Search my boat ??

[Guest]

Ghotierman,

Good question about the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. You were correct in that one is more restrictive than the other.

Reasonable suspicion is created when an officer has a few articuable facts to believe that someone has done something wrong. An officer can SOMETIMES search on reasonable suspicion alone, but they are FAR more limited than a search based on probable cause.

Probable cause involves even more facts than reasonable suspicion. An officer can search if they have probable cause.

People can not be arrested/cited based on reasonable suspicion, the officer MUST HAVE probable cause.

It's obviously more in depth than that, but this should give everyone on this site the basic principles for what we'll use it for.

Good Luck,
Rusty

[Scoot]

This one makes me really hot. I TOTALLY DISAGREE with anyone in favor of it.

"Here Mr. Gamewarden, sir, here's a badge and your title. What can you do with it, you ask? Well, nothing. We expect you to enforce justice through order maintenance and if you believe someone is breaking the law, we feel you are so incompetant that you have to tuck your tail between your legs and run to a judge to do anything about it."

What a rediculious joke. If you agree with this law I'd suggest it's because you either break the law frequently or you belong in a more liberalized part of the world. Go there an enjoy your "freedom". Be sure to enjoy the "decisions" you make in your daily life.
Scoot

[Guest]

This law is not new people. It was around the day our founders wrote the U.S. Constitution. This ruling just enforces that We (U.S. and Minnesota Citizens) are entitled to our Constitutional rights still. I value my rights, and do not believe the government, or in this case the DNR should have the right to search you or your possessions because they feel like it. That is a clear violation of your rights.

What does this mean?

The DNR must adapt it's patrolling techniques. Big deal, every other law enforcement agency has had to do that.

Walleye Pimp,
You are worried about BWI's being affected. They won't be. In order to test someone for BWI or DWI you must have some type of suspicion that they are drinking. i.e. beer cans thrown about the boat, the smell of alcohol on their breath, slurred speach, etc. The DNR is still allowed to stop and ask for your fishing/hunting license. By talking to you they can get enough probable cause for a BWI. They don't need to search the boat inside out in order to prove you were drunk.

This law is not to protect the criminals, it is to protect the citizens from a government. Yes, criminals can be citizens too, so sometimes they get off, but good police work makes the biggest difference.

Good Luck,
Rusty

[ghotierman]

Scoot....can't TOTALLY disagree myself. Granted it creates a burden of proof issue that seems to make the CO's job of enforcement tougher. But the contrast to your scenario:
"Here Mr. Warden (who happens to be a former bully, or who was bullied and vows revenge on all humanity) here is a badge that allows you to stop boaters and anglers on any whim, for no reason and snoop through their belongings, 'just in case' there might be something 'fishy' going on."

I don't think anyone here would ever declare themselve a law breaker. Some may make mistakes along the way...but no one deserves to be strong armed with out reasonable suspicion or probable cause, use whatever measure you like. With out the ruling, the 4th amendment protections are compromised.

Not all CO's would have an attitude. But I'm sure there are a few people reading these posts who could share a story where it felt more like harrassment than routine stop and search as part of the job.

my two cents,....again... (almost a nickel's worth now! *L*)

on with the dialog!

[Guest]

Whoa, Scoot! Think it through. It doesn't affect much in the line of actual day-to-day operations by the CO. What it does is confirms that they are subject to the same limitations as any other law enforcement professional. Like it or not, our law enforcement officers must work under the restrictions placed on them by the US Constitution and the Constitution of the state in which they work. I really doubt any of them would have it any other way. I'm sure it's "easier" on the law enforcement officers in the banana republics where they can kick down somebody's door and drag 'em off for interrogation, never to be seen again. But is justice served any better? I doubt it. Anyone who has ticked off a police officer is liable to come conveniently under suspicion and get the whole Janet Reno treatment. Our Constitution was written specifically to prevent that kind of abuse. By definition, until you have been proven guilty, you are innocent. Therefore, a search of your person or property without probable cause is forbidden under the Fourth Amendment. WITH probable cause, a CO can still search to his heart's content. Myself, I can't see refusing a request to search my boat, unless it was presented as a command. I get really contrary when some jackbooted bully tries to intimidate me. A CO can still ask to check your license and you must produce it. If he sees anything to indicate that you are in violation while checking your license, he has probable cause and can go right ahead and search.

