License check. Is this legal?

You know reasonable reason to search is very open to interpretation. A truck hunting dogs,maybe a orange cap,vest shells,shock collars,strange to the area any may rise concern.
As I previously posted they may have been looking for someone else say a suspected drunk driver. Ask for your license so he can smell your breath. May have been watching someone else and you were a aversion.
 
Labchaser said:
There’s a thing called the 4th amendment. I wouldn’t think game wardens were exempt…although I’m pretty sure most think they are.
Click to expand...
It's actually a little more complicated than that.

The 1924 Open Fields Doctrine originated from the prohibition-era Supreme Court decision Hester v. United States, where the court held that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields.” More than a half a century later, in 1984, the Supreme Court re-examined the doctrine in Oliver v. United States, and held that warrantless searches conducted by officers on private property were permissible, even when the property is posted with “No Trespassing” signs. The doctrine “permits police officers to enter and search a field without any warrants.”

The 1924 ruling primarily was directed at moonshiners but it's still there. More recently, where appropriate, it has been used against marijuana growers.
Individual states have, like SD in 2021, passed laws that restricts game wardens’ ability to enter private lands but not prohibit. A few states have rejected the Open Fields Doctrine, but most states have accepted the Supreme Court’s 1924 decision.
 
dakotasj said:
It's actually a little more complicated than that.

The 1924 Open Fields Doctrine originated from the prohibition-era Supreme Court decision Hester v. United States, where the court held that “the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers, and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields.” More than a half a century later, in 1984, the Supreme Court re-examined the doctrine in Oliver v. United States, and held that warrantless searches conducted by officers on private property were permissible, even when the property is posted with “No Trespassing” signs. The doctrine “permits police officers to enter and search a field without any warrants.”

The 1924 ruling primarily was directed at moonshiners but it's still there. More recently, where appropriate, it has been used against marijuana growers.
Individual states have, like SD in 2021, passed laws that restricts game wardens’ ability to enter private lands but not prohibit. A few states have rejected the Open Fields Doctrine, but most states have accepted the Supreme Court’s 1924 decision.
Click to expand...
Additionally, the standard for a "stop" is only reasonable suspicion.
Probable cause is the legal standard needed for an arrest, a search or a affidavit in support of a search warrant.
There are several exceptions to allow for warrantless entries and searches, one of which is the Carroll Doctrine or commonly known as the automobile exception. It allows for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle with probable cause based on the inherent mobility of a motor vehicle and the ability for that evidence or contraband to be moved or destroyed before a search warrant can be obtained.
The courts have upheld that there is a significantly less expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle as compared to a residence.
Other exceptions include open fields, plain view (or smell or touch), exigency, community caretaker to name a few.
The prong of the 4th Amendment is that it only protects a person from unreasonable search and seizure.
 
Last edited:
For me, it goes back to the reasonableness of the stop. You can also ask, politely, what is the reason for the stop. I.E. Airmedics example.
Various courts have held that law enforcement has to identify themselves and the reason for the stop and the scope of questions/information gathering has to be relative to the reason for stop.
 
Like I said in my first post, I think I could have argued and asked why he was asking for my hunting license. I wasn't out of state, not wearing orange, guns and vest were stored and out of sight, my only crime and it's not a crime was having my dogs in the truck with me, but as I mentioned, I might have won that battle and the lost the war by having him be pissed at me and checking me every time he saw me. As it was I showed him my license and never had anymore contact with him!
 
carptom1 said:
There is much about law enforcement that at times doesn’t feel right. Maybe the reason it doesn’t feel right is I primarily error on the side of what is legal… you can thank the many who don’t for this. I hunted Iowa a lot back in the late eighties early nineties. I got my vehicle searched once and heavily questioned because he had a report of someone shooting birds out of a truck window. Since I was in a truck it must have been me. It did feel a little gestapo like, but since all was in order it wasn’t that big of a deal. Like with police some are better than others.
Click to expand...
One time my cousin had a hen,marijuana,non toxic shot, and booze, and was not ticketed!!
 
wingsnfins said:
Every state legislature creates the authority of which it's law enforcement officers can act under within the scope of it's state constitution and the federal constitution.
With that, many state legislatures, upheld by the courts, would allow for a "stop" of a person by a natural resources officer so long as it met a reasonableness standard.....such as it would be reasonable for the conservation officer in your example making the observation of the 3 vehicle caravan traveling from one field that is utilized for hunting to another field that is used for hunting to assume the occupants are engaged in, have been engaged in or will be engaged in the act of hunting, for which licenses are required. Couple that with any observation of hunting gear, attire, dogs, etc. would only further contribute to fill the reasonableness of the stop.
Click to expand...

well said, counselor
 
Meh, he knew you guys were hunting, and was not wrong. Nothing wrong here. Lots of guys get pits in their stomach when CO comes around. Even some of the most strait laced guys I know.
 
Airmeds example sounds nuts to me. I'm pro C.O. but man I wouldn't have complied with that one. In most states you're required to show your license to a CO while hunting. But if I'm at a gas station, no way would I comply without giving some push back, personally.

If you're standing in your driveway next to a car, should a cop ask to see your driver's license because you may drive later?
 
The other option the OP is missing is to stay out of states that enforce their game laws. Go back and hang out with Tampon Timmy. You purchase a license and you have agreed to be checked without reasonable suspicion of committing a crime. Just the face he believes you are hunting warrants him to be able to check you. Opening day, orange, leaving a field driving 3 trucks deep and stopping at another. He didn’t overstep. I personally dont love how black and white ive heard wardens can be with citations, but it is what it is. Learn the laws of where you hunt and stop bitching.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top