Boat Searches

[MNice]

If a CO have to "see" you breaking the law to enforce it, we might as well not have game laws. There are simply not enough CO's around to do an effective job.

[Fisher Dave]

strip search?

Sounds like a pretty desperate measure to keep an extra walleye to me. Where exactly did one plan on hiding it?

I'll pass.

[Guest]

EH BOYS?
The new guy, 10poyntr, might have something. Why not take it upon ourselves to be the "NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH". All of us, each in our own pursuits; ATV/boat/snowmobile/golf cart/ walking, etc., should bee "POLICING" ourselves. Take the plate number! Make a call!! Give probabale cause!!! I suppose, when the crooks know they're being watched, there will be less to watch. We should get some blaza-orange caps that say, "FMN S.W.A.T.". Kinda like the sticker in the front window. Everyone gets the rule book when they purchace a licence and if people cannot abide by the rules, they shouldn't be allowed to participate. Anyway, I hope all who go tomorrow get their duck, me.....? I'm stayin home and chasin a wet hen.
TALKOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[can it be luck?]

Why not have CO's like the ones who arrested Rodney King? Or other "dirty" enforcement officers do the job. After all they're ALL on the up and up and have only OUR good intentions in mind....right? BULL!! If found with an extra fish or two lines in the water....Use the night sticks and beat the dump out of them! That will teach em for trying to "hide" things by refuseing to allow them to rifle through your personal property in the middle of the night. Imagine your wife and daughters standing naked on the ice so the officers can conduct a thorough search, not pretty is it? Extreme? You bet, but it all starts somewhere, that somewhere is HERE!!!

------------------
http://groups.msn.com/canitbeluck

[Guest]

Man some of you guy's must have had some bad nightmares about C.O's when you where little!!! I've been checked dozen's of time's including last sat. for the youth hunt and never a bad experience. Oh and yeah that was too bad about that steller citizen Rodney, have ya heard what he's been doing with his wealth.

[Guest]

We all have the right to contest or deny entry when searched.

But, this just brings it to the next level and things may quickly become more complicated. Yet it is your right to do so, go for it if you feel wronged.

You may exercise your rights as you interpret them, but there may very well be consequences for doing so.

If you feel your being harassed, by all means protest. We all have that right as US citizens and thank God for it too.

In my experience, civility spawns more civility. Remember that and your dealings with enforcement personal will not be an unpleasant one.

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

[Walleye_GFA]

Well, let me say this as well, this is going to catch the "casual law breakers"...

If a person is intent on keeping over the limit fish or those of illegal size they will find a way...

When I lived in Washington State, I fished salmon weekly... some of the folks out there (about 25%) had "secret" compartments in the boat... this was because the tribes got to harvest what they want (no exageration) and the sport anglers got what was left of harvest... thats another debate though...

The end product is that this violates our rights and for what... to see if we are law breakers... with no probable cause at all...

If a person wants to keep 30 walleyes, he will find a way. I agree that the efforts should be spent on better surveillance and detection...

And again, nobody has mentioned that when searches were not allowed without probable cause most people (as myself) were EXTRA cautious whereas the CO's made a point to prosecute as much as possible since they had to make examples of the few... THe CO's I spoke to would wait till they were at the ramp with the boat loaded so they can take the boat, trailer, and truck...

Anyway, for the sake of fishing Im not against it, but lets all be clear here that we ARE giving away a right...

ALSO WHAT IF THEY SEARCH SOMEONE AND FIND ANOTHER CRIME ??? Will this stand up in court since they did not ahve probable cause to begin with ??? For example, they stop someone to check the creel, and they find methamphetimine, woudl they be able to prosecute that crime since it was found during a search that was not precipitated by probable cause ???

Any lawyers out there take a stab at that question...

Wally

[Guest]

I can speak to what we see in ND on that question.

Yes they can and do prosecute with success other violations found while doing an ice house/boat/vehicle check.

Several "fisherman" were brought to court for drug related charges last winter. Some were marijuana use/possession, others were involved in METH use or production in a fish house.