Now, cwmn- you stated that there is nothing in the Constitution about "privacy". You're right; privacy is a convenient term that is used to cover "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures". It does get abused, as does the mythical "separation of Church and State", which is also not mentioned in the Constitution. The actual wording of the Fourth Amendment is,

"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."

I think that pretty well covers the topic under discussion. Hunting and fishing are activities protected under the Minnesota Constitution. However, your individual participation in those activities is not a right. The passage in question:
Article XIII, Sec. 12. PRESERVATION OF HUNTING AND FISHING. Hunting and fishing and the taking of game and fish are a valued part of our heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people and shall be managed by law and regulation for the public good. [Adopted, November 3, 1998]"
This guarantees that hunting and fishing, in some form, will continue to exist until the anti's find a loophole to shut it all down. It does not guarantee the right of any one individual to participate. If it were actually a right, you couldn't be required to buy a license or observe seasons and limits.

[This message has been edited by scubohuntr (edited 07-29-2002).]

[TUMBLEWEED]

Since this appears to be an enforcement issue,more than anything else.Is there anywhere to look up the numbers of violations
found during these "unlawful" searches.
Also, how many violations were located via the TIP line? I would like to see some of
this data before I pass total judgement.

I feel that if you are actively fishing,or
have been witnessed fishing that day,your
cooler,and livewells should be ready for inspection,right along with your license.
The rest of the boat should be off limits
unless probable cause has been made.

The Fish House rule is a little bit tougher,
but I have been known to bring out the little
woman from time to time,and don't want the
door unlocked. Granted, this rule will make
it very difficult for enforcement. But I
think that in the beginning,the fish house
was just that.Kinda cold, drafty and pretty
uncomfortable.A basic shelter to fish in if you will. Now look to where we've progressed to.Virtual motels on ice!! Heck, they don't
even call them a fish house, instead they
just refer to them as an "Ice House". It will
be interesting to see how it all progresses.

Oh how I hate a rattle wheel going off at
at an "inapportune" time!!

[Guest]

I have no problem with a warden checking my license, checking my boat or ice house, seeing I am a law abiding joe, and moving on to hopefully bring a violator to justice. I think that the key phrase in the 4th ammendment is "UNREASONABLE search and seizure" well having a game warden clearly and quickly ascertain that someone is following the regs, is not unreasonable. Our natural resources are too precious to be squandered by the wranglings of our inefficient judicial system. What is unreasonable, is that unethical individuals, unless they are seen doing so, can hide overlimits and other violation from COs. There is little the CO can do unless they see the violation occuring, Minnesota has way too much water for the COs to watch over, therefore random checks are the way to go. There should be an implied consent clause written in, for all those that choose to buy a fishing, ice house or boat license, that they consent to the search of their property...

[Guest]

That is a good point Musky Hunter, for all of the folks that feel so strongly about the violation of their privacy, how do you feel about maintaining your rights yet losing some of your priveledges?. You know it is funny but I havn't heard any off these opinions until after the case with the dope smoker was brought to light. One would think that if this is such a gross violation of individual rights that there would have been a major following of supporters with a unified loud voice for years. Seems like no one really complained about it until recently. I too feel that it is unfortunate that the priveledges of the many may be restricted because of the greedy/selfish actions of the few.

