Wardens - Search and Seizure

[JohndeFresno]

I have had very little contact with Game Wardens in their official field capacity. As a lad, I frequently hunted on 500 acres of private property, and as an adult, my hunting trips brought me out away from areas where one would see people nearby in any direction.

I am now watching a series called "Wild Justice," as the result of a posting at Leverguns about "Hogs Gone Wild," on the National Geographic Channel. In episode after episode, the wardens come into a camp, check the site, the trucks, even the tents - all without a warrant.

Now, I certainly understand and sympathize with their dangerous occupation, almost every single person they encounter in their line of duty is armed and an experienced marksman; and it makes sense that they demand upon approach that a citizen keep his hands in sight and so on. But what mechanism allows them, on public property, to bypass a citizen's right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure?

In the episodes I have watched, there is no trail of blood or hair leading to the vehicles, into the tents, or for that matter into the campsites that I would suspect take on the elements of what I would believe is a violation of the citizens' REP (Reasonable Expectation of Privacy), at least by California laws. My many years in law enforcement showed me that anything in plain sight is game, but an officer cannot move into one's area of reach without some type of probable cause - a substantial and explainable belief that a PARTICULAR law was violated. In absence of this, everything was hands off, and any resultant search and the whole case thereafter was invalidated. And an officer could be sued for a violation of civil liberties of various types.

To put a point on it, let's say the warden has found a poached deer and then he finds hunters camping in an area. How is that different from a bank robbery occurring, and the Police Chief sending out his officers to enter every house in a mile radius (without a warrant) to check for the bag of money?

Perhaps 86er or some California Warden can explain??

[86er]

The following States have specific extensions of authority to Game Wardens, Conservation Officers, whatever you call them:

California
Texas
Louisiana
Florida
Georgia
North Carolina
Virginia
Wyoming

...with some variation of this:

Examine, without a warrant as provided by State law, provisions and State Constitution, any vehicle, creel, land or water conveyance, fish box, cooler, game bag or any other place where evidence of a wildlife related crime may be hidden or transported when it is being used directly in conjunction with the activity being investigated or inspected. The acceptance and signing of a hunting or fishing license constitutes an implied consent for law enforcement to conduct a search of containers and vehicles that are being used directly to further the licensed activity.

That explains some of the reasons that warrantless searches are allowed under circumstances that are less than "reasonable suspicion" or "probable cause".

[Mich Hunter]

I have watched those shows a few times and have wondered the same thing. From their perspective, eveyone the encounter is most likely armed. I ma sure that doesn't give them a warm fuzzy. There have been a few questionable times that I saw where their probable cause was week. I have also bent over backwards to be polite to the game and fish folks when I see them in the field. I have had my best experience with them out here in South Dakota. They have always been polite to me and easy going. Most of the time they just ask for our paperwork then BS for a few minutes. I have had several grab my map and circle areas that they often watch the game at. You can't get any better than that.

On the flip side, the DNR I have had dealings with back home in Michigan act like jack boot wearing Nazi’s. I have had a few try and enter my family land during the hunting season on more than one occasion and they were booted off. Two years ago two came up our road (which is private) and started walking around our cabin looking at our buck pole. As far as I am concerned (and my Dad and uncles) those two were not welcome and were told in a not so nice manner to take their butts down the road as they were trespassing. If they would had been a bit more professional, they may had been invited in for coffee. I have no tolerance for people that act like that.

Bottom line they have a pretty hard and dangerous job and I respect that. But, it's how you act and present yourself that matters just a bit more.

And you better have a warrant

[JohndeFresno]

Very interesting! Thanks for the posts, and thank you 86er for the clarification. I guess I never worried much about what is written on my license, since I am not of the poacher mentality and I have had nothing but good contacts with my brothers in law enforcement.

But, given how certain things have been changing in various government circles, and remembering how I used to conduct searches with various State and Federal officers so that their search and arrest authority could complement that of mine, I can see where this could be abused quite dramatically. For instance, what if there was a repeat of the "Katrina" type scenario that we have discussed on the Political forum in months past?

I will have to give some consideration to a movement, perhaps, to change this broad scope of authority. I find it quite disturbing.

