Reply With Quote
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:
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.
3/11/03 MINNESOTA: State Supreme Court hears DNR boat search case
BY BRIAN BAKST
Associated Press
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
"This is not about fish and game," Colosimo said. "This is about individual rights."
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.
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.
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.
"A 'limited' search is a subjective thing," he said. "There has to be objective standards."
Vlatkovich said hunting and fishing is a regulated activity and a privilege.
"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.
At least one justice sounded skeptical.
"There's a difference between saying, 'May I please see your catch' and 'May I search your boat,' " said Justice Helen Meyer.
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.
As that case moved through the courts and word about it spread, Department of Natural Resources conservation officers noticed more anglers refusing spot checks.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paynesville Press - October 1, 2003
Conservation officers may legally search boats and live wells without probable cause, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled last week.
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.
"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."
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.
The decision enables the DNR to provide effective regulation to protect the viability of the state's fish and games resources, added Hamm.
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."
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."
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." 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. But not in an open boat.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Potter36
