DNR Must have probable cause…..

to search your boat. A must read article from today’s St Paul Pioneer Press.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/3721732.htm

J.

I’m not sure I like this but at least I now have a choice when the officer asks me to reach into a livewell full of sharp fins in order for him to inspect my catch while I’m out on the water.

This one is just plain hard to believe. Is the ACLU involved in this case somehow? Since when is it considered an “unreasonable search” when a CO checks an angler’s take. Why even bother having game wardens if they can’t do their job? This is a step in the wrong direction for conservation. Of all the posts I’ve been reading on this site lately about anglers wanting the DNR to do a better job with our fisheries, this case ought to light a fire under a lot of butts!! Laws and law enforcement exist for the protection of the innocent and this decision has just removed some of that protection. This just makes it easier for a law breaker to do his law breaking.

this is the biggest bull—- Ive have ever seen. I can just see the violators having a hayday with this new escape factor. When does sense come into lawmaking? I really feel sorry for the DNR in trying to do their job now

I agree with you guys. I was looking at this from a law-abiding sportsman’s point of view. From a poachers point of view this must be great news. It was bad enough with ice houses now the crooks can drive their illegal booty home without intervention. Wow.
Jon J, you wanna get on this one please.

I agree with what has been said about the decision making conservation officers job much harder, but what I question is does this also cover the random stops/checks for safety equipment? This could very easily snow ball into a situation of making there positions as law enforcement officers nearly pointless and that should worry all law abiding sportsman! My opinion, they have a job to do and need to be able to do it.

First, I have no problem with allowing a warden to view my day’s catch. I would have a problem if he wanted to keep looking in other coolers or compartments though. At that point I would like to know why he needs to investigate further. If he has probable cause to continue searching fine, but without it I feel I have the right to stop this unreasonable search and seizure. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for busting poachers and violators but I’m also a staunch defender of our nations Bill of Rights. Today your boat, tomorrow your home!

Here’s an idea. Suppose we as anglers in our license application stated that we were willing to submit to searches by Conservation Officers. It would certianly seem that a CO would have a right to check to see if I am licensed to fish.

If he checks and I do have a license, then he would have the right to check my catch.

If he checks and I do not have a license, he’d have probably cause in that case too. Not to mention the fishing without a license….

What would you think of that?

A couple things to keep in mind here are:
Probable Cause, and unreasonable search and seizure. Warden Stone, or others, please feel free to chime in here… But what they are doing is now holding wardens to the same level of “Probable Cause” as a police officer, or other law enforcement entity. Typically, a warden, in the course of his duties, may enter a persons (Fishouse, boat, cabin…) without a warrant. Another branch of law enforcement would have to obtain a warrant to enter unless a felon was fleeing into it, or another life threatening scenario was playing out. Or, if they had PROBABLE CAUSE to believe a crime was being committed. What they are telling wardens is that they too must now have probable cause to enter or search without permission. The mere fact that you have a livewell in your boat does not mean you should be searched because you MAY have over your limit. BUT, if a warden, or another citizen watched a boat box well over their limit of fish, you have probable cause, and a legal search can be made. I was in law enforcement for 8 years. If I was able to pull every car over and check for pot or alcohol, just because I wanted to, would that be fair? Up until yesterday, a warden could. If we remain vigilant ourselves in turning in poachers, and working WITH the wardens instead of against them, we should still be able to accomplish the same goal. BUT, knowing this, there will most likely be more individuals taking more than their limit, maybe a few walleye on Mille Lacs might stretch above the 16″ slot, who knows. Keep vigilant, and lets help the wardens wherever we can. It is a tough job that just got a little tougher! They can check my livewell anytime!
Tuck

Another thought, what if the DNR printed a waiver on each license sold stating “With the purchase of this license, you agree to be checked (And any game in your possession) by wardens if asked…Blah, Blah, Blah…….
I doubt it would work…Or would it? If you don’t like it, don’t fish? If you don’t want your fish house checked by a warden, don’t put one out? Whadya think??

