A bill has been introduced in WI to limit the authority of the DNR to enter Private Property unless they have reasonable suspicion of a violation. And if they enter without reasonable suspicion evidence collected is not admissible. This comes after the state supreme court has ordered a new trial to a farmer who was sent to prison for a confrontation with wardens. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ourt-orders-new-trial-in-warden-confrontation I've had wardens come up while fishing, and while hunting on open land and never had any issue with them. I don't know what my reaction would be if two of them showed up while I was out checking for trespassers on private property. Unless they clearly identified themselves, I would probably assume they were trespassers also. So it does bring up a good question, how much should their need to enforce the laws weight against our right to privacy and the 4th amendment.
Well, who's the first person that gets called when there are issues with trespassers , or otherwise unruly/unwanted folks on private property? Just curious.
Trespassing usually will be referred to the LO with immediate jurisdiction. For city folk, municipal police and county folk, local sheriff and so on. CO's are game law violations, which normally involves trespassing if on private. In NM, unless a landowner presses charges or files a complaint, CO's stay away - even for poaching cases.
I just hope they're not too busy when you do "invite" them to come help you when dude's taking your trail cams and putting some whoop on you on his way off of your "private" property.
I feel I may might have been understood. I respect the blue. My main property is owned by a trooper family. And of my hunting party two out of the five guys are local PD. I have the local DEC officer in my phone. But incidents that have happened in the past had always been "handled" in house. Let's not mistake respect for the law for wanting to give up ones liberty. Anyone that trades liberties for security deserves neither and shall have neither. (Paraphrasing )
The MN CO's can be a little over board. A brother of a friend got caught hunting deer over bait in NW Minnesota opening day of gun season a couple years back. They took his gun and issued a citation. That afternoon CO's arrived at his house 200 miles away and went thru his chest freezers and confiscated any and all fish or game out of the freezers.
Reasonable suspicion should be the lowest standard acceptable. If they suspect a crime based on testimony or observations, go for it. If not, stay off private land. It isn't theirs. I don't own any land other than the 1.5 acres with my house, and I don't want any leo or Co walking on it without a good reason. Matter of respect. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I have had a Warden come onto our private property uninvited one time and for no reason other than he saw a parked vehicle in the property. I didn't like it but had no recourse. He was new, young and over zealous. I gave him a good tongue lashing and told him that was not the way to win favor and cooperation with the local landowners, that if he suspected a potential problem to call me and I would be more than cooperative. I had neighbors that had similar experiences and responded back in the same way. He backed off but was still a jerk the 7-8 years he was our warden and reminded us from time to time how much authority he had. He was the kind of guy that probably got picked on as a kid. A real Barney Fife....But today we have a good Warden who is more an Andy Griffith so a lot depends on the guy in the position but unfortunately we have no control since it is an appointed rather than an elected position. Yeah, I think they have too much authority and it violates our rights when they can come and go as they please without probable cause.
I don't believe they should have the ability to enter private property without reasonable suspicion of a crime that is being committed at that time. They should be required to have a search warrant for any other situation. For example, if there is believe to be a bait pile or something of the sort, I believe they should be required to have a search warrant to check it out. I don't feel like the Conservation agent should be able to do things that police offices can't.
Wardens do not investigate nor enforce trespassing. Lets get that clear and out in the open. The Wardens do have ultimate power right now as they can go anywhere for any reason. No probable cause, no warrant, no nothing. That is a little much for me. Wardens for the most part tend to be the biggest pricks out there too. Cops at least use some judgment. I've run into some nice wardens too so its not all of them. I like the idea of needing probably cause or an actual reason to enter private lands.
I do not have an issue with them entering a property if aerial spotters see a corn pile and radio to a CO.
About the only thing a CO has going for them is that anything within their jurisdiction of enforcement power relates to a publicly owned good (wildlife) rather than yours or someone else's goods (illegal substance or your neighbors 5 ton hydraulic jack). That is about the only basis that could be used to justify violating the 4th Amendment of illegal search and seizure, game law violations are a result of a publicly owned commodity, and therefore under gov't protection. The only investigating CO's do relate to poaching cases.
Game Wardens, CO's, Wildlife Officers enforce laws pertaining to "public trust" resources based on the North American Conservation Model. They are allowed to patrol on private property in most states because "open fields and woods" have a much lower expectation of privacy based on case law and the 4th amendment. Although many law abiding hunters don't like the idea of a game warden being on their property, it is a needed requirement of the job as their are always poachers who are unlawfully taking "public trust" resources (i.e. deer, elk, turkey, etc.) on private land. Many of these violations are not reported or would never be apprehended without the proactive patrols of game wardens. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If they just saw a car in a field, they should not have been there. If they saw him walking with a rifle and no camo durning deer season, they should have.