If a warden enters a ice house/boat and witness's evidence he can and will act accordingly.

Remember a CO/FWS is a federally trained agent that has the same blanket jurisdiction as a FBI agent. They may cross jurisdictions.

They are trained to do fed level enforcement and are often included in the pool of agents that do Homeland Security, federal warrants, DEA, ATF, FBI, and federal Marshal apprehensions.

They are well trained in the proper procedures to gather evidence and apply probable cause properly.

Yup, they work for "The Man", so you conspiracy theory types can do what you will with that.

But consider this once?

If you child was abducted and or lost, odds are good they would be there, doing their job. This would likely include searches, that is if it is not banned by the courts that is.

If our borders are again in danger, they would surely again be called in to filling the gaps. But next time maybe they will not be able to stop anyone?

Ya know, I for one am dam glad they do what they do!Do you know how many CO's have been shot in the line of duty in the last 20 years? Look it up once.

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

[Blackstarluver]

First of all: Amendmemt IV 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. Doesn't that mean that if you are searched the officer doing the search need to present you with the probable cause prior to search? If not then the search being done w/o any form of evidence constitute an unreasonable search? I understand the gov't needs means to catch criminals but is a facist approach the right way to go about things? Give them an inch they'll take a mile. Have they taken their first inch?
God lyk?
JC

[Bad Moon]

As citizens we don't even have the right to fish, but we buy a license so we can have the PRIVILEDGE to fish. Maybe there needs to be a line in the laws that states because we have purchased this priviledge, we also agree that we are subject to the letter of the law, even if we don't personally like it. If we don't agree, we don't buy a license and we don't fish. Nothing is really free, (except my opinions.)

[setterguy]

Up until about two years ago I would have been all for the COs searching me, I abide by the rules and am never over a limit. But one time I was on the St. Croix in my buddies new boat and we got stopped by a CO, we didn't have the numbers on the boat yet so it was a reasonable stop. There were two officers, one about 55 and the other around 25. The younger co was asking us about the numbers and my buddy showed him his registration, then he asked about a fire exstinguisher, then about a throwable flotation device, then he asked about the paddle, then he asked to see our liscences. Finally I asked him, " Are you going to stay here until you find something wrong?" It was then that he drew his gun on me and told me to sit down and put my hands on the dash board. The older guy jumped in told him to put his f*%^$#g gun away and they drove off. Now I know this is an isolated case but there are law enforcement officers out there that are just waiting for someone to forget to repalce thier fire extinguisher or something. I agree with aquaman, be careful what you wish for with this.

[Giant_Jackpot]

I like Bad Moon's response. Put a statement on the license. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Sounds too simple to work so I await your responses/opinions...........

[Aquaman01]

Let's follow this logic....
Fishing is a privelage (not a right) hence protection from unreasonable searches without probable cause does not apply.

THEREFORE...
Voting is a privelage (not a right) hence protection from unreasonable searches without probable cause does not apply.
A private citizen's voting record could then be tracked, tabulated and searched - because it is a 'privelage'.

I don't like the "privelage-not-a-right" logic when being used to determine which rights I am being asked to give up.

Rob

[can it be luck?]

Setterguys post, although isolated happens, as well as other abuses in the law enforcement field. Poaching is less isolated and also happens. Bottom line is that we don't live in a "perfect world", let's not imperfect it more so.

[Guest]

That logic appears flawed, as you argue under the presumption all searches are "unreasonable searches".

We must have faith in out public servants to do the job they are entrusted to do. And we must thrust the system of checks and balances built into the individual agencies to regulate ethics.

Not blind submission to authority, but supportive vigilance.

------------------
Ed Carlson

[This message has been edited by Backwater Eddy (edited 09-29-2003).]

[mistermom]

This is what I'm asking for: CO says to me, "I was watching you and I see you've been catching quite a few. Can I check your livewell to make sure you're not over the limit and you're good on the slot?"

My response, "Why certainly officer. I have been doing well and I am one short of my limit and all are within the slot."