[Guest]

Musky Hunter,

Every time there is a law passed that mandates more safety equipment or better gas mileage for cars, the auto industry moans and complains about "Now we'll have to raise the prices to pay for all of this". A response like this is expected. It's a reflexive "You'll be sorry" thing.
The DNR has had a special exemption from the Constitution for many years, and now they're losing it. From here on out, they'll have to work under the same rules as any other law enforcement officer. The State Patrol, the County Sheriff, and the City Police can't search you or your property without probable cause or a warrant, and they still get the job done. I have faith in the professionalism of 95% of the COs out there. Sure, it will cramp their style a bit. However, how many violators do they really catch in random searches? They'll get an occasional moron that's over the limit. The really big problems- the guy who has a whole chest freezer full of illegal walleyes, the guy who nets illegally- don't get caught by random searches. They are caught as a result of tips and solid investigative work by dedicated Conservation Officers. Without being able to search anyone and everyone at will, they will miss the occasional guy with two more crappies than the limit, and the guy with a couple of fish that didn't quite make the slot, unless real sportsmen step in and start reporting deadbeats.
It would be interesting to see how many violations per man hour are produced by random searching, and what the extent of those violations are. Chances are, most will be for slot violations or minor overlimit violations. Now, before anybody starts breathing fire, I believe those violations should be ticketed, too. However, when the DNR says that losing their carte blanche for warrantless searches is going to have a major impact on the resource, I'd have to see some numbers to back that one up. If the vast majority of the "violations" caught by unconstitutional searches are ten and twenty dollar tickets, is it really worth sacrificing more of our already endangered freedom?

[TUMBLEWEED]

Who really thinks that the sky is falling here??!! GEEEZZZZZ..... The poachers will
be falling out of the sky at any minute!!!
Come on, poachers are gonna poach no matter
what,and the gross over SOB's aint gotta care
no how anyway since they don't speak the language,or can afford the so called "heavier
fines".Do you really think a game warden should be able to check your glove-box,
rod lockers,or other out of the way places??
Not me!! If I'm fishing,my cooler, live-well
and license are at the ready.Have at it and have a nice day. If they want to get around
this boat search thing, wait til Joe fisherman pulls out at the launch and do
an "exotic species" check on the livewell!!

As has been pointed out in another post,there
are some great CO's out there during the job day in and day out.It only takes a couple of
incidents with one of the pushy,almighty
attitude types out there, to harden one's mind against the "presummed guilty" style some of them use. Been there done that,and was not too comfortable about it.

[Flashman]

I have to disagree with the ruling. I have never had my boat searched when stopped by a CO. I've been asked for my license, asked to view my fish and my cooler and warned that yes you can have a beer or two while fishing but can't be intoxicated while boating. I've been asked to see my throw cushion and then I usually do some friendly chit chatting with the officer. I believe it's the officers right in protecting the resource to ask to see those items. My first thought when I heard the ruling was how many out of slot fish will come out of Milacs now that all a person has to do is refuse an officers request to view there live well or cooler? I see this as a major obstacle for all COs. That’s my two cents worth.

[SuddenlySummer]

I was out fishing with a friend last Friday and we started talking about this topic. He told me of a radio interview between a DNR officer and the lawyer that represented the this case for the fisherman. I'm not sure which station it was on. Anyway, the DNR officer stated something to the effect that "maybe we'll just have to shorten the seasons or something else drastic".

Typical DNR response.

[Guest]

This is a ridiculous childish, knee jerk response by a bunch of cry babies, (typical for the DNR). They are upset because they finally got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. BIG DEAL..... they need to adapt. Like ALL law enforcement, very FEW busts come without a tip or a call. Most crime goes on behind the scenes, and HONEST people (like you and I) who report to the proper people are what makes a difference. If we want to do something about poachers, we need to start policing ourselves better. It's as easy as that. The more eyes and ears you have, the better you are.

Shortening the season to compensate for the ruling is OUTRAGEOUS!!!

People should cherish their constitutional rights, and be GLAD the courts upheld the constitution, without that, we would be a communist state.

