Proposed Senate Bills SF 956 and SF 980

What are everyone’s thoughts on Minnesota proposed Senate Bills SF 956 and SF 980?

The major item in SF 956 is that a search warrant or a court order would be required prior to conservation officers conducting searches and seizures. In talking to my local CO, this would mean that even if they witness violations, there would be cases where they could do nothing but watch because of no warrant or court order.

SF 980 would require conservation officers to conduct investigation and enforcement activities under the supervision of the local sheriff. Where a conservation officer’s patrol area is in a single county, the local sheriff’s office will have full authority to assign shifts, hours of work, and days off; delegate overtime and set the conservation officers schedules.
In other words, the conservation officer would become nothing more than a glorified deputy.

Is this what we want in Minnesota?

I know that I don’t.

I hope that both bills get shot down before they make it out of committee.

The DNR Enforcement Division does a great job now and there is no reason to change a thing.

Totally agree with you. A big NOPE on both!!!!

We need to make it easier to bust poachers!!!!!

I’m all game with the search warrant, but I doubt that means if they witness a violation they need a warrant. That doesn’t seem right and I assume the officer had it wrong. But no way should any officer be able to barge in any one’s homes with out a warrant. And if they know full well of illegal activity then a warrant will be easy to obtain.

The second one makes 0 sense so I have no real opinion on it besides it’s another terrible law maker trying to over reach.

If the search warrant thing is true that would certainly handcuff CO in doing their jobs. If a cop sees someone passing a bag of cocaine do they have to get a warrant to stop them? If a bag is visible I believe they have probably cause to search the car. If a CO sees someone obviously keeping more than a limit, I would think that is similar in nature.

So he can watch me fish for walleyes out of season without a license but cant stop me without a warrant. I better stock up on minnows to fish the spawning creeks in a month

956 seems a little restrictive in the warrant part. They can interrupt a crime where there is imminent danger or loss of property. But they must seize your vehicles for transporting minnows illegally. Must. This is a pretty fresh bill that hasn’t seen much committee time. Its only been to Environment. 980 sounds pretty much like described above. Multiple sheriffs assigning tasks and scheduling CO’s. This is similar to other reactions to CO’s that enter property regularly under the guise of stopping poaching or investigating without warrants. It’s probably time to decide if the DNR officers are required to follow the same rules as local law enforcement.

I don’t understand why they couldn’t act if probable cause is evident, that makes no sense.

I think the conservation officers have way too much authority. Basically the rules don’t apply to them. I’d be all for a reality check for them.

Dan wrote:

I don’t understand why they couldn’t act if probable cause is evident, that makes no sense.

My thought exactly. I think some one misinterpreted something. Probable cause would void a warrant. But they can’t just show up to my house because Johnson down the road said I had 12 walleye. They would need a warrant I’d imagine.

I think maybe the days of one neighbor calling on another that they have too many fish in the freezer, may require a warrant. I would think it would already, but if a CO said, they seen them out fishing, catching and keeping a lot of fish, they could skirt the warrant ? Not sure, but I agree, it probably needs some refining.

Bearcat89 wrote:

I’m all game with the search warrant, but I doubt that means if they witness a violation they need a warrant. That doesn’t seem right and I assume the officer had it wrong. But no way should any officer be able to barge in any one’s homes with out a warrant. And if they know full well of illegal activity then a warrant will be easy to obtain.

The second one makes 0 sense so I have no real opinion on it besides it’s another terrible law maker trying to over reach.

I agree. I don’t think conservation officers are going to need a warrant when they see illegal activity outside a home being conducted. Will they need a warrant to enter a home. Uh ya just like every LEO does.

The major item in SF 956 is that a search warrant or a court order would be required prior to conservation officers conducting searches and seizures. In talking to my local CO, this would mean that even if they witness violations, there would be cases where they could do nothing but watch because of no warrant or court order.

I have a hard time believing this is an accurate statement.

Bearcat89 wrote:

I’m all game with the search warrant, but I doubt that means if they witness a violation they need a warrant. That doesn’t seem right and I assume the officer had it wrong. But no way should any officer be able to barge in any one’s homes with out a warrant. And if they know full well of illegal activity then a warrant will be easy to obtain.

The second one makes 0 sense so I have no real opinion on it besides it’s another terrible law maker trying to over reach.

That’s according to the CO I spoke to.

