Question about game wardens

[nso123]

Federal law is clear: under the US Constitution, no warrant needed to search private land outside the curtilage of the home ("open fields doctrine"). However, state constitutions can be more restrictive than the US Constitution, just not less restrictive. Therefore, the warrant requirement in TN only applies to TN, and is a matter of state law, so federal courts have no say.

Incorrect. Any 4th Amendment case would ultimately end up in federal court after enough appeals. This is the case for infringement on rights. How do you think cases like Terry v. Ohio and Mapp v. Ohio made it to the Supreme Court? All of the state courts had ruled on the behavior. These standards apply across the country now. A federal court could say that the TN court was in error and that's how it would be. There are limits on what law enforcement can do, and the federal court could always concur with the TN court and then it would become case law that could be used in defense everywhere.

 

[readonly]

Incorrect. Any 4th Amendment case would ultimately end up in federal court after enough appeals. This is the case for infringement on rights. How do you think cases like Terry v. Ohio and Mapp v. Ohio made it to the Supreme Court? All of the state courts had ruled on the behavior. These standards apply across the country now. A federal court could say that the TN court was in error and that's how it would be. There are limits on what law enforcement can do, and the federal court could always concur with the TN court and then it would become case law that could be used in defense everywhere.

Tennessee wildlife agency won't appeal ruling that limits secret surveillance of private lands • Tennessee Lookout

The Tennessee Attorney General won’t appeal a decision finding surveillance of private property by state game wardens to be unconstitutional.

tennesseelookout.com

Read the 5th paragraph in the article linked. A TN court ruled that the warrantless search violated the TN Constitution, not the federal Constitution. A federal court has no authority to overrule the state courts when ruling on state law unless they violate federal law. State constitutions can be more restrictive than the federal Constitution (broader rights for the individual) but not less. That is why DUI checkpoints are legal in some states but not others, as long as they follow the loose guidelines outlined by the US Supreme Court. Some states have found them to violate their own Constitutions.

State law is always subject review in federal court. But something can be found constitutional in federal court, and still be found by state courts to violate a state's constitution. If something violates the federal constitution as ruled by the Supreme court, it is banned everywhere.

I'm sure you're already aware that state constitutions have their own bill of rights, and that is what gives state courts authority to find a law illegal under the state constitution, even though the law does not violate the US Constitution per the Supreme Court.

 

[nso123]

Tennessee wildlife agency won't appeal ruling that limits secret surveillance of private lands • Tennessee Lookout

The Tennessee Attorney General won’t appeal a decision finding surveillance of private property by state game wardens to be unconstitutional.

tennesseelookout.com

Read the 5th paragraph in the article linked. A TN court ruled that the warrantless search violated the TN Constitution, not the federal Constitution. A federal court has no authority to overrule the state courts when ruling on state law unless they violate federal law. State constitutions can be more restrictive than the federal Constitution (broader rights for the individual) but not less. That is why DUI checkpoints are legal in some states but not others, as long as they follow the loose guidelines outlined by the US Supreme Court. Some states have found them to violate their own Constitutions.

State law is always subject review in federal court. But something can be found constitutional in federal court, and still be found by state courts to violate a state's constitution. If something violates the federal constitution as ruled by the Supreme court, it is banned everywhere.

I'm sure you're already aware that state constitutions have their own bill of rights, and that is what gives state courts authority to find a law illegal under the state constitution, even though the law does not violate the US Constitution per the Supreme Court.

I do understand what you are saying now. Yes, the current interpretation by the courts is more restrictive. I still think it would become overturned on appeal.

 

[lol]

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.

If you study 4th amendment law, the conservative/liberal paradigm is reversed except in white collar cases. The government always wins with conservative judges and they are the least likely to uphold exclusion of evidence.

 

[lol]

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.

The synopsis isn't accurate.