Good Luck,
Rusty

[SuddenlySummer]

Just got off of Kare 11's web site. (I cut the dish during the summer). Sure enough, there's a report on the DNR and their response.

Seems that some guy in the DNR named Bill Everett thinks that shorting the season might be a "Logical response to the ruling".

So what do you think? It seems that the DNR assumes that we are all guilty until proved innocent. I for one am offended by these people. They just don't get it.

[musky hunter]

So now we are beginnig to see the aftermath of the decision: the DNR just announced it may have to shorten season/limits because they know that poaching is going to have a greater impact. I'm not against the protection of reasonable civil liberties, but in this case, if the inevitable result is shortened seasons and bag limits because of greedy poachers, the greater harm isn't the collective loss of some of our civil liberties, it's the loss of our fishing priveleges for all of us who would abide by the regs, and that get's me MAD!!!!!

[Guest]

I agree with Rusty 100% the court ruling was'nt against the DNR, it was for you and me, John Q. Citizen. the ruling was to hold the DNR to the same standards as all police in this state, and make no mistake, they are police officers. this Bill Everett at the DNR is a laywer they created a postion for. I know him. His response is what you might expect from a laywer. the DNR is going to try and create a huge stink over this ruling in hopes of getting what they want, just like a little kid throwing a tantrum. I also feel that it's going to be up to us, real sprtsman to police the waters for anyone breaking the game laws, and be willing to do something about it. that is the whole idea behind "community policing", communities policing themselves.

[huskminn]

The DNR isn't going to shorten any seasons. They are playing politics and are gearing up for legislation that someone will introduce to change existing laws pertaining to what rights a person may give up when purchasing a fishing/hunting license.

It's just like the school districts threatening to cut bus service unless they get funding increases. They are trying to hit as close to home as possible, as quickly as possible. It's a scare tactic the DNR has learned well from other state and local agencies.

I'm sure there will be talk of the "poaching mortality percentage", not unlike the hooking mortality percentage on Mille Lacs. They will try to tell us that limits and seasons will need to be reduced because they just can't protect our resources anymore.

Don't pay attention to it. Think of the political backlash they would get if they shortened fishing seasons. It's never going to happen (at least not for THIS reason).

Next legislative session, look for a bill that will allow the state to garner some of your 4th Amendment rights when you put your signature to your license.

I still don't know if that would be constitutional, but I'm willing to reserve judgement and look at their proposals. For now, they'll just have to do what every other law enforcement officer does: the best they can.

[Surface Tension]

Co's have been using the intimidation and illegal search's and you know who has helped them all this time? The state. Yep look at the statues passed. When your local law enforcement needs a quick and illeagal search done where do they go? NOT to the courts but to the CO's! Now Ive been checked (searched) by some friendly CO's but they are the minority. Nice guy's is not the image there suppossed to reflect. For example the Red CO thats in trouble for being a nice guy and using common sence instead of going by the BOOK.
Most encounters leave me felling like my rights have been violated. Now the DNR cant get its way and the try an other bully tactic saying they will shorten the seasons.
We here of CO's being over worked. Has anyone wittnessed this? 99 times out of 100 encounters there driving around.
How many of you see a voilation and do nothing? At least take a lis.# !
For those of you against the upholding of your rights. Lets say CO's have been doing buisness legally like all other law enforcement. Now they are givin the power to illegally search you. I think you would have a different attitude. Since you have nothing to hide maybe you think law enforcement should have the same power for illegal search. After all there pertecting you and your loved one's.

[Guest]

It seems that I was sleeping while the fray raged all around me. Hmmm
To much to reply too.
The fishing been Ok but not doing nearly enough. Thanks for asking.

As for those paranoid constitutional quoting "losertarians." A piece of paper written two hundred odd years ago doesn't guarenttee or preserve diddly squat. It's all about the consent of the goverened and governing. Our system works because there is give and take under the umbrella of reasonable principles and people.