[Old Ironsights]

Examine, without a warrant as provided by State law, provisions and State Constitution, any vehicle, creel, land or water conveyance, fish box, cooler, game bag or any other place where evidence of a wildlife related crime may be hidden or transported when it is being used directly in conjunction with the activity being investigated or inspected. The acceptance and signing of a hunting or fishing license constitutes an implied consent for law enforcement to conduct a search of containers and vehicles that are being used directly to further the licensed activity.

Also including, your home, freezer, refrigerator, outbuildings, etc... regardless of actual cause or just acting on a "hot (malicious) tip".

i.e. you buy a license and they have more authority to jackboot in your own home than you than if you poach... (not a suggestion, just leagal "reality" )

Then see what happens as the ARFs get more of their kiddies into "wildlife management" degrees and into the State DNRs...

[piller]

So far, I have never had a bad experience with a Game Warden. Perhaps this thread will cause enough of us to contact our representatives that we can get the law changed to be a little less open to interpretation. I can see where a bad person could abuse the authority. A few restrictions to make a search be from probable cause might be for the best. I assume this will be moved to the political section, but I hope the comments don't force the issue.

[dr walker]

I fish a couple of times every week. I see FWC officers once a month or so. They walk down the line telling every one to open coolers and show any fish they may be holding. I learned during my second month as a resident of Florida that if you keep a fish that is 3/4 inch too small; it will cost you $300 and a criminal misdemeanor.

[AJMD429]

But what mechanism allows them, on public property, to bypass a citizen's right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure?
...
To put a point on it, let's say the warden has found a poached deer and then he finds hunters camping in an area. How is that different from a bank robbery occurring, and the Police Chief sending out his officers to enter every house in a mile radius (without a warrant) to check for the bag of money?

Much of the attitude began with the philosophy of 'expediency' as a response to out-of-control crime as a result of 'Prohibition'...which then gave birth to the BATF.

Both the 'Left' and 'Right' use the tactic - look at the hype over "Global Warming", and the "War on Drugs".

The general idea is now one of government either creating a 'crisis' outright, to frighten the populace into ceding money and power to the government, or taking an existing social or fiscal problem and making it worse, then using the results as a 'reason' to demand yet more taxes, more regulations, and more power.

There's always a compelling underlying problem, and to superficial analysis, therefore a 'reason' to bypass logic, curtail even the most basic of freedoms, and ignore the Constitution...

[Booger Bill]

Around 1962 I did a short 6 month stint with the wisconsin conservation dept. I basicly was hired for the fishery division doing research for the biologists as a grunt doing the heavy dirty work, but it all was interesting and I liked it. Sometimes I worked with wardens, had some powers but never pushed it. Once I was assigned to check out fishermen on a few lakes. I really was more interested in what kind and how many fish were being caught rather than checking licenses and legalitys on that detail.
I was walking the shore of a lake and about 70 yards off three fishermen were all carrying fishing poles and tackle walking towards the lake. They spotted me and froze with that deer in the headlight look. I was probley carrying a clipboard and they just knew they were in trouble! One of them yelled at me that they werent fishing, the boy is fishing! That was at about 50 yards away as I was comeing up. I walked up to them and figuered it was grandpa, son and grandson. The boy was young enough not to need a license. I couldnt help laughing it was so obvious that the father and grandfather had no licenses. I told them to cool it, I aint checking licenses today, just surveying catchs.
That leads me to this story I almost forgot about when I was a kid. My mom raised me in a country general store durring world war two. It was at auroaville wisconsin. Across the road was a nice mill pond, the road crossed the dam and the willow creek ran behind our store. It was right at the end of the war and all my uncles had just come home. My dad took me fishing down the creek. It probley was late 1945 or 1946 when I was right at 5 years old. Dad caught a nice black bass and said its a shame to throw this back as the season opens this saturday. Larcany won out and he decided to take it home. I remember it like yesterday. I begged him to carry the fish as it was a big one. This probley was a half mile down the creek from the store and I ran ahead of pa with the illegal fish. I was scrambeling up the bank and a guy stood there that I didnt know and said, "Hey kid! That fish is illegal, and I am a game warden!" I turned and pointed at my dad about 15 yards behind me and said, well he made me carry it! The warden exploded into laughter along with dad! Turned out it he was a uncle of mine that came to see the folks! (My dad came from a huge family, dad was the oldest of 10 and had another older 7 half brothers and sisters!) My family made sport of me for quite awhile over that!