many good points sir. first of all I am an avid sportsman and I believe absolutly in the Bill of Rights; much sacrifice has been and is being made to establish and preserve those rights. second, my favorite section of the Outdoor News is the cuffs and collars. From what I read the citations seem to come a lot from stings, TIPs, and what can best be described as people just not thinking.(actually there are better decriptions but there’s no need to be insulting). In other words the CO’s just using good police work. I suppose some bums will still get away but they always have. We can help ensure our sporting heritage by being alert and reporting suspisious activity. The bums will slip up eventually and from what I’ve seen the penalties are good and harsh. good fishing to all, da fool

If a warden pulled up and asked to see my catch, whether it be in my livewell, cooler, or wherever, I’d probably say ok as a common courtesy. BUT, I still want my privacy protected under the Bill Of Rights.
It would be very easy for a warden to come up with a [probable cause], ie, “I just got a call about a fisherman taking over his limit”, or “I just got a tip about someone keeping short fish”.
I know these examples sound quite extreme, but I remember a few new-young wardens out to make a name for themselves so it can happen.

My gathering on this is really kinda of simple..I to REALLY..Believe in the bill of rights..I also believe in the game wardens jobs…along with many other duties, to Check our catches..Insure of proper floatation devices…Fire suppression systems….ECT….I would submit that if an angler refused the search..That they would become “FISHY” (for lack of a better term)…And followed..maybe all the way home..Who would refuse to be “checked ” If they were following the laws…These wardens are in place not only for limit checks and the such….but for OUR saftey too….I think only the “GUILTY” would refuse…And those are the ones that would need To be “watched”..Because they sooner or later will be caught.

Maybe a bulletin on boats refusing the warden ….Names…..make of boat…ECT….Then we could all watch for these people…We all carry cell phones….and call…If…or when WE see the infractions….BOOM…Probable cause?

This is a tough one folks, but my thoughts are that our constitutional rights must be protected first and foremost. The DNR will ultimately bring stronger cases more likely to result in convictions if held to the same due process as other branches of law enforcement. Having said that, fish that are in possession while on public water are, in my hunble Irish opinion, subject to inspection by the DNR. I really don’t think people that are not already pre-disposed to poaching will view this as an opportunity to break the law and get away with it. This will make it more important than ever for the fishing community to not tolerate violations when we see them! This past Sunday morning while trying to confirm that I really had survived the FTR get together, hoo boy was it ever tough for awhile, we were checked by two MN. DNR officers. They patiently waited while I sorted through my billfold and found this years license, then checked our fish. No problem, these were the most polite and friendly officers I’ve been checked by in a long time, No superior attitude, No banging into the boat, No making you feel like a crimminal. Whichever officers were on Pepin sunday morning should be teaching a class in gaining the support of the public. Oh yeah, I can find my license alot faster now that my head doesen’t hurt so bad…B

geeeze I swear… what next!!?? will they outlaw CO’s from monitoring people without probable cause? people have a right to privacy you know….. the main danger I see in this is if anglers abuse it widespread…… just think.. how many people would comply with length limits if they know they are not going to get searched? bet a lot more fish will be coming off Mille Lacs… or anywhere else where the bite is hot….. since you cant be checked…. I hope my faith (or should I say lack of) is incorrect…. and that everyone continues to comply with the law even though they can abuse it easily and with confidence of escaping penalties…..
if DNR officers have to have probable cause… does this mean they cant even ask to see your fishing license? I mean a regular PO cant just pull you over and ask for a license without some reason….. they at least have radar to give them a reason to pull someone over….

I understand that CO’s have a tough job, but from my experience, 99% of people fishing are playing by the rules. The ones that don’t are usually well known and probable cause could be established with a few days of surveillance.

It’s funny that this happened in Minnesota, where every time I’ve been stopped by DNR they were polite, curteous, and pleasant to deal with in every way. My guess is that we’ve all heard horror stories of people returning from Canada where they got the rubber-glove treatment at the border and had their boat torn to shreds, their camper and their trunk emptied onto the roadside and were left with, “Clean up this mess and get across the border.” Either you’re a criminal, or if they can’t find anything, you’re a criminal that got away with it.

