Boat Searches

[Guest]

It scares me that people who claim to value their rights are so quick to throw them away. OK, you want to allow the CO to check your livewell. What about when you've gotten up obscenely early to get to the landing on opening morning, you pull in to the launch parking lot, and here comes Mr. CO.
"I want to check your livewell."
"But, Mr. CO, I haven't even been in the water yet!"
"You've got the boat, fishing rods, and a bucket of minnows. Are you hiding something?"
"No, sir, go right ahead and search."
While the friendly and courteous CO searches your boat, a line half a mile long forms for the ramp. Now you have to wait an hour to get on the water. But that's OK, because you had no expectation of privacy in your boat!
How about the guy who has a little Lund boat that he uses to cruise around for pleasure? He didn't even buy a license, and doesn't fish. Did he give up his rights because you bought a license and had nothing to hide?
Finally, there are way too many really scary opinions here to even begin to address them all. However, one statement from someone whose opinion I really respect on a lot of other issues kinda summed up the whole thing for me:
"We all have the right to contest or deny entry when searched."
HELLO??? ANYBODY HOME??? The right to contest or deny a search is EXACTLY what is being given up so freely here. CO's don't need the ability to make searches without probable cause. All that will do is ensure that they spend all their time arguing with bad ol' civil libertarians like me, who will not EVER give up a right quietly. I have nothing to hide, but I will never allow anyone to search my property in violation of the Constitution. All it will take for COs to do their jobs better is for everyone to call in offenders. Now the CO has probable cause and can search the bad guy. Everyone wins.

[Guest]

You can't just pleasure cruise w/out a license. The only way you can be on the water in MN w/out licensing your boat is if your duck hunting, figure that law out. I have a duck boat but also use it in the fall for trapping, sometime's at the same time. (sit in deke's in A.M. check yesterday's traps on the way in) But since I'm doing a little trapping the boat must be licensed. go figger.

[scifisher]

Giving up our rights to stop poachers should not be an option. This is the US of A, we should be able to figure our another way to do this. In fact, we should be making EVERY sacrifice before THIS. People died for these rights, how can we give them up for less then our lives. I have a questions, what are your rights worth to you? Your money? Your life? Would our country be the same without them?

scifisher

[Steve Foss]

The ruling does not deny your right to contest or deny a search.

The ruling is the current opinion of a single court, and there are higher courts.

Yes, the ruling shapes DNR policy, as such rulings always do. But if you feel as strongly as you do, you can challenge that ruling by contesting the C.O.'s right to search the next time the C.O. tries to exercise what he or she believes is that right.

That's what America is built on, the right to challenge law, and in fact re-write law if you have enough support.

However, unless you are rich or find an ACLU lawyer willing to take on your case pro bono, you're likely to have to pay through the nose to make your case. You and I likely don't have the money or the time to do this.

That's also what America was built on. To those who say there is no class system in America, I say: Get a clue!

------------------
"Worry less, fish more."
Steve Foss
[email protected]

[traveler]

Looooooong time reader, first time poster Whew, what a thread. I've read the majority of the posts here, and I must say, I've changed my mind. Which isn't easy to do, just ask my friends. (OK, friend ) Anyway, I was in the "no big deal" crowd at the start, and now all the civil rights talk has me all pumped up. So, score one convert. CO's should be able to do the job within the context of legal search that othere law enforcment must adhere to. Time for the lawmakers to figure out how to make it work.

[CrappieJohn]

OC's have a much larger field of responsiblity than checking fishermen and hunters. Why don't they spend some of that time checking to make sure the jet-heads, water skiers and ATV users are acting legally? I know quite a few CO's and have had only a couple questionable encounters with them. I do not want thier job and have a tough time understanding how some of these guys still fall under the heading of being "nice guy" given what they put up with. My mention of jetters, atvs and the like have been voiced on many occasions to several of these officers and I do believe they try. Does it irk me that they bug me while I'm fishing? Yes. Do I think what they do is wrong? NO! Every one of these officers can read people like books and if you think they are treating you with suspicion and disdane, check how you are acting. Chances are you'll be getting what you are giving. Wasn't it once said that attitude is everything? Jeeze.........if you want to neuter someone, get the politician. They screw up more in the legal system than anyone.

------------------
Sure life happens- why wait....The Crapster....good fishing guys!
[email protected]

[SPIN DRY]

You are given a list of the rules when you buy your license. If you don't want to play by the rules, don't buy a license, don't play. No one is forcing you to go fishing or hunting or any other outdoor sport. Good luck.

