Boat Searches

[IFallsRon]

I don't agree.

To me, it's the CO's assumption that I've done something wrong. It's no different than racial profiling. Next time around the ACLU will be challenging and I'll bet the outcome will be the opposite.

[huskminn]

I'm always amazed to hear people say things like, "I've got nothing to hide, what's the big deal?" Or "It's what we need to do to protect our resources...if you're worried about it, then you must be breaking the law."

How easily you give up your rights....and, along with it, the rights of everyone else. Do me a favor...think about what you are saying. Where else would you like that logic applied? Drug trafficking? Tax evasion? Watering bans?

Flashman, you state that participating in the act of fishing gives probable cause. Huh...okay...that logic would then also apply to driving down a highway. You are driving down a highway and that act, in and of itself, gives probable cause to stop you without reason...period.

It's called legal precedence, folks. That's why this ruling is bad news.

The funny (weird) thing about this ruling is that it basically uses the existence of old game laws to define "reasonable expectation". So, because they passed a law that said it was okay to search without probable cause, that then creates a reasonable expectation that a search will occur, therefore the law is constitutional. So, let me see if I got this straight.....the law is constitutional because the law exists?!?

Well, now that's sound logic, isn't it?

So, this guy who started this case obviously had an open bowed fishing boat and that fact was peculiarly germain to the court's ruling. I predict one of two things will happen:

1. The ice house ruling will be challenged and overturned based on precedence established in this case. Next, it will be legal for a law enforcement officer, without warrant or probable cause, to enter your 5th wheel while parked in a State Park campground. Same as a fish house parked on state waters.

OR

2. Someone who is fishing in a cuddy/cabin boat will challenge a search because a cuddy/cabin boat provides more of an expectation of privacy (it's like an ice house in that regard). Then we'll be right back where we started, won't we?

Think outside the box on this one, folks. I want game law breakers to pay the price just as much as any of you, if not more, but I am unwilling to institute martial law in order to accomplish that.

[This message has been edited by huskminn (edited 09-26-2003).]

[bigeyes]

Very sad to see another important right being trampled on. I sure hated when a CO was digging around my stuff! I don't think it is fair to harass the public with unwanted searches with no reason.

[Guest]

In my home that is one thing, It is my property and not about to wonder about to be used for a recreational purpose.

On public lands and waters I see no sovereign property rights other then ownership of a specific recreational vehicle or mobile structure.

Be it an ice house or a boat your on public lands in a recreational vehicle subject to user specific laws. Laws that are specific to an activity that is licensed to the operator and or participant of the activity by the state or federal government.

Courteous behavior is a big part of any CO's job, they will not burst into anything without a reason.

The only feasible and effective way to enforce the laws on the books is to allow unfettered entry.

If not, then we are asking them to basically stay on shore and wait patiently for violators to turn themselves in to them. What sounds more reasonable and effective to you?

------------------
Backwater Guiding
"ED on the RED"
[email protected]
701-281-2300

[Flashman]

Very nicely put Ed.

[Walleye_GFA]

Although I feel they SHOULD be able to check at will (not really, kinda though)...

IT IS A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION...

I am all for what they have been doing... that is REALLY SLAMMING THE HECK OUTTA folkd who were violating...

Anyway, if you haev no expectation of privacy in a boat, I cant possibly see what expectation of privacy you have in a car...

Wally

[huskminn]

Ed,

It is my assumption that you do not agree with the current ruling that makes it illegal for a CO to enter a fish house without permission, warrant or probable cause.

If on public waters, a permanent fish house is not dissimilar from a camper parked on public property. What rights does one have in a camper?

Let's say you are camping in a state park while you hunt deer on nearby land. Every night, you return to your camper to retire for the evening. After a rain soaked day, while in your camper, you uncase your rifle to give it a good cleaning. While doing this, a CO enters your camper and writes you a citation for having an uncased firearm in a state park. Should that be allowed? Common sense says, hey, you're just cleaning your gun, but the law is the law, right?

If you are obviously grouse hunting (dog kennels next to the camper, blaze orange cap on the dash of the truck, Ruffed Grouse Society sticker on the truck window), should a CO be able to enter your camper without your permission to nose around for evidence of improperly dressed birds?

Or, could a state park employee enter in search of fireworks, which are prohibited in all state parks?

Just because you are on state land, particpating in an activity regulated by the state (camping, hunting, fishing, canoing) does not mean your property or privacy rights have been eliminated.

I put forth this example in an attempt to illustrate that these legal rulings set precedence that is much larger than the specific cases which brought the ruling.