Ripjiggen wrote:

The major item in SF 956 is that a search warrant or a court order would be required prior to conservation officers conducting searches and seizures. In talking to my local CO, this would mean that even if they witness violations, there would be cases where they could do nothing but watch because of no warrant or court order.

I have a hard time believing this is an accurate statement.

Like I said Ripjiggin, that’s what I was told.

All you MNFISH members here’s what you keep begging for money for, get out there and stop this nonsense.

Wast shooting the messenger so to speak Karry. Just feel that might be inaccurate. I just assumed they needed a warrant for a search and seizure of a home. I know they do in other states as I have watched plenty those conservation officer shows.

The bill about Sheriffs is crazy. Sheriffs here are an elected position. I’ve had the privilege of meeting some great local sheriffs and some who are brutal and were nothing more than the unqualified winners of a local rural popularity contest. The local sheriff here would retire probably before taking on that added burden.

My guess is both are dead on arrival, but it still makes you think about the hired/elected stupidity working on our behalf.

Good points Bucky. I’ve contacted the author and the coauthors of the proposed bills and asked them what their motovation was to propose these bills but not surprisingly, I got no responses.

Ripjiggen wrote:

Wast shooting the messenger so to speak Karry. Just feel that might be inaccurate. I just assumed they needed a warrant for a search and seizure of a home. I know they do in other states as I have watched plenty those conservation officer shows.

You are likely correct for search and seizure in a home. I believe the CO that I spoke ot was referring to entering a fish house or something related to witnessing an actual violation in the field. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear in my initial post.

No to both. The way it’s been for eons has seemed to work pretty well! Enforcement is a State matter and not a county one. Besides too many cooks spoil the soup so to speak! Try to get multiple sheriffs to coordinate things at the same time will be a disaster! One Commander is all that is needed. These bills are a waste of time and money!

Maybe the Senate can stay home like the House…

This is a chance to voice your opinions on these bills and try to make a difference. If we don’t take the intitiative, we can’t expect someone to do it for us.
The bills are first going to committee and if they make it out of committee, they will go to the Senate for a vote. Let’s try to stop them now.

Contact the committee members and voice your opposition. It will just take a few minutes of your time and a simple email to the committee members.

Here’s the link to the Environment, Climate and Legacy Committee to which the bills were referred.

https://www.senate.mn/committees/committee_bio.html?cmte_id=3130

Thanks guys!

CO’s need warrants for many searches. People think they have more authority than they do and CO’s like that. I abide by the law but I don’t have time for their illegal searches and I’m not scared to tell them that.

So I support the first one.

Opposed to the second.

I would like to see more detail on these 2 bills before I would offer too much judgement. I find it odd that there is not a longer description to these other than the 1 sentence stated. Maybe I did not look hard enough…..

SF 980 looks to be poorly written. It states to coordinate a investigation. I can see maybe coordinating during a warrant search but investigations starts before a warrant is requested. Big no on this one.

SF 956 – I am not fond of not seeing a longer description but this looks like it is attempting to bring the conservation officers under the same rules that standard law enforcement officers have to follow. The current situation has always been a little odd to me with what looks to have been unlimited access to the interior of my boat and ice shelter. I am all for game law enforcement but I would vote yeas on SF 956.

SF 980

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF980&version=latest&session_year=2025&session_number=0

SF 956

https://www.revisor.mn.gov/bills/text.php?number=SF0956&version=latest&session_number=0&session_year=2025

Thank you Reef. The place that I accessed it showed just one sentence and when you clicked on the field for longer description it had none.

I will have to read these later….

I thought CO were law enforcement officers. Why wouldn’t they operate under the same rules as local PD or state police? Why the need for more new bills?

SR

Steve Root wrote:

I thought CO were law enforcement officers. Why wouldn’t they operate under the same rules as local PD or state police? Why the need for more new bills?

SR

Dnr officers been above the law since the beginning of time.

Bearcat89 wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Steve Root wrote:</div>
I thought CO were law enforcement officers. Why wouldn’t they operate under the same rules as local PD or state police? Why the need for more new bills?

SR

Dnr officers been above the law since the beginning of time.

Not nearly as much as people think. It’s a false rumor that many outdoorsmen believe.

I will always refuse a search from any officer including CO’s and tell them they need a warrant. It is our constitutional right.