[Streetstar]

Thanks for the story BoogerBill ----- i hate to say it, many of the fish/game "officers" i meet now seem to be guys who couldn't pass the highway patrol exam/fitness standards or whatever and just love to exercise author-i -ty as much as possible. BDU's, tactical gear, frag proof Oakleys and the whole bit (not condemning anybody using modern gear necessarily when they need it ) --- with attitudes to match . One guy looked like he was auditioning for Blackwater or whatever they call themselves these days. funny but sad at the same time


Heaven forbid if i was legitimately destitute and trying to put food on the table for my family with my rifle sans license ---- i may be looking at a beat down for sure

[Booger Bill]

You know it wasnt like that at all when I was in. In fact many years ago being a warden in wisconsin wasnt considered a glamoris job. Most didnt bother to wear a full uniform or any uniform. In 1962 I remember starting out at $320s a month. At the end of the 6 months it was $350s. They would only keep us 6 months at a time, anything after that, they had to make you perminate. I was with the area fish division work crew. They laid me off at the end of my six months and told me they were going to rehire me as a warden for another strech. Deer season was comeing up. I opt not to return and instead got a job treating old power poles in louisanna for the winter. It was a dirty hard job, I soon made foreman and stayed with it for another almost three years. It involved traveling all over the states and I liked that.
I know what you mean, I have watched those tv shows too and those guys and women play the role and think they are saveing the world. My dad had a close friend that became a warden. I dont know if dad was exagerateing or not, but he claimed the dept hired his friend to keep him from poaching!
Years ago there was no acadamy. They would give you a badge, you MIGHT work with another warden awhile and they would turn you loose! Small town police departments were like that too still in the 1960s. I got stopped near home for speeding. The officer looked at my license and said he knew my (last) name, but didnt know me. I said I had been out of the state on jobs. We got talking and he suggested seeing the mayor for a job on the PD. At the time I was fed up with my job so did. The mayor hired me, was going to have me ride with another officer for a shift or two and was going to turn me loose on my own! No acadamy! I called up my boss to tell him I was quitting and he offered me a raise and wanted me to work in california/ oregon area. That sounded good at the time, I called the mayor back and quit before I started! Funny how a mans entire life can change in a minuet. I often wondered how things might of turned out had I made other decisions. But then I wouldnt have my daughter or have ever met my wife! Things were far different years ago getting those jobs!

[foxtrapper]

Here in NY the State troopers will hang with the game wardens at check stations. Where the trooper can not search your car without a warrant, the GW can . So now anything illegal that was out of sight and the GW uncovers, it is now in plain sight for the trooper to act on.

[willygene]

i don't know where people get the idea that game wardens can do more here in texas than other peace officers without a warant because it is not true they can only do what other peace officers do they can only search evident to a lawful arrest or with a warant or with your permission. They can not come to your house with out a warant and go thru your freezer get real. mabe in crazyfornia but not in texas.

[RIHMFIRE]

I fish a couple of times every week. I see FWC officers once a month or so. They walk down the line telling every one to open coolers and show any fish they may be holding. I learned during my second month as a resident of Florida that if you keep a fish that is 3/4 inch too small; it will cost you $300 and a criminal misdemeanor.

$300 fine is nothing....
a long line shark fisherman caught a great white shark...
it was dead , like most sharks on the line....
But your suppose to cut the great white shark loose and let it sink....
you cant keep them.... but they cut the jaw out.....and cleaned it up...
kept it around for a while and then sold it.....or tried to...
and got caught....and got slapped with a $10000 fine...

dont mess with the FWC rules....it will cost you...

[Old Ironsights]

i don't know where people get the idea that game wardens can do more here in texas than other peace officers without a warant because it is not true they can only do what other peace officers do they can only search evident to a lawful arrest or with a warant or with your permission. They can not come to your house with out a warant and go thru your freezer get real. mabe in crazyfornia but not in texas.