He has got probable cause and I don't have a problem with it one bit. But to blast onto a lake and just start checking livewells with out a clue as to possible violations is just harrassment. If an area has 1 CO or 101 CO's does not change the 4th amendment and how it works.

mm

[Guest]

Now we are back to the numbers game again. Very few CO's, way more fisherman. Time is a premium.

They do not have the time and resources to watch every fisherman for an hour then check them. Like who wants a warden stalking you around your spots for an hour anyway. Come on, check me and lets all get on with things please.

If everyone is courteous, simple checks are often just that. With any law enforcement if you rattle their cage they can find further need to look you over even harder. Most guys who get intrusive searches are exhibiting unusual behavior, so they get extra attention as a result.

Ya, them CO's are people too, and can loose their cool and act abruptly. If they do, let their supervisor know. I guarantee action will be taken. They take it very seriously if agents act unethically.

[LundExplorer]

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

[Guest]

As I read through all the posts a thought came to mind and maybe the legal eagles can help with this one. As I remember the search/seizure rules , the CO's always had more authority than police. If you called TIP and told them you suspect your neighbor had over the limit of fish , they could enter and search your freezer without a warrant. For police to enter your house , they would need a warrant. Does anyone know the exact rules? I think this situation may have been touched on a bit with a reference to CO's being a federally trained officer. Does this not create a double standard and violate #4.
Thanks
Dino

[Guest]

Dean,
A CO (or any law enforcement officer) cannot enter any home to search for evidence (i.e. wild game in a freezer) without a warrant. A judge must decide if there was enough probable cause to search and it is only up to the judge. It has always been the rule as our protection from illegal searches and seizures. What they find without a warrant is "fruit of the poisonous tree". Meaning the evidence found from a bad search would never hold for a conviction.

Setterguy,
I believe your story 100% I know a CO that trains these new ones and it's ridiculous. No wait, it's scary!! Watch out! I was told the DNR has a new way of screening applicants. I guess you don't need to take all the tests on fish/game laws anymore.

[This message has been edited by CD (edited 09-29-2003).]

[Jim W]

Dean/CD,

Might have been simply Wisconsin, but I have witnessed at least "in cabin" searches with out warrants, based on probable cause and I have 'heard ' on more than one occasion on probable cause in Mn.

Huskminn:
Well put!

Jim W

[mistermom]

Pure speculation on my part; but I wouldn't be surprised if Allen Page hasn't been pulled over for the serious offense of DWB (Driving While Black) in the state of MN. He at least probably knows folks who have. I'm not surprised by his dissent.

mm

[upnorth]

Some where there has to be a happy medium here.

I don't like the thought of any officer having free reign to search me, my boat, my gear or my ice house. But they do need some better tools to enforce the game laws!!

I think the big question here is, is the act of fishing probable cause, maybe, maybe not. Should it be? I don't know!!!

Limits are only illegal if you get caught, other than that it is just like speeding.

Maybe we really need to clarify what is reasonable probable cause.

Do we really like the thought of paying more in taxes and in license fees to cover the cost of more COs? I know I don't You might, but I think we pay a pretty good amount of money for those services now.

I know that a few people have said that we need to turn in poachers ourselves. I certainly would but I really don't care to spend my free hours on the lake watching to see what other people are doing.

I think there has to be some give and get on most of those things to make this work out.

[scifisher]

Huskminn

We don't expect you to give up your rights because the MN budget is in crisis. We expect everyone to pay their share of taxes. No cuts for the rich. Roll back the old ones and lets not balance the budget on the backs of those who can least bear it.

Scifisher

[scifisher]

I don't want to see people give up their rights, period. If we need to pay more money so COs can do there job in order to avoid giving up our rights, then that is what we need to do. Basically, we need more COs. More people using the resource is going to DEMAND them. We can either hike fees until only the rich can pay them, or we can hike taxes on the rich so all can enjoy. I'm sick of this conservative claptrap. Everyone in the country owes according to their affluence. Without the things we have in this country, they wouldn't have the priviledge of that success.

Scifisher