GAME WARDENS

imported post

Virginiaplanter wrote:

§ 29.1-337. Displaying license upon request.
A. Every person who is issued a hunting, trapping or fishing license and is carrying such a license when hunting, trapping or fishing shall present it immediately upon demand of any officer whose duty it is to enforce the game and inland fish laws. Refusing to exhibit the license upon demand of any conservation police officer or other officer shall be a Class 3 misdemeanor.
B. In accordance with § 18.2-133, the hunting, trapping or fishing license shall also be shown upon the demand of any owner or lessee, or of any employee or representative of such owner or lessee, upon whose lands or waters the person may be hunting, fishing or trapping.
C. The Director may supply buttons or license holders and require the license or button to be displayed in a manner he may determine.
(Code 1950, § 29-76; 1987, c. 488; 1989, c. 421; 2007, c. 87.)

------

They have the authority to request to see your hunting license at anytime you are hunting. They don't need probable cause. It is a condition of the issuance of the license. I believe that once they stop you to check for a license when they see you engaged in hunting, they can check to see if your shotgun is plugged.

Click to expand...

I feel like Fred. Am I typing in invisible ink too:banghead:
I said that!!!!!
What they CAN'T...CAN'T...CAN NOT do....is check the shells in the gun or search for anthing else UNLESS They Arrest YOU

They also CAN'T...CAN'T...CAN NOT assume your hunting just because you have a gun.

imported post

The game warden thing has always been questionable in my mind. Thanks for the cites guys.

My take on this is that it is similar to a field sobriety test. You may refuse it, and put the ball back in LEO's court whether to arrest you or not.

My 2 sheckels.

imported post

Glock27Bill wrote:

29.1-208. Searches and seizures. All conservation police officers are vested with the authority to search any person arrested as provided in § 29.1-205

29.1-205. Power to make arrests. Regular conservation police officers are vested with the same authority as sheriffs and other law-enforcement officers to enforce all of the criminal laws of the Commonwealth.

Click to expand...

Still seems to support the fact that they cannot search you unless you are under arrest, and can't search you first to see if you are "in the act" and are, therefore, then subject to arrest.

Would make of an "interesting" conversation" in the field, eh?

Click to expand...

"Conservation Officers' or Game Wardens have full police authority anywhere in the Commonwealth. I wouldn't try to play any games with them.

When I was with the Governor's Drug Task Force, we would bring a Game Warden with us when looking for drug manufacturing sites, because while a Game Warden needs a search warrant to search a house, he doesn't need one to come onto your land.

If we had reasonable suspision that someone was growing pot for example, but not enough to obtain a search warrant, the Game Warden would enter the land to check for poachers and we would just "tag along" to assist him.

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good way for a Game Warden to get killed.

Trespassing laws don't apply to some and not others, last I checked.

You need a warrant to be ON anyone's property lawfully... unless you care to cite otherwise.

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good way for a Game Warden to get killed.

Trespassing laws don't apply to some and not others, last I checked.

You need a warrant to be ON anyone's property lawfully... unless you care to cite otherwise.

Click to expand...

Actually, ODA is right and wrong.

Before Game Wardens became "Police Officers they only had jurisdiction over game laws. Anything else would be done as a Citizen.
They did and still do, have the right to enter posted land without a warrant to monitor game related activities. The State owns the game.

It's like keeping your cows in a rented pasture. You can go there to check on them.

Before they were police, the idea was that the cops could tag along to make sure the Warden is safe:uhoh:. A Citizen can find contraband without a warrant and it can be used as evidence. Search and seizure only protects against Government activities, not Citizens.

Now...that they are full blown cops, they can't play that game anymore.
A couple years ago a CO found out I was trying to find a trespassor. I was just planning on having one of my private discussions:uhoh: with him but the CO needed something to give him probable cause to check his guns. (They were stolen)

So I obtained a Trespassing warrant, he served it then tried to run the serial numbers that had been filed off.

SO What ODA said isn't legal anymore although, I'm sure some still do it.

It is a little complicated because a cop isn't necessarly a cop. Did you know a Humane Society investigator is a cop. They can't get away with writing speeding tickets though.

Railroads have their own private police departments. Again, only jurisdiction is on RR property even though they have interstate venue.