They have, and do, in Indiana...

[Nate Kiowa Jones]

Game wardens around here are known as possum cops.

[bdhold]

we've had poachers arrested with as many as 50 rainbows in their cooler from a float through our tailwater.
Regulations allows for one fish over 18 inches/day.
They were fined $250/fish.
I'm glad our game wardens had this power.
That was last year.
Poaching is down this year.

[Mike D.]

All of my experiences with CA F&G Wardens have been pleasant ones. They have a dangerous job and are well underpaid in comparison to other LE agencies. One time a warden entered the ranch gate by unlocking the utility co's lock and drove across the bridge and into the yard. Sneaking in is impossible and any vehicle coming down the road passes over a cattle guard, the rattle of which alerts us to their approach. If they don't pass up the road they are heading in the direction of the house. He came in for a visit, had a cold drink, looked at nothing, and left after a half hour. I have not seen a warden since, even after the "Condor Copper" bullets were required for use in the area.

[Bruce]

Well, I was going to stay out of this one - NOT!

Just to be up front. I am a retired Lt. Colonel (Law Enforcement) with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. I was also a Police Officer and a Deputy Sheriff in Florida. But just to clear one issue right up front, I can not speak about all States, but I know most of the F&W Agencies and most State Police and Highway Patrol agencies do not have as high of standards for initial employment as those required to be a Warden. The standards are very high and most F&W Academies are much longer than their sister local and state agencies. I am not downing any agency or standards, but I will defend what is fact.

I have to start out with a little history, then I will show the result. My information is Florida related, but most states have followed the same path. In the early 1900's, it became evident that uncontrolled hunting (please include fishing also) was leading to a major decline or the disapperance of many species. The public (sportsmen included) recognized the issue and started various forms of conservation (control), to ensure the natural wildlife (fisheries) would survive and provide for future use and enjoyment. Local, State and Federal agencies were created to monitor, conserve and manage the resources and those that used them. Those agencies and the regulations (authority) went through many changes to conclude with what we have today. One of the biggest and earliest issues those citizens recognized was that politics needed to stay out of resource management. That is mostly (but not completely) the trend today. Another was that due to remote locations, time available and numbers of participants, it was not realistic to expect enforcement actions to be the same as conventional laws. Another issue was that it was decided that wildlife is the responsibilty (ownership if you must) of all and should not be managed (owned) by individuals. Lastly, it was recognized (agreeded upon by citizens) that hunting/fishing activities were a privilege and those participating were bound to act accordingly. In other words, if you choose to participate, you agree to abide by the rules that resulted from the years of management experiences. The results have been largely successful. Are there gaps - Yes.

Fast forward to the issue of searches (inspections is actually the correct term). Anyone who was/is involved with conservation enforcement efforts knows that it is not only impractical, but impossible to follow the so called "probable cause" theory of verifying compliance. Again, users are voluntarily participating in taking or possessing the equipment to take. You are there, you have the equipment, you have the opportunity and your actions probably indicate your intent. Think about this for comparision. You are bike racer. You show up at a bike race with a bike. You are dressed to race. You line up to race and you go with the pack when the race starts. By any standards, you are racing and therefore you must intend to follow the rules. If the racing committee wanted to verify your eligibility and equipment legality, would you think it reasonable that you had agreeded by you "voluntary" participation? I know this is a silly comparison, but apply the thought to any venture where you choose to "volunteer" to participate.

Is it even remotely reasonable to expect a Warden to obtain a search warrant for checking users in a dove field? I have been on fields with hundreds of hunters. Would you want me to get a Judge to issue me a hundred search warrants on a Saturday afternoon to verify license, equipment and bag limit compliance? Some may ask why I would want to look into your truck (or cooler) at a dove field. I will bet most will have at least a little recollection of someone hiding a few extra birds. Remember - you are there on your on and participating on your on. You are taking wildlife that is considered the responsibilty of everyone.

State lands vs. private lands. If you are on state (government) lands - you agree by your "voluntary" presence and participation. If you are on private lands and you are hunting (participating) - you have apparently agreeded to the rules. If you disagree with the private lands issue concerning hunting (fishing), then go to court and watch the results if you were to win the issue. Neither you or I would be hunting (fishing) on private lands any more.