[huskminn]

I think CrappieTom said something more profound than anyone else here....get the Politician.

Politicians bring us poorly written and sometimes unconstitutional law. They are always trying to "fix" things that seem to be broken, always trying to "protect" us from life's hardships and evils and we are always left to pick up the pieces of their unintended consequences and poorly written law.

Ever wonder what would happen if the state legislature simply didn't meet for, say, two full years?

Absolutely nothing....think how wonderful that would be.

Stfcatfish is also right.....it was a lawyer who refused a search to bring this case to where it is. My assumption is that this lawyer has money and, obviously, an education that allowed him to put forth the legal challenge.

Most of the rest of us wouldn't have those resources, which is why the existance of lobbying groups is so prevalent in this country. The more powerful gov't becomes, whether through legislation or regulation, the smaller the voice of the individual.

The machine of gov't has grown so immense and nearly immovable that it often takes the power and money of huge organizations to protect our INDIVIDUAL rights.

These "special interest" groups are frequently looked down upon, but, in the end, they often provide the only voice for concerned individuals--on both sides of every issue.

I view this as a sad and disheartening situation.

[scifisher]

I agree with Huskminn on his comment that government is so large that it can take millions of dollars to protect individual rights. This is a sad and disheartening situation because it now means that it takes millions of dollars to participate in the govenrment. Does that sound like Democracy HM? No it does not. And THAT is WHAT is sad and disheartening about this situation.

Scifisher

[united jigsticker]

Where is it written that a person cannot "pleasure cruise" without a fishing license?

My understanding is if there is no tackle or fishing equiptment aboard the vessel then nobody aboard is required to posess a license. How can one fish without a rod and reel, hook or line, or the other nescesary components to catch a fish? Would this then mean that an ice skater, or perhaps a snowmobiler crossing frozen waters must also carry a fishing license just for being there on "public waters"?

One thing I am failing to understand is how an appointed officer trying to regulate and enforce rules and regulations within his/her jurisdiction is "invading privacy" when checking anglers. Part of their job is to enforce FISHING REGULATIONS.

Just because a livewell has a cover on it it suddenly has become personal and private property? Whatever.

You want to fish. Fishing is regulated, and that should be excepted and respected. In order to regulate something, the laws must be enforced. In order to enforce laws, someone needs to set an example. You have nothing to hide...then you have nothing to hide. So whats the problem?

The problem is we sit here...and make up 1,000's of hypothtical situations, alot of which are exagerated to the point of unreal, and then decide, "yeah, this is a good law"

Sorry...I side with the CO's.

As you prepare your argument, imagine the person on your favorite lake, taking more then their limit because they took advantage of the law...And gets away with it. Who can they thank?

------------------
Good fishing,
UJ
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by united jigsticker (edited 10-08-2003).]

[Mark Christianson]

Check my livewell, my rod lockers, my battery storage, etc.....
I could care less. When I have been checked a couple times, I just open up compartments and let 'em look. Big deal.
I have nothing to hide.

Heck, go check my truck at the launch too.
Big deal.

[Mark Christianson]

Check my livewell, my rod lockers, my battery storage, etc.....
I could care less. When I have been checked a couple times, I just open up compartments and let 'em look. Big deal.
I have nothing to hide.

Heck, go check my truck at the launch too.
Big deal.

[Mark Christianson]

Check my livewell, my rod lockers, my battery storage, etc.....
I could care less. When I have been checked a couple times, I just open up compartments and let 'em look. Big deal.
I have nothing to hide.

Heck, go check my truck at the launch too.
Big deal.

[huskminn]

"One thing I am failing to understand is how an appointed officer trying to regulate and enforce rules and regulations within his/her jurisdiction is "invading privacy" when checking anglers." (United Jigsticker)

Read the Constitution...familiarize yourself with 4th Amendment protections...familiarize yourself with legal precedent vis-a-vis the 4th, especially the Supreme Court ruling noted in Page's dissent.

By the way, 98% of Americans "have nothing to hide". Shall we just institute martial law so we can really nail the other 2%?

Feel like I'm talking to the wall here....I guess redundancy doesn't open ears that can hear but won't listen.

I'm through with this.

