Well sorry for another long post, but here is the opinion of the MN Supreme Court. I would read it very closely then each person can make their own educated guess about what their ‘rights’ are. Take a look at #5 and the couple sentences right before it. Although this doesn’t mean another case hasn’t gone to the MN Supreme Court and reversed this decision either. When I read this, it tells me that a CO can search areas used to transport fish…
Having determined that the Fourth Amendment does not prohibit a limited inspection of Colosimo’s open boat, we must determine whether the statute under which Colosimo was convicted, Minn.Stat. § 97A.251, subd. 1(3), requires probable cause in order to undertake a search. The court of appeals read a probable cause requirement into Minn.Stat. § 97A.251, subd. 1(3). The statute provides:
A person may not:
(1) intentionally hinder, resist, or obstruct an enforcement officer, agent, or employee of the division in the performance of official duties;
(2) refuse to submit to inspection of firearms while in the field, licenses, or wild animals; or
(3) refuse to allow inspections of a motor vehicle, boat, or other conveyance used while taking or transporting wild animals.
[4] We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo. Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 209 (Minn.2001). The court of appeals interpreted this statute to require the state to prove, as a predicate to the crime of refusal to allow inspection, that the officer had probable cause of a violation. We disagree. The statute at issue provides a conservation officer the authority to inspect a boat or other conveyance FN2 used “while taking or transporting wild animals.” Minn.Stat. § 97A.215, subd. 1(3). This statute makes no mention of a requirement that the officer have probable cause in order to undertake the inspection. The court of appeals, operating under the belief that attributing meaning to the plain wording of the statute would result in the statute violating the constitution, implied a probable cause requirement in order to uphold the statute. *9 State v. Colosimo, 648 N.W.2d 271, 274 (Minn.App.2002). The court of appeals supported their interpretation by referencing Minn.Stat. § 97A.215, subd. 1(b) (2002) which provides:
FN2. Conveyance: “A means of carrying or transporting something.” See Webster’s International Dictionary 499 (3d ed.1993).
When an enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that wild animals taken or possessed in violation of game and fish laws are present, the officer may:
(1) enter and inspect any place or vehicle; and
(2) open and inspect any package or container.
We decline to interject a probable cause requirement into Minn.Stat. § 97A.251 merely because the legislature in Minn.Stat. § 97A.215, subd. 1(b)(1) granted conservation officers with probable cause the authority to “enter and inspect any place or vehicle.”
[5] Our decision in this case does not grant conservation officers power beyond that of other law enforcement officers.FN3 Rather, the difference between the inspection permitted under the facts of this case and searches impermissible under the Fourth Amendment is that fishing is a largely recreational privilege that anglers choose to engage in with knowledge of the regulations governing their conduct. Our decision merely acknowledges that an expectation of privacy in all parts of an open boat or other conveyance, admittedly used to transport fish, is not reasonable. Therefore, a limited inspection of certain parts of the open boat would not be prohibited under the Fourth Amendment.FN4 As such, under the facts of this case, it was permissible for the conservation officer to conduct a lawful nonconsensual inspection of the areas of Colosimo’s open boat typically used to store or transport fish. By refusing to submit to the officer’s lawful request to inspect these areas of his open boat, Colosimo violated Minn.Stat. § 97A.251, subd. 1(3).
FN3. Minnesota Statutes § 97A.205, which sets forth the powers of game and fish enforcement officers, provides, “Nothing in this section grants an enforcement officer any greater powers than other licensed peace officers.”
FN4. Because Colosimo refused any search, we do not need to specifically delineate the limits of a legal search of an open boat.
Reversed.
Go on and bother someone else. 
are you trying to “ruffle some feathers”? cuz your doing a good job! you must not get stopped very often. i do most of my fishing on the croix where we get stopped from both sides of the river. washington cty, st.croix cty, sherrif and dnr, coast gaurd, state park nazis. its not unheard of to get checked multiple times in a day. it gets old! we, the fishermen, must be easy targets cuz we school up in bunches. they can just jump boat to boat writng tickets as they go. i avoid fishing the kinni because i dont want to go through the hassle of getting checked. does anyone know the deal with the park rangers down there? what authority do they have? in my opinion they should need probable cause to check and search your boat. i guess the good thing is ive learned to follow the rules to the letter on the croix. 