Concerning camps - just review the earlier comments I have made. Concerning homes, I am aware of only one state where a Warden can go into a residence w/o a warrant (probable cause in some instances) and that state is California and my information states that they can only do that if you are a convicted Wildlife violator and have agreeded to those conditions of probation. Again - those people agreed to the conditions of inspections.

Just for some food for thought - most Wildlife Agencies operate their enforcement with a "reason to believe" enforcement approach.

Another issue which I will respond to is "Katrina". If you only knew what Wardens did for and in support of the citizens you would think many times before even comparing their actions with the local police. I had (as did other states) officers which responded out there and I only received praise from the citizens for their efforts. Look it up on the intenet if you want to see the real story.

For those who may be watching TV series concerning Wardens, I must ask that you consider that they are TV shows. There is this magic thing that cameras have - it is called editing. If you have not noticed, the Warden show from Florida is no longer on air.

I don't wish to offend anyone on this great site, but I do ask that some consider all of the issues before making final judgement.

[Old Ironsights]

Bruce, thank you for your comments.

I fully understand the "in the field" aspects. But I've talked to others that have seen some F&W guys take "in possession" to the extreme of "in toto". This year's, Last years, stuff frozen a decade ago but not thrown out, no matter. You have too many "in possession" (in regards to birds or fish) and they've got their collar... and all the fines/confiscations that go with it.

(FWIW, a INDNR Conservation Officer said specifically in an IN forum in Dec that the law indicates "in toto". ...)

Then there are the "gun regs" that they come up with to confuse the heck out of everybody. I spent nearly 3 years fighting INDNR to get them to make their "Deer Gun" laws make even a tiny bit of sense. (Even now you can hunt coyotes with a .50 BMG but can't hunt deer with a "rifle cartridge" (say .30-30 or .45-70...) unless that "rifle cartridge" is fired from a "pistol" )

And then there's things like calling a Horse a "motorized conveyance"/ORV that you mus be X feet away from before hunting...

[mouthpiece]

Am a criminal lawyer & retired cop in MI; watch same fishpolice shows on NatGeo and wonder how they get away with that BS. Our DNR perpetuates that same lie that they have extraordinary search rights. I cannot understand why people believe that line garbage. No state can abrogate federal 4th Amendment search rights.

This describes English/American search & seizure law which has existed since long before William Pitt spoke these words in Parliament:

"The poorest man may in his humble cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail - its roof may shake - the wind may blow through it - the storm may enter - the rain may enter - but the King of England cannot enter! - all his force dares not cross the threshhold of the ruined tenement!"

[Old Ironsights]

They can get away with it because their victims don't have the time or money to fight it. That and usually the local judge automatically sides with the F&G, meaning you have to wait and appeal... after the Judge has made sure that all your gear & truck have been forfeited...

[Charles]

I understand Wardens have the authority to check licenses, vehicles on public roads and camps on public lands. My question is how much authority they have to go onto private land without some sort of probably cause. In Texas we have very little public land. I am going to have to check that out.

[JohndeFresno]

This is a great site - we have open, frank discussions about many subjects that surround the topic of lever guns and in general shooting, hunting, and even other topics of general interest. I will always appreciate the open yet civil way we exchange ideas and information here. But it is unfortunate some of us are now bashing Game wardens as a group of people; that was not the original intent of this post. And from my point of view, at least with the ones that I know in my state, your comments are quite inaccurate.

I have to agree with many of "Bruce's" comments, including this:
"...Another was that due to remote locations, time available and numbers of participants, it was not realistic to expect enforcement actions to be the same as conventional laws. Another issue was that it was decided that wildlife is the responsibilty (ownership if you must) of all and should not be managed (owned) by individuals.

"Lastly, it was recognized (agreeded upon by citizens) that hunting/fishing activities were a privilege and those participating were bound to act accordingly. In other words, if you choose to participate, you agree to abide by the rules that resulted from the years of management experiences. The results have been largely successful. Are there gaps - Yes..."