"The only feasible and effective way to enforce the laws on the books is to allow unfettered entry."

It sure does make it easier, doesn't it? But what makes game laws so special when compared to any number of other laws? Imagine how easy it would be to round up all the illicit drugs in the city if the cops could just enter every house in certain neighborhoods, confiscate drugs and arrest the possessors.

Imagine how easy it would be to round up all the people you don't like and send them to gas chambers...only we don't have to imagine that, because it happened. And it happened because the system of gov't and rule in place did not allow for the protection of individual rights, under any administration.

Obviously, we aren't nearing Fascist rule. However, we are slowly setting the table and inviting it to dinner.

As a society, we need to be better stewards of the Constitution. A few generations from now, when things in this state and country might not be quite so rosy, someone might actually need it.

You're searching for the most effective way to protect our beloved natural resources. I applaud that and want the same result. Please understand that, in that quest, I am also searching for the most effective way to keep our legal standards and Constitutional rights intact.

[HOF#13]

Let me preface this by saying I respect all of your opinions on this, and I'm not out to take shots at anyone.

This law quite frankly creates a scary precedent. While I fully understand the need for a CO to conduct his job in the most effective and timely matter, to begin searching someones boat with absolutely NO probable cause should worry you. Not because you are doing anything illegal, but because your basic constitutional rights are being violated. You can say what you want about "expectation of privacy"...well, the simple fact of the matter is, when I am in my boat and fishing, I am expecting a certain level of privacy. A level of privacy that legally should not be interupted so a CO can search my boat, when I've done absolutely NOTHING to warrant being stopped and searched.

The simple act of fishing from your boat does not constitute probable cause.

In order to have probable cause, there MUST be a reasonable suspicion that a law is being violated. If there is no reasonable suspicion, then there is no search.

Don't get me wrong, I am fully in favor of conserving and protecting our recources, but they need to find a different and constitutional way.

[Guest]

Back to my original question. If huskminn (just an example) can go out to the lake. Fill the livewell with walleyes. Trailer the boat home and park it in the garage. Clean the fish and put them in the freezer. With no worry of being checked, why do we bother having limit's at all? Hey we can just do away with the C.O.'s altogether & and spend the extra money on a new stadium or something foolish like that. Just a thought.

[huskminn]

Takekidsfishin,

Thanks for putting me in your movie.

You ask a valid question, but the answer is all around you. There really is nothing stopping anyone from breaking any law, except for the law itself. Most people abide by laws, a small minority don't.

I could drive to south Minneapolis, fill my pockets with drugs, drive home, park in the garage, go inside and start using them. It's all illegal, but, if nobody sees me, sets me up in a sting or rats me out, I won't get caught.

So what's the point of even having cops, right?

There's always more than one way to skin a cat.

If CO's are so handicapped by not being able to do searches without probable cause, permission or a warrant, then let's work together to figure out a way to help them. How about increasing license fees to hire more CO's or to acquire better surviellance equipment?

No one said that freedom is cheap, you know. It has its costs and responsibilities.

[Guest]

I look at it the same way as flying. By buying a ticket you are agreeing to be checked head to toe and have your personal belongings searched. If you purchase a fishing liscense you are agreeing to be checked by Conservations Officers, a small price to pay to protect a valuable resource.

[mistermom]

That, however, is a safety issue in this post 911 world. Stealing of natural resources isn't going to endanger hundreds or thousands of lives.

mm

[Guest]

Many great opinions here.....and many opinions from different points of view, so here is my 2 cents worth....

I do agree with them being able to do their job. However, there are at times, abuse of power and loss of our freedoms. I have no problem checking fish and license while on the water or at the dock. However, it needs to stop there. Pulling over a truck/boat along side the highway (because they "might" be), in my opinion is a loss of freedom and rights per our constitution and I don't agree with that power.

If you feel that your civil rights are not that important and your willing to give up your freedom, than ask a soldier when he comes back from Iraq, at how those people appreciate their new found freedom. I will fight for my civil rights, just as my ancestors did 227 years ago....And just the way I did for others 12 years ago. It doesn't come cheap or easy. But is it worth it.......again, ask an immigrant.....They will tell you how it is outside of our great country, where people don't have rights. Give them up and they are gone, gone for good......

Again, not to support ability to poach and I'm strongly against it, but to preserve our rights of freedom. I find it more in our own responsibility of sportsman and sportswomen to turn in poachers, as we all see it every year. How many times have you seen someone take an extra fish, bird, or shoot a deer from the road.......did you do anything about it? What have YOU done to stop poaching.

