Law Concerning Ice Fishing Houses in Minnesota

Dutchboy wrote:

To those of you who deny access would you refuse their help / access if our shack was on fire and you were inside?

What a ridiculous question. Troll much?

I have never had them just walk in. Many times they’ll knock and we let them in. I’ve never had a negative experience with a warden anywhere I’ve ever encountered one. I look at it as that’s they’re job to protect the resources and if I give them 5 minutes to do their thing they’ll say thanks for your time and move on. I figure I’m not breaking any laws so why be a jerk about it.
We all complain about people abusing the resources. How do you think they catch these people? They’re certainly not turning themselves in. It’s from spot checking people. 9 our of 10 are compliant, but that one could be a major violator that we’d all agree should be busted.
What do you do at the airport? Tell them those are your shoes, belt and jacket and no you won’t remove them. It’s usually under 5 minutes of your time. If you can’t spare that to show compliance then there’s something wrong there.

biggill wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dutchboy wrote:</div>
To those of you who deny access would you refuse their help / access if our shack was on fire and you were inside?

What a ridiculous question. Troll much?

that I’d absolutely NOT a ridiculous question. Chances are those same people that deny access would be the first ones screaming if they needed assistance and they weren’t there to help.

I understand people’s annoyance with the CO’s that have been jerks to them coming and checking you and “trying to entrap you”. But do you think if they weren’t actively trying to find infractions we’d ever see news stories of them catching guys keeping 300 panfish or coming off a great walleye lake with 20 walleye per person? They’d never catch anyone if they weren’t actively searching.

biggill wrote:

I think this answers your question.

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/97A.215

See subd 3.

In regards to the public/private property thing, I don’t think that has much to do with it. I think because hunting and fishing is a privilege like driving, you must present your ID and license when asked.

So they can inspect your fish house and boat but they cannot enter your home without a warrant because the home is not the premise of a hunting or fishing activity.

NO, they cannot inspect/search your fish house with out either a warrant or your permission. The Minnesota supreme court has already ruled on this matter. The ruling forbids warrant-less unconstitutional law enforcement entries into fish houses on Minnesota lakes. The court determined that ice houses were temporary places of abode.

Does not matter if one agrees or disagrees, The supreme court ruling still stands.

Show us. Don’t just yack it. Prove it.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Show us. Don’t just yack it. Prove it.

Here is a news report on the decision.
Star Tribune

It has been this way since 2002. This is why the DNR knocks and then ask to come in.

I have had a warden come flying up on a snowmobile while Im in my portable, close enough and fast enough that I was nervous about getting hit. The machine was barely shut off before he was unzipping the portable looking in as he was announcing he was a warden. That I have a problem with.

If they could go into a fish house while you are on the lake withoiut permission, what the difference with them barging while you are in a camper at state park in the summer?

Heck, I thought it was foolish when they no longer allowed these road check points.

In the 1980’s we had DNR drive up to fish house at millelacs in excess of 50mph then suddenly slow and jump off running snowmobile letting just keep going 50 ft and yank door open then was visibly upset we were not do anything wrong. In the modern era this happened at Long point at Lake of the woods nearly hitting my buddies kid making a snow fort. My buddy chewed him a new one and did not let him in the house. He was also visibly upset as he must of assumed we had to many lines etc. If you want them in let them in if you don’t don’t let them in. Simple

MWal

Thanks huntingdave. Appreciate the article.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Show us. Don’t just yack it. Prove it.

Ha ha nice. Must be paranoid. All that dang dope smoking

Bearcat89 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Tom Sawvell wrote:</div>
Show us. Don’t just yack it. Prove it.

Ha ha nice. Must be paranoid. All that dang dope smoking

apparently you never met Tom!:???: we may not agree on a few things but the guy is top notch in my book.

With that, I’ve said my peace carry on.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Show us. Don’t just yack it. Prove it.

Tom,
It certainly has been an interesting discussion. Many opinions voiced and some misconceptions. I have no “beef” with anyone and have avoided personal attacks and innuendoes. If I offended you, I apologize.

I only know what the law (including the court’s ruling of said law) says. As I said, it matters not whether anyone agrees or disagrees, the ruling still stands. If you have a citation or reference as to this ruling being since overturned, I am sure the forum would welcome that new information.

Huntindave wrote:

If you have a citation or reference as to this ruling being since overturned, I am sure the forum would welcome that new information.

I was sure that this has changed since that ruling. I’m not able to find anything on it though.

I’ll always remember this famous interaction between a police officer and a judge…

The judge asked if the defendant admitted to speeding. He said no, he claimed to be driving the speed limit. The cop stated that if the defendant had been honest, he would have let him off.

The judge replied, so if they claim to be innocent, you give them a ticket, they admit to guilt, you let them off???

I work with police and love the police but times have changed. Police were supposed to show their present to PREVENT crime from happening. Now they mask their present in hopes to CATCH crime.

