Boat Searches

[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

[Guest]

I don't believe that our problems lie in a conservative or liberal debate. This is tough enough without a polictical battle getting into the scheme of things.

I challenge all of you to do this......TIPs program is there for you and me to prevent people that WE ALWAYS SEE OR HEAR poaching. Turn them in and help our COs take care of our resources.

I'm serious on this. How many times have you overheard someone pushing the limits, but all you do is turn your head, because you don't want to be the snitch!

I'm a President of a Sportsmans Club, and you know its tough when you have to kick out one of your members for knowingly doing wrong and he is also your bud........Stand your ground and take care of your resources. Ever hear of DARE??? Why is it there, because the police can't police the drug problem. It starts at the source. Education and teaching your children what is right or wrong is your responsibility, just as it is when you have the obligation to turn in the crappie guru who is taking double or tripple limits of crappies from Red lake (you heard him in the bar bragging to his friends, but you turned your head.....) All are guilty of turning your head, but you're quick to blame the COs for not catching the thieves.....I'm not giving up my rights and freedoms to a CO when a cop can't have the same ligitimate rights to stop a crack house because of his suspicions......
My rights are just that. Bloodshed earned them and bloodshed has kept them. A simple-minded thief who takes one to many walleyes isn't worth loosing that right of freedom, not when people turn their heads and don't say anything because they are "afraid" of being called a snitch........

Fess up and face the facts. When 1% is causing the problem, you don't destroy a way of life. Not when you're turning your head away from the problem.

Quite closing your eyes and take a stand against poachers. The whole cause of this is because one person wanted to take one little walleye out of a lake that was a 1/2" too long.

Everyone hear is really blasting the poachers. But I see and hear too many people that also turn their head from the problem when they see it.

TIPs is a program for us to take a stand against poachers.

Don't just talk about it.......do something about it!!!!!!

Gary

------------------
Let 'em go so they can grow!!!

[Kidd]

This is an interesting discussion. I’m torn between my 4th amendment rights and the ability of the CO to be effective in managing the resource. Perhaps if the DNR were to explore different alternatives to catching the violators we could retain our rights and the CO would still be effective. An example of thinking outside the box to enforce the law: Start holding resort owners accountable for their guest. It seems to me that every year I read a story about some “sportsmen” who have hundreds of fish over their limit and they have been staying at a resort for 3, 4 or 5 day’s. Make an arrangement with the owners that if they turn these pigs into the DNR the owner gets half the fine. Conversely, if some guest gets caught with many (we would need to define many) fish over their limit, fine the resort owner along with the game hogs. Now before the resort owners on this board jump all over me, I want to restate that this is just an example of thinking outside the box. I’m sure there are many other examples, my point being we can conserve our rights and still be effective in managing resources if we apply a little imagination to solving the problem.

Remember, for every law that is passed, a little freedom is taken away.

[mistermom]

Actually its more of a libertarian claptrap and it seems to be cutting across the political spectrum. And now if you'll excuse me I must go roll around on my piles of money in the cellar (thats wine cellar boy). HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE!!!!!!!!!!!!

MM

[huskminn]

Well said, LundExplorer/Ben Franklin...and so very true.

Bad Moon and GiantJackpot: I toyed with the thought of that being a solution to this problem...buy a license and voluntarily give up some of your 4th Amendment protections. But, that act has been deemed unconstitutional, as well. Alan Page pointed this out in his dissention.

I haven't taken anything that anyone has said as a personal attack and I certainly hope that none of you feel that you've been attacked, but I'm going to elaborate on a couple of things some of you have said:

"The way I look at it, if people dont want anyone looking, they are hiding something ..." (Fisher Dave)

"huskminn, mistermom, I don't know what your hiding but you go ahead and hide it. To be honest I think your hiding from the truth. There's alot of people out there that seem to think the resource owes them something." (takekidsfishin)

"Yes, it seems like a violation of privacy, but its neccessary and will benefit us all(except those violating the laws)." (Fisher Dave)

"Huskmin I never said I would give up your rights!....I realize that in times of crises I may have to give up some things for the betterment of all....Mn. is in a state of crises concerning their budget and we dont have enough C.Os to enforce the laws/limits." (Northlander)

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

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

All I can say is, WOW!!

I guess the assumption is that I've got something to hide, huh? Well, if that's the only conclusion that some of you can reach, that explains an awful lot about your position on this issue. "Guilty Until Proven Innocent" is what Constitutional protections counter.

