:)

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?

This thread is getting more pathetic then the GED = Engineer one.

Bl rant
 

Maybe 52% of the time when checks are done on ice chests in boats with popping corks, tiller handles and a fat dip in the lip, they find illegal fish.

There's your probable cause.

What's anyone doing here besides complaining while standing on a hill with a powdered wig and the constitution under their arm? Nothing...

It does not say that.

And all I am doing is proving how grey probable cause is, and how easy it is for everyone to interpret it differently.

Fishing and hunting is not a right....it is a privilege...if you do not like the rules / laws very simple don't go. I tell you what the next time a GW ask to look in your ice chest tell him or her NO...I bet you will be in for a very long and bad day.

The Bill of Rights is not surrendered anytime a citizen participates in a privilege.

Most good attorneys will advise to never consent to a voluntary search, and I follow that advice. Of course, they also advise not to attempt to prevent a law enforcement officer from conducting a search, even if it appears to be illegal, and I follow that advice too.

I won't be opening the ice chest for them, but I won't prevent them from boarding the boat and opening it themselves if they feel they must. But I'll politely make it clear that I have not consented to the search.

I know some very good lawyers who would love to sue law enforcement who feels intent on taking retributive actions for the above approach.

Taking retributive actions against a citizen (giving him a "very long bad day") who politely declines a search request is a good way to end a law enforcement career and make the agency responsible for awards in the 6-7 figure range.

thats right.

since when???? where do you live... Iraq???

But yet you are not going to stop them from looking in your ice chest....all this big talk for nothing....PFTTT.....

that is what is wrong with America...I can see it now on Fox New..LC man hires the cockran law firm for having his ice chest checked by the GW...:work:

Since when is fishing a privilege?

So if you break the game laws a judge cannot revoke your hunting or fishing privilege?

It is, since you have rules you have to follow? For example, being allowed drive a car is not a RIGHT either..

Hunting and fishing is my right. It is not a privilege. Breaking the law can prevent you from being able to do a lot of things in life. But you still can't say fishing and hunting is a privilege, makes you sound as left wing liberal as the people you were just talking about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For being a PhD Engineer, you sure aren't very good on the details. Or are you intentionally misrepresenting what was written?

Can you grasp the difference between filing a suit because a game warden looked into one's ice chest and filing a suit because a game warden took retributive actions (giving a citizen a "very long bad day") for politely declining a request for a voluntary search?

I doubt I would sue simply because a GW boarded the boat and looked in the ice chest. Lawsuits are expensive, and it's unlikely one could find decent attorneys to take that one on contingency, and success in the effort could go either way depending on details.

But very good attorneys line up for cases where law enforcement took retributive actions when citizens did nothing more than politely decline a request for a voluntary search. I'd have to pay no money up front, show up for a couple of depositions, cash a 6-7 figure settlement check, and sleep better knowing that most agencies will now be slower to attempt retribution against honest citizens who politely assert their Constitutional rights.

Then living in your house in Baton Rouge, or breathing every day are privileges too? Because if you break certain laws that will be taken from you too. Every single thing you do would be considered a privilege, looking at it that way.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Dumbest thing you have ever said!

Watch "Ernie Tertelgte Is The Natural Living Man" on YouTube
Ernie Tertelgte Is The Natural Living Man: http://youtu.be/zuy_2Cq8HAA

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk

Hunting and Fishing are Rights in Louisiana
 

Hunting and fishing are Constitutionally protected rights in Louisiana, subject to law and regulation:

The freedom to hunt, fish, and trap wildlife, including all aquatic life, traditionally taken by hunters, trappers and anglers, is a valued natural heritage that shall be forever preserved for the people. Hunting, fishing and trapping shall be managed by law and regulation consistent with Article IX, Section I of the Constitution of Louisiana to protect, conserve and replenish the natural resources of the state. The provisions of this Section shall not alter the burden of proof requirements otherwise established by law for any challenge to a law or regulation pertaining to hunting, fishing or trapping the wildlife of the state, including all aquatic life. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to authorize the use of private property to hunt, fish, or trap without the consent of the owner of the property.
(Louisiana State Constitution)

The laws of Louisiana require game wardens to have probable cause:

The secretary, the deputy secretary, or any commissioned wildlife enforcement agent of the enforcement division may visit, inspect, and examine, with or without search warrant, records, any cold storage plant, warehouse, boat, store, car, conveyance, automobile or other vehicle, airplane or other aircraft, basket or other receptacle, or any place of deposit for wild birds, wild quadrupeds, fish, or other aquatic life or any parts thereof whenever there is probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred.

No i am not a liberal. But by your thinking i guess a person with 5 dui's has the right to drive if they want to. So hell lets just do away with all laws....and lets do whatever we want since we have the "right".

All I am saying is if we do thing like hunt or fish we are subject to things like getting checked and following rules. Hey do I like all the rules and such...no I do not.

Hey look next time you are fishing and a gw wants to check you tell them it is your right to fish and crank up you boat and leave and see what happens.

I agree, but you need to retract the one word "privilege" from your earlier statement.....

So next time yall are checked by a GW, let me guess...yall will tell he or she it is your right to fish so I will do whatever I want.....lol.....wow we got some internet tough guys on here today.

Tell us more about this probable cause you speak of.

911 - "911, what's your emergency sir?"

MG - "There is a weird van sitting in the road in front of my house, a camera in the window, and I can see the fella jerkin his gerkin. I'm worried for my children, can you send someone out to check this guy?"

911 - "Sorry sir, but a quick look at my stats for instances where a weird van with surveillance setup on someone's house, and a freakish man rubbing one out inside tells me that 48% of the time this doesn't end in a molestation or kidnapping. Not enough probable cause here - good luck! oh, and tell your kids to play in the back."

I agree I did not maybe use the correct word.

Fishing no way shape or form is a privilege it's a free right

Lmao that has too be upmost stupidest thing I ever heard on this website ever


You do not have to a fishing license to fish on private property or farms or ponds or canals etc...


Rene please post less

Droppin' figure 8's on the GW, nice!



Any Game Warden's reading this, you can check my box any time... And I'll take your tips on where the most fish are being caught any day... Thanks for stopping by, sir.

Come on man...I thought you were gonna lawyer up....:work:

Or tell the gw it is your RIGHT to fish so you should have the RIGHT to do what you want.:D

A direct eye witness report of a crime is generally considered to be probable cause.

If the boat next to you reports they saw you put too many fish or undersized fish in your ice chest, then a game warden would have probable cause to search your ice chest. No one is debating this point.

The point of disagreement is whether the act of fishing itself constitutes an implied consent to search or some how otherwise negates the legal requirement for probable cause to conduct an involuntary search.

Just say no, where's the confusion?

Too many powdered wigs on here.

JUST SAY NO, I'll offer them a beer. How's that for American

you just described someone in plain sight committing a crime... that is exactly what probable cause could be described as actually.:shaking:

F the police

Geez someone please just delete this thread. It's gone from weirs to people jerkin off in a van.