Tell the CO's to take a hike, legally...

[Fish On!]

First, I've enjoyed reading these thoughtful responses.

I like the decision, but the case at hand came to a difficult legal conclusion, that is, that there is such an
"expectation of privacy" in an ice house that a search requires either a warrant or a resonable belief by the CO. An ice house is primarily used for taking fish, not like your RV or home where you live. Furthermore, fishing is highly regulated activity, and therefore, the unannounced search by the CO seems to fall into a generally recognized exception to to the warrant requirement.

Nevertheless, I think most of us agree with the court that the ice-house has become something more than a mere fish-harvesting building. Ice-houses have become, well, house like. In fact some of the ice houses I see out there are nicer than some peoples' homes. Certainly some are more spacious!

When I ice fish, I probably spend more time watching TV, listening to the radio, handing out with my friends or family (maybe even criticizing the government) than I spend actually fishing. When I fish alone, I enjoy the solitude even more than a bucket full of crapies. So, yeah, I guess I do expect a certain level of privacy in my frozen pursuit of happiness. And if that is the case, that we all expect some privacy, then this case kicks one-just-like-silly-me.

Some have posted that the innocent have nothing to fear and only the guilty are afraid of these searches. I warn that that is an incredibly dangerous position. I'm innocent right now in my house, but I sure as heck wouldn't allow a government intrusion into my living room or let an officer rifle willy nilly through my personal effects no matter how nice the police officer acted. Safegarding privacy isn't just a lawyer's get rich scheme, it is a basic tenet of our constitution, it is essential to freedom, and it is a concept feared by tyrants and the engines of despotism.

Enough talky talk, time to fish!

[mustangrita]

We have given up more rights then we will ever know under the belief the government will protect and provide for us. What starts out as a good idea is blasted by getting extreme. Why do we try to make general laws for one or two that chose to ignore the laws we already have in place? And has far as these over board CO's, Why should they keep a job that they have been harrassing the people that are paying their salary? As far as crank labs on the ice it isn't that hard to tell the smell, it will out do a skunk-there fore they should never just barge into a shack that isn't ommiting this offensive smell. Common sense is not so common anymore. Communication is our biggest allie no matter what the topic.

[Guest]

All I can say is I'd sure be [PoorWordUsage]ed if a Game WArden came and pounded on my fish shack door while my old ladies ankles were next to her ears! LOL

Doors were meant to be locked, especially if it was night time. I can promise that if someone pounded on my door and jerked it open, they'd be face to face with a GLOCK. I don't care if its a warden or not.

[Guest]

No matter what you are doing, or what you've done, or what you're about to do, you are still entitled to your rights as a citizen, that are afforded to you by the constitution and the bill of rights, along with the constitution of the state of Minnesota.

That said, I hear people arguing that fish houses, are more secure in there property than boats, can someone please explain the reasoning behind these views?

GOOD LUCK!!!!
Rusty

[Fish On!]

In response to Rusty's Question--

Generally, privacy is balanced with an officer's need to stop crime. Specifically, I believe the reason ice houses are afforded more privacy protection than boats (or cars and campers) is because ice houses are not mobile. In a boat or car, criminal evidence or suspects can simply drive away. Thus, such exingent circumstances (i.e. a car or boat) provide situations where the officer has a little more lattitude to investigate suspected criminal activity. These exingencies go to the "reasonableness" requirement of the search.

The government might argue that these exingent circumstances exist in ice houses since evidence could be flushed down a fishing hole or that ice houses are moveable structures. I don't think that argument wins. I don't think it's that easy for evidence to be hidden in an ice house, and more importantly, an ice house (even a very portable one) simply cannot drive away like a boat. As I said before, an ice HOUSE is like a regular house and should be afforded similar privacy protections.

Will this viewpoint change law enforcement? Probably not. I suspect most will continue to consent to a CO's search request. I think (hope) most fishermen play by the rules and recognize that the CO's inspections are important to maintain the effectiveness of fishing regulations--regulations, we trust, that are disigned to maintain healthy fisheries and enhance the sport of fishing (whether they do or not is another topic!). Perhaps some fishermen will think they are constitutional scholars and spout off at the CO. I hope that doesn't happen.

Still, I like this privacy rule. Fishing is the ideal "pursuit of happiness" and it's nice to know the constitution is working to protect our personal privacy, even on the lake!

[This message has been edited by Fish On! (edited 01-25-2002).]

[Just4fun]

When you buy a fishing license, don't you also agree to follow the laws and regulations set forth? Aren't these laws made public before the beginning of each season? Seems so many people forget the fact that a license allows us to fish under the rules set forth by the controlling authority. Just remember that if it wasn’t for this group (DNR, CO’s), many of the lakes would soon be inaccessible. People would control the shores and just how many people do you think would allow strangers to cross their land to get to the lake. They keep the ability to fish availible to us. When you visit a friends house, whose rules do you follow. Do they follow your rules or do you follows theirs? I don’t always agree with some of the things the DNR does, but every time I go out on a lake I know its because of the DNR that I’m allowed to do that. Yes there might be some jerks who work for them but I wonder how many jerks they encounter everyday while trying to keep fishing and hunting at the levels they are today. As far as fish houses being treated more like homes, I agree they should be. A property tax might lower the price of my license.

