• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Va. Senate rejects curb on game warden powers

peter nap

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 16, 2007
Messages
13,551
Location
Valhalla
§ 29.1-202. Ex officio conservation police officers.

All sheriffs, police officers or other peace officers of this Commonwealth shall be ex officio conservation police officers.




§ 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. ...

§ 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 together with any box, can, package, barrel or other container, hunting bag, coat, suit, trunk, grip, satchel or fish basket carried by, in the possession of, or belonging to such person. Conservation police officers shall also have the authority, immediately subsequent to such arrest, to enter and search any refrigerator, building, vehicle, or other place in which the officer making the search has reasonable ground to believe that the person arrested has concealed or placed any wild bird, wild animal or fish, which will furnish evidence of a violation of the hunting, trapping and inland fish laws. Such a search may be made without a warrant, except that a dwelling may not be searched without a warrant. Should any container as described in this section reveal any wild bird, wild animal or fish, or any part thereof, which has been illegally taken, possessed, sold, purchased or transported, the conservation police officer shall seize and hold as evidence the container, together with such wild bird, wild animal or fish, and any unlawful gun, net, or other device of any kind for taking wild birds, wild animals or fish which he may find.
----------

My point is: there is almost no difference between a CPO and regular cops. They all have the same authority. They have been granted search powers beyond what is allowed by the Constitution. It is time to rein them in.

The key word is arrest!
 

B. Reddy

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2011
Messages
110
Location
Orange County, Virginia
Yankee Anglers drag HOUSES onto frozen lakes!

Any documented cases of someone successfully (or even unsuccessfully) litigating a Fourth Amendment violation against a Game Warden?

TFred

Maybe this is an example? (from the Minnesota Supreme Court in 2002)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mn-supreme-court/1170062.html

It appears that a fisherman may had a touch of glaucoma just before a game warden flung open the door, un-invited, and busted him.:shocker:

The end of the ruling:

"We conclude that angling from a fish house is not a closely regulated industry fitting within the exception to the need for constitutional authorization for a search as set forth in Burger.

While the state clearly has a strong interest in regulating and protecting its wildlife, by no means does that interest exceed the state's interest in saving human lives by deterring drunk driving on our roads found insufficient to outweigh the privacy interests of the occupant of a motor vehicle in Ascher.   519 N.W.2d at 187.  

The occupant of a fish house is entitled to the protections against unreasonable search and seizure afforded by our federal and state constitutions, and while we do not hold that Minn.Stat. § 97A.215, subd. 3 is unconstitutional, we do hold that these constitutional protections must be read into the “at reasonable times” language of subdivision 3. See Minn.Stat. § 645.17(3) (2000) (providing the presumption that the legislature does not intend to violate the constitution of the United States or Minnesota Constitution).  

As conservation officers are subject to the same constitutional constraints as other law enforcement officers in the performance of their duties, the warrantless search of a fish house by a conservation officer is per se unreasonable in the absence of express consent or other circumstance justifying entry and therefore is unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, § 10 of the Minnesota Constitution.

Affirmed."
 
Top