Search my boat ??

[Guest]

I have been reading all these posts and have nothing to hide. But the comment about more CO's I agree with as of right now for the rough numbers they gave 2.1M fishing and 600,000 hunting and 140 CO's that breaks out to 19,285 hunting/fishing people to 1 CO. And that ia a average not talking about a certain area that probably has more people in one area that a CO works. Now with this how do you think it will drive a CO to do his job and well, could get them to burnout quicker. just my 2 cents worth dont bash me.

Broncosguy

[Guest]

Broncosguy-
I agree, there are not nearly enough COs to go around. However, any CO that is less enthusiastic about his job just because he can't do the Gestapo thing is one we can do without. How much difference will this ruling really make to the average CO? Probably not a lot. He can still ask for your license, and ticket you if you don't produce it. He can still count and measure your fish with your permission. If he gets a call that a boat with registration ##### has been keeping too many fish, he's got probable cause and can check your vehicle, your boat, and your camp/cabin/house. He's got to make sure the tip will hold up in court, and will probably get a warrant before searching your house, but he would have done that before, too. The only ones this will really impact are those few who abuse their authority to humiliate and frighten law-abiding people. What it DOES do is shift more of the responsibility to the rest of us. If you see somebody keeping too many fish, or fish that are out of season, don't just gripe about it to other fishermen. Take pictures and call it in. If everyone who knows something about illegal activity would pick up the phone and do something about it, the COs would be too busy for random searches anyway.

[Dave]

With the way SOME lawyers are today (you know which ones I mean and don't mean to offend any that are here) I'd suspect if CO's are spying with binocs or something, the next case will be invasion of privacy.

[Guest]

BP,
Stop and think for a minute. Preferably before you post. You went on and on about how terrible it is that American citizens would insist on their full Constitutionally guaranteed rights. You claim you "believe in innocence until proven guilt" (sic). You tout the safeguards in our system, then chastise anyone who insists that those same safeguards be applied equitably.
The one question in your post that deserves a thoughtful reply is, "What in the heck is so overly intrusive about a C.O. asking for a look at your fish or for a quick peak in your fish house? They have been doing it for years!"
The last sentence, of course, is easily dismissed. What was so wrong about segregation? They'd been doing it for years! What was so wrong about Auschwitz? They'd been doing it for years! Extreme examples, yes. Point is, a long history of something wrong does not make it less wrong. Of COURSE the court cases involve criminals. DUH! They're the ones who get arrested! When a drug dealer gets off on a "technicality", it's usually because a police officer was careless with the Constitution. Yeah, it ticks me off, too. The drug dealer will end up back in jail again (you think the police don't remember who got off on a technicality, and watch them extra close?), and your freedoms are not weakened. If we were to allow abuse of the Constitution by law enforcement, how long would it be before your door got busted down at 3 AM so the FBI could search your closets for kiddie porn and illegal literature, because somebody who doesn't like you phoned in a 'tip'? Or is that OK, since you have nothing to hide?
When I buy a fishing license, I am buying a license to exercise a priviledge, not a right. Therefore a CO can come up and ask to see my license if I am fishing. He can't forcibly search me to get it, nor can he search my property. My boat, you see, is my property. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the sanctity of my person, my home, and my property against unreasonable search and seizure. Note- it does not GIVE me that right; that right is assumed to predate the Constitution and be inviolable, as are the rights guaranteed by the other nine amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. The amendments simply forbid the government from infringing upon my God-given rights as a free person. Back to the topic at hand. If a CO asks to look in my live well, he is assuming I am guilty. If he assumed I were innocent, he would have no reason to check my livewell or anything else. Just as a police officer can ask to see your driver's license (driving is a priviledge), he can't search you vehicle or your person without:
1. Your permission,
2. Probable cause, or
3. A signed search warrant.
The sanctity of my private property is a RIGHT, guaranteed by the Constitution.
This is one of the most important freedoms we have, and one of the most endangered. Every time there is a terrorist incident, new bills are brought before the legislature that are in direct contradiction of the Bill of Rights. "But what do you have to hide?" is one of their major arguments. "We all have to sacrifice a few conveniences for security" is another. THERE is your BS. Of course, those bad ol' Libertarians fight each and every one of them. Heck, if not for those obstructionist morons we would have a national ID card by now, with all your medical, financial, legal, and personal information encoded on it. Banks would be required to draft a "profile" of each of their customers, and report any transactions outside the profile to the FBI. The IRS would file your income tax returns for you and just send you a bill each year. The armed forces would be patrolling the streets, arresting people suspected of "terrorist activity", and trying them in secret courts, outside the protection of the Constitution. Far fetched? Those are all bills that have been defeated in the last few years. Big Brother will take care of you! Sieg Heil!
Read this- http://www.jouster.com/quotes/common.html

[Guest]

Unless you have your licsense taped to your forehead, a CO has probable cause that you might not have one!!!

[Grabs]

Here we go again with the presumed guilty until proven innocent clause! Not displaying your license for all to see,..is not grounds for probable cause! In this country we are a innocent until proven guilty! Therefore I agree with the decision, fact of the matter is that all those to broke the law before will continue to break the law and the 99% of others will continue to abide by the law.

------------------

[This message has been edited by Grabs (edited 07-25-2002).]

[Guest]

The courts made the right call on this one, same thing with ice fishing and fish house's it should be up to the individual fisherman to let the C.O. in or not.