If you don’t like a law there are things you can do about it, if you can get enough other people to support you. If not, maybe you should rethink your complaint. Complaining about and belittling the people who are enforcing these laws is not the way. These people could be a great asset to you if you wouldn’t drive them away with childish behavior.

As for mnjon, talk like yours is what fuels gun control. It’s a juvenile response that sounds like something said at a bar to get his drunken buddies to think he’s a tough guy. I can understand you having problems with law officials. Great attitude!!

[Ferny]

I hear you knocking but you can't come in :-)

I never did like that rule they assumed you were breaking the law!

It took a drug dealer's lawyer to get it changed. What has this world come to?

Ferny.

[Guest]

What scares me the most in this discussion are the people comparing their fish house to their home and therfore should have the same rights. Remember that a lake is puplic property. You can't put a home on puplic property. If the judicial system accepts this comparison as a legal argument to grant the right, the legallity to ban all fish houses from the lakes is not far off.

[hawgTime]

OK, here is the fun thing to do...each and
every time you catch a fish on either
type of Angel Eye Minnow...You just sing
the Angel Eye song...

"pretty little angel eye
pretty little angel eye
pretty little, pretty little
pretty little, pretty little
pretty little angel eye"

Now lets sing it together. On the count of 3. 1-2-3.....

[This message has been edited by hawgTime (edited 01-26-2002).]

[Guest]

Blue Pike,

You kind of stole my thunder, that was my next point. People claiming that fish houses, are afforded the same rights as a home is a weak argument at best. Here's the reasoning. A.) Your fish house is on PUBLIC property, when your home, is on PRIVATE. B.) You pay taxes on a home, but not on a fish "house". C.) People are always entitled to their constitutional rights, so they will be protected no matter what. Even the drug dealers!!! D.) But granting the "fish house" greater rights than the "boat", could have greater repricutions for us in the future.

GOOD LUCK!!
Rusty

[Guest]

To some extent I agree with everyone in this forum. But come on, if havin a CO walk in while I'm fishin ups my odds at catching a true trophy walleye, I'm willing to do it. Although, I believe that they have the right to come in, they should announce before their entry. The only time I wouldn't like a CO coming in is when I'm on the crapper and I'm sure they would understand and come back later if one explained the circumstances. Their jobs are hard enough with out limiting their jurisdiction to the outside. This is like keeping a police officer at his desk or a school teacher at home, what good do they do there?!?!?! Sure some CO's are cranky, maybe they could go to some "make someones day" school... LOL!!! If you are nice and try to be helpful to that "Crab@$$" CO hopefully they'll be nice back! Its worth a try.
Just my 2 cents.

-Mr. Fisherman

P.S.
I've found the simplest solution. If you don't want to be searched on the ice. STAY HOME

[This message has been edited by mr_fisherman (edited 01-26-2002).]

[Guest]

Public Waters = CO's domain
Private Waters = Hmmmm I don't think any water is private = CO's domain

No matter how ya look at it, they (C.O's) being crabby or not, Keep the rif - raf from taking advantage of the limits that are at stake. Thanks to the C.O's for the tough job that they do!

Enough said

CpR

[Piker]

We don't have to tie their hands, just have them use some courtesy. Private property on Public land is still private, isn't it?

[Guest]

"The only time I wouldn't like a CO coming in is when I'm on the crapper and I'm sure they would understand and come back later if one explained the circumstances."
thats just the thing though, they throw the door open before you can say anything and there you sit mid wipe. :-p
while we're on this topic, I have actually had a friend who got a ticket written to him while he was sitting on the can. If they were still allowed to search like they used to, even if you could warn them before they opened the door they would never desist until they opened the door and saw thats actually what you were doing. Any good law enforcement officer isn't going to just take you word for it, you could be sinking valuable evidence down the hole.

in any matter, it's no longer a question of whether or not they should, the court decided that they were using powers of search that weren't afforded to them. Actually, the search powers that they did assume were a direct breach of the 4th amendment. So, it doesn't really matter if we want them to be able to search inside people's ice shanties without a warrant. Because the supreme law of the land says they no longer have that right.

[Guest]

grr, I forgot to mention this.
Rusty, that shelter license you buy for your ice shack is a tax.

[This message has been edited by DirtyB22 (edited 01-28-2002).]

