Search my boat ??

[Flashman]

I have to disagree with the ruling. I have never had my boat searched when stopped by a CO. I've been asked for my license, asked to view my fish and my cooler and warned that yes you can have a beer or two while fishing but can't be intoxicated while boating. I've been asked to see my throw cushion and then I usually do some friendly chit chatting with the officer. I believe it's the officers right in protecting the resource to ask to see those items. My first thought when I heard the ruling was how many out of slot fish will come out of Milacs now that all a person has to do is refuse an officers request to view there live well or cooler? I see this as a major obstacle for all COs. That’s my two cents worth.

[SuddenlySummer]

I was out fishing with a friend last Friday and we started talking about this topic. He told me of a radio interview between a DNR officer and the lawyer that represented the this case for the fisherman. I'm not sure which station it was on. Anyway, the DNR officer stated something to the effect that "maybe we'll just have to shorten the seasons or something else drastic".

Typical DNR response.

[Guest]

This is a ridiculous childish, knee jerk response by a bunch of cry babies, (typical for the DNR). They are upset because they finally got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. BIG DEAL..... they need to adapt. Like ALL law enforcement, very FEW busts come without a tip or a call. Most crime goes on behind the scenes, and HONEST people (like you and I) who report to the proper people are what makes a difference. If we want to do something about poachers, we need to start policing ourselves better. It's as easy as that. The more eyes and ears you have, the better you are.

Shortening the season to compensate for the ruling is OUTRAGEOUS!!!

People should cherish their constitutional rights, and be GLAD the courts upheld the constitution, without that, we would be a communist state.

Good Luck,
Rusty

[SuddenlySummer]

Just got off of Kare 11's web site. (I cut the dish during the summer). Sure enough, there's a report on the DNR and their response.

Seems that some guy in the DNR named Bill Everett thinks that shorting the season might be a "Logical response to the ruling".

So what do you think? It seems that the DNR assumes that we are all guilty until proved innocent. I for one am offended by these people. They just don't get it.

[musky hunter]

So now we are beginnig to see the aftermath of the decision: the DNR just announced it may have to shorten season/limits because they know that poaching is going to have a greater impact. I'm not against the protection of reasonable civil liberties, but in this case, if the inevitable result is shortened seasons and bag limits because of greedy poachers, the greater harm isn't the collective loss of some of our civil liberties, it's the loss of our fishing priveleges for all of us who would abide by the regs, and that get's me MAD!!!!!

[Guest]

I agree with Rusty 100% the court ruling was'nt against the DNR, it was for you and me, John Q. Citizen. the ruling was to hold the DNR to the same standards as all police in this state, and make no mistake, they are police officers. this Bill Everett at the DNR is a laywer they created a postion for. I know him. His response is what you might expect from a laywer. the DNR is going to try and create a huge stink over this ruling in hopes of getting what they want, just like a little kid throwing a tantrum. I also feel that it's going to be up to us, real sprtsman to police the waters for anyone breaking the game laws, and be willing to do something about it. that is the whole idea behind "community policing", communities policing themselves.

[huskminn]

The DNR isn't going to shorten any seasons. They are playing politics and are gearing up for legislation that someone will introduce to change existing laws pertaining to what rights a person may give up when purchasing a fishing/hunting license.

It's just like the school districts threatening to cut bus service unless they get funding increases. They are trying to hit as close to home as possible, as quickly as possible. It's a scare tactic the DNR has learned well from other state and local agencies.

I'm sure there will be talk of the "poaching mortality percentage", not unlike the hooking mortality percentage on Mille Lacs. They will try to tell us that limits and seasons will need to be reduced because they just can't protect our resources anymore.

Don't pay attention to it. Think of the political backlash they would get if they shortened fishing seasons. It's never going to happen (at least not for THIS reason).

Next legislative session, look for a bill that will allow the state to garner some of your 4th Amendment rights when you put your signature to your license.

I still don't know if that would be constitutional, but I'm willing to reserve judgement and look at their proposals. For now, they'll just have to do what every other law enforcement officer does: the best they can.