[Guest]

We discussed this issue a year or so ago, I believe. There were the usual "I don't have anything to hide, so I don't mind being treated like a criminal" responses, and a few folks who were unwilling to let their rights be trampled for a little convenience.
Since UJ is so fond of hypothetical situations, how about this one- you're waiting to launch your boat at a public landing. Over on the picnic tables are a bunch of Taliban types with blueprints for the Mall of America, back issues of Demolitions Monthly, and a bunch of electronic timer type mechanisms. There are several bikers over at the camper dump, washing blood off an assortment of machetes and wiping off fingerprints. Joe Pusher is exchanging cash for little baggies of white powder on the other end of the parking lot. Guess what? You're the only one without Fourth Amendment protection, because you bought a fishing license.
Hypothetical? Yep. Extreme example? Sure it is. The point is that none of those other folks are subject to search without a warrant or probable cause. They're protected by our Constitution. Sure, they're probably doing something illegal, but they are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. Searching my boat implies an assumption of guilt. I have nothing to hide, but I WILL NOT accept less protection than criminals get. Go right ahead and look at anything in open view in my boat or vehicle, but if you want to open things up, you'd better have a reason or a warrant.

[Giant_Jackpot]

OK, time for a tough question:

For all of you guys that say you are not willing to give up your rights, how many of you are going to refuse the CO’s request for a search the next time you are asked? There is a lot of tough talk but I wonder how much action there will be. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to give up my rights any more than you do but I simply do not have the wherewithal to refuse a search. I don’t have the money or time to fight it by myself.

In the beginning of this thread I said I didn’t have anything to hide and that I welcome the search. After reading all of the posts I have changed my tune (just like Traveler a few posts ago) and it does make me mad to think that I can be searched for no reason other than I am there fishing. But I am still going to allow the search because of what I said in the first paragraph. If the CO asks to see my live well or cooler, I will smile and say sure. And I am a firm believer in Crappie Tom’s advice on the attitude thing when you are dealing with the law. When he is done with the search, and things have gone well for both of us I will ask him his opinion on this topic. I have a feeling I know what his answer will be but it will be interesting conversation.

Another question:

How many of you have taken my advice to write to your state representatives? I will say it again; the only way to change this to let the lawmakers know where you stand. If you have the time to sit and post here then you have the time to send them an e-mail. No excuses.

If any of you out there have the resources to put together a lobbying committee, let me know and I’ll be glad to help in some way (I guess I better put up or shut up after posting this message). It seems like there are a lot of guys here that will do the same.

United Jigsticker,

Do you seriously think your live well is not personal property? I sure hope I am reading that wrong because I paid for my boat with my own money and I do believe that the live well is mine. What about the cooler when they stop you on a roadside search? Again, I hope I read that wrong.

[Giant_Jackpot]

Scubohuntr,

I like your hypothetical situations but if they were doing all of that in plain view then the law enforcement officer would have probable cause to search.

[Dave]

WOW, what a thread to follow. IMO, I think many are going overboard concerning the "rights" you have and Constitution text. I don't think when the Constitution was written any thoughts concerning looking for fish or wildlife in a boat or fish house was on anybody's mind.

When did boats first start having livewells? If no live well, a CO comes up to check you license (probable cause becasue you're fishing) and can see throughout the boat for any illegal fish.

Maybe when the resource(s) is depleted, instead of fishing, everyone can sit in their boats or fish house and read the Constitution to each other and tell stories about the good old days when they caught a limit.

[This message has been edited by Dave (edited 10-08-2003).]

[Guest]

OK constitutional lawyers cipher out this one then.

A shore angler is actively fishing. A CO approaches and observes him fishing, that is all, just fishing.

When he nears the angler a stringer is obviously tied to a stick at his feet but no fish are observed.

The CO checks the angler for a fishing permit and the angler complies, all is well.

The CO then asks him if he has caught anything, the angler responds ...nope. The CO asks to see the contents of the stringer at his feet...he responds..nope...not without a warrant, that is my personal property.

Does that CO have reasonable probable cause to ask to see the contents of the stringer? Or is that personal property and hence protected under your constitutional rights as it is in your livelwell theory?

What is the difference/distinction between a stringer and a livewell in relation to probable cause?

Are either one less so personal property by the criteria of perceived value? Because a boat is of a greater value is it more so deemed personal property in comparison to a $4 fishing stringer?

Or...Should the CO just say "OK then" and skulk off.

Would he invade this persons personal property in the performance of his duty?

Thunk on that one Eh.

------------------
Ed Carlson

[scifisher]

I'm not going to give any hypotheticals. Fishing is fishing. If a CO comes to my boat and asks me to open the live well, I am going to do it because I don't want to be arrested and I don't have the money to fight this in court. Basically, I don't have the money to participate in this "form" of "democracy." My argument is an ideology. Pure and simple. Our Constitution gives us rights. Our Constitution makes our country what it is. If we allow an "unreasonable" search, our 4th amendment rights are being violated. Even if the situation really makes no difference in the long run. Our rights are still being violated. Even if the slippery slope never slips and we never end up nazis, our rights are still being violated. My point is this, we need to do other things first. There has to be a way to do this without having to violate our rights. Like I said before, this is the USA, we can figure this out. People died for those rights that we are so willing to give up. They should be worth more.

