• Help Support TNDeer:

Question about game wardens

DaveTN said:
"Open fields" gave them the right to be there. It did not give them the right to install surveillance equipment on private property and then threaten the property owners with arrest for removing it. Any rookie cop I worked with would have known that.

When it comes to search and seizure both cops and citizens have to understand the 4th​ amendment. The key to the 4th​ amendment is the word "unreasonable". Does every search require a warrant? Of course not. But what they did was not reasonable.
Click to expand...
Your "comments" show a total lack of understanding of the law. These officers didn't operate in a vacuum. They operated after receiving direction from district attorneys who have, unlike you, legal degrees. The placement of the cameras in the non-curtilage areas without a warrant was well within the standards set by the US Supreme Court. I won't comment on the threats of arrest after their equipment was taken. And, them being on the land was legal from a law that has been in place since at least 1974.

I fully believe the court ruling would have been reversed if it had gone on up the chain of appeals. From what I have been told, their was political opposition in them trying to get a reversal.
 
scn said:
Your "comments" show a total lack of understanding of the law. These officers didn't operate in a vacuum. They operated after receiving direction from district attorneys who have, unlike you, legal degrees. The placement of the cameras in the non-curtilage areas without a warrant was well within the standards set by the US Supreme Court. I won't comment on the threats of arrest after their equipment was taken. And, them being on the land was legal from a law that has been in place since at least 1974.

I fully believe the court ruling would have been reversed if it had gone on up the chain of appeals. From what I have been told, their was political opposition in them trying to get a reversal.
Click to expand...
I will have to agree with @DaveTN here, everything up to placing the cameras would have never been challenged. They had plenty of probable cause to get a warrant, they just didn't because of their mistaken belief in their having a right to place those cameras. That is why I feel if a case comes up that someone tries to say they can't come on private property to check licenses and or for game violations, we may just get a reversal.
 
Hawk said:
The decision, first announced by the Institute for Justice, means that Tennessee wildlife officers will no longer be allowed to access private lands unless they have explicit permission of the landowner, or have obtained a court-ordered search warrant.
Click to expand...
That is a synopsis by a libertarian group of the court ruling. That may not be totally correct.

I haven't read in entirety the court ruling, so I DON'T know. But someone on here that has closer ties to what the officers are being told by the TWRA legal staff after the ruling doesn't agree with that statement.

TWRA is no different from any other law enforcement agency. It is hard for me to believe that it is now illegal for any police officer or sheriff's deputy to set foot on private property without a warrant.
 
I agree that threatening arrest for removing cameras put on his property is absolutely wrong and imo beatable in court. Again imo, there was no criminal intent in taking the cameras. It was what he found on his property.

I would argue that under the old open fields doctrine since they were legally they could put the cameras there as well. There was no reasonable expectation of privacy out in the open fields.

But as they say....in the law, ask different lawyers (even different judges) questions and you'll get different answers.
 
Omega said:
I will have to agree with @DaveTN here, everything up to placing the cameras would have never been challenged. They had plenty of probable cause to get a warrant, they just didn't because of their mistaken belief in their having a right to place those cameras. That is why I feel if a case comes up that someone tries to say they can't come on private property to check licenses and or for game violations, we may just get a reversal.
Click to expand...
And, the placing of those cameras in non-curtilage areas without a warrant has been upheld all the way to the US Supreme Court. Those issues have been thoroughly discussed with state district attorneys and US Attorneys over the years. The officers didn't just go out and do it without guidance on the issues from the law enforcement experts that would be prosecuting the cases.

Other LE groups have used, and continue to use, non-warranted cameras to surveil non-curtilage areas (such as pot patches) across the country.
 
scn said:
Your "comments" show a total lack of understanding of the law. These officers didn't operate in a vacuum. They operated after receiving direction from district attorneys who have, unlike you, legal degrees. The placement of the cameras in the non-curtilage areas without a warrant was well within the standards set by the US Supreme Court. I won't comment on the threats of arrest after their equipment was taken. And, them being on the land was legal from a law that has been in place since at least 1974.

I fully believe the court ruling would have been reversed if it had gone on up the chain of appeals. From what I have been told, their was political opposition in them trying to get a reversal.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding you were a TWRA officer, and these officers may have been friends of yours, I don't know. But sometimes you just know what's right and what's not. My understanding of the law may be lacking, it's been decades since I was a cop, but this case stinks. If you want to try to belittle me because I'm posting that…so be it. My beliefs have zero impact on this case.