DGOF Biologist have arrest powers like the old Game Wardens but only on DGIF controlled property.

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

"Conservation Officers' or Game Wardens have full police authority anywhere in the Commonwealth. I wouldn't try to play any games with them.

When I was with the Governor's Drug Task Force, we would bring a Game Warden with us when looking for drug manufacturing sites, because while a Game Warden needs a search warrant to search a house, he doesn't need one to come onto your land.

If we had reasonable suspision that someone was growing pot for example, but not enough to obtain a search warrant, the Game Warden would enter the land to check for poachers and we would just "tag along" to assist him.

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Would you please cite the law that grants (or used to grant) such authority?

imported post

virginiatuck wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

"Conservation Officers' or Game Wardens have full police authority anywhere in the Commonwealth. I wouldn't try to play any games with them.

When I was with the Governor's Drug Task Force, we would bring a Game Warden with us when looking for drug manufacturing sites, because while a Game Warden needs a search warrant to search a house, he doesn't need one to come onto your land.

If we had reasonable suspision that someone was growing pot for example, but not enough to obtain a search warrant, the Game Warden would enter the land to check for poachers and we would just "tag along" to assist him.

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Would you please cite the law that grants (or used to grant) such authority?

Click to expand...

It's not that simple VT. The Game Warden had the right to go there for Game related reasons.
Anything else he saw was as a Citizen. There is a ton of case law about LEO's making a Citizens arrest
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0560042.pdf

I don’t think . . . Partlow . . . acted under color of his office. He
explained who he was and he explained the presence of the gun, to
protect himself, for heaven’s sake. He doesn’t know what he’s
getting into with this guy who . . . a while ago ran him off the road
and has done other erratic driving behavior. But he explained very
clearly that he had no jurisdiction, . . . wasn’t his bailiwick, he was
from somewhere else. So, he didn’t use his position to detain
[appellant].
[W]hat he did in the so-called investigation was to use a ruse.
He did what a citizen might do. He said, you know, the police are
coming and they’re going to give you this test and he . . . used a
ruse, if you will, to try to get [appellant], voluntarily, to stay and
that [appellant] didn’t take it as a police officer is pretty well
shown by [appellant’s] reaction to it. He starts to do it and then he
says, why do I have to do this. He wasn’t . . . fooled by the police
officer or made to think that he was acting under color of law and

Now....Things are different!

Conservation Officers have FULL POLICE POWER and venue ad jurisdiction statewide. They are no longer mere citizens and can't exempt themselves from illegal search and seizure laws as such.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

virginiatuck wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

"Conservation Officers' or Game Wardens have full police authority anywhere in the Commonwealth. I wouldn't try to play any games with them.

When I was with the Governor's Drug Task Force, we would bring a Game Warden with us when looking for drug manufacturing sites, because while a Game Warden needs a search warrant to search a house, he doesn't need one to come onto your land.

If we had reasonable suspision that someone was growing pot for example, but not enough to obtain a search warrant, the Game Warden would enter the land to check for poachers and we would just "tag along" to assist him.

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Would you please cite the law that grants (or used to grant) such authority?

Click to expand...

It's not that simple VT. The Game Warden had the right to go there for Game related reasons.
Anything else he saw was as a Citizen. There is a ton of case law about LEO's making a Citizens arrest
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0560042.pdf

I don’t think . . . Partlow . . . acted under color of his office. He
explained who he was and he explained the presence of the gun, to
protect himself, for heaven’s sake. He doesn’t know what he’s
getting into with this guy who . . . a while ago ran him off the road
and has done other erratic driving behavior. But he explained very
clearly that he had no jurisdiction, . . . wasn’t his bailiwick, he was
from somewhere else. So, he didn’t use his position to detain
[appellant].
[W]hat he did in the so-called investigation was to use a ruse.
He did what a citizen might do. He said, you know, the police are
coming and they’re going to give you this test and he . . . used a
ruse, if you will, to try to get [appellant], voluntarily, to stay and
that [appellant] didn’t take it as a police officer is pretty well
shown by [appellant’s] reaction to it. He starts to do it and then he
says, why do I have to do this. He wasn’t . . . fooled by the police
officer or made to think that he was acting under color of law and

Click to expand...