The COs are not going to catch every "thief". That is where you and me need to come into play and take a stand to support them in our desire to conserve what we have!

--------------------
Let 'em go so they can grow!!!

[Guest]

Don't want to start anything but I remember being checked pre-9-11, but that's besides the point bad example on my part. If I read the law right it doesn't give CO's the right go rumaging through your boat while harassing you. It simply gives them the right to check your license and your dead well, stringer etc...

[Hotspotter]

Great to see this topic so critically and cordially debated.

I would like to echo the comments of huskminn and others on the board frustrated with the latest ruling. The erosion of our civil liberties is of serious concern, and should not be surrendered for any purpose, due to the danger that such rulings present in the future.

CO's, like police officers, are merely human. They are subject to the same bias, temptation, incentive, and contempt that you and I are. Asking them to be "better" than us by exercising complete objectivity when enforcing the law is unreasonable, and impossible in the majority of cases. After all, they can hold grudges, have bad days, bring in problems from their personal lives, etc. We cannot hold them to standards that I'm sure most of us cannot hold ourselves to, which is why protections against random and illegal search and seizure are in place. That reason, today, stands as it did when the ammendment to the constitution was originally drafted. Please don't be in such a hurry to reverse 227 years of civil liberties and "We the People" because you have nothing to hide.

Many posts with no objection to the ruling state something like this:
"I have nothing to hide, so why not let them come and search at will? CO's can't do their job unless they can conduct such searches."

Under the current system, if you have nothing to hide, you can grant them access to search you and your property, as most people with nothing to hide would do. If you are "hiding" something, and don't grant them permission, in many cases "loose probable cause" comes into effect and they can legally search you and your property anyway.

I think an improper picture has been painted of CO's and their legal ability to enforce game laws. While I have the utmost respect for CO's and trust all that I've ever run into, they're not handcuffed and useless without the right to do random, unjustified searches.

Just like police officers can use burnt out tail-light, touched the center line, and turned the corner too sharp arguments as excuses to stop you and prod for other violations, CO's have a range of probable cause arguments that can legally get them into the boat/shack. For example, a pile of feathers by the hunting shack....looks like they could be a few grouse over-limit. Saw you pull in 4 walleyes on Mille Lacs, didn't throw any back.....probably a few of them not in the slot. While these may push the envelope, when used with discretion, they are effective ways that CO's have been busting game-hogs for years.

No one likes to see our natural resources, that many of us work, pay, and struggle to protect, abused by the minority of hunters/fishers out there. But CO's alone will not completely protect them anyway, and neither will the law. CO's protect through enforcement, and we protect through stewardship. Last check had quite a few more of us than them out there. Changing attitudes of game-hogs (yeah, that's right, you know who they are in your community, and chances are, you've been out with them before....I have) and starting off the next generation begins with you and everyone you encounter. Education and ethics will turn this thing around as long as there are small groups of concerned citizens doing their part and opening their mouths.

Joel

[Guest]

Going fishing again tomorrow and am not worried. Been doing it for over 50 years and have been checked a few times. Some good,some iffy. Never a ticket and most times the officers have been very polite.More worried about the fish bite than I am about getting checked. Carry a cell phone to report violations that I see and they have been next to nill. I say we have to let them do there job and just enjoy the hunting and fishing. Have fun.

[Fisher Dave]

huskminn ... mr mom, Mr GFA(my friends)

Yes, I would love my license fee to go up to $110/year so we can have more C.O.'s and you wouldnt have to bother with a warden insisting on looking in your livewell.

Yeah Right.

Please dont take this post as a personal attack, it is nothing of the sort, just an example and difference in opinion. My license dollars are being spent the same as everyone else's. The way I look at it, if people dont want anyone looking, they are hiding something ... yes, I was a teenager at one time and refused to open the trunk of my car which contained kegs of beer... any other day of the week I could have cared less if they searched the trunk... Point being, I had something I wasn't supposed to.

Yes, it seems like a violation of privacy, but its neccessary and will benefit us all(except those violating the laws).