And, by the way, you ARE giving up my rights. All of you can vote, some of you probably do and when you vote for judges and/or lawmakers, your opinions will be represented in your votes (at least they should be).

Northlander,
Let me see if I've got this right...the State of MN spent more money than it has, therefore we should suspend some Constitutional rights so the State doesn't have to worry about the money problem. Are you sure you wanted to say that?

Nice pleasant experiences with CO's are great, aren't they? Other than allowing one to have a more pleasant day, these experiences are meaningless.

The absolute best way to violate someone's rights is to do it very nicely and with a smile. Tell people it's for the good of everyone...tell people that there is a common goal and it is so much easier and less expensive to do it this way than that ol' hard, expensive, Constitutional way.

Ed, most of the time civility does spawn civility. For the times that it doesn't, however, we have something called the Constitution and Bill of Rights to protect us. There is an underlying tone that somehow, those of us who oppose this ruling are against CO's, against game laws and, by God against catching terrorists and child abductors! You must think CO's entirely incompetent...obviously, they aren't are smart enough to do their jobs without supsending some constitutional protections.

I'll ask anyone...again....to what other law enforcement situations would you like to apply the legal precedence set forth in this ruling? What is it about a CO's duties in enforcing the law that is any different than a city police officer, a county sheriff, a state trooper, an ATF agent, a US marshal, an FBI agent? Why are those other law enforcement agencies forced to abide by 4th Amendment protections, but a conservation officer in Minnesota somehow isn't?

Can anyone logically answer any of these questions?

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

[can it be luck?]

Again, we will never have a perfect world. Even if searchs were legal, poaching will still exist. Everyone is accountable for themselves, although programs such a TIP, neighborhood watch, and DARE can help reduce crimes, but not all. Most all sportsman follow the laws, to lose our civil rights to a minority few is wrong.. Is the fishing and hunting culture so corrupt that we've come to this? I like to think of us as the last of the "good guys". Good ethics, and traditions passed on so that we can call ourselves "sportman", some thing to be proud of. Maybe these traits make us vulnerable to accepting laws that non sporting people would just plain laugh at, it's almost ridiculus. If you want to stop poaching for the most, eliminate hunting and fishing for everyone, any one caught will be in violation. We wouldn't have any resources though, it's sportsman's money that pay for it all...Including the law enforcement. With all the trouble in the USA today, are sportsman the first ones to lose their civil rights? Only because our traits make us vulnerable. Like the saying goes...When owning a gun becomes a crime, only criminals would own them. All law abiding sportsman would march down and turn in all their guns. I for one do not want to lose my gun because some idiot shoots a bunch of kids in a schoolyard. I also don't want to be subjected to a illegal search because someone doesn't have a fire extinguisher in their boat. Pleaaase take my money and stop some real crimes, like murders, rapes, drug trafficking, robberys, car jackings, terrorism, abductions, child molestation, etc. These people are protected from illegal search and seizure. But the first to lose their rights are a bunch of guys who enjoy the finer things in life, which in the name itself honorable....SPORTSMAN.

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

[IFallsRon]

Kidd, I stayed at a Rainy Lake resort a couple years back. I saw the owner help out of state guests and relatives with fish that , by my estimation from a distance, couldn't have been legal. Perhaps the law should include a provision to punish resort owners who allow gamehogs to use their property.

[scifisher]

Most libertarians I know are reasonalbe people. When it comes to ideology, they have the small government debate with fewest contradictions. But that is another story. I do think that a combination of public support through TIPS and a healthy dose of long range planning, through the hiring of more COs will make the job of the COs easy enough that they won't need to violate our constitutional rights. It comes down to cost in the end. How much are your rights worth? Priceless? Wouldn't you expect everybody to sacrifice something for them? Equally? I pay a lot in taxes and I am happy to do it as long as the money is used wisely. What I have a problem with is people who do not pay their share. With breaks and exemptions and item taxes and all of it, my percentage of income that I pay in taxes is going to be 20 points higher (If not more!) then someone making a million dollars. In order to preserve much that we love about our state, including the quality of its natural resources, people are going to have to stop making asanine defenses of these people and start holding them accountable for their share of taxes. We live in the greatest country in the world. It provides us with the opportunity for affluence that is not available anywhere else in the world! People who attain that level owe this country for providing that opportunity.