It will be interesting to see if the Iowa courts eventually follow this decision. My understanding is that down here, they can walk into your house without a warrant, dig through the freezer, fridge, and pantry, and take whatever they want as evidence whether they charge you or not. They have more widespread enforcement authority than any other agency, state or federal.

This decision should check the abuse of enforcement power, although whether it’s been abused to date is in question.

I believe there could be room for compromise. I for one do
not mind being checked – I follow the rules! However, I
became very upset with a warden recently. Although he was
very polite and professional, it was the fourth time this
year I have been checked. Furthermore last two were on
back to back Saturdays – all by the same Minnesota warden.
As a former sheriff’s department employee, I am well aware
of probable cause issues most law enforcement people have to
deal with. I brought up this issue with the warden and suggested that a possible alternative would be a visible
sticker for a boat. Go ahead and check me out closely – a safety check (flotation devices, fire extinguisher, boat
license etc.) and a compliance check for fish and game(within limits – size and number – proper license etc.) If
I am 100% clean – reward me with a sticker and leave me alone the rest of the year unless you observe (probable cause) improper activities.

I’m noticing a couple of things in these posts: 1) some are talking about us as sportsmen keeping an eye out for law breakers. This is all fine and dandy, and we have hotlines and such for this, but isn’t this why we have paid law enforcement in the first place? I don’t think it is incumbent upon the average fisherman to be wary of what others are doing. I certainly don’t go on the water thinking like that. Now if I encountered someone grossly out of line, then I might do something. But I get on the water to relax and enjoy and don’t really care to worry myself with what the next guy over is doing (unless he’s outfishing me!). Isn’t that what taxes go for? 2) People keep bringing the Bill of Rights into this discussion. We already have protection under the law. When a game warden or cop pulls somebody over, even if he doesn’t have probable cause, in what way has somebody’s rights been violated except that you’ve lost five minutes off your trip to wherever. It gets a little old listening to the crybaby mentality of rights over responsiblity. The only reason you have to fear the law is if you break it. I guarantee you that the easier it is to fish illegally, the more people will do it. Being checked on the water is just THE way the DNR has to keep us honest. You’d think some people see law enforcement as communistic. I’m GLAD when I get pulled over by the DNR because then I know they are doing their job, which means keeping the poachers in check. If you really want to bring the Bill of Rights into this, do some research and actually read what the founding fathers wrote and said about responsibility, morality and ethics vs. what they said about rights. We’ve got more rights in this country than we even realize and yet when something like this comes up that’s often the first reaction from many: “This is a violation of my rights.” Tell me what has been violated when a duly appointed officer checks you to see if you are obedient to that law which he is responsible to uphold. Excuse me if I seem a little strong on this one but it seems we are so worried about the DNR turning into the KGB. They’re just trying to protect the resource.

We must rembember that fishing, hunting, boating are privileges. We should allow the DNR access to be able to monitor and control the use of these privileges. I agree that when we purchase a license, we also grant the DNR officers the ability to enforce the rules. This will help ensure that the crooks don’t steal OUR resources.

I certainly hope the DNR adds a line to all license apps that says we agree to be checked by the DNR at the officer’s request. If we don’t agree with that stipulation, we don’t get a license. Simple…..

Where do we draw the line with inspections? Lets say you allow the CO to inspect your boat and he finds nothing. If he wants to also inspect your vehicle do you allow him to search their too. If finding nothing he wants to inspect your home too do you allow him? The Bill of Rights are very important, it provides the checks needed to make sure this country never becomes a police state. I don’t have a problem with showing a warden my day’s catch (no matter how meager it may be) but I do respect the rights of others who don’t want to be searched without just cause.

As usual, there are two sides. No sense argueing and getting all worked up over which side you support. I think the majority of sportsman would however support a search as a condition of the license. Letting everyone go unchecked will bring out the worst in many. Too many.