I've read that before. What does that have to do with anyone going uninvited onto private property? I'm not trying to go so far as to ask whether any evidence obtained during such an activity would be admissible in court. I'm just asking whether the "Game Warden" (aka Conservation Officer) was acting lawfully if he had no reason to believe that any game laws were being violated on that property.

imported post

virginiatuck wrote:

peter nap wrote:

virginiatuck wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

"Conservation Officers' or Game Wardens have full police authority anywhere in the Commonwealth. I wouldn't try to play any games with them.

When I was with the Governor's Drug Task Force, we would bring a Game Warden with us when looking for drug manufacturing sites, because while a Game Warden needs a search warrant to search a house, he doesn't need one to come onto your land.

If we had reasonable suspision that someone was growing pot for example, but not enough to obtain a search warrant, the Game Warden would enter the land to check for poachers and we would just "tag along" to assist him.

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Would you please cite the law that grants (or used to grant) such authority?

Click to expand...

It's not that simple VT. The Game Warden had the right to go there for Game related reasons.
Anything else he saw was as a Citizen. There is a ton of case law about LEO's making a Citizens arrest
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0560042.pdf

I don’t think . . . Partlow . . . acted under color of his office. He
explained who he was and he explained the presence of the gun, to
protect himself, for heaven’s sake. He doesn’t know what he’s
getting into with this guy who . . . a while ago ran him off the road
and has done other erratic driving behavior. But he explained very
clearly that he had no jurisdiction, . . . wasn’t his bailiwick, he was
from somewhere else. So, he didn’t use his position to detain
[appellant].
[W]hat he did in the so-called investigation was to use a ruse.
He did what a citizen might do. He said, you know, the police are
coming and they’re going to give you this test and he . . . used a
ruse, if you will, to try to get [appellant], voluntarily, to stay and
that [appellant] didn’t take it as a police officer is pretty well
shown by [appellant’s] reaction to it. He starts to do it and then he
says, why do I have to do this. He wasn’t . . . fooled by the police
officer or made to think that he was acting under color of law and

Click to expand...

I've read that before. What does that have to do with anyone going uninvited onto private property? I'm not trying to go so far as to ask whether any evidence obtained during such an activity would be admissible in court. I'm just asking whether the "Game Warden" (aka Conservation Officer) was acting lawfully if he had no reason to believe that any game laws were being violated on that property.

Click to expand...

Thats an easy one...AS iI said before. In Virginia and every other state, the state OWNS the game unless it is raised on a private game preserve...and can go on the property to regulate it.

Just like those simple assed dog hunters going on posted land to get their dogs.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

virginiatuck wrote:

peter nap wrote:

virginiatuck wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

"Conservation Officers' or Game Wardens have full police authority anywhere in the Commonwealth. I wouldn't try to play any games with them.

When I was with the Governor's Drug Task Force, we would bring a Game Warden with us when looking for drug manufacturing sites, because while a Game Warden needs a search warrant to search a house, he doesn't need one to come onto your land.

If we had reasonable suspision that someone was growing pot for example, but not enough to obtain a search warrant, the Game Warden would enter the land to check for poachers and we would just "tag along" to assist him.

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Would you please cite the law that grants (or used to grant) such authority?

Click to expand...

It's not that simple VT. The Game Warden had the right to go there for Game related reasons.
Anything else he saw was as a Citizen. There is a ton of case law about LEO's making a Citizens arrest
http://www.courts.state.va.us/opinions/opncavwp/0560042.pdf

I don’t think . . . Partlow . . . acted under color of his office. He
explained who he was and he explained the presence of the gun, to
protect himself, for heaven’s sake. He doesn’t know what he’s
getting into with this guy who . . . a while ago ran him off the road
and has done other erratic driving behavior. But he explained very
clearly that he had no jurisdiction, . . . wasn’t his bailiwick, he was
from somewhere else. So, he didn’t use his position to detain
[appellant].
[W]hat he did in the so-called investigation was to use a ruse.
He did what a citizen might do. He said, you know, the police are
coming and they’re going to give you this test and he . . . used a
ruse, if you will, to try to get [appellant], voluntarily, to stay and
that [appellant] didn’t take it as a police officer is pretty well
shown by [appellant’s] reaction to it. He starts to do it and then he
says, why do I have to do this. He wasn’t . . . fooled by the police
officer or made to think that he was acting under color of law and

Click to expand...

