TWRA ruled against - AGAIN!

[tbadon]

Quoted from an article I found about the case

During the appeal, attorneys for TWRA argued, "that government agents may enter upon constitutionally protected property without disclosing their presence or retaining a record of their having done so, conceal themselves thereupon for a time period deemed appropriate by the government agents themselves, and search the property for violations of wildlife laws. The TWRA contends that this is reasonable because the officers limit themselves to circumstances where they believe that hunting activities are taking place."

That is just WRONG! They should not be and they are not judge and jury! No way should the TWRA ever have that much freedom to just do whatever they want, where ever and when ever they want to.

I disagree with you on this point. Urban area law enforcement in general do exactly what you have quoted here all the time, however from public property. It is impossible to conduct investigative police work in rural areas without going on private property. As long as they have probable cause, it is no different than a detective entering a private building after a long stakeout-because they have probable cause. There are many situations where a wildlife officer cannot do a stakeout from a public roadway, therefore they need the freedom to access private land when they have probable cause. You say they are not judge and jury implying that they should not be able to access private land without a warrant, but that is exactly what good police work does in urban areas. Without this, the only wildlife violations that can be investigated are ones that have prior permission. That means there is no ability to police wildlife law violaters that do so on their own property. Now those violaters have the freedom to bait for record book bucks without worry, maintain their own high fence area to raise record bucks without public knowledge, or bait with so much corn that there are no turkeys on neighboring farms. They can easily poach deer during archery season with a rifle, process it, discard the carcass, and register the deer as an archery kill. Granted, this can/does happen now. But there has been the deterent that they could get caught. Moving forward there is no deterent at all. This is a reality none of us want. The real issue here is that the officer should have gotten a warrant for the camera. That I agree with. But we will all suffer if wildlife officers are restricted from accessing private property when they have probable cause(only).

 

[Headhunter]

I disagree with you on this point. Urban area law enforcement in general do exactly what you have quoted here all the time, however from public property. It is impossible to conduct investigative police work in rural areas without going on private property. As long as they have probable cause, it is no different than a detective entering a private building after a long stakeout-because they have probable cause. There are many situations where a wildlife officer cannot do a stakeout from a public roadway, therefore they need the freedom to access private land when they have probable cause. You say they are not judge and jury implying that they should not be able to access private land without a warrant, but that is exactly what good police work does in urban areas. Without this, the only wildlife violations that can be investigated are ones that have prior permission. That means there is no ability to police wildlife law violaters that do so on their own property. Now those violaters have the freedom to bait for record book bucks without worry, maintain their own high fence area to raise record bucks without public knowledge, or bait with so much corn that there are no turkeys on neighboring farms. They can easily poach deer during archery season with a rifle, process it, discard the carcass, and register the deer as an archery kill. Granted, this can/does happen now. But there has been the deterent that they could get caught. Moving forward there is no deterent at all. This is a reality none of us want. The real issue here is that the officer should have gotten a warrant for the camera. That I agree with. But we will all suffer if wildlife officers are restricted from accessing private property when they have probable cause(only).

Nope, IT is still WRONG!

I agree with what you say above "As long as they have probable cause".

What does probable cause mean? To me it means the TWRA (at the very least, suspect a game law is being broken) has information that a game aw is being broken or a report from someone that game laws are being broken, a post on social media shows game laws being broken, etc. In those cases, yep they can, as you say, access private land when they have probable cause.

That is NOT what the TWRA states. The TWRA states all they need is to think "hunting is taking place" then they can do anything they want. WRONG! Maybe in a communist country, not the country I live in. They need probable cause.

You stated "

But we will all suffer if wildlife officers are restricted from accessing private property when they have probable cause(only).

I agree with that, but that is NOT what the TWRA argued for in the rainwaters case. The attorneys for the TWRA stated that landowners do not want law enforcement trespassing on their private property, then landowners should desist hunting. Not stop breaking game laws or engaging in illegal activities, the TWRA said you need to stop hunting. WRONG! And, yes they want to be judge and jury and they have acted as such for many years.

 

[lol]

The simplest way to understand this is that the court has rejected the open fields doctrine in TN. The open fields doctrine held that governmental intrusion and information collection upon open fields do not constitute searches or seizures under the Fourth Amendment. The TN court held that the Tennessee constitution provides greater protection that the Fourth Amendment and requires warrants for any lands that aren't "waste lands." Signs of use like no trespassing signs, gates, and actual use bring the land within the protection of TN law. There would still be the same warrant exceptions as any other property such as exigent circumstances. Too bad the court didn't recognize this additional protection back during prohibition or my family might have made a bit more profits back then.

 

[tbadon]

That is NOT what the TWRA states. The TWRA states all they need is to think "hunting is taking place" then they can do anything they want. WRONG! Maybe in a communist country, not the country I live in. They need probable cause.

Yeah, I wasn't addressing this point at all.

 

[tbadon]

I agree with that, but that is NOT what the TWRA argued for in the rainwaters case. The attorneys for the TWRA stated that landowners do not want law enforcement trespassing on their private property, then landowners should desist hunting. Not stop breaking game laws or engaging in illegal activities, the TWRA said you need to stop hunting.

This is a dumb argument and likely why they lost.

 

[kentuckylakebuck1]

I disagree with you on this point. Urban area law enforcement in general do exactly what you have quoted here all the time, however from public property. It is impossible to conduct investigative police work in rural areas without going on private property. As long as they have probable cause, it is no different than a detective entering a private building after a long stakeout-because they have probable cause. There are many situations where a wildlife officer cannot do a stakeout from a public roadway, therefore they need the freedom to access private land when they have probable cause. You say they are not judge and jury implying that they should not be able to access private land without a warrant, but that is exactly what good police work does in urban areas. Without this, the only wildlife violations that can be investigated are ones that have prior permission. That means there is no ability to police wildlife law violaters that do so on their own property. Now those violaters have the freedom to bait for record book bucks without worry, maintain their own high fence area to raise record bucks without public knowledge, or bait with so much corn that there are no turkeys on neighboring farms. They can easily poach deer during archery season with a rifle, process it, discard the carcass, and register the deer as an archery kill. Granted, this can/does happen now. But there has been the deterent that they could get caught. Moving forward there is no deterent at all. This is a reality none of us want. The real issue here is that the officer should have gotten a warrant for the camera. That I agree with. But we will all suffer if wildlife officers are restricted from accessing private property when they have probable cause(only).

Well you have a point! BUT I strongly disagree this is needed, as a matter of fact, I'm WAY more afraid of crooked cops and game wardens than I am of violating neighbors! just my opinion from what I seen in my lifetime!