The point is, we have rights that still protect us. If I’ve done nothing wrong, I’m not giving up my rights. Plain and simple.

glenn57 wrote:

that I’d absolutely NOT a ridiculous question. Chances are those same people that deny access would be the first ones screaming if they needed assistance and they weren’t there to help.

No, it is a ridiculous question to get people riled up he disagrees with. Every LEO has a job to do but realize it also includes respecting our rights. They have tactics they use to get people to agree to searches they don’t have to. I also expect them to respect my rights by avoiding these tactics and treating me like an equal.

It’s fairly common that over limit cases get thrown out due to illegal searches and seizures.

So if they can’t search your fish house without probably cause and/or a warrant, then they can’t search your boat under the same grounds? I don’t think so.

glenn57 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Bearcat89 wrote:</div>

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Tom Sawvell wrote:</div>
Show us. Don’t just yack it. Prove it.

Ha ha nice. Must be paranoid. All that dang dope smoking

apparently you never met Tom!:???: we may not agree on a few things but the guy is top notch in my book.

With that, I’ve said my peace carry on.

I believe he is a good person and have no reason to believe not. Just responding the same way to a message he had send a hour before hand. I have no beef with any one. But I also didnt fight for this country to not stick up for our rights

gimruis wrote:

So if they can’t search your fish house without probably cause and/or a warrant, then they can’t search your boat under the same grounds? I don’t think so.

Did you read the article? The ruling only addresses the issue of fish houses.

Now take a minute and read what Biggill posted in a link. Your article Dave indicates that ruling was made in 2002. The article written in 2010. The link Bigill and I have provided is copyrighted in 2018 and specifically states that co’s have the right and can enter buildings and vehicles if they have probable cause….which could be gotten by walking past an uncovered window and seeing four lines in holes with one occupant. Probable cause can be claimed in any number of ways and I think in light of the 2018 rulings the dnr has taken leaps to help cut down on the problems the 2002 ruling created and found legal ways to circumvent the 2002 ruling.

Go back to the original post and see how he asked the question. Any co reading this thread would likely say that his question has red flags hanging all over it. And I’d agree. Some of the responses might also illicit red flags. And I’d agree again. Those in the lather here could well be those who might be losing the most if a co comes along. And I ask what others have asked. Why the secrecy? If you aren’t doing something illegal, what harm is letting a co in to do what co’s do? Or are you afraid that co’s might be trained to sniff out what you may not want uncovered? It was mentioned that fishing is a privilege….like flying. Put off a TSA officer for a second or so and see where it goes. Maybe co’s need to adopt the same type of approach on ya’ll that want to play the waiting game. If you’re on the up and up its nothing more than checking the license and a peek at how many lines are in use vs the number of people fishing. No biggie. The co goes on his way, you go back to whatever you do in those huts. Unless of course you have something to hide.

I don’t give a rat’s rump what you guys do in those huts or how many fish get caught and I guess in light of that I don’t see why any of you would balk at a co’s request to check lines and licenses if you’re in the good. Maybe there should be a provision on each license that is sold that has to be read and initialed when the license is bought that makes complying with ALL checks mandatory, regardless of where you’re hiding. I’d agree to that too.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Now take a minute and read what Biggill posted in a link. Your article Dave indicates that ruling mas made in 2002. The article written in 2010. The link Bigill and I have provided is copyrighted in 2018 and specifically states that co’s have the right and can enter buildings and vehicles if they have probable cause….which could be gotten by walking past an uncovered window and seeing four lines in holes with one occupant. Probable cause can be claimed in any number of ways and I think in light of the 2018 rulings the dnr has taken leaps to help cut down on the problems the 2002 ruling created and found legal ways to circumvent the 2002 ruling.

Go back to the original post and see how he asked the question. Any co reading this thread would likely say that his question has red flags hanging all over it. And I’d agree. Some of the responses might also illicit red flags. And I’d agree again. Those in the lather here could well be those who might be losing the most if a co comes along. And I ask what others have asked. Why the secrecy? If you aren’t doing something illegal, what harm is letting a co in to do what co’s do? Or are you afraid that co’s might be trained to sniff out what you may not want uncovered? It was mentioned that fishing is a privilege….like flying. Put off a TSA officer for a second or so and see where it goes. Maybe co’s need to adopt the same type of approach on ya’ll that want to play the waiting game. If you’re on the up and up its nothing more than checking the license and a peek at how many lines are in use vs the number of people fishing. No biggie. The co goes on his way, you go back to whatever you do in those huts. Unless of course you have something to hide.

I don’t give a rat’s rump what you guys do in those huts or how many fish get caught and I guess in light of that I don’t see why any of you would balk at a co’s request to check lines and licenses if you’re in the good. Maybe there should be a provision on each license that is sold that has to be read and initialed when the license is bought that makes complying with ALL checks mandatory, regardless of where you’re hiding. I’d agree to that too.

Maybe the same should go with your cell phone…good thing apple and all the others agreed to not allow that. Remember that terrorist shoot I believe in California where the FBI wanted apple to crack the code? They said no and all the companies stood behind them.