I've read that before. What does that have to do with anyone going uninvited onto private property? I'm not trying to go so far as to ask whether any evidence obtained during such an activity would be admissible in court. I'm just asking whether the "Game Warden" (aka Conservation Officer) was acting lawfully if he had no reason to believe that any game laws were being violated on that property.

Click to expand...

Thats an easy one...AS iI said before. In Virginia and every other state, the state OWNS the game unless it is raised on a private game preserve...and can go on the property to regulate it.

Just like those simple assed dog hunters going on posted land to get their dogs.

Click to expand...

Oh, I missed that. :?

imported post

virginiatuck wrote:

peter nap wrote:

virginiatuck wrote:

peter nap wrote:

virginiatuck wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

"

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Oh, I missed that. :?

Click to expand...

Boy am I glad you didn't ask for a cite on ownership and game management. It goes back to England and Scotland, to the US supreme court, US Fish and Wildlife, States Rights to manage migratory animals.....on and on.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

Just like those simple assed dog hunters going on posted land to get their dogs.

Click to expand...

Who are just in as much danger of being shot for trespassing.

If the "game" belongs to the State then they should do a better job of keeping it off of private property.

Since the game belongs to the Lord, the argument dies in committee.

I don't personally own land enough to support that kind of wildlife, but by consequence of doing so would not grant carte-blanche authority for wardens to come traipsing onto my property without my permission to "check on them". That fails to pass my bulls**t detector.

imported post

Glock27Bill wrote:

29.1-208. Searches and seizures. All conservation police officers are vested with the authority to search any person arrested as provided in § 29.1-205

Click to expand...

29.1-205. Power to make arrests. All conservation police officers are vested with the authority, upon displaying a badge or other credential of office, to issue a summons or to arrest any person found in the act of violating any of the provisions of the hunting, trapping, inland fish and boating laws.
Regular conservation police officers are vested with the same authority as sheriffs and other law-enforcement officers to enforce all of the criminal laws of the Commonwealth.
Any special conservation police officer shall have general police power while performing his duty on properties owned or controlled by the Board.
Any commissioned, warrant or petty officers of the United States Coast Guard and of the United States Coast Guard Reserve while engaged on active duty, in the conduct of their official duties in uniform, and any officers of the customs as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1709(b), in the conduct of their official duties in uniform, shall have the same power to make arrests under Chapter 7 (§ 29.1-700 et seq.) of Title 29.1 as conservation police officers.
(Code 1950, § 29-32; 1960, c. 540; 1979, c. 264; 1982, c. 64; 1987, c. 488; 1988, c. 605; 2007, c. 87.)

Still seems to support the fact that they cannot search you unless you are under arrest, and can't search you first to see if you are "in the act" and are, therefore, then subject to arrest.

Would make of an "interesting" conversation" in the field, eh?

Click to expand...

As is most police encounters, I'd save that conversation for trial or a civil suit unless they were being mighty jovial.

imported post

paramedic70002 wrote:

Glock27Bill wrote:

29.1-208. Searches and seizures. All conservation police officers are vested with the authority to search any person arrested as provided in § 29.1-205

Click to expand...

29.1-205. Power to make arrests. All conservation police officers are vested with the authority, upon displaying a badge or other credential of office, to issue a summons or to arrest any person found in the act of violating any of the provisions of the hunting, trapping, inland fish and boating laws.
Regular conservation police officers are vested with the same authority as sheriffs and other law-enforcement officers to enforce all of the criminal laws of the Commonwealth.
Any special conservation police officer shall have general police power while performing his duty on properties owned or controlled by the Board.
Any commissioned, warrant or petty officers of the United States Coast Guard and of the United States Coast Guard Reserve while engaged on active duty, in the conduct of their official duties in uniform, and any officers of the customs as defined by 19 U.S.C. § 1709(b), in the conduct of their official duties in uniform, shall have the same power to make arrests under Chapter 7 (§ 29.1-700 et seq.) of Title 29.1 as conservation police officers.
(Code 1950, § 29-32; 1960, c. 540; 1979, c. 264; 1982, c. 64; 1987, c. 488; 1988, c. 605; 2007, c. 87.)