[Surface Tension]

Co's have been using the intimidation and illegal search's and you know who has helped them all this time? The state. Yep look at the statues passed. When your local law enforcement needs a quick and illeagal search done where do they go? NOT to the courts but to the CO's! Now Ive been checked (searched) by some friendly CO's but they are the minority. Nice guy's is not the image there suppossed to reflect. For example the Red CO thats in trouble for being a nice guy and using common sence instead of going by the BOOK.
Most encounters leave me felling like my rights have been violated. Now the DNR cant get its way and the try an other bully tactic saying they will shorten the seasons.
We here of CO's being over worked. Has anyone wittnessed this? 99 times out of 100 encounters there driving around.
How many of you see a voilation and do nothing? At least take a lis.# !
For those of you against the upholding of your rights. Lets say CO's have been doing buisness legally like all other law enforcement. Now they are givin the power to illegally search you. I think you would have a different attitude. Since you have nothing to hide maybe you think law enforcement should have the same power for illegal search. After all there pertecting you and your loved one's.

[Guest]

It seems that I was sleeping while the fray raged all around me. Hmmm
To much to reply too.
The fishing been Ok but not doing nearly enough. Thanks for asking.

As for those paranoid constitutional quoting "losertarians." A piece of paper written two hundred odd years ago doesn't guarenttee or preserve diddly squat. It's all about the consent of the goverened and governing. Our system works because there is give and take under the umbrella of reasonable principles and people.

I would argue that the only thing guarenting and presevering our system and hense our rights is that which is called "self goverenment." We the people choose how this whole project works and moves. Unfortunatly sometimes it ain't broke and don't need fixed. I think this is one of those cases. I find it to be an increadible leap from a look in my livewell to marshal law. Not equivalent. Pure slippery slope fallacy.

This gets back to my brilliant point way back at my last post. Human nature is a delicate balance between the sinister and the magnificent. The brilliance of our founders was in this understanding.

We need more reasonableness and less stupity. This ruling was stupity. "Yes, lets make the governing more accoutable when they really don't need to be so that the goverened can be less accountable." That tips the balance in favor of law breakers any way you slice it.

Let me ask this one question. Why is it that in the area's that you find hostility towards police officers or authority is where you will also find the highest rates of crime?

With rights are responsibilities. Liberty without accountability will soon become tyranny. Freedom without justice is dangereous. It's a balance and the scales of the judicial system are tilting the wrong way yet again.

[Scoot]

To those who disagreed with me earlier- certainly, I can see your point (mostly). However, I disagree with you in large part. You're talking about taking the teeth out of the bite of enforcing the law.
I can understand the reaction of many of those who I disagree with on this issue. Here we are, a bunch of conservatives (for the most part) who don't want any government agency or personnel to have more power than they should have. Hell, by our very nature (as conservatives) we aren't too terribly trusting of those in power due to their government jobs or ties. Believe me when I say that I am a staunch conservative. But GOOD GOD, doesn't common sense come into play at some point here??? If you can't see that this law will allow anyone who wants to rape and pillage our waters to do so without fear of getting caught, you're missing the boat. I, for one, will happily allow any warden to come onboard my boat to search anything he/she wants and I personally feel that we should be obligated to do so.
Scoot

[Flashman]

Would simply refusing to show an officer your license or live well be "reasonable doubt"? Would that not raise the suspicion that you are hiding something; too many fish, fish out of slot?

Yes, we all need to help protect our valuable resources, but do we not need to give some authority to the officers’ sworn to do so? It comes down to “common sense” if there is such a thing. In doing his or her duties every CO should be able to see your take, be it fish or deer or small game. How else can he effective protect the resources? I’m not saying he should have the right to tear your boat or vehicle apart to look for god knows what, but by no means should he be hindered in seeing your license, or live well. This is going to do nothing but protect the wrong doers.

Take as many walleyes as you want, have to get them while they are biting right? If the CO stops you all you have to do is refuse his questions, and politely drive away. This is not a step forward.

[Guest]

Tumbleweed,

"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"."

The previous line from your post should be changed to the following:
"Come on, poachers are gonna poach no matter
what,and the gross over SOB's aint gotta care
no how anyway since they can afford the so called "heavier fines"."

Take note that just because someone does not speak the American version of the English language doesn't mean they are poachers.

If one associates non-American English speakers with poachers, one may be consider a racist.

"American English" is used because most of us, Americans, do not speak proper English.

[Jim W]

Keep in mind forum policy people!

For the most part I have been impressed with how heated the debate has become, yet no personal attacks(except a couple). You can disagree with out attacking! "If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen".

Back to the debate, (as I lean back in my easy chair and read).

Jim W

[sschwarz]

I agree that DNR has had too much power in the past but I say as long as your on the water/public property they have the right to search your live well, ice house, or cooler. DNR shouldn't need scuba gear and a camera to find probable cause to search your boat. All I can think about is all the walleye at Mille Lacs that will be taken illegally because of this change.

[sschwarz]

I heard this might carry down into hunting as well. DNR will no longer be able to check you gun for a duck plug.