[10 poyntr]

Wow! Some subject! I dont believe in anybody checking without probable cause either. I consider my self, like most of you others, a very law abiding citizen. And we all know that are not nearly enough CO's out there.So, lets do what any law abiding citizen would do, and become the "extra" set of eyes for the DNR, and GIVE them probable cause when we see violations! I can't fish any large lake without seeing some bum screwing around with the laws! Call the DNR, get the boat #, etc., and Give them probable cause. We SEE the violations for them. Ever heard of neighborhood watch community? That's us! If there's one common theme, it's we all have nothing to hide(at least ones in this forum), but want the intruders taken care of! Work together!! Just my thought--

[Guest]

I give!! huskminn, mistermom, I don't know what your hiding but you go ahead and hide it. To be honest I think your hiding from the truth. There's alot of people out there that seem to think the resource owes them something. I.E. I didn't catch any last trip so why can't I keep more this trip? Electronic's are better, info is better, fishing pressure is higher, maybe we should just all use gill nets.

[wall eyell be]

Well MNice has identified the problem correctly in his post at 12:41pm on 9/26. "There are simply not enough CO's around to do an effective job."

But to get a good solution you need to first identify the CAUSE of the problem. I'll propose 2 possible causes.
1. Because outdoors sportsmen having the same 4th amendment rights as all other citizens.
OR
2. Because the state has systematically underfunded the Enforcement Division of the DNR for the last 50 years (causing the number of CO's to slowly but steadily dwindle). While at the same time harnessing the CO's with more and more duties other than enforcing fish and game regulations.

If #2 is the cause, shouldn't the solution be to reverse the funding and staffing problems.
. . . or we could just suspend the 4th amendment because it's easier for the officials and cheaper for us?

[This message has been edited by wall eyell be (edited 09-26-2003).]

[Aquaman01]

Holy smokes! In 24 hours we went from a 1/2 page to 4 pages! Newcomers welcome and Family & Staff I've never interacted with - nice ta meet ya!
PLEASE DO NOT MOVE THIS TO POLITPO!!!
We have some nice sweaty debate ensuing here where everyone can grab on!

Let me first start by saying...
Those of you who have pepper-mills - use them at the very least for grinding some BP over that cheap shwag that turns up in your pantry disguised as Alfredo Sauce. Trust me -you won't be sorry and shame shame shame on Ragu.

"Thanks for putting me in your movie. "
You effin kill me, man.

Thanks Spike, for posting the ruling and that follow-up. Facts are always good for clouding a nice debate

"Colosimo" - wasn't this the case about the lawyer who was stopped while his baot was trailered during a portage? He raised heavy helmets regarding his expectation to privacy when he was NOT ENGAGED IN THE ACT of angling.

Let's assume for a minute that I have the right case in mind here and Colisimo isn't some other fella -

What if Colisimo won -

A recreational boat might not be randomly searched for game violations 'cause they are not fishing and an ice-house might not be randomly searched because from the outside I don't know WHAT that shack is for. Might just be a warm, quiet place to play chess or write The Great American Novel.

What if the ruling is against Colisimo -It sets the precedent that a reasonable expectation of privacy has nothing to do with probable cause. They are exclusive and subjective. Where then, does this expectation exist? A private home? Why? Most of us do not truly OWN our homes and pay a property tax on the land. Life, Liberty and POH says nothing about ownership of property. Therefore - any walls and a roof and your residence therein, like a fishing license and a boat, could be legally interpreted as a privelage not a right. NOW using that precedent - a search of your private home might be executed because LE shouldn't have to worry about "probable cause" if you have nothing to hide.

Looks like Lose/Lose to me.

Rob

[huskminn]

MNice,

How will they do their jobs?

Well, for starters, they can try doing it just like every other law enforcement officer in the state of Minnesota.

The Constitution is not something that can just be applied here and there, when it's convenient or necessary. Either it means something or it doesn't.

For those of you who support this recent ruling: When and where would you like the Constitution to mean something and, conversely, when and where would you like it to be meaningless?

Think carefully before answering.

[This message has been edited by huskminn (edited 09-26-2003).]

[Northlander]

Huskmin I never said I would give up your rights! I will though allow C.Os to check my gear any time they want. I realize that in times of crises I may have to give up some things for the betterment of all. Some dont but I do. Mn. is in a state of crises concerning their budget and we dont have enough C.Os to enforce the laws/limits. I feel I need to do whatever I can to make sure the future of the outdoors is bright. If I have to give a little so be it. I really dont see this leading to anything like martial law or strip searches.

[Northlander]

All it comes down to is a C.O. needs to be able to do searches to do his/her job! Im willing to give up some "privacy" for this. I have never fealt "private" in my boat or Icehouse. Its hard to find privacy in my home!

[huskminn]

Well, Northlander, I'm not willing to give up some privacy for this...why are you so willing to give up my rights?