Where his argument breaks down: I don't consider hunting on my own private property a privilege that should require a license. But licensing was brought about to support the salaries and expense of wardens. Unfortunately, the other side of licensing - anything - is the implied mandate that you must do precisely what the gubbmint decides that you must do.

Recently, in my state, the Fish and Game officials at the top of the heap decided to throw in, surreptitiously, with the anti-gun crowd. I don't recall if it came directly out of the Commissioner's Office - and isn't he a political figure? - but F&G supported a proposed law that would have taken gunpowder and ammunition (labeled "explosives") off the shelves of our local stores, without a lot of prohibitive regulations as to amount and security measures. This was done under the radar and almost passed into law, but stopped amidst the furor of united sportsmen and gun owners here. I can stand to be corrected here, but that is how I remember it, and I clearly remember that the gun stores would have been all but put out of business.

My point is that the Wardens do their jobs, but F&G is just like all the other government agencies - it can get too big for its britches, and after all it is run by politicians, NOT cops. Actually, Fox trapper's reply is more where I'm at:

Here in NY the State troopers will hang with the game wardens at check stations. Where the trooper can not search your car without a warrant, the GW can . So now anything illegal that was out of sight and the GW uncovers, it is now in plain sight for the trooper to act on.

One of my best friends is a former veteran California Fish and Game Warden who then came to work at a State agency where I worked. We were partners on several assignments, and I found him to be more intelligent than the average guy, fair, noble, and well liked; and he was one of the hardest working cops I have had the pleasure to ride with. And I have known a few others socially; they are fine folks. I just never had much "official" contact with one as a hunter. My concern is that the OFFICE of the position appears to have too much authority, given the way our nation is going.

Leo (my good friend and ex-Warden) sent me a long, detailed reply to the same question I posted here, and it is similar to "Bruce's" post. In California, and especially in my area and dating all the way back to the outlaw days of Joaquin Murietta, there was wholesale poaching, there were water wars, and there was a whole menagerie of problems that could not be handled by traditional law enforcement, so the Resource Management officers were given special powers to allow them to address these items - to put it as succinctly as possible.

In the San Joaquin Valley, and specifically in the area of the towns of Chowchilla, Los Banos, Kerman, Madera and Merced, the pheasant population brought hunters from around the state, not more than 50 years ago. Now, you are lucky to see one or two in these same locations; the few we have might be found on a few carefully protected large private properties or the game reserve near Kerman. I have talked to more than one local who said that he would go out with friends and shoot scores of them for fun, their refrigerators already stuffed, and just leave them. One acquaintance, an old man now, even bragged that he would shoot "hundreds of the things" a year just to pass the time. Shame on him. I must say that my view of him has been altered considerably since this conversation.

Friends, as far as I'm concerned, they deserved to go to jail, have their guns and trucks confiscated, and dealt with most severely - whether they are my friends or not. They killed God's creatures wantonly and robbed me and my children and grandchildren of the right to hunt these beautiful, exciting game birds. And that is the way I feel about all poachers - I have no use for them. I can't really say that I am sorry if this paragraph offends a reader who thinks otherwise; we are all in this together.

Now, some laws are bad laws; over enthusiastic and ill-researched, like the Condor thing in my state - at least that is my opinion. But as reluctant as I am, I have spend a couple of hundred dollars on Barnes bullet components so that I can hunt legally in my zone, if I decide to take game in Central California. If things fall apart and we have anarchy as in the Katrina scenario, then I won't be too concerned about these issues, however. But that is not what we are focusing upon.

As for that the Katrina incident and officers acting reasonably, I would respectfully disagree with "Bruce" as to how it was handled, at least by a California Highway Patrolman or two who allowed an old woman to be physically slammed up against the wall and disarmed after she mentioned that she had a gun in her house. Get the NRA video, lifted from a newsman's documentation of the incident as it happened on camera, and you will see cops clearly and criminally out of control - even California cops who have shamed me and my profession, at the behest of an irrational and overreactive city mayor. The same mayor who then denied giving the order to disarm the citizens, despite his televised statement earlier. It does and will happen again, unless we take proper measures to disconnect some of the machinery that allows officers to transcend the safeguards built into our Consititution.