[Guest]

The busing 'threat' became reality. Even without adequate walkways for the kids. I wouldn't assume any statement made is just a 'scare' tactic.
If the quota is exceeded, I think they are required to take action. Not necessarily immediately, but in a 3 year window.
It seems that total C&R might not be the answer either. That is nearly the case with this year's slot, and hundreds (thousands?) are going up to catch all they can. If even only 10% die, if someone C&R's 60 fish in a day, they effectively waste 6 fish. 50% over their limit.
What a waste........
gte

[huskminn]

I hope I didn't bring Mille Lacs into this discussion by way of my hooking mortality analogy. The two topics combined are too big for my brain.

Dave,

I need to apologize for introducing school budgets into the fray. This is not the appropriate place for that discussion. I was only trying to use analogy to support my contention that the DNR is using scare tactics, preparing the general public for the worst of all outcomes (hitting them where it hurts), so that citizens and politicians will more readily support something a little more reasonable, such as a proposal that anglers/hunters waive their rights vis-a-vis searches without probable cause or a warrant when they purchase their license.

As I said before, if the DNR tried to reduce season lengths or close some seasons altogether, that would not only be the biggest cop-out possible, but it would bring the wrath of anglers, hunters, resort owners, hotel/motel owners, bait shop owners, gas stations, bars, etc. etc. down upon them. There would be so much political heat and public pressure on them that the entire department would turn to oil, coal or perhaps even diamonds.

By saying that they are going to have to limit seasons, they are saying that they simply can't abide by the same rules that every other law enforcement entity must abide. And most of those other entities deal with much more serious, dangerous and socially harmful crimes.

I contend that they are simply using it as a scare tactic.....tell them the worst is going to happen so they are happy with something slightly better.

Flashman:

Refusing a request for search cannot give a law enforcement officer probable cause/reasonable suspicion that you have broken the law. Otherwise, the protections afforded by the Constitution would be meaningless.

[This message has been edited by huskminn (edited 07-30-2002).]

[TUMBLEWEED]

Okay, you got me!! I'm sorry if it offended
anybody, but it would seem a large problem
exists out there,since the regs come in
two languages.The point being: they don't know the regs,and or like to think it doesn't matter= poaching (plain and simple) Nuff said bout that,as its hard to read someone's total attitude, or should I say misread it about racism. I just don't buy
the "I don't speak english" excuses.

I hope I have explained myself a little better!!

[Dave]

Another stat to remember is that "other" law enforcements also have many more officers. Trying to catch lawbreakers without the "knock and open door/livewell" policy will be harder to nab the bad guys. Just my opinion.

[Uncle Bill]

I have a novel approach.
Why not make the lawbreakers pay, instead of the law abiding citizen.
Just to throw a number out there lets start with a $3000.00 minimum fine for first offense.
Deterrence and revenue.

[Scoot]

Uncle Bill,

Although your suggestion doesn't seem to fit in too well with "let the punishment fit the crime", I'm in total agreement with you. Make it so dang expensive to break the law that you'd have to be crazy to do so. It would be similar to driving drunk in Europe. It would impact them so negatively that there's very little drinking and driving because the cost to one's life would be enormous. If you want to poach- pay a very hefty fine when you get caught.
However, even with a huge-A$$ fine I'm still against this law. What's a huge fine do if you don't have the authority to have a decent chance to catch an offender?
Scoot

[huskminn]

Dave,

I agree with you. There aren't enough CO's to currently do the job that is needed to be done.

I mentioned before that I was willing to pay double for a license to put more CO's in the field......not another gym in the basement of the DNR HQ, but more CO's in the field.

[Nuclear Fishin]

I agree. Cut the funding for all that stupid stuff that goes on and get more enforcers out there. I have been hunting and fishing my whole life and have only been checked twice. There's just not enough of them out there.

And I also should say that those COs were the nicest and most polite guys I have ever met. I say give the DNR more power and more money and cut all the unnecessary stuff.

[Flashman]

Husk, or anyone else,

We’ve all read the statement or gotten the jest of what’s been stated. We all know why the outcome was what it was. But here’s my thinking….if a CO asks to see your fish why would you refuse his request unless you are hiding something? Is it really that much of an evasion of privacy to open a live well and show them your fish? I’m usually pretty proud of a catch of fish I intend to eat.

It’s pretty much impossible to judge the size of a fish through spotting scope/binoculars. So what can our CO’s do? What will be a probable cause? Having a family member in law enforcement I know probably cause can be pretty much anything; a missed turn signal, tail light didn’t work, you name it they can find a reason to pull you over. I’ve ridden in the car with him, cutting a corner is enough probable cause to pull over a car load of teens only to warn them and find beer in the car.