I was simply addressing someone that thinks everyone is anti-game warden. That's not true. Most just get pissed when anyone in LE does something that violates the constitution. Whether they did it intentionally or they are just too ignorant to know what they are doing is wrong makes little difference.

I too believe this court decision would be reversed if it when to higher courts. And it will be as soon as someone tries to apply to other LE. But it won't be reversed because the court believes what those officers did was legal.

scn said:
TWRA is no different from any other law enforcement agency. It is hard for me to believe that it is now illegal for any police officer or sheriff's deputy to set foot on private property without a warrant.
Click to expand...
I agree. It never was and it never will be. This decision will have zero impact on cops.

Again I will say… I would like to hear from a TWRA Command Officer if they think the scenario that started this thread was okay or not… and why. This decision is new and changes the rules for TWRA.
 
And I'll add this… This decision will be tried. You can bet that a cop somewhere in the state is going to observe suspicious activity on private property and make an arrest for a crime, burglary, theft, whatever. The defense is going to claim this ruling requires the Officer to get a warrant. That will be the end of this court decision.
 
Outdoor Enthusiast said:
Ok. I missed something. What are y'all talking about? What member did this happen to? I have been here a long time and don't recall seeing any of this.
Click to expand...
He went by Poleaxe on here. He got on here a couple years ago and accused a warden and included his name that he had gotten caught turkey hunting over bait. Not sure if it was ever true or not. Either way, that same year (I believe it was) he was busted for trespassing along with his juvenile son. I believe also accused of taking deer and turkey on property they didn't have permission on.
 
Political opposition to government agents placing surveillance cameras on private property without a warrant? Well I'd sure hope so. We are supposedly a free country with private property rights and a Constitution. It's pretty obvious there are many in law enforcement that don't believe in our founding principles.
 
PickettSFHunter said:
Political opposition to government agents placing surveillance cameras on private property without a warrant? Well I'd sure hope so. We are supposedly a free country with private property rights and a Constitution. It's pretty obvious there are many in law enforcement that don't believe in our founding principles.
Click to expand...
The US Supreme Court has dealt with what the Constitution is actually saying about the issue. According to their guidance, it obviously doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think I will let the legal scholars set the standards.
 
scn said:
The US Supreme Court has dealt with what the Constitution is actually saying about the issue. According to their guidance, it obviously doesn't mean what you think it means.

I think I will let the legal scholars set the standards.
Click to expand...
Understood. Either way the legal scholars go, you're not going to have the support of conservative people in a conservative state. Thats something I would expect in Commiefornia not TN. I know I didn't pledge an oath to the Constitution multiple times (and currently under oath) believing that government agents could do as they please on private property without a warrant. It's not always about what the legal scholars say as it is what "we the people" are willing to tolerate.
 
Last edited:
Outdoor Enthusiast said:
Ok. I missed something. What are y'all talking about? What member did this happen to? I have been here a long time and don't recall seeing any of this.
Click to expand...

Can't remember his screen name but he got caught several times doing illegal hunting stuff.

Kinda goes along the lines of if your doing illegal crap don't bring attention to yourself.

I'm glad they gave him extra attention.
 
PickettSFHunter said:
Understood. Either way the legal scholars go, you're not going to have the support of conservative people in a conservative state. Thats something I would expect in Commiefornia not TN. I know I didn't pledge an oath to the Constitution multiple times (and currently under oath) believing that government agents could do as they please on private property without a warrant. It's not always about what the legal scholars say as it is what "we the people" are willing to tolerate.
Click to expand...
I don't think I remember a communist leaning Supreme Court in my lifetime. It is hard to see where their rulings are against the views of the folks that drafted the Constitution. Maybe some folks are against what the Constitution actually says?
 
There is the issue of reasonable expectation of privacy. Where do we have that expectation? There have been cases that established certain areas like our house, our car, even a phone booth. I don't think this is all that different. It seems a court has said there is a reasonable expectation of privacy on private property and that expectation was violated by the officers entering and placing the cameras. I think it would have probably been overturned on appeal, but it got shut down. It will get overturned somewhere else, and will ultimately apply to TN too.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top