:)

i think you forgot about the 4th amendment.:work:

The 4th amend seems to no longer exist. Key word " reasonable "

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

"Unreasonable" *

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

I'm glad someone caught that. If random stops (and searches) are necessary to protect the fisheries resources, what other areas of law enforcement also necessitates random stops (and searches) without a warrant or probable cause?

Drug enforcement? (Excuse me sir, since you have nothing to hide, you wouldn't mind a quick search of your vehicle and pockets, would you?)

Weapons enforcement? (Just a quick check of your home and gunsafe for any unregistered Class III weapons.)

Obamacare enforcement? (Just show us the documentation of your approved health care coverage and we'll be on our way.)

Tax law enforcement? (Just a quick inventory of all your possessions to ensure your lifestyle is consistent with your declared income.)

Child protection enforcement? (Just a quick interview and check of your children's backsides to be sure you are not spanking, er abusing, them.)

Porn enforcement? (Just a quick download of all your computer files to make sure there's no kiddie porn on your computer. Nothing to hide right?)

Environmental enforcement? (Just a quick check on your septic system and some chemical samples from your lawn to make sure there is no toxic runoff and that your use of pesticides conforms with federal law.)

DUI enforcement? (Just pee in the cup and allow us to take a hair sample to see if you've been driving under the influence of THC.)

That's right, people have been made to think it's ok for these kinda of things to happen. As you see they're just perfectly ok with pissing on the constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

While it is personal property, I find it a bit different when you are out in the open harvesting something that has a set limit on it.

Come on fellas.

MG, if a guy was walking out of a marijuana field with a duffel bag and a fed was standing right there, would he not have a reason to look inside? If you were strolling by a pot field with a backpack on and a fed strolled by at the same time, would you not let him look inside if he asked and you had nothing to hide?


I wouldn't let them search my vehicle for a random stop, and wouldn't let them search my house. But checking a box on the water or a bag in the field is a different story.

Don't be a tard.

no different

I agree with you on this Gooh... but u also have to think about where is the line drawn? If its ok to happen there then whos to say its not ok anywhere else.

They ask if they can take a look, at least when I've been approached.

Anyone here told them no? If you haven't, then why not? I know when my rights are being infringed on, and know when to say no.

Anyone been beaten and tased by a game warden?

Here is a novel idea, have all your safety gear and don't be out of regs on your fish. Just like carrying insurance on your car and having all your crap working. Cops use radar to catch you speeding and prove you were, should game wardens have some XRay device to see in your boat from a mile away? Or should they just pull up politely and ask if they can see your fish?

Or how about this. No limits, no enforcement!!! Take em allllllllllllllll baby!

why is it ok in any way? there has to be reason to do so. if they watched you catch more than a limit then yes.

I think being on the water with a fishing pole is enough reason. Same as being in the woods with a gun. If you had no rods showing then no reason to search you if you say you aren't fishing.

How could they watch everyone catch a limit? How can they know if what you caught is under or oversized?

Is the possession of a fishing pole probable cause that you have violated game laws?

The central question is

What circumstances justify waiving the Constitutional requirement of probable cause for a violation to conduct a search?

My answer is None.

So what's your solution? Where exactly do you stand? Limits or management, but use an honor system?

Require probable cause for involuntary searches, just as in every other area of law enforcement.

Certainly, game wardens may do a license check and request to look in an ice chest, live well, etc. just as LEOs can check your driver's license and request to search your car, or knock on your door and request to search your home.

They are also free to observe a person fishing using all available means and technologies. Florida officials are believed to be using drones to establish probable cause.

They are free to ask questions of people on the boat regarding how many fish were caught and how many were released.

Just as cities are free to put cameras at intersections, wildlife enforcement may put cameras on bouys, weirs, etc. if they find it to be cost effective and necessary for enforcement purposes.

Wildlife enforcement is free to peruse social media and discussion groups for pictures and accounts that may suggest wildlife violations. They can question processors and taxidermists.

They have many avenues of enforcement available to them that can be effective without violating the Constitutional standards of probable cause to proceed with an involuntary search.

Hunting and fishing are pursued outside, in plan view, in public. It's hard to hide violations from witnesses or diligent law enforcement.

Exactly. Who doesn't agree with this?

And BTW, probable cause can be anything... Statistical Included. Statistics support the fact that a fella in a boat holding a fishing pole, with a net close at hand, is probably fishing. Further, he probably has an undersized fish or too many...

This vague term "probable cause" is right there in your 4th amendment, there is no concrete definition of probable or how to determine whether a man holding a poll is probable cause or not.

If over a season, a given enforcement agency looks in 1000 ice chests and finds fewer than 500 violations, then they do not have probable cause. Odds are they probably find violations in fewer than 10% of ice chests they look in.

How, exactly, is that probable cause?

By the way, my reasoning is exactly the same on drug searches where probable cause is given by a dog. If searches based on a given dog fail to find drugs more than 50% of the time, then that dog should no longer be used to establish probable cause.

Okay, then lump in other violations like safety devices and alcohol during those checks and I bet you get up there.

I guess if only 48% of people keep way over their limit and undersized fish, then the population will be fine, right?

How do violations like alcohol and safety devices provide probable cause for an involuntary search of the ice chest/live well?

The 4th amendment requires probable cause for a specific violation. How does a safety violation provide probable cause to check for too many or undersize fish?