But yes, if they can see illegal activity from the outside, JUST LIKE YOU HOUSE, they can enter.

Whatever. I read some of these comments and wonder just what is being hidden here that people would intentionally draw attention to themselves by being a prick to a co out checking licenses. This isn’t national security. Its complying with the law as stated by the license. This makes me think there’s an awful lot of people needing hide something and likely it isn’t a friggin fish or two.

I fish, I get checked. I talk a few minutes with the dude and off he goes. Have a safe day officer…..and so you know I say that to every officer I bump into maybe at a gas station or fast food place. I’m happy to see them out and about doing what we pay them to do. I can see how wardens get an attitude based on several of the replies here and right now I’m hoping those wardens with a bad attitude check a few of ya’ll with whatever it is that’s so important to hide. Have a great ice season.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Probable cause can be claimed in any number of ways and I think in light of the 2018 rulings the dnr has taken leaps to help cut down on the problems the 2002 ruling created and found legal ways to circumvent the 2002 ruling.

(A)the link is a statute only, are you saying there has been a 2018 supreme court ruling reversing the 2002 ruling?

(B) the language in the statute is very specific and within the scope of the 2002 supreme court ruling. It does not contradict the ruling at all.
The 2002 ruling essentially is saying a fish house (not a portable shelter) goes beyond “the premises of an activity requiring a license under the game and fish laws” and is a “temporary abode”.

A “temporary abode” requires a warrant.

A “premises of an activity requiring a license” can be searched with out a warrant.

Just because i stick up for my rights does not in mean I’m disrespectful to an officer in any which way. My brothers a cop and his buddy is the county co up here. I understand how things work.

Just beacause we disagree doesn’t mean in any way we are questionable people or doing illegal activities. That’s just non sense

Some of these anti-CO responses remind me of a situation we had at work a couple of years ago. The Company offered a $75/month discount on the employee’s share of our health care premium, IF the employee would fill out a wellness survey, and have a blood test done, to look for any problems.

It was amazing the outcry from some of my co-workers, who refused to have a blood test taken, for fear that the results would be shared with the Company. Which they were not. But, many would not take the chance. For the life of me, I can’t imagine what people might be hiding.

HRG

99% of people are hiding nothing. But we probably have some 1% ers here also.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

Now take a minute and read what Biggill posted in a link. Your article Dave indicates that ruling mas made in 2002. The article written in 2010. The link Bigill and I have provided is copyrighted in 2018 and specifically states that co’s have the right and can enter buildings and vehicles if they have probable cause….which could be gotten by walking past an uncovered window and seeing four lines in holes with one occupant. Probable cause can be claimed in any number of ways and I think in light of the 2018 rulings the dnr has taken leaps to help cut down on the problems the 2002 ruling created and found legal ways to circumvent the 2002 ruling.

Go back to the original post and see how he asked the question. Any co reading this thread would likely say that his question has red flags hanging all over it. And I’d agree. Some of the responses might also illicit red flags. And I’d agree again. Those in the lather here could well be those who might be losing the most if a co comes along. And I ask what others have asked. Why the secrecy? If you aren’t doing something illegal, what harm is letting a co in to do what co’s do? Or are you afraid that co’s might be trained to sniff out what you may not want uncovered? It was mentioned that fishing is a privilege….like flying. Put off a TSA officer for a second or so and see where it goes. Maybe co’s need to adopt the same type of approach on ya’ll that want to play the waiting game. If you’re on the up and up its nothing more than checking the license and a peek at how many lines are in use vs the number of people fishing. No biggie. The co goes on his way, you go back to whatever you do in those huts. Unless of course you have something to hide.

I don’t give a rat’s rump what you guys do in those huts or how many fish get caught and I guess in light of that I don’t see why any of you would balk at a co’s request to check lines and licenses if you’re in the good. Maybe there should be a provision on each license that is sold that has to be read and initialed when the license is bought that makes complying with ALL checks mandatory, regardless of where you’re hiding. I’d agree to that too.

I agree with you Tom, but there is a right and legal way to do things. Most CO’s are stand up persons but there are CO’s that push the legal limits trying to make a collar. In my particular problem it was the same CO acting like a Jerk and making an accusation before he had any proof. There was no way he could prove what he thought my partner and I was in violation of. The reason being we came in after dark. He accused us of too many ducks as soon as we had the boat loaded. Funny thing I don’t hunt and had no gun in the boat and told him so. He checked Every compartment twice. As an after thought he wanted to see our fishing license and said I wasn’t wearing a pfd. Which I was but under my heavy coat. Have been checked 3 more times in past years and he has not found a violation but he is an arrogant a$$ every time he stops you. So my point is he gets NO cooperation from me. I know most CO’s are good guys doing a tough job BUT you don’t know what type of guy is checking you out.

I loose a lot of respect for Tom when he gets on his high horse and doesn’t acknowledge our rights. Not everyone has had the same experience even acting on the up and up. Simply because some people don’t agree with your opinion doesn’t make them criminals.