To the original post, with no more info to go on than what the link provided it sounds as if that GW over stepped his authority.

as to all the other post about GWs. I am 60 now been hunting since I was in grade school. been checked by GW numerous times and have never received a citation. There have been a very small few that seemed to try much harder than others. Most are at the least professional and more than a few outright friendly. I aint mad at any of em, but I aint giving one a key to my gate anymore than I am giving a cop a key to my home. I can tell you these as well if a GW came on to my property and took stuff claiming an investigation is going on and I know I am in the right. I would be taking every means necessary to find out why and end that investigation. How I deal with that GW from that point forward would depend on exactly how he deals with me.

I shouldn't have to say this but when I said every means necessary, I mean legal means.

The rabid tribalism shows an utter lack of intelligence.

It must be difficult to lack the computing power between your ears to process the idea that one can support the job LEOs perform while still standing up for and valuing the rights we have as American citizens that are guaranteed by the constitution.

It is A okay to question authority - it doesn’t make you an anti-American terrorist or some outlaw poacher. My gosh that is a silly world view.

Yep. It’s a shame how little people value their rights. That’s why they’re slipping away.

Could he also have politely declined to answer any questions starting at the the first question? Not being snarky just curious.

Or would Texas Dan have been compelled by law to answer the Game Warden's questions?

May your chains rest lightly.

Take the blinders off Max. I seriously doubt you and I see things from the same perspective.

yup, the 5th is there for a reason, anything you say can and will be used against you. it's called phishing, where you going, where you been, what color panties is your wife wearing today, bla bla bla, sorry sir, i don't answer those types of questions. use'em or lose'em

This has been around since prohibition. I just don’t feel all that oppressed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-fields_doctrine

do you own property?, maybe you do I don't know, but I find that people who don't own property have more liberal views on who should be allowed to enter private land for various reasons.

that's without question, it has been on the books for a long time. what is questionable is, is it constitutional. this is the reason the institute for justice is taking this case and they are a force to be reckoned with. and if they prevail, it will led to changes in the open field docrine

It’s a US Supreme Court decision so good luck with that.

do you really think the institute for justice would not be prepared to take it that far?

Views on whether we like it or not have nothing to do with the existing law. The open fields doctrine is nothing new. It has been around for some time. Many don't like the idea of law enforcement coming onto their property without permission. The law doesn't care whether you agree or not. People can start a movement to change the law if they wish. Maybe they will be successful. But it would be a challenge.

The way I understand it, game wardens have no more power than any other law enforcement. Isn't it probable cause that hunting activity is occurring which allows them to use the open fields doctrine to investigate? Or probable cause to search an enclosed space with a warrant in other circumstances?

Then they should give it a go. Get started. Challenge the law. That's how it's supposed to work.

yup, they have already started, i posted their video on p4 of this thread

Yes, I own my own ranch after retiring from 25 years of fulfilling my oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States and of Texas.

Keep us posted if the law changes. Until then Ill keep going by the law and ill be cooperative with any LEO, including GW, until Im given a reason not to.

.
Well hell yeah, and thank you for your service.

For the record, I'm not anti law enforcement, anti game warden, or some hippie type pinko fg,

I just don't think we should accept that the government can do whatever they want just because they say so.

How do all “if you are not doing anything wrong crowd” feel when the game warden knocks on the door of your residence long enough to get your wife out the shower to sputter, em……… never mind…..em…… I’m glad I was not home I would not have been happy.

The game animals are owned by the PEOPLE of the state held in trust, it is not owned by the state as an entity.

The gratitude is owed to conservationist who spent their own time and dime to protect and develop the resources that we are able to be stewards of today, otherwise there would be no game laws to police, as there would be no game.



I admire wardens and support them in the whole, as mentioned before I've only had one instance where they could have been a little more friendly, but other than that, I'm fine with them.


as for overstepping....hard line to draw there. I'm not going to lie and say I have followed the letter of the law to a T.....most were simple things like not tagging a deer until the next day, things like that. Back when we had the south texas place we would bone out and vacuum seal an entire deer and take it home....not supposed to do that either. But neither instance was a theft to the people of the state nor to the animal resource.

I would venture a guess that by a large margin most citations are issued for very minor infractions rather than a grievous disregard for the law. There is a big difference between waiting to get back to camp to tag a deer and shooting one off the side of the road or having 25 fish over your limit.

"Since Oliver, the highest courts of Montana, New York, Oregon and Vermont, as well as a Washington state appeals court, have held that the open-fields doctrine does not apply in those states due to their state constitutions granting greater protections to citizens (under dual sovereignty a state may grant its citizens more rights than those guaranteed in the federal constitution). "

Apparently several very liberal states do not follow it because their wise state constitutions give their residents the rights they deserve.

Just to dovetail into comments made in the news article linked in the OP...

Highlander's lawsuit against DWR, filed this month, challenges a nearly 100-year-old Supreme Court ruling that Fourth Amendment protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to open fields, even if they are surrounded by fences or no trespassing signs. A few states have extended Fourth Amendment protections to privately owned land beyond the curtilage of a home, but Virginia is not among them.

Agreed, it's interesting that both conservative and liberal states are among those who have extended Fourth Amendment protections to private land beyond the curtilage of a home.

I learned a new word: "Curtilage".

I like this word. I'm going to try and use it in a few sentences over the next week.

I learned through interpretation of the comments shared that despite what I was told many decades ago, officers cannot enter your home without a warrant to search your freezer.

They can, but they need probable cause or permission.