Still seems to support the fact that they cannot search you unless you are under arrest, and can't search you first to see if you are "in the act" and are, therefore, then subject to arrest.

Would make of an "interesting" conversation" in the field, eh?

Click to expand...

As is most police encounters, I'd save that conversation for trial or a civil suit unless they were being mighty jovial.

Click to expand...

True enough.

But this is the internet, right?

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good way for a Game Warden to get killed.

Trespassing laws don't apply to some and not others, last I checked.

You need a warrant to be ON anyone's property lawfully... unless you care to cite otherwise.

Click to expand...

I knewI would start a shit-storm with that statement! As Peter Nap stated, the COMMONWEALTH owns all game within its borders and in the early 90's, a Game Warden didn't need a warrant to go onto a property as long as his entry onto said property was "Game Related".

I haven't been a LEO since 1994 and obviously the law may have changed to prevent this. I don't know...but it was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL in 1991 for a Game Warden to come onto ANY property in Virginia without a warrant.

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good way for a Game Warden to get killed.

Trespassing laws don't apply to some and not others, last I checked.

You need a warrant to be ON anyone's property lawfully... unless you care to cite otherwise.

Click to expand...

I knewI would start a @#$%-storm with that statement! As Peter Nap stated, the COMMONWEALTH owns all game within its borders and in the early 90's, a Game Warden didn't need a warrant to go onto a property as long as his entry onto said property was "Game Related".

I haven't been a LEO since 1994 and obviously the law may have changed to prevent this. I don't know...but it was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL in 1991 for a Game Warden to come onto ANY property in Virginia without a warrant.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why that shocks anyone. PD's do the same thing with Building Inspectors.
I was in one of the pre Board of Supervisors discussions once and they were asking the Chief about going onto private property to tell if a stored car was legal.

He admitted he couldn't but he would send a BI on the property and they used his observation as PC to write a Citation.

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

I knewI would start a @#$%-storm with that statement! As Peter Nap stated, the COMMONWEALTH owns all game within its borders and in the early 90's, a Game Warden didn't need a warrant to go onto a property as long as his entry onto said property was "Game Related".

Click to expand...

The burden of proof would lie with the warden, IMO.

No need to get uppity. No harm, no foul. My opinion frequently diverges from what is "lawful" in the Commonwealth.

imported post

peter nap wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

wylde007 wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

Grey area, I know, but completely legal.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a good way for a Game Warden to get killed.

Trespassing laws don't apply to some and not others, last I checked.

You need a warrant to be ON anyone's property lawfully... unless you care to cite otherwise.

Click to expand...

I knewI would start a @#$%-storm with that statement! As Peter Nap stated, the COMMONWEALTH owns all game within its borders and in the early 90's, a Game Warden didn't need a warrant to go onto a property as long as his entry onto said property was "Game Related".

I haven't been a LEO since 1994 and obviously the law may have changed to prevent this. I don't know...but it was ABSOLUTELY LEGAL in 1991 for a Game Warden to come onto ANY property in Virginia without a warrant.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why that shocks anyone. PD's do the same thing with Building Inspectors.
I was in one of the pre Board of Supervisors discussions once and they were asking the Chief about going onto private property to tell if a stored car was legal.

He admitted he couldn't but he would send a BI on the property and they used his observation as PC to write a Citation.

Click to expand...

Slightly OT. I was told the other night that National Guard helicopter training flights were being told to "look for marijuana grows".

imported post

wylde007 wrote:

ODA 226 wrote:

I knewI would start a @#$%-storm with that statement! As Peter Nap stated, the COMMONWEALTH owns all game within its borders and in the early 90's, a Game Warden didn't need a warrant to go onto a property as long as his entry onto said property was "Game Related".

Click to expand...

The burden of proof would lie with the warden, IMO.

No need to get uppity. No harm, no foul. My opinion frequently diverges from what is "lawful" in the Commonwealth.

Click to expand...

Not getting "uppity" at all. Just stating facts.

imported post

ODA 226 wrote:

Not getting "uppity" at all. Just stating facts.

Click to expand...

Poor choice of words on my part.

You know what I meant. I think.