• Help Support TNDeer:

Question about game wardens

DaveTN said:
You are an attorney, I am not. So what you are saying is if they can see you hunting, they don't need permission or probable cause that you are committing a crime, because the statute allows them to do that?

I'm not arguing with anyone, I just think the law should be clear. And obviously it is not. That's why I would like to hear from a Command Officer if what that Officer did in this scenario was proper. Asking the Officer is okay, but I doubt he will say he violated a court interpretation of the law. Arguing it with him in the field could be bad also.
Click to expand...
I'm with you. Before I was a lawyer, I wasn't. And even now this is are unclear as evidenced by repeated content on tndeer. It's difficult to give a simple answer to a lot of these questions. I'm not even sure it's clear to the folks enforcing the law. There's a lot of room for risk for folks even when trying to do the right thing.
 
lol said:
There's a statute that requires folks to provide proof of license if taking or possessing wildlife.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-6-101
(1) It is the duty of every person participating in taking or possessing wildlife as permitted by this title to permit the executive director or officers of the agency to ascertain whether the requirements of this title are being faithfully complied with, including the possession of a proper license.
Click to expand...
I am no longer an officer but still have ties. This is basically revolves around plain sight.

The ruling addressed searches and cameras. There are several exceptions to the ruling. Plain view and exigence circumstances are two.
 
Last edited:
If you feel like they were in wrong call and talk to someone but I would try to talk to somebody higher up the food chain.
 
Also I wonder at what point things get gray. Because no matter if I own the land or not. I don't own the game on it. And who is there to police the game. Be nice to have some real understandable info on it. Cameras and searches are what. And at what point is trespassing not allowed. Is it so they cannot place cameras or do searches of your house or building on the property without a warrant. But if they can see you they can now come onto your property.
 
killingtime 41 said:
Also I wonder at what point things get gray. Because no matter if I own the land or not. I don't own the game on it. And who is there to police the game. Be nice to have some real understandable info on it. Cameras and searches are what. And at what point is trespassing not allowed. Is it so they cannot place cameras or do searches of your house or building on the property without a warrant. But if they can see you they can now come onto your property.
Click to expand...
They have NEVER been able to do searches on your house or buildings without either a warrant or consent.
 
killingtime 41 said:
Also I wonder at what point things get gray. Because no matter if I own the land or not. I don't own the game on it. And who is there to police the game. Be nice to have some real understandable info on it. Cameras and searches are what. And at what point is trespassing not allowed. Is it so they cannot place cameras or do searches of your house or building on the property without a warrant. But if they can see you they can now come onto your property.
Click to expand...
I think you're going to see justification under plain view doctrine. The main difference being that open fields allows entry on the property, plain view allows entry if a valid reason is observed from a position off the property which the officer is allowed to occupy. This can be standing, an airplane, a drone, etc. Once the observation is made, a search/seizure may be permissible depending on the circumstances.
 
Biggun4214 said:
I am no longer an officer but still have ties. This is basically revolves around plain sight.

The ruling addressed searches and cameras. There are several exceptions to the ruling. Plain view and exigence circumstances are two.
Click to expand...
I've been cautioning folks against overreading the Rainwater case. I think a lot of folks are going to learn the hard way.
 
lol said:
I've been cautioning folks against overreading the Rainwater case. I think a lot of folks are going to learn the hard way.
Click to expand...
The ruling is 30 pages long and lots of ambiguous language.
Also a different panel of judges may have ruled in favor of TWRA.

I'm glad I'm retired for more than one reason.
 
Biggun4214 said:
The ruling is 30 pages long and lots of ambiguous language.
Also a different panel of judges may have ruled in favor of TWRA.

I'm glad I'm retired for more than one reason.
Click to expand...
A lot of that language was limiting the case to it's facts. There was no broad pronouncement, but a major analytic shift. It could have been better written like most appellate opinions.

Hope you're enjoying your retirement.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top