Recent

Check Out Our Forum Tab!

Click On The "Forum" Tab Under The Logo For More Content!
If you are using your phone, click on the menu, then select forum. Make sure you refresh the page!

The views of the poster, may not be the views of the website of "Minnesota Outdoorsman" therefore we are not liable for what our members post, they are solely responsible for what they post. They agreed to a user agreement when signing up to MNO.

Author Topic: News Release From The DNR  (Read 11143 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline JCAMERON

  • Xtreme Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 357
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • "Johnny Camo Jr."
If they can check livewells for obvious reasons, then the same would go for truck beds etc. while hunting would it not?
Even if they can't check your outbuildings etc., the only people that are going to make something of it are the people with something to hide (in theory), who are being busted anyways.
By the way this is getting WAY  :offtopic:
"Superior... never gives up her dead when the gales of November come early."

Offline kingfisher1

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma: +0/-0
very true JC.  they can look in truck beds, and most do if they've stopped somebody.  But again, they can only check things in plain sight and can't start moving things around to find a violation.  And yes, most violators will come up with a reason not to let a CO enter an outbuilding if they're trying to hide something.  Then the CO will usually find a reason to go in, or call for a warrent if they have enough info.
walleyes, pannies, esox, cats, I don't care, let's go fishing!!

Offline Auggie

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1133
  • Karma: +7/-1
  • Start'em young
    • www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
This is way off topic. Just shoot the damn dog! Where is Uncle Dave? :whistling: :rotflmao: Sorry for those of you that missed the inside joke on this one! ;D ;) For those of you who got it, I bet you have been wondering what took me so long!!!
Just to inform you all a CO can walk in and check MY freezer anytime they like. But my occupation requires that they have this ability. Reasonable suspicion is a very broad statement, and when push comes to shove, the fuzz will have a reason of some kind if need be.
Shane Augeson
Wallhangers Taxidermy Studio
9040 40th St NW
Milan MN 56262
www.wallhangerstaxidermystudio.com
320-269-3337

Offline kingfisher1

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma: +0/-0
This is way off topic. Just shoot the damn dog! Where is Uncle Dave? :whistling: :rotflmao:

 :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :fudd: :fudd: :fudd: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

"Is it breed specific?"   :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :banghead: :banghead:

Reasonable suspicion is a braod statement, but usually a CO won't ask to see your freezer or see something other than the usual license check or gun check unless he/she has a reason to.
walleyes, pannies, esox, cats, I don't care, let's go fishing!!

Offline HD

  • Administrator
  • Master Outdoorsman
  • *
  • Posts: 15834
  • Karma: +57/-23
  • #1 Judge (Retired)
    • Minnesota Outdoorsman
It's about time you pipe in here Augg's!


While your dog is driving your ATV, can it be shot for checking your freezer by a running deer?  :rotflmao:
Mama always said, If you ain't got noth'in nice to say, don't say noth'in at all!

Offline kingfisher1

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma: +0/-0
It's about time you pipe in here Augg's!


While your dog is driving your ATV, can it be shot for checking your freezer by a running deer?  :rotflmao:

 :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:

Does it matter if it's a lab or a poodle? 
walleyes, pannies, esox, cats, I don't care, let's go fishing!!

Offline The General

  • MNO Staff
  • Master Outdoorsman
  • *
  • Posts: 6782
  • Karma: +20/-27
  • Smackdown King
Auggie, that is flipping hilarious. 
Eastwood v. Wayne Challenge Winner 2011

The Boogie Man may check his closet for John Wayne but John Wayne checks under his bed for Clint Eastwood

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/pubs/ss/clss4th.htm#What%20protection

What is the Fourth Amendment?

The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement officers.  The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides:

    The right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article I, section 10, of the Minnesota Constitution is nearly identical to the Fourth Amendment, but the Minnesota Supreme Court has at times afforded individuals greater protection against unlawful searches and seizures under the Minnesota Constitution than that available under the Federal Constitution.  Protection of the home is at the core of the Fourth Amendment, but protection also applies to persons, papers, and effects.

To what conduct does the Fourth Amendment apply?

 

The Fourth Amendment applies only to certain situations.  In general, the question of whether the Fourth Amendment applies turns on whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a particular situation.  Whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy turns on both a subjective and objective analysis.  First, the individual must have a subjective intent to keep something private.  Second, and more importantly, the expectation must be one that society is willing to recognize as reasonable.

 

To analyze further whether the Fourth Amendment applies, the analysis must address the place searched, the person doing the search, the person being searched, and the reason for the search.

 

What protection does the Fourth Amendment provide?

 

Central to the Fourth Amendment is its charge that police act reasonably when they engage in search or seizure activities.  In general, for a search or seizure to be reasonable, it must be supported by a warrant issued by a neutral and detached magistrate or judge who has determined probable cause exists to support a particular search or seizure.  As defined by the United States Supreme Court, “[p]robable cause exists where ‘the facts and circumstances within [the police officer’s] knowledge, and of which they had reasonable trustworthy information, [are] sufficient in themselves to warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief that’ an offense has been or is being committed.”  Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160 (1949).