I’m sure most people will gladly open the live well and display their fish. I just feel it’s going to be the open ticket for those who want to pillage.

Obviously this is a very heated topic, a great discussion…. I look forward to more reading.

[Guest]

My constitutional rights are something that are VERY important to me, and something our founders realized we (average Joe citizen) needed to protect us from the government.

There have been comments that, who cares, what do you have to hide. I have nothing to hide, and most fisherman don't, and most fisherman will probably gladly show the CO's their catch of the day, as will I. This ruling is simply upholding your rights.

It would be rediculous (and unconstitutional?) for the state to REQUIRE you to sign a waiver of your rights in order to fish. Think of what they COULD do with a waiver.

The end result will be that the DNR must adapt their patrol tactics to meet constitutional requirements.

As a person who works in law enforcement, it would be GREAT (not really, but...) and EASY if we could go around harrassing people and ignoring their constitutional rights, because we MIGHT be able to find something on them. But that's NOT the way the law works. Law Enforcement is around to uphold the laws, not break them. If law enforcement breaks the law, how can the system be more corrupt?

Good Luck,
Rusty

[huskminn]

Flashman,

I, too, would be inclined to give any CO permission to search my boat, livewell, coolers, etc. I have been trained to yield to that request and I never have anything to hide. There has been one time that I have broken a game/fish law.....my dad had forgotten to remove his cooler from my vehicle after a weekend of fishing in South Dakota. I stayed an extra day and kept three walleyes. There were two in his cooler. I was one over limit and didn't realize it until I opened the truck for the CO to inspect. My bad.....I gladly paid the fine. Nothing like that will ever happen again.

I think the vast, vast majority of fisherman are like me.....they don't break game laws.

Do I have a problem with a CO wanting to inspect my boat? Personally, no, I don't. However, I am not ready to say that what is okay for me should apply to every citizen.

If a cop showed up at my door and demanded entrance, I would question why he wanted in so badly. If a patrolman always pulled me over just for the heck of it once a week on my drive home from work, I wouldn't like that. I'm not hiding anything in my home and I wouldn't have been breaking any traffic laws, but I am subjected to the authorities nonetheless. The constitutional amendments that protect me from the cop and the patrolman are the same ones that protect me from the CO.

I find it very difficult to excuse one type of law enforcement officer from the Constitution, but not the others. Logically, philosophically it doesn't make sense.

It may be the open ticket for those who want to pillage. If so, then our current system of law and justice is also the open ticket for those who want to speed, smuggle foreigners, make crystal meth in a shed or do any other illegal thing that can be done.

As Basspastor said, with freedom comes responsibility.

[Dave]

Ah, huskminn, some of us do have to pay extra for school busing now because it would be cut. It wasn't a scare tactic, it happened.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 07-30-2002).]

[Guest]

Rusty,

Here's the thing. I think your and the civil libertarian interpretation of the Constitution is in error. That's a huge part of the problem. Making the constitution enjoin with this particular agenda is dangerous. The civil libertarian definition of "rights infridgement" is increadibly permissive and I would say at times extreme. Government needs to be checked not handcuffed, bound, and gagged. (Yet at the same time other aspects of the government are seeking less accountabitity, larger influence, and more power)

Unrelated but related to this is the abortion issue. Funny how it took 200 years for legalized abortion to become a fedrally guarenteed right. Where did this come from?

The "liberal" court, but the "libertarian" court would be more accurate. Judicial activism and the highjacking of the founders system of government for an elite lawyertocrisy. In my opinion our system of government is out of balance with the courts and goverment beauracrisy occupying the key power positions.

I'm sorry but this country is no longer "For the People, By the People", but is more aptly "Buy the Lawyers, For the Lawyers." Civil Libertarianism is a perversion of the founders intent, not the fullfillment of it. And we are slowly reaping the consequences of this error. Common Sense is almost always one of the casualties. And in this case, if it is upheld, than some fish and game that should not be will be casualties as well. I guarantee it!

Sorry for the long post, but there is more to the Constitution and The American system than individual rights, freedoms, and liberties.

[Guest]

Rusty,

One more thing.
You wrote that the Dnr must adjust it's tactics to those that are "constitutionally required." I would refrase that to say judicially mandated by arbitrary fiat.

Why should judges have any say in how proper law enforcement is done?
Where in the Constitution are they given the power to micro manage this way?

[Scoot]

Here, here. Well said Basspastor.