Scifisher

[SpikeRoberts]

To date, I'd say that everyone here identifies the preservation of resources as a worthwhile end. One thing we've lost in the conversation is that game hogs are not the only nor the biggest threat to those resources. Loss of habitat for fish and game poses a much larger threat (see recent articles in the DNR's Consrvation Volunteer for some interesting background). It seems to me that we might be viewing the situation too narrowly in this thread. It might be psychologically easier to project blame for diminishing resources onto "lawless" others as opposed to accepting some responsibility for our consumption and land use habits.

Not everyone appears to agree on the protection of civil liberties as an end in and of itself. Some see "fudging" on civil liberites as a necessary trade-off for resource protection; after all "it won't affect me, I'm not doing anything wrong." However, civil liberties and resource protection is not a zero sum equation; we can protect civil liberties and protect resources. We just need to demonstrate a commitment to doing so.

[mistermom]

Man do I get tired of this class warfare crap that certain individuals cannot help but drag into every discussion. Here is an example of how it is crap: Two guys go out and buy shotguns one rich one poor. The rich guy buys a $2000 Bennelli the poor guy buys a $125 dollar whatever. They both pay whatever in sales tax and a portion of that goes to fish and game revenues. Lets say 1%. (I don't know the actual figures.) The rich guy just contributed $20 to fish and game and the poor guy just contributed $1.25. And that is fair and equitable and the end of the dumb debate. Now can we get back to searching boats?

mm

[MrSenarighi]

I am getting plenty tired of people making these outrageous comparisons to this new live-well checking law. Like, hey what if I built a meth lab in my boat and I want to store dead bodies and the C.O. found them cause they can search my live-well now? Don't be a moron about this. You will probably get checked a whole 2 times in your life so don't cry about the half hour you have to be "inconvenienced". If the new law proves to not be effective, it will be eliminated or changed. Things have a way of working themselves out.

[scifisher]

This is not a one trick pony that I am riding. Whenever you talk about issues that deal with state funding, this beast is going to rear its ugly head. Especially in a time of deficits and spending cuts! Class warfare exists. Our country is predicated on its existence. Your denials do not make it go away. In fact, your denials propagate it in an uncannily Orwellian fashion. Go take some soma and tell me some more stories about Santa, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy. When these arguments are made, they are no better then those that propose to give our rights away. Basically, one is arguing that some citizens do not have to pay their share because they are rich and powerful, meanwhile the hardworking folk of this country are exploited. No, the rich are not evil. They are citizens of this state. As far as the government is concerned, there should be no difference between us. When I pay 30 % in income taxes, every body should. No double standards. COs are overworked and underpaid like many others who Shepard our natural resources. This current funding crisis will effect our environment and issues like the above need to be addressed. We shouldn't have to be forced into a decision that infringes on the forth amendment. Instead, we should expect everyone to pay their fair share so we don't have to make that decision. And by the way a $2000 shotgun isn’t much when its itemized and its taxes subtracted in other areas. Clever accounting is why sales tax is totally regressive. Sorry, I guess that doesn’t end the story

[mistermom]

You're right the story will never end as long as jealousy, and those that fight hard to promote it towards their own agendas, scream loudly "Its just not fair!"

Lets tax the rich out of existence and then we'll have utopia. La La La, skip skip, happy happy happy. Just where does the science part come in with your name?

mm

Nevermind I looked up your profile. You're a science teacher. Just imagine what my response is to that because I sure can't say it.

[This message has been edited by mistermom (edited 09-30-2003).]

[huskminn]

SciFi,

I am so tired of trying to reason with you. Your views are extreme, without logic and are based in a broad paranoia.

Your knowledge of taxation theory is limited. For you to think that a sales tax is regressive is absolutely ridiculous. Any VAT is more progressive than any income tax could ever hope to be....even the 30% flat tax that you mistakenly proposed.

Clever accounting??? I'd say that better describes how you arrive at your socio-economic and political positions.

[Kidd]

Now, back to the subject of this thread.

Huskminn, you asked:
“I'll ask anyone...again....to what other law enforcement situations would you like to apply the legal precedence set forth in this ruling? What is it about a CO's duties in enforcing the law that is any different than a city police officer, a county sheriff, a state trooper, an ATF agent, a US marshal, an FBI agent? Why are those other law enforcement agencies forced to abide by 4th Amendment protections, but a conservation officer in Minnesota somehow isn't?
Can anyone logically answer any of these questions?”

Unfortunately I can logically answer that question. All the above agencies have that same right as the CO to abuse your 4th amendment right by invoking the Patriot act. I was against it when they enacted that law and I am against it still.

[Blackstarluver]

I keep writing diatribes and erasing them because I get too far off subject!
God lyk!
JC