[Guest]

Dirty B,

I still argue that a fish house should not be afforded the exact word for word protections as your home, because it is not your home, even though you may spend more time there than anywhere else. according to you, you pay a tax when you buy your license. In that case you pay a tax any time you buy a license including that for your boat, which you use on public waters. Now explain to me why a fish house should have greater protections than a boat. Just because a fish house has a roof doesn't make it more protected than a boat. If that's the argument than an enclosed boat is more protected than a boat that is open. I certainly don't believe that this should be the case.

The DNR CO's and LEO's in general were never given authority illegally search through a persons house, not then, and still are not allowed to. Limiting their powers to even check licenses, substantially limits the CO's ability to do their job, and protect our resources from the scum bags out there.

GOOD LUCK!!!
Rusty

[Guest]

The results of this case will lead to the DNR requiring you to jack your house up 6 inches off the ice so they can count the number of lines you have down without entering. You will probably have to have some sort of a window also, or have an outside drop bucket so they can count your fish.

Ok, maybe a little exagerated, but I am willing to bet that there is some sort of fish house law change that will enable the COs to do some sort of check. Like somebody said, it took a dope smokers lawyer to bring this up. . .tells you who really needs to be protected by it.

Kevin

[Guest]

So far as I know a boat is considered a vehicle, and falls under the same search laws as a car. Your car cannot be searched without permission, so i would guess that legally your boat cannot either. This doesn't mean however that you can leave things in plain view. Anything in plain view can and will be admissible in court.

[Piker]

Instead of wanting to bring the private property rights of a fish house down to that of a boat, why not try to argue to bring the property rights of a boat up to the level of a fish house. There's nothing wrong with them coming out, knocking politely, and checking your license in a civilized manner. I don't necessarily agree with random license checks and things of that nature, but this whole topic started with the DNR being required to be more considerate of private property and just being more respectful.

[Guest]

Random is still MUCH better then mandatory in my opinion.

In the field either hunting or fishing you can be anywhere so that this a hindrance to enforcement. How else are you going to insure compliance except by a random non-profiled check of sportsman?

The most likely other alternative would be a mandatory game check in for all game harvest activities at set stations.

Boy wouldn't that bite Eh.

Every time you fished, hunted, or trapped you would need to go to the checking station to register your days take. Sounds darn silly you think, but that could be a very real possibility if field checks were not the standard operating procedure.

The more we [PoorWordUsage] and moan about conservation enforcement officials doing the job we need them to do, the more likely this crazy scenario will find it's way into our daily life.

There is no way we will return to self regulation by sportsman, so what other alternative is likely to materialize?

I am a firm believer in we do not need more laws, just enforce the ones we have now fairly and universally.

Backwater Eddy ~ ~ ~><sUMo> ~ ><>

------------------
"Ed on the Red"
Backwater Guiding Service
[email protected]
fishingminnesota.com/ed-on-the-red/

[Guest]

Dirty B,

I have always agreed that CO's and people in general need to be more considerate when out on the lakes, and I agree the CO's should knock and wait for an answer first. I don't think they have to yell "CO" while knocking, because this may hamper their duties even further, and legally they aren't required to announce, just required to knock, since they aren't illegally entering. I am well aware of the search and seizure laws, and aware that plain view is admissable. However, fishing licenses aren't in plain view. So what's next, banning the CO's from checking licenses? I am more fearful of completely handcuffing the CO's, because people will soon do whatever they want out of belief that the CO's can't do anything.

GOOD LUCK,
Rusty

[Dan97]

I contacted the DNR and invited them to join our little discussion here. I received a response.

"Dan, I veiwed the HSOforum and there's alot of interesting discussions happening. Regarding CO's entering ice houses, we now have to knock, identify ourselves and ask to come in. That's it in a nutshell, which was pointed out by a few folks involved on the HSOforum. If you want legal defenitions, statute numbers and greater detail on the case that changed all this, you may want to contact DNR Div. of Enf. in St. Paul and talk to Maj. Bill Everett who is very close to this case."

To tell you the truth, I was expecting a bit more in way of a response. Just thought I'd relay what I heard.

Dan

[Guest]

HEHEHEHE, poor CO. Someone took his puppy. Was out to Mille Lacs and CO came and went to the only portable in the area. Its the only house he even stopped at. Not sure if portables are in a different catagorey or not.
CO's like IRS: necessary evils, but dont forget who pays you.

[Gonzo]

I'm surprised to hear of so many bad experiences with CO's by the people on this site. I guess I've been lucky in the last 30+ years I've been hunting and fishing I've never had a bad experience, even while ice fishing. In my experiences, they come up, come in, determine that everything is in order (it always is), and then they seem to take off the authoritarian hat and start BSing about the bite, hot lures, etc. I agree that it's unsettling to have somone barge into the house, but I've never run into a "cowboy" yet. Am I an exception?

[Dave]

You're not the only exception, Gonzo. I haven't had any problems with CO's. You guys who are happy about this, it may come back to haunt ya. Pretty soon, the CO's won't be able to check anything or catch any of the "bad guys". I think the "rights" movement is going a little too far nowadays. Just my coupla cents worth.