I would argue that the only thing guarenting and presevering our system and hense our rights is that which is called "self goverenment." We the people choose how this whole project works and moves. Unfortunatly sometimes it ain't broke and don't need fixed. I think this is one of those cases. I find it to be an increadible leap from a look in my livewell to marshal law. Not equivalent. Pure slippery slope fallacy.

This gets back to my brilliant point way back at my last post. Human nature is a delicate balance between the sinister and the magnificent. The brilliance of our founders was in this understanding.

We need more reasonableness and less stupity. This ruling was stupity. "Yes, lets make the governing more accoutable when they really don't need to be so that the goverened can be less accountable." That tips the balance in favor of law breakers any way you slice it.

Let me ask this one question. Why is it that in the area's that you find hostility towards police officers or authority is where you will also find the highest rates of crime?

With rights are responsibilities. Liberty without accountability will soon become tyranny. Freedom without justice is dangereous. It's a balance and the scales of the judicial system are tilting the wrong way yet again.

[Scoot]

To those who disagreed with me earlier- certainly, I can see your point (mostly). However, I disagree with you in large part. You're talking about taking the teeth out of the bite of enforcing the law.
I can understand the reaction of many of those who I disagree with on this issue. Here we are, a bunch of conservatives (for the most part) who don't want any government agency or personnel to have more power than they should have. Hell, by our very nature (as conservatives) we aren't too terribly trusting of those in power due to their government jobs or ties. Believe me when I say that I am a staunch conservative. But GOOD GOD, doesn't common sense come into play at some point here??? If you can't see that this law will allow anyone who wants to rape and pillage our waters to do so without fear of getting caught, you're missing the boat. I, for one, will happily allow any warden to come onboard my boat to search anything he/she wants and I personally feel that we should be obligated to do so.
Scoot

[Flashman]

Would simply refusing to show an officer your license or live well be "reasonable doubt"? Would that not raise the suspicion that you are hiding something; too many fish, fish out of slot?

Yes, we all need to help protect our valuable resources, but do we not need to give some authority to the officers’ sworn to do so? It comes down to “common sense” if there is such a thing. In doing his or her duties every CO should be able to see your take, be it fish or deer or small game. How else can he effective protect the resources? I’m not saying he should have the right to tear your boat or vehicle apart to look for god knows what, but by no means should he be hindered in seeing your license, or live well. This is going to do nothing but protect the wrong doers.

Take as many walleyes as you want, have to get them while they are biting right? If the CO stops you all you have to do is refuse his questions, and politely drive away. This is not a step forward.

[Guest]

Tumbleweed,

"Come on, poachers are gonna poach no matter
what,and the gross over SOB's aint gotta care
no how anyway since they don't speak the language,or can afford the so called "heavier
fines"."

The previous line from your post should be changed to the following:
"Come on, poachers are gonna poach no matter
what,and the gross over SOB's aint gotta care
no how anyway since they can afford the so called "heavier fines"."

Take note that just because someone does not speak the American version of the English language doesn't mean they are poachers.

If one associates non-American English speakers with poachers, one may be consider a racist.

"American English" is used because most of us, Americans, do not speak proper English.

[Jim W]

Keep in mind forum policy people!

For the most part I have been impressed with how heated the debate has become, yet no personal attacks(except a couple). You can disagree with out attacking! "If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen".

Back to the debate, (as I lean back in my easy chair and read).

Jim W

[sschwarz]

I agree that DNR has had too much power in the past but I say as long as your on the water/public property they have the right to search your live well, ice house, or cooler. DNR shouldn't need scuba gear and a camera to find probable cause to search your boat. All I can think about is all the walleye at Mille Lacs that will be taken illegally because of this change.

[sschwarz]

I heard this might carry down into hunting as well. DNR will no longer be able to check you gun for a duck plug.