in secret courts, outside the protection of the Constitution. Far fetched? Those are all bills that have been defeated in the last few years. Big Brother will take care of you! Sieg Heil!
Read this- http://www.jouster.com/quotes/common.html

[Guest]

Unless you have your licsense taped to your forehead, a CO has probable cause that you might not have one!!!

[Grabs]

Here we go again with the presumed guilty until proven innocent clause! Not displaying your license for all to see,..is not grounds for probable cause! In this country we are a innocent until proven guilty! Therefore I agree with the decision, fact of the matter is that all those to broke the law before will continue to break the law and the 99% of others will continue to abide by the law.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Grabs (edited 07-25-2002).]

[Guest]

The courts made the right call on this one, same thing with ice fishing and fish house's it should be up to the individual fisherman to let the C.O. in or not.

[Guest]

Speaking of the Ice houses, I was wondering but did not ask this question. Are all ice houses supposed to have a window, except for spear houses I assume? What happens if a CO walks up and comes form a side where a window is and looks in and sees something that is probable cause and asks to come in and the person says no? Back to this subject, I actually would not have any problem calling on someone doing something wrong.

Broncosguy.

[Guest]

There is nothing in the regs stating a window is required.

[huskminn]

Ice houses are not required to have a window, however, if anyone can peek through a window with reasonable effort and see something illegal in PLAIN VIEW, then the CO's got probable cause to enter.

Same thing goes for all law enforcement officers. Anything laying on your car seat in plain view is fair game.

As far as spying goes, Dave, this is a technique frequently used right now by CO's. I talked to a CO in Two Harbors who had busted a guy the day before for taking too many walleyes out of the St. Louis River. He said he was over a quarter of a mile away from the guy watching him with a spotting scope (I assume from shore). We've all probably been watched while we've been out fishing or hunting, but just don't realize it. It's a little creepy, but perfectly within their right.

[Guest]

Huskminn-
It's no worse than the cretin in the rental boat with binoculars. At least the CO doesn't come roaring up and drop anchor thirty feet away when you catch a fish!

[cwmn]

scubohuntr, hunting and fishing are a constitutionally protected right in Minnesota.
To all who speak of right to privacy, read the US constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy.
I think this ruling is bad for one thing, all the 30 inch Walleyes that will be coming out of Mille Lacs now.

------------------
Have a good one!
CWMN

[cwmn]

scubohuntr, hunting and fishing are a constitutionally protected right in Minnesota.
To all who speak of right to privacy, read the US constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy.
I think this ruling is bad for one thing, all the 30 inch Walleyes that will be coming out of Mille Lacs now.

------------------
Have a good one!
CWMN

[Dave]

Huskminn, I know they use binoculars and such already. I'm wondering when the first lawsuit will win for invasion of privacy.

[Guest]

This is nothing new. This just holds C.O.'s to the same reasonable suspicion requirement as regular law enforcement officers are held to.

An officer can stop a person/car based on reasonable suspicion.

C.O's still get more power to stop, as I'm sure they can still ask you for your fishing/hunting license. Where as a regular law enforcement officer can not simply stop a vehicle to check someone for a drivers license. But the C.O.'s should not be able to search anything they want to, that is a violation of the U.S. constitution.

Good Luck,
Rusty

[Guest]

I have mixed feelings on this.

The CO is there to protect "the great outdoors".

We have LAWS in place for the recreation world, and sometimes it's not so obvious that someone is wrong-doing.

If someone has too many fish, I'd like to see justice be served. How many dishonest folks are going to take advantage of the technical bliss and go on untagged?

There is nothing in my boat to find, so search away.

Anyone come across the border to or from Canada? They stop people and go through every single piece of property, nook, and cranny in your whole rig....Without any cause at all...It is just done at random.
What do you guys think of that?

Something to think about.

PCG

[Guest]

I for one think this ruling is long over due.

I have no problem answering a CO's request for information, but I am tired of being treated as "Guilty until Proven Otherwise".

But I must admit, I can not blame the attitude solely on the CO's. For example, just look to the posts in this thread. Some seem to adopt the stance " I am the only law abiding sports person in the state, and the rest of you are now going to ruin it all for me."

When we start treating each other with such a jaundice eye, how can we put the blame on others for wanting to treat us in a like manner?

So I'll step dpwn off the soap box with this: Next time your out, practice a little MFLB(more fishing less bit6hing).

It just might make for a better trip, and Johnny won't have to ask Mommy why Daddy is so Owley all the time.

[Guest]

What about in the case of BWIs. Does a CO have to ask if he can give a drunk a breath test. I really don't feel like driving around with a bunch of drunks. How about you guys.
My opinion is that this is a law to protect the criminals. These waters are public and I feel it is a public resource. Now we might as well throw the regs book away because they can't be enforced in many situations.

I haven't seen too many meth labs in boats yet this year but I'm sure they are happy with the new law.

------------------
<;(((><

[weekendjunkie]

dave, what u are failing to realize is that when u are in a boat on a PUBLIC body of water it is just as if you are driving your cardown the street. now would you prevent an officer from having a tool to aid him/her in deciding if a person is breaking the law such as a speed gun? probably not.. i like the ruling for one thing..it prevents search and siezure without probable cause, which for CO's is going to be a big change that they will have to deal with.

[ghotierman]

knew this topic would sizzle!

just to add my observations. after discussing it with a buddy, i can see the value of the ruling. there can be SOME in authority positions that can simply be bullies...this ruling protects the average joe...as the constitution intends.

question: difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" ? not splitting hairs, because i believe one phrase can be more restrictive. I believe I read that CO's, like police, highway patrol etc..can make a stop based on 'reasonable suspicion'...they may still need to ask permission to search further.

last point....I fished in Pennsylvania years ago when attending grad school. Your fishing license was required to be displayed on your person...visibly. Usually pinned to a coat, vest or hat. Pretty obvious to see who would be fishing w/o a license there. Would that be too much of a burden?...If so, then accept being stopped/asked...

truth is revealed through good dialectic arguments...

carry on anglers!