[Guest]

Speaking of the Ice houses, I was wondering but did not ask this question. Are all ice houses supposed to have a window, except for spear houses I assume? What happens if a CO walks up and comes form a side where a window is and looks in and sees something that is probable cause and asks to come in and the person says no? Back to this subject, I actually would not have any problem calling on someone doing something wrong.

Broncosguy.

[Guest]

There is nothing in the regs stating a window is required.

[huskminn]

Ice houses are not required to have a window, however, if anyone can peek through a window with reasonable effort and see something illegal in PLAIN VIEW, then the CO's got probable cause to enter.

Same thing goes for all law enforcement officers. Anything laying on your car seat in plain view is fair game.

As far as spying goes, Dave, this is a technique frequently used right now by CO's. I talked to a CO in Two Harbors who had busted a guy the day before for taking too many walleyes out of the St. Louis River. He said he was over a quarter of a mile away from the guy watching him with a spotting scope (I assume from shore). We've all probably been watched while we've been out fishing or hunting, but just don't realize it. It's a little creepy, but perfectly within their right.

[Guest]

Huskminn-
It's no worse than the cretin in the rental boat with binoculars. At least the CO doesn't come roaring up and drop anchor thirty feet away when you catch a fish!

[cwmn]

scubohuntr, hunting and fishing are a constitutionally protected right in Minnesota.
To all who speak of right to privacy, read the US constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy.
I think this ruling is bad for one thing, all the 30 inch Walleyes that will be coming out of Mille Lacs now.

------------------
Have a good one!
CWMN

[cwmn]

scubohuntr, hunting and fishing are a constitutionally protected right in Minnesota.
To all who speak of right to privacy, read the US constitution, there is no mention of a right to privacy.
I think this ruling is bad for one thing, all the 30 inch Walleyes that will be coming out of Mille Lacs now.

------------------
Have a good one!
CWMN

[Dave]

Huskminn, I know they use binoculars and such already. I'm wondering when the first lawsuit will win for invasion of privacy.

[Guest]

This is nothing new. This just holds C.O.'s to the same reasonable suspicion requirement as regular law enforcement officers are held to.

An officer can stop a person/car based on reasonable suspicion.

C.O's still get more power to stop, as I'm sure they can still ask you for your fishing/hunting license. Where as a regular law enforcement officer can not simply stop a vehicle to check someone for a drivers license. But the C.O.'s should not be able to search anything they want to, that is a violation of the U.S. constitution.

Good Luck,
Rusty

[Guest]

I have mixed feelings on this.

The CO is there to protect "the great outdoors".

We have LAWS in place for the recreation world, and sometimes it's not so obvious that someone is wrong-doing.

If someone has too many fish, I'd like to see justice be served. How many dishonest folks are going to take advantage of the technical bliss and go on untagged?

There is nothing in my boat to find, so search away.

Anyone come across the border to or from Canada? They stop people and go through every single piece of property, nook, and cranny in your whole rig....Without any cause at all...It is just done at random.
What do you guys think of that?

Something to think about.

PCG

[Guest]

I for one think this ruling is long over due.

I have no problem answering a CO's request for information, but I am tired of being treated as "Guilty until Proven Otherwise".

But I must admit, I can not blame the attitude solely on the CO's. For example, just look to the posts in this thread. Some seem to adopt the stance " I am the only law abiding sports person in the state, and the rest of you are now going to ruin it all for me."

When we start treating each other with such a jaundice eye, how can we put the blame on others for wanting to treat us in a like manner?

So I'll step dpwn off the soap box with this: Next time your out, practice a little MFLB(more fishing less bit6hing).

It just might make for a better trip, and Johnny won't have to ask Mommy why Daddy is so Owley all the time.

[Guest]

What about in the case of BWIs. Does a CO have to ask if he can give a drunk a breath test. I really don't feel like driving around with a bunch of drunks. How about you guys.
My opinion is that this is a law to protect the criminals. These waters are public and I feel it is a public resource. Now we might as well throw the regs book away because they can't be enforced in many situations.

I haven't seen too many meth labs in boats yet this year but I'm sure they are happy with the new law.

------------------
<;(((><

[weekendjunkie]

dave, what u are failing to realize is that when u are in a boat on a PUBLIC body of water it is just as if you are driving your cardown the street. now would you prevent an officer from having a tool to aid him/her in deciding if a person is breaking the law such as a speed gun? probably not.. i like the ruling for one thing..it prevents search and siezure without probable cause, which for CO's is going to be a big change that they will have to deal with.

[ghotierman]

knew this topic would sizzle!

just to add my observations. after discussing it with a buddy, i can see the value of the ruling. there can be SOME in authority positions that can simply be bullies...this ruling protects the average joe...as the constitution intends.

question: difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" ? not splitting hairs, because i believe one phrase can be more restrictive. I believe I read that CO's, like police, highway patrol etc..can make a stop based on 'reasonable suspicion'...they may still need to ask permission to search further.

last point....I fished in Pennsylvania years ago when attending grad school. Your fishing license was required to be displayed on your person...visibly. Usually pinned to a coat, vest or hat. Pretty obvious to see who would be fishing w/o a license there. Would that be too much of a burden?...If so, then accept being stopped/asked...

truth is revealed through good dialectic arguments...

carry on anglers!

[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.