I think when you agree to get a fishing licence you agree to the rules and regs of fish and game.
Printable View
I think when you agree to get a fishing licence you agree to the rules and regs of fish and game.
Couldn't go back to sleep this moring and not much to do at 2:30 in the AM, so.......Interesting 2003 Minnesota case . A bit different, but it does address "boats, search and probable cause". Looks like thee Supreme Court sided with the DNR. Details from the references are quoted below:
[B]The Court of Appeals in Minnesota tossed out a case against a man who refused to let State Conservation Officers search his boat. It then went to the State Supreme court for their decision. Looks like the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the DNR.[/B]
[I][B]3/11/03 MINNESOTA: State Supreme Court hears DNR boat search case[/B][/I]
[I][B]BY BRIAN BAKST[/B][/I]
[I][B]Associated Press[/B][/I]
[I][B]A case that tests the limits on boat searches by conservation officers drew the state Supreme Court into a debate Monday over the value Minnesotans place on protecting natural resources vs. their expectation of privacy.[/B][/I]
[I][B]Justices heard the case of John Colosimo, a lawyer from Virginia, Minn., who wouldn't let a game warden inspect his boat on a portage between two lakes in northern Minnesota. Colosimo was convicted for refusing an inspection, but it was overturned last summer by the Court of Appeals.[/B][/I]
[I][B]On one side, Assistant St. Louis County Attorney Jeff Vlatkovich argued that conservation officers would be hamstrung if they needed to establish probable cause of a violation before a "limited inspection" of fishing boats. He leaned on Minnesota's constitutional mention of managing and preserving game and fish.[/B][/I]
[I][B]With 2.1 million anglers and fewer than 200 officers in the state, he said, "it's the only way to enforce game and fish laws."[/B][/I]
[I][B]On the other side, Colosimo warned that allowing officers to act without some evidence of wrongdoing would infringe on the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guards against unreasonable search and seizure.[/B][/I]
[I][B]"This is not about fish and game," Colosimo said. "This is about individual rights."[/B][/I]
[I][B]In the middle were the justices, whose decision in a few months could define the balance. As usual, they didn't tip their hands. Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz said the argument for individual rights was "very attractive," but she also expressed concern about making a "mockery" of game and fish laws by making them next to impossible to enforce.[/B][/I]
[I][B]The case is made even more difficult by the fact that Colosimo and four friends weren't in the act of fishing â?? or in the water â?? when the officer approached and eventually asked to search the boat.[/B][/I]
[I][B]Colosimo said he doesn't mind showing game wardens his license while he's fishing. He objects to letting them look in a live well or another part of the boat not in plain sight without consent or probable cause of a crime.[/B][/I]
[I][B]"A 'limited' search is a subjective thing," he said. "There has to be objective standards."[/B][/I]
[I][B]Vlatkovich said hunting and fishing is a regulated activity and a privilege.[/B][/I]
[I][B]"The intrusion is minimal," Vlatkovich said. He added later, "I'm not talking about going in glove compartments; I'm not talking about tearing apart suitcases." The inspections, he said, are limited to areas where caught fish are generally held.[/B][/I]
[I][B]At least one justice sounded skeptical.[/B][/I]
[I][B]"There's a difference between saying, 'May I please see your catch' and 'May I search your boat,' " said Justice Helen Meyer.[/B][/I]
[I][B]The case has parallels to one the Supreme Court decided last year. In August, the court ruled that conservation officers need permission or a warrant to enter ice-fishing houses to check for violations.[/B][/I]
[I][B]As that case moved through the courts and word about it spread, Department of Natural Resources conservation officers noticed more anglers refusing spot checks. [/B][/I]
[B][I]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/I][/B]
[I][B]Paynesville Press - October 1, 2003[/B][/I]
[I][B]Conservation officers may legally search boats and live wells without probable cause, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled last week.[/B][/I]
[I][B]The ruling reversed a decision from a lower court that had prohibited the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) from conducting inspections of fish in angler's live wells. [/B][/I]
[I][B]"The Supreme Court carefully balanced privacy rights and resource conservation interests," said Mike Hamm, DNR enforcement director, "and ruled in favor of limited inspection by conservation officers to help sustain our natural resources." [/B][/I]
[I][B]The DNR, along with angling and sporting groups, had been very concerned that the lower court decision would have hurt the DNR's ability to regulate fishing limits. "This ruling will help Minnesota conservation officers - who have protected the state resource since 1887 - preserve these resources for generations to come," said Hamm. [/B][/I]
[I][B]The decision enables the DNR to provide effective regulation to protect the viability of the state's fish and games resources, added Hamm. [/B][/I]