So - I salute you Game Wardens. You do a great job in my state, and I deeply appreciate how you strive to maintain a fair balance of game so that we can all enjoy our natural resources. But I think that some laws need to be changed, to bring your authority more in line with the rest of our peace officers and my alleged(!) Constitutional rights.

(EDITED for typos)

[Booger Bill]

I habitualy see cars pulled over here on the side of the freeway with young people, usualy from out of state, standing on the side of the road meekly watching as the cops got their luggage scattered all over the ditch. I can see this a average once a week near me! Does no one teach these kids their rights? We have the miranda reading, (I really dont like it) why do they not also have it set up where the officer has to tell the people they also have the right to refuse search without a warrant? And also explain what they can do if they refuse?

[Hobie]

I would submit that it isn't the officer's problem, it is a systemic problem. You have a system that promotes this idea. It is bigger than just one person.

My dad worked for the US Forest Service and one of his jobs was to supervise law enforcement in his district. He was apparently well known for the good way in which he handled "problems" as I've had several folks express their appreciation for how he handled their particular situation. Because of my connection to him and his sworn officers and other things I've done, I know a few "game wardens" and not all are like that. One of the reasons is that the system has been changed to incentivise (i.e. make it pay for the officer) ticketing and to dis-incentivise (i.e. make it a pain in the you-know-what) for the officer to use any personal discretion dealing with alleged law breakers.

I don't think anyone here is bad mouthing the profession so much as recounting their personal experiences and naturally doing so in as brief a manner as possible to avoid a lengthy typing session!

[JohndeFresno]

Here are two very real scenarios that illustrate my extreme concern over a warrantless search of my campsite or truck by a game warden, as a law abiding citizen.

a) I carry an old aluminum frame snubbie .38 for deep concealment, occasionally, as I travel. It only safely fires standard pressure rounds. I use Winchester Silvertips, since my tests have convinced me that this is about the most effective close defense round available for that gun. I am not convinced that all copper bullets would fare as well.

b) I also tote a .44 Magnum with some heavy cast lead loads in the woods (or used to). This is for the unexpected - cougars, bears, aggressive marauding squirrels, or heavily clothed bandits, should I ever run across one. I don't want to paint a false picture of my being Ramar of the Jungle; I'm not. But things happen. And there are a lot of mean looking squirrels in my area.

c) My personal carry for everyday use is a .45 Colt with Federal HST hollowpoints - top of the line for self defense as shown in several multiagency police trials against even the revered Gold Dot, Ranger, Hydra-Shock and other rounds. It is definitely not an all copper round. I carry it to and from the hunting grounds.

None of the above ammunition, for any reason, is allowed in the Condor Zone, even though I would not take them deer hunting. If found, they can be confiscated; along with the guns and a large amount of my bank account in the form of a fine. Forget the fact that I would not bring them out of the truck or campsite except for self-defense. The unrestrained search of a Game Warden would lead to a heavy fine for my even bringing the ammo into a hunting environment, even if any of the above were carried to and from the site as part of my daily civilian urban carry. To be honest, I do not think the Condor law is reasonable. To be practical, now I can't carry these firearms at all, if I tromp through the woods - unless I load up copper rounds that I don't care to use for the purposes outlined above. Unless there is a trail of blood and deer hair to my tent or vehicle, or a video taken where I am poaching, I strongly disagree that a warden should have the right to search either, period.

[Charles]

I did some checking and we have a statute that grants employees of The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission the right to enter ANY land, for research and game law enforcement, where wild game is know to live and range. Any body that tries to hinder their entrance can face civil penalties (fines).

The base notion is that game animals do not belong to the land owner but to the state.

They can look anyplace where taken game is know, suspected or otherwise generally kept. To enter your home, they require a warrant based on probably cause.

[Nate C.]

I have a lot of respect for game wardens; I admire the job they perfom, and I recognize the often adverse conditions in which they operate. Sure there are bad apples--you can find that in a random sampling of any group of people. I have always had positive experiences whenever I have encountered a game warden, but then I am pretty careful about following the rules. I am surprised (and a little saddened) by the hostile tone taken by some folks regarding this topic. This is usually a very genteel forum.