This new law is a wonderful victory for all who cherish basic American freedoms. I was so excited when I first heard the news, it’s hard to believe so many oppose it. Hopefully this is the first of many steps in diminishing the all-powerful DNR’s long tradition of abuse of power and mis-management of the state’s fisheries. People shouldn’t have to worry about getting stopped by the big bad ranger and having their property inspected when they go fishing, it’s outrageous. How many times have you been checked and asked about what you caught, etc. and felt like saying “none of your damn business.” All law-abiding sportsmen should be entited to peace and privacy. Law breakers will always be out there, regardless of the strictness of the laws. And the serious offenders will still be pursued, nothing is going to change that. It’s time to wake up.

Carp Chaser. You think I’m wrong and I think your wrong.
At least we agree to disagree.

Hunting and fishing are not “privileges” as you might think, although that’s the way they are dished out. As far as I’m concerned they are God given rights since the beginning of time. Sure, as man got smarter and modern methods of harvest came into play, so did conservation agencies, limits, seasons, fines, and loss of these rights for certain individuals. And rightly so, because if left unchecked, there soon would not be enough game and fish to go around. But please, do not call what I do for fun, or what my ancestors did to survive a privilege!!

Answer me this ?
How do we find the “Bad Guy’s ?
And we do have inspection stickers !

Richard (Smitty)
Steele County Water Patrol

Keep a tight line !!

*wow*… this thread has become controversial and I suppose it figures…. powerful statements on both sides…

there are less than 140 CO’s… its their job to enforce the laws on 2.3 million anglers on 5,400 lakes and 15,000 miles of rivers comprising 3.8 million acres…. I would say thats a pretty tough job already…..

I lived in Minnesota for 13 years, in that length of time I have been checked on average 2-3 times per year….. so these officers are out doing their job…. in ALL those times Ive been checked Ive only had them actually check my fish on 2 occasions….. and on one occasion when asked to produce my license on a very cold day the warden said “never mind, just show me next time”… when it was obvious I was going to have to take off my snowmobile suit to produce it…. Ive been treated with nothing but courtesy…..
Im not a warden, but Ive worked with some before and I know a few….. they just do the best they can to enforce the laws protecting our resources… as I mentioned its a tough job already…. add in all the special management of certain waters and rules that are sometime ambiguous, along with border waters and anglers bringing in fish from different states… well…. I would say there is already ample room for “cheating”….

but the law is the law…. and judges have ruled that forcing anglers to reveal their catch is against the law….. I for one dont feel the DNR has done a bad job of enforcement, considering how few officers they have I think they do a great job….. as far as conjecture on the DNR’s overall fisheries management…… well thats another (and unrelated) subject….. I know a number of fisheries personnel…. and I know for a fact that they all love the resource the same as we do…. if you knew how much (or should I say little?) they are being paid you would understand that love of the resource is about the only reward they have …. I have nothing but respect for their efforts….. much of the time their best efforts are handcuffed by lack of funds and bogus politics….. both are things that we as anglers with a vested interest in our resource could do much to help with……. but I must appoligize Im getting a bit off topic……
I think that by and large anglers are law abiding…. but I also think that by and large this is because they think they will be called to task for failure to comply….. I would say as an example “speeding” is an infraction that many people will do, particularly “when everyone is doing it”….. there is safety in numbers….and if you know you cant get caught then why not??
so lets say for example Mille Lacs where its so hard to get fish in the proper slot… now it will be risk free to toss a few in the live well…. after all no one is going to catch you… how can they?? Its pretty hard to measure a fish with binoculars or telescope…. so probable cause will be impossible to establish based on someone tossing fish in the live well……
well… Im going to guess that there will be a solution to this if it becomes a problem…. Im no smart enough or wise enough to see it… but no doubt changes in regs can be made to make the job of enforcement easier…
whats my point? I have never felt that CO’s have abused their “power” to search….. I suppose those who have been caught may see it differently….. I personally regret the rejection of decades of policy…. the fact that this practice has never been questioned before this is indicates that it has not been abused……

