A hunting club took the PGC to court over searches and cameras by a game warden on their private land recently. Has there been a ruling by the courts on this matter? I believe it’s called Open Fields Doctrine?
Bigbrownie
Remember the news about it but not a verdict. This is the latest dated news I found.
This is the case I heard about maybe 6-7 yrs ago. 2 different guys in Tenn were cited by wardens who put cameras on their properties. Article only mentions one of the cases. But Tenn struck law down. I see both sides but it is a sore point for a lot of folks. Basically , get a warrant is my opinion.
tennesseelookout.com
This is the case I heard about maybe 6-7 yrs ago. 2 different guys in Tenn were cited by wardens who put cameras on their properties. Article only mentions one of the cases. But Tenn struck law down. I see both sides but it is a sore point for a lot of folks. Basically , get a warrant is my opinion.
Judges strike down Tennessee law allowing warrantless searches by state wildlife officials • Tennessee Lookout
The longstanding practice of conducting warrantless searches on private property by officers with the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency is unconstitutional, a three judge panel hearing a case in Benton County Circuit Court ruled Tuesday. The ruling invalidates Tennessee law that TWRA has...
tennesseelookout.com
They can steal yours with out asking. You should have the same right on your own private property.
Open Fields is a US Supreme Court decision dating back to the 1930s.
Think of it like this... if you are flying over land what you can see can be entered by LE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES WITH PROBABLE CAUSE.
The exception to this is your home (sort of involved),..But say you have a shed or barn with doors open, if from a legally compliant location LE can see in, that is legal.
The law, not just used in hunting situations, but for drug, theft, illegal immigration, and other illegal activities, removes the ability of lawbreakers to use a fence or signage to hide illegal activities from LE.
The PA legislature passes a.bill about 2010 modifying LE limits on cutiledge - or how close they can get to the actual home.
End of the day, US supreme court and the state courts all apply this standard. A fence or other boundaries can not offer protection for illegal activity.
If anyone wants to I am sure I posted multiple links to the federal case and PA challenges to this.
Like it or not, all rights work with other rights... and responsiblies of citizens and LE.
Open Fields does not provide a free pass to LE, but denies that same free pass.tp lawbreakers.
Think of it like this... if you are flying over land what you can see can be entered by LE IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES WITH PROBABLE CAUSE.
The exception to this is your home (sort of involved),..But say you have a shed or barn with doors open, if from a legally compliant location LE can see in, that is legal.
The law, not just used in hunting situations, but for drug, theft, illegal immigration, and other illegal activities, removes the ability of lawbreakers to use a fence or signage to hide illegal activities from LE.
The PA legislature passes a.bill about 2010 modifying LE limits on cutiledge - or how close they can get to the actual home.
End of the day, US supreme court and the state courts all apply this standard. A fence or other boundaries can not offer protection for illegal activity.
If anyone wants to I am sure I posted multiple links to the federal case and PA challenges to this.
Like it or not, all rights work with other rights... and responsiblies of citizens and LE.
Open Fields does not provide a free pass to LE, but denies that same free pass.tp lawbreakers.
There is also something called plain view which sort of goes along with open fields. There was a not too old PA case involving a landlord that refused to permit a municipal zoning inspector in to the premises to inspect to see if the premises met minimum habitability standards. The inspector asked the court for a warrant and was given one. The landlord received a charge and then sought to exclude evidence because the application for the warrant stated no probably cause to believe there was a violation. IIRC, the appeals court sais basically, the PA constitution protects from "unreasonable" searches and determined that there is a scale of "unreasonability" and the more invasive the search the more probable cause was required, but that minor regulatory searches such as inspections were not so unreasonable as to require a statement of probably cause. Frankly I understand both sides of the issue. and thought, sooner or later somebody will try to challenge vehicle safety inspections claiming some warrant is required and that since inspectors are licensed by the state, the inspections are state action.
The last time I remember a open fields challenge, it was those bear hunters up state that spread apple mash to bait bears. As if a No Trespassing sign and gated driveway made the open field private.
Police enforcement and WCO enforcement are distinct. Cops are not following public property around into private property.. But wild birds and mammals are public property and do travel over and on private property. Most Game law enforcement would be gutted if WCO's were restricted as the hunt clubs claimed. they should be. However, there is or until recently was a law still in the book about WCO's making stops and searches of vehicles. The US Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional 50 years ago. Entry onto private property by a WCO without a warrant could lead to a felony poaching conviction, but by and large in 99% of cases leads only to summary citations. Whether the court would say that requires less or no probably cause, I don't know.
The last time I remember a open fields challenge, it was those bear hunters up state that spread apple mash to bait bears. As if a No Trespassing sign and gated driveway made the open field private.
Police enforcement and WCO enforcement are distinct. Cops are not following public property around into private property.. But wild birds and mammals are public property and do travel over and on private property. Most Game law enforcement would be gutted if WCO's were restricted as the hunt clubs claimed. they should be. However, there is or until recently was a law still in the book about WCO's making stops and searches of vehicles. The US Supreme Court ruled that was unconstitutional 50 years ago. Entry onto private property by a WCO without a warrant could lead to a felony poaching conviction, but by and large in 99% of cases leads only to summary citations. Whether the court would say that requires less or no probably cause, I don't know.
Court ruled against both private clubs.
www.post-gazette.com
Pennsylvania court rules against gun clubs in private property case
In a case with state constitutional implications, law enforcement agencies were found to have “unfettered” access to private property in some situations.
www.post-gazette.com
Didn’t expect them to rule any differently. Russo precedence dictated the decision. Need to challenge the precedent.
PFBC has similar powers as PHC but are not restricted by curtilage because your property is on a river or lake. Article explains at the end. Over reach here should be restricted.
apple.news
Lawsuit Accuses Pennsylvania Officer of Snooping on Private Property, Seeks to Limit Powers of the Fish and Boat Commission — Outdoor Life
Pennsylvania resident Tim Thomas filed a federal lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission on Monday. Thomas' suit accuses a conservation officer of snooping around his lake house and spying on him, and it seeks to strike down a statute giving PFBC officers broad authority to...
apple.news
I suppose it is easy to knee jerk oneself into wanting to protect fields and forested areas that you paid for and continue to pay taxes on from any intrusion. However, as Zimmerstutzen pointed out above, closing the door on game wardens to do the work that they do in these wild open areas would likely be to the detriment of us all and the wildlife resources we enjoy. This could be a watch what you ask for moment. Open fields doctrine applies at the federal level and 45 out of 50 states. Are we Pennsylvanians all that different?
I personally prefer that game wardens and fish wardens be able to go where the wildlife goes, so long as its outside of my house and curtilage. And as I understand it, the open fields applies equally to all law enforcement. Not sure I am interested in closing the door to our first responders.
I personally prefer that game wardens and fish wardens be able to go where the wildlife goes, so long as its outside of my house and curtilage. And as I understand it, the open fields applies equally to all law enforcement. Not sure I am interested in closing the door to our first responders.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