Scifisher

[Dave]

scifisher, I think you hit it on the head.
"If we allow an "unreasonable" search, our 4th amendment rights are being violated."

I don't think looking in my livewell is unreasonable since I'm partaking in a recreation the CO's have to monitor to ensure my future enjoyment.

[WallEYES]

Dave
I agree the CO must do his or her duty to protect for future generations. If you purchase a fishing or hunting license it is a privlege and there are rules that govern such privleges.... no different than driving a vehicle. These are not rights, but privledges for all to partake in, if so choose to do. I have nothing to hide if asked, except the few minutes it takes away from my fishing time.

[Mark Christianson]

Another way to look at it:
Cooperate and be done quickly.
Or resist and use your constitutional rights arguments, and agitate the CO, and sit there and try to defend yourself even though your 100% legal, and wasting your time and his/hers.
Check me Mr. Warden. The more time he spends putzing with me, gives him less time to go get the slobs.

Big Deal. Search my livewell, rod lockers, storage compartments, etc. Heck, I will open them all for him. Have a look, get done with the deed; and now lets chat for a while if he wants to.
This is one topic that just knocks my socks off. So many people claiming total legal acts, but arguing to the point that the CO shouldn't even be able to peek over the gunwale.
Cripes.

[This message has been edited by biglakeba$$ (edited 10-08-2003).]

[Fisher Dave]

I'm glad I got off this topic...

In the time saved from *riding the same dead horse* I have managed to get out fishing and watch S.T. catch a few fish(while I caught nothing), make it out bowhunting and see a few deer, and grouse hunting a couple times and got some birds.

O.K. guys .. carry on, I'm going to get in some more hunting and fishing and possibly *donate* 10 minutes of my time to a warden to search my boat before the snow flies... less time than it took me to post this message.

[united jigsticker]

LOL...Alright.

Yes...you own the boat, and therfor own the livewell. But the CO's job is to ensure that whats in YOUR livewell is within the regulations. So while it is private property to average JOE down the road, it is within the right and reason for a CO to have a peak. And furthermore, since we are fond of hypotheticals, SOMEONE'S rodlocker may be modified and used as a second livewell to trick good ol' CO, so I guess they can check that too.

Now seriously, a CO's job is to serve and protect wildlife and natural resources as much as a police officers duty is to serve and protect the public.

As soon as someone can explain an alternative and effective method of enforcing the regulations and catching violators without checking livewells, buckets, etc I'll jump the bandwagon.........get my point?

------------------
Good fishing,
UJ
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by united jigsticker (edited 10-08-2003).]

[Dan Wood]

EBass, see what you started you trouble maker... 9 pages and counting...

[basguy31]

I'm with united on this one. I sure don't mind giving up 5 minutes of my fishing time once or twice a year for a CO to check my livewell. It gives us an oppertunity to talk to them, ask them questions like where are the fish biting and such. I have nothing to hide and maybe, just maybe, those that do will get what they deserve.

[Mark Christianson]

Hmmm
What the heck did I do?
Oh well, 3 posts closer to Ebass' total.

:b

[CrappieJohn]

We have to assume that all of us fishing are doing so on or in PUBLIC water. COs are public law enforcers. Where is the logic here. Lets beat a dead horse.

------------------
Sure life happens- why wait....The Crapster....good fishing guys!
[email protected]

[scifisher]

An unreasonable search is when a CO drives up and comes to your boat before it even hits the water. An unreasonable search is when your sitting on the water with your kids, no fishing rods out and the CO comes over and asks to search your boat. Can anyone think of any other unreasonable searches?

A reasonable search is when a CO sees you catching a bunch of fish and comes over. A reasonable search is when a CO finds out that a group of boats are slaying the fish in a certain spot at a certain time of year and searches the groups of boats. A good example of this is Mille Lacs on the opener. One of my favorite things to do is pull raps at night up by Mirmar. We always kill them and so do a whole heck of a lot of people. In my opinion, a CO has the right to search our boats then, because the probability for overfishing is great.

Look, blanket searching with no background is against our rights. COs need to have a reason/probably cause. If we need more COs to do this job, then we need to make the sacrifice to pay for more. This, in my opinion, is well worth the price, because the price of giving up our rights is too high.

Scifisher