[I][B]The ruling recognizes that fishing is largely a recreational privilege and those "who choose to apply for this privilege accept the conditions imposed to the sport of game fishing." [/B][/I]
[I][B]The ruling is also consistent with other cases, including a case in Montana where the Montana Supreme Court ruled that "no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy exists when a wildlife enforcement officer checks for hunting and fishing licenses in open season near game habitat, inquires about game taken, and requests to inspect game in the field." [/B][/I]
[B][I]Added Hamm, "The ruling recognizes how absurd it would be - because fishing can take hours or even days over broad areas - for conservation officers to individually watch every angler to determine if probable cause existed." [/I][I]The ruling differed from another Minnesota Supreme Court ruling about fish houses, where the court ruled that these shelters offer protection from the elements and places to eat and sleep. The court ruled that people can reasonably expect to have privacy in a fish house. [/I][I]But not in an open boat.[/I][/B]
[B][I]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/I][/B]
It isn't any different than an officer stopping a car and smelling weed, which gives them probable cause to search the vehicle. If an officer stops a car and smells alcohol, that gives him probable cause to check the driver and check the car for open containers. When fishing, there is visible probable cause that fish could be on board and that gives the officer the right to check those fish but the seach is limited to areas that could contain fish, like live wells and coolers. I've never had an officer ask to go through my things, but if they stop a boat and smell weed, they would then have probable cause to go through everything. I've been asked if a front hatch was another livewell and had to open it to show it was dry storage before. Once shown that it wasn't a livewell, the search was over as the probable cause was only for fish.
The way I understand it is when you are in the act of fishing that is all the probable cause they need.
I have only been checked once, and that was in Alabama the day after my father and I had asked each other "do we really want to buy an out of state license for $40.00 for the three days that we're going to be here fishing?". Thank god we did!
We were fishing a tournament and they only checked our license's and livewells...they even had enough brass to measure one of the bass (it was 16 1/2 inches long).
Pretty harmless really, was glad to see them on the water checking livewells.
[QUOTE=Potter36;427639] My question is how is this not a violation of illegal search and seizure? Unless there is an expired tag on a boat, a visible questionable fish that has been boated and kept, etc....[/QUOTE]
It appears to be the same concept as the DOT stopping a CDL Truck to do an inspection.
[url]http://162.114.4.13/KRS/150-00/090.PDF[/url]
5) Conservation officers and other officers charged with the enforcement of this chapter, shall have the authority to call for and inspect the license or tag, bag or creel of any person engaged in any activity for the performance of which a license is required under this chapter, and shall also have the authority to take proper identification of any person, or hunter, or fisherman who is actually engaged in any of these activities, and to call for and inspect any and all firearms and any other device that may be used in taking wildlife and is in the possession of any person so engaged.
If it's the Coast Guard doing the checking, they're definitely authorized to stop you, because of a law known as "14 US Code Section 89" which gives the Coast Guard authority to board any vessel in US waters at any time, without the need for probable cause:
[URL]http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/14/I/5/89[/URL]
But what you describe sounds like wardens from KDFWR. I can't find online a site that spells out the laws specific to Kentucky, but they're out there for lots of other states, and most of them say that their fish & game wardens have basically the same authority. They can board any vessel at any time and check for licenses, PFD's, violations of creel/size limit laws, etc., and search the main deck, without the need for probable cause. I'm thinking they can check your livewell, because obviously that's where the fish are going to be, and they have to see the fish to check for violations. But IMO it stops there. They can't just poke around in all the compartments of your boat, just to see what they might find. As long they've checked your licenses, PFD,'s proper lights and safety devices, and everything's kosher, they would need a warrant to go any further, OR they would need grounds for a warrantless search, like they think you're intoxicated or something.
not to poke a fire but does it really bother you that they are checking you for fish? they are protecting what you enjoy doing because you have people out there that dont understand those size limits are there for the sole fact of bettering the species. i wish they would "bother" more people im so tired of people keeping undersized bass its not even funny.
[QUOTE=Tim_T;427768]The way I understand it is when you are in the act of fishing that is all the probable cause they need.[/QUOTE]
Bingo!
:)