Perhaps I should change my name to Alfred E.(What?…Me worry?)Newman,because I don’t ever “worry” about the “big bad ranger”wanting to inspect my property…I have nothing to hide.They certainly do not impact my “peace and privacy”.I’ve never had a bad experience with them.I’ve even had them cut me some slack a couple of times.Perhaps I’ve just been lucky as,I’m sure there are some bad apples in the DNR bunch but,I don’t offer them a belligerent,defiant attitude either.I remember seeing a TV program some years ago that stated,a conservation officer is the most dangerous law enforcement job in the country.Heck,during hunting season,everyone they confront has a gun!I served my country to protect “basic American freedoms”…I do truly cherish them but,unfortunatly,there are those who will take advantage of them at a tremendous cost to the rest of us.Smitty asked the only logical question left…”How do we find the bad guys?”Mike

As usual , there’s been some well stated opinions and even some facts to back up those opinions. It’s cool to see the expressions being voiced and in such a civil fashion.

I don’t know that I have anything to add to this chain of printed emotional influence but I have observed some general positioning within the posts.

For anyone feeling that it’s an invasion of their privacy might want to look at the times they’ve felt this way and ask themselves if it was truly invasive or just not what they wanted to include, all be it small, within the confines of their day. If I’m not in the right mood, I’ve found ANYTHING that opposes my selfish position to be a big thorn in my side. That’s a ME problem, not a system problem.

For those worried about the Bill of Rights, knowing that the DNR is now being held accountable on the same level as other enforcement agencies, I tend to believe we’re again working ourselves up over internally placed comfort zones. In view of the Bill of Rights, I do believe there are bigger issues challanging it than this situation with the DNR. Not suggesting it be overlooked, but maybe decided within ourselves what the priority would be if we knew all the issues facing this nation.

How do we find the bad guys? Well, if you weren’t finding them before, you probably won’t find them now. However, until we have a specific and absolute list of what does and does not qualify as probable cause, it should be just as easy to gain access if really deemed neccessary. It COULD happen to me………….I’ve been on the receiving end of a law enforcement mistake before and it shook me up for months afterward, but under the SAME EXACT circumstances, I wouldn’t have instructed those officers to do anything different than they did. I was roughed up, shaken, apologized to, and then released but have never felt that the system needed fixing over it. For every time those people make a mistake they’re probably right for the next 10 in a row! Yes, that means there’s room for improvement but that improvement SHOULD NOT COME AT THE EXPENSE OF THE 10 TIMES THEY’RE CORRECT. And this is the reality of what has taken place. They can STILL get the access they desire but it’s going to make them APPEAR WRONG more often than they appear right. In my eyes, this shouldn’t do anything to increase public confidence with our CO’s. Every time we’re approached we’re going to wonder if there’s “probable cause” and question what’s about to happen. Most of us will toss the tension to the side and just cooperate, but others of us are going to see it as a major problem.

All in all, it’s a lateral decision, 2 sides will remain, and we’ll most likely experience nothing different as recreational sports participants. Could the law still be broken? Yep. Is it encouraging the practice of lawbreaking? No. That will come from the cheaters that are already practicing amongst us.

Promote C&R……………no livewell issues or length limits!

I have heard some bad stories on Pool 4 but down here in Iowa the DNR can do just about anything they want. If they think you have untagged deer in you barn they can look . If they think you have too many pheasants the can search your vehicle. They set up road blocks on opening weekend of bird season and check every truck coming down the road. I too want to see the poachers busted but we get harrassed way to much in my opinion. Iowa DNR has way too much power.

I heard a call in show on Minnesota Public Radio today
on this very subject. It had a CO representing the one
side of the issue & the somewhat flamboyant attorney
(in the ice shanty case) representing the opposing side
in support of “probable cause”. As an avid & honest
fisherman (is that PC?), I pondered where I stood on
the debate, so I find it interesting to log on and read the
opinions of my fellow anglers. After some
consideration, I lean towards the argument that there
should be probable cause. I have always felt that the
DNR have to much power, and although I have always
followed the fishing rules & regulations (& then some as
I practice catch & release), I never liked the feeling I
get when having been checked for license. You are
assumed quilty & have to “prove” yourself innocent. It just
isn’t right & shouldn’t be so.

These will be interesting cases to watch with many appeals I suspect.
Eleclady