 

In some cases, the Supreme Court has found searches and seizures to be constitutional absent a warrant, provided the conduct passes a reasonableness test.  Under this test, the Court balances the government interest in investigating crime against the extent of the intrusion into a person’s privacy.  Because the sanctity of the home is given significant Fourth Amendment protection, the Court is more inclined to require a warrant for a search of a home.  When the Court is dealing with encounters on the streets or in public places, however, the Court often applies a reasonableness test to assess whether a search or seizure is constitutional.  This approach provides greater investigational efficiency, but less Fourth Amendment protection.

 

The United States Supreme Court has recognized many clear exceptions to the warrant requirement; in these cases, a search or seizure is deemed reasonable and constitutional absent a warrant provided probable cause and certain circumstances exist.  In some situations, a limited search or seizure is deemed reasonable absent a warrant and with a level of suspicion lower than probable cause, provided the police have an articulable suspicion to believe criminal activity is afoot.

 

What are the exceptions to the warrant requirement?

 

Courts have recognized numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement, including:

    *

      exigent circumstances, or the need to engage in a search or seizure immediately due to an emergency situation where life and/or safety is at risk;
    * search incident to a lawful arrest to locate and seize weapons and thereby protect the arresting officer and prevent the destruction of evidence;
    * the automobile exception to seize and search an automobile based upon the exigency present due to the mobility of a vehicle before a warrant can be obtained;
    *

      the container exception to search a container in an automobile based upon the same exigency present with the automobile exception, but if the container is not in an automobile, the police may seize (based on exigency due to mobility of container), but may not search, the container;
    *

      consent when the police have a reasonable assumption that the party granting consent has lawful authority to do so and the consent is voluntary; and
    *

       the plain view/plain feel doctrine, which allows the seizure of evidence when there has been a prior valid intrusion into a constitutionally protected area, an item is spotted in plain view or is within “plain feel,” and there is probable cause to believe the item is evidence.

 In what situations will an articulable suspicion support a search or seizure?

 

Limited searches and seizures based upon articulable suspicion are really exceptions to the warrant requirement.  In order to exercise the exception, law enforcement must have an articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot.  This exception stems from the United States Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, and is referred to as the Terry exception.  Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).  The exception authorizes a limited seizure or stop, usually briefer than a full-blown arrest and at the location where the stop occurred.  The search authorized under Terry is based on officer safety.  For the search to be justified, the officer must have some articulable suspicion that the individual may be armed, and the officer may conduct only a pat-down of the person’s clothing (i.e., a “frisk”).

 

What is the remedy for violation of a person’s Fourth Amendment rights?

A person who has been subjected to an unreasonable search or seizure may challenge the action and seek suppression of any evidence obtained as a result of the unlawful action.  With limited exceptions, the evidence that may be suppressed includes both the evidence directly discovered as well as any other evidence police are led to as a result of obtaining information unlawfully.  A person whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated may also bring a civil rights lawsuit under federal law for damages and/or injunctive relief, provided the person can satisfy certain requirements.

October 2002

---------------------------------------------

http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/200202/22_horwichj_iceshacks-m/

The right of the people to be secure in their ice shacks...
By Jeff Horwich
Minnesota Public Radio
February 22, 2002
Click for audio RealAudio

The warm winter brought the ice fishing season to an end a little early this year, and anglers spent the week dragging the last of their ice shacks off of lakes around the state. The shacks may disappear for another year, but a controversy surrounding them will not.



A court decision in the middle of the season declared that ice shacks were a private space, protected by the U.S. Constitution from unwarranted searches. It's a big change that has put the Department of Natural Resources in a tough position.

Just as before, DNR officer Bruce Hall drives his ATV from shack to shack over the flat, white expanse of Lake Mille Lacs. Hall makes plenty of friends out here, but he's not knocking on doors to make courtesy calls. He's looking for people breaking the rules, including dangling lines in the water when they're not actually in the ice house.

"Here's a good situation where my gut would probably tell me that there's lines down inside that house," he says, as he circles a shack with the curtains drawn tight. "Windows are all closed, it's locked from the outside. More often than not, if I would get into that house, there would be some lines down and that would be a violation.

"Prior to December I would open that door and go in," he says.

Prior to December fishing in an ice shack was just as public as sitting on an upturned bucket. DNR officers would announce their presence with a quick knock, and step through the door. Whatever they saw was fair game.

But two court decisions - both from Rice County - have changed things. In one case, a conservation officer surprised two men smoking crack. In the other, a man was caught with marijuana and an extra line in the water.



In both cases the state Court of Appeals found ice shack-dwellers have a reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment.

Things have certainly gotten more complicated for Hall. "We have to rely on real specific information, we have to have witnesses that are involved, it takes time and you have to get probable cause for search warrants, you have to find a judge available on weekends. It's nearly impossible...these days."

So it's hard to detect any illegal activity, whether it's drugs or the much more common fishing violations Hall is really out there to spot. And that's just fine with Paul Levasseur of Elk River.