[FWiedner]

The game wardens I've encountered in most places (CO, IN, NC, SC, FL, TX, NM, AZ) seem to have been decent fellows tasked with performing an important job. They had 'people skills'.

The one game warden I encountered in CA was a d*ck.

[AJMD429]

I have a lot of respect for game wardens; I admire the job they perfom, and I recognize the often adverse conditions in which they operate. Sure there are bad apples--you can find that in a random sampling of any group of people. I have always had positive experiences whenever I have encountered a game warden, but then I am pretty careful about following the rules. I am surprised (and a little saddened) by the hostile tone taken by some folks regarding this topic. This is usually a very genteel forum.

One can respect the good wardens, admire the job the good ones do, and empathize with the bad things they must face, but that doesn't negate the fact that if you give unlimited 'search and seizure' powers to even mostly-decent people, sooner or later you'll have problems. The good ones don't abuse those improperly-given, unconstitutional, 'powers', but like in any other field, the good ones can be tarnished by the bad ones. The laws need changed, for their sake, as well as the citizens.

[Triggernosis]

I habitualy see cars pulled over here on the side of the freeway with young people, usualy from out of state, standing on the side of the road meekly watching as the cops got their luggage scattered all over the ditch. I can see this a average once a week near me! Does no one teach these kids their rights? We have the miranda reading, (I really dont like it) why do they not also have it set up where the officer has to tell the people they also have the right to refuse search without a warrant? And also explain what they can do if they refuse?

I see the same thing on occasion too.
BTW, what can the cops do if they refuse? Even if the cops supposedly claim they had "reasonable suspicion"? ...whatever that means.

[JohndeFresno]

I have a lot of respect for game wardens; I admire the job they perfom, and I recognize the often adverse conditions in which they operate. Sure there are bad apples--you can find that in a random sampling of any group of people. I have always had positive experiences whenever I have encountered a game warden, but then I am pretty careful about following the rules. I am surprised (and a little saddened) by the hostile tone taken by some folks regarding this topic. This is usually a very genteel forum.

One can respect the good wardens, admire the job the good ones do, and empathize with the bad things they must face, but that doesn't negate the fact that if you give unlimited 'search and seizure' powers to even mostly-decent people, sooner or later you'll have problems. The good ones don't abuse those improperly-given, unconstitutional, 'powers', but like in any other field, the good ones can be tarnished by the bad ones. The laws need changed, for their sake, as well as the citizens.

I, like, TOTALLY agree, dude.

I have never met a Game Warden that I didn't like. And I even liked the cordial and correct Yosemite Park Ranger who all but severely hampered a State investigation because he was forced to enforce a Federal law. But bad laws need to be addressed.

With my supervisor, I was en route to Bishop, California on a very time sensitive multiagency investigation involving a ring of thugs who were defrauding MediCal (State Health Insurance) and denying proper care to elderly patients while creating false billings. It was a pretty big, organized crime case, and we had to get there in time to set up a sting. Our office was in Fresno, and the quickest way to get there was to drive through Yosemite National Park. The other route would bring us down towards Los Angeles, over slow, winding roads, and result in us arriving too late for the meeting that had been set up by an informant.

A new law was in effect, which was only recently repealed after exhaustive efforts by the NRA, CalGuns, and some other groups. We were not fully aware of the new law, thinking that peace officers would be exempt, so we had placed our guns in the trunk. At the gate, we stated our business, because law enforcement officers on official business do not have to pay a park fee on Federal lands. The Ranger apologetically told us that we could not bring our guns into the park for any reason, even in the trunk of the car.

Our only choice was to lose the case or lie to the Ranger and tell him that we didn't have any firearms with us. That is a pretty unbelievable scenario, but then again there are some quasi-law enforcement officers who don't always carry guns, and our agency was one of those many State bureaus that works undercover and is not well known. What if he had pulled us over, out of the line, and searched the car? It was a ridiculous situation. We had to go through a the Park a time or two after that, while the law was in effect and we just acted like tourists, paying the park fee. Again, that meant we were breaking the law. Okay, turn me in - we are both retired, now.

A bad law sometimes causes good people to break the law.