http://news.yahoo.com/man-successfully-argues-fifth-deer-killing-case-100210808.html

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/man-successfully-argues-fifth-deer-killing-case-100210808.html][/url]
for those too laze to click and read...the jist of it was based on the 5th amend right to NOT self incriminate by not answering the GM questions or answering evasively.

How interesting.

My hat's off to him for taking a stand. ...even if he was guilty of other illegal acts he still has his rights.

Let's face it, a LOT of our constitutional rights are currently (or about to become) under attack.

I wonder how many thousands of dollars he paid to take his stand.

I don't know what there is to face, unless you have lived in a hole in the ground for the last 100+ years. When have they NOT been "under attack"? It isn't as if this was some new law recently on the books.

Contrary to the article in the OP, the law is hardly obscure, although it may be "little-known" as the article says because people don't read the regulations like they are supposed to do.

I am surprised somebody didn't have reason to challenge this sooner. Kudos for finally doing so.



Absolutely. No let's hope that somebody works to get the law stricken.

The Texas statutes allowing cooler searches, etc. are subject to the same challenge. As many have said, the only reason laws like that stand is it is simply time/cost prohibitive to challenge them.

"Engaging in hunting or fishing activity" is NOT enough to form the basis of probable cause for a search, as those are not illegal (or even suspicious) activities.

I have had some in law enforcement say they have those rights anyway (under this theory or that theory). To which I reply, "Why do you need the statute then?"

Remember, that was a case about a PA law in a PA court. Not so sure the same argument would work here in TX, and I'm not going to be dumb enough to try it.

I've always wondered about that. Never seemed right to me.

So its ok to poach... as long as your protecting your rights.. other than that hang them all... got it

The Constitutional standard is that probable cause is required for a search of any area that one has a "reasonable expectation of privacy". This has been defined to include dwellings and vehicles.

The general exceptions are pat downs during a reasonable detainment based on "suspicious activity" ("Terry stop") and items that are in "plain view".

The Texas statutes give GWs pretty broad authority to go on private property where wildlife is located or hunting/fishing activity could take place, search premises, and search containers "capable or that could be utilized to store any wildlife resource", among other things.

I believe many of those rights given in the statute are unconstitutional and would not withstand challenge, as the premises given fall far short of the "probable cause" requirement.

It always sounded like a contradiction to me. I never had the nerve to test it, though.

I've lived in 4 states and have always heard, Game Wardens have more power than other agencies in the general duties they perform. I can understand it to a point, as wildlife they are responsible for, go where they please. And it 's fine with me as I don't have anything to hide.

That being said, the Constitutional Rights of individuals should always come first. Like it or not, that's the way it has to be in order for the Constitution to mean what it means.

we have several GW on this site . I am sure they can shed some light on this issue.

what a ridiculous statement.



haha, humans never cease to amaze.

so if it was a human body that was found on this guys place and he pleads the 5th, do you feel the same? "he's exercising his rights! give'em a beer!"

This case was about a Pennsylvania law that was forcing the individual to give up his 5TH Amendment rights. It seems the guy right so accepted the charges for poaching, but was charged for not answering a question asked by the GW.

I was thinking the same thing.

The law in PA was a poorly written law and was not something I'd agree with. If you want to plead the 5th then go ahead.

The courts have ruled pleading the 5th can be held against you at your trial by a jury.

Many people keep interchanging the terms of an Inspection with the term Search.

Inspection authority is not probable cause related to a crime being committed. It is simply related to an activity taking place. Similar how commercial motor vehicles are subject to CVE Troopers doing a inspection. Or a Marine Safety Enforcement Officer doing a water safety check on a boat. TABC agent doing a bar check. Health inspector checking a restaurant.

Inspection authority has been challenged and appealed to the supreme court. The supreme court has upheld it.

Thanks for explaining it this way.

Several rights decisions from the courts have come from the bad guys defending their rights and as a result it has helped the rest of us. The classic example is Miranda v. AZ.

Inspection authority has very strict parameters. There is a very good case to be made that the Texas statutes relating to GWs go well beyond those parameters. The Court has made clear that merely labeling otherwise prohibited conduct "inspection authority" will not fly.

The two biggest vulnerabilities of the statute IMO are 1)the blanket provision allowing GW to enter any private property that game animals may inhabit (which includes the vast majority of all property in Texas) and 2)the provision allowing searches of any receptacle that may hold game. Depending on the circumstances, both are subject to challenge.

For example, if a GW was sent onto private property as a "pretext" or if a cooler was in a camp house.

No question, however, that the statute controls unless and until the Courts say it doesn't.

Do things right and you don't have to worry about getting searched or answering questions.

Exactly