H

"I just don't like going fishing and having handcuffs on my hands while I'm fishing," he says as he stands in the door of his shack on Mille Lacs. "So every time you catch a nice fish, you've got to throw it back."

Levasseur says he's been fishing out here 20 years, and he does follow the rules. But to him and his kids, the shack on Mille Lacs feels very much like his house, his car or any other private space.

"You know you can hear somebody coming (from inside the shack)," he says, "But yeah, if it was a game warden, he could wait right at the door and I'd wave at him through the window: 'Hi!' But he can't come in, so that's fine with me."

Just next door, which on Mille Lacs means a few thousand yards down the ice, Marv Thorsten of Foley thinks the court decision is silly. He's says he's sitting on public waters, and DNR has a job to do.



"I feel that if you're violating, you should get caught," he said. "Whether the game warden can come in or not, that don't bother me, you know...They always knocked before they came in anyway. And they didn't just rip the door open. They'd knock. But like I say it didn't bother me, and it still don't bother me. "

The case may wind up in the state Supreme Court. In the meantime the DNR is thinking of different ways to enforce its own rules.

One possible solution: entering ice shacks on so-called "administrative warrants," the easier-to-obtain civil warrants used by building inspectors. This would entail significant changes; DNR officers would need to change the citations they issue from criminal citations to civil citations. But it just might fly, given that the law has now said a house and an ice shack might not be all that different after all.

-------------------------------

 They need a warrant to search your ice house and your private home
« Last Edit: February 02/23/09, 04:02:06 AM by Bufflehead »
There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline GRIZ

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1793
  • Karma: +0/-0
Well if you think they can't check a freezer without a warrant your wrong. I know of one person had that happen to this yr ME. I wasn't even around.

If they see tracks walking through fresh snow they can follow them to see what a person is up to. At least they did me. They couldn't see me just my tracks. He did walk right past a no tresspassing sign following my tracks.

Now all of this just tells me "Probable cause=They think your involved in some outdoor activity or are storing wild game there."

I'm just guessing here but they (CO's) must have to fill out some kind of daily log as to there activities. As is the case with the guy who followed my tracks. He never did check for a lic nor did he check my truck when we got back. Just said "have a nice day" Now I wonder what he wrote down in his log for taking up a couple hrs(That's how long he walked around with me for). Prolly tracked a potential deer poacher or something, maybe a bigfoot hunter? Personally I think he was bored that day and wanted something to do.
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first."
~Thomas Jefferson

Online deadeye

  • MNO Moderator
  • Master Outdoorsman
  • *
  • Posts: 6212
  • Karma: +19/-13
My guess is they can pretty much go where they want.  Not saying it right or wrong, just that it's pretty easy to come up with "probable cause".  Several years ago a CO came driving on my property.  He was 2 miles off the road following our trail into the land.  I ask him what he was looking for and he said "I got a report that someone in the area was filling in a swamp".  That's pretty vague.  I ask him if he saw any sign of the alleged swamp filling and he said "no".  I'm not saying this to slam the CO, lord knows they have a tough job, it's just an example of what can and does happen regarding "probable cause".
***I started out with nothing, and I still have most of it.***

Offline Bufflehead

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 911
  • Karma: +0/-0
"probable cause". still needs a warrant to enter ones home. Griz if your freezer is in some unlocked out building or lean too. He can search it with just "probable cause".

In your house is another matter, unless you let him..if you let them in..it's a free for all
There's plenty of room for all gods creatures...right next to my mashed potatoes

Offline beeker

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 1933
  • Karma: +0/-0
why all this anger towards the CO's?  it seems out of context for this board?
If science fiction has taught me anything, it's that you can never have enough guns and ammo when the zombies come back to life... "WS"

Offline kingfisher1

  • Master Outdoorsman
  • Posts: 650
  • Karma: +0/-0
why all this anger towards the CO's?  it seems out of context for this board?

Good call.  CO's have a hard job.  Yes, it may seems like they can be going overboard, and going too far, but if you're hiding something, then they're going to push harder.  I'm not saying that everyone is hiding something from a CO, but they have a hard job and they are doing it to the best of thier ability.  I, too, have had a bad experience with a CO.  If you really think that a CO is over stepping thier bounds, get their name and badge number and call thier boss. 

I had a CO stop me and an old friend accusing us of shooting a deer and leaving it.  After going back and forth for about 45 minutes, he asked us to leave the public land we were hunting.  After we were done hunting that day, we called his Captain (he was a Luitentant (sp)) and told her what happened.  She investigated the incident, talked to the CO that we had the incident with, and called us back.  Come to find out, The people that actually did this was driving the same style vehicle that we were driving.  I asked why we were drilled so hard and for so long, she said it was because we were in the same style vehicle and that the CO was sorry for drilling us so hard after finding the real culprits.  The CO wanted to call us and apologize, but the Captain told him it might not be a good idea being we were so heated at the time.
walleyes, pannies, esox, cats, I don't care, let's go fishing!!