SDSGA Ken Knuppe Corrected on Open Fields Doctrine

[~SH~]

Ken Knuppe on "The Open Fields Doctrine"

Ken Knuppe: "This isn't an issue of landowner vs. hunter or an issue of promoting commercialized game preserves, as some have claimed. This is an issue of landowners, like ranchers, who happen to operate their businesses on wide open spaces being afforded those same rights as landowners who may operate their businesses on smaller parcels of land such as a hardware store or a law office."

Ken Knuppe: "Those businesses don't want law enforcement officers entering their premises and performing searches at any time for no apparent reason and neither do we. Most of us would grant them permission to enter; we simply want them to ask."

Ken Knuppe: "To allow law enforcement to enter a landowner's property and engage in search procedures without permission insinuates that we are guilty until proven innocent," Knuppe said.


Ken Knuppe's statements are misleading from two standpoints. First, Ken statement suggests that Conservation Officers can conduct searches without permission on private land and that simply is not the case. Second, Ken suggests that Conservation Officers can perform searches at any time for no apparant reason and that is not the case either.

Conservation officers cannot search buildlings or homes without a search warrant. Nor can they enter private land at any time for no apparant reason.

The "Open Fields Doctrine" is specific to allowing Conservation Officers the right to access private land to check hunters for their licenses while hunters are actively hunting and to access private land for protection of human health and safety.

Conservation Officers cannot just drive out onto private land because they feel like it as Ken clearly implies.

Of course, it never hurts to stretch the truth does it Ken?

The value of "shock and awe" to further an agenda?????



~SH~

[Andy]

Sure is funny how guys like that always strech the truth enough to get your attention.

[Liberty Belle]

SH: “Ken Knuppe's statements are misleading from two standpoints. First, Ken statement suggests that Conservation Officers can conduct searches without permission on private land and that simply is not the case. Second, Ken suggests that Conservation Officers can perform searches at any time for no apparant reason and that is not the case either.”

Hog wash. What’s stopping them? Certainly not the Open Fields Doctrine!

SH: “Conservation officers cannot search buildlings or homes without a search warrant.”

A CO cannot search the house without a search warrant. They CAN search buildings outside of the immediate surroundings of the home, including any sheds, barns, cellars, etc., without a warrant.

SH: “Nor can they enter private land at any time for no apparant reason.”

Oh, yes they can and they do it all the time. There is absolutely no way to stop them. That’s what this whole issue is about.

SH: “The "Open Fields Doctrine" is specific to allowing Conservation Officers the right to access private land to check hunters for their licenses while hunters are actively hunting and to access private land for protection of human health and safety.”

Show me where South Dakota law limits game wardens from coming on to private land any day of the year and for any reason. You can’t do it. That law does not exist.

SH: “Conservation Officers cannot just drive out onto private land because they feel like it as Ken clearly implies.”

Ken is right. Again, show me ANY law that prohibits game wardens from doing exactly what Knuppe said they can do.

SH: “Of course, it never hurts to stretch the truth does it Ken? The value of "shock and awe" to further an agenda?????”

Who’s stretching the truth here? Take a look in the mirror.

[SJ]

That may be the way it is now with new policy but before they could come and go anytime anyplace they wanted. Policy is just policy lets see if they can stick to it.

[~SH~]

SH (previous): “Ken Knuppe's statements are misleading from two standpoints. First, Ken statement suggests that Conservation Officers can conduct searches without permission on private land and that simply is not the case."

LB (in response): "Hog wash. What’s stopping them? Certainly not the Open Fields Doctrine!"

Betty, I'll bet you a $100 that a Conservation Officer cannot search your home and buildlings without a search warrant. I'll also bet they cannot search your vehicles without permission or probable cause.

Want to put your money where your mouth is and take my bet?

Ken clearly made no distinctions on "searches" and all that entails.

Ken's implication that CO's can conduct searches without warrants, permission, or "probable cause" was clearly the intent and your support of that sensationalism is obvious to further your agenda.

To tell the whole truth would be "self defeating".


SH (previous): “Nor can they enter private land at any time for no apparant reason.”

LB (in response): "Oh, yes they can and they do it all the time. There is absolutely no way to stop them. That’s what this whole issue is about."

OH NO THEY CAN'T!!!!

They have to have probable cause such as checking a hunter or human health and safety.


LB: "Show me where South Dakota law limits game wardens from coming on to private land any day of the year and for any reason. You can’t do it. That law does not exist."

GF&P policy does not allow CO's to enter private land without permission unless they are checking hunters in the line of their duties.

The fact that you have never seen a CO on your property speaks volumes to the extent of this "so called" problem.


LB: "Ken is right. Again, show me ANY law that prohibits game wardens from doing exactly what Knuppe said they can do."

Ken is flat wrong!

Conservation officers cannot conduct searches of homes and buildlings without search warrants and they cannot conduct searches of vehicles without permission or probable cause.

There is laws to protect citizens from illegal searches without warrants, permission, or probable cause.

Ya got nothing Betty!



~SH~

[SJ]

SH (previous): “Ken Knuppe's statements are misleading from two standpoints. First, Ken statement suggests that Conservation Officers can conduct searches without permission on private land and that simply is not the case."

Ken is right and you are wrong SH. What are they doing on our land without permission?

Governor Rounds Quote: "He does not believe it's right to give an extra burden in their work to enforce game laws."

Asking Permission

WE were also told by a GF&P official that they could come and go anytime anywhere they wanted without permission. If you believe they have to have permission then our CO was guilty when he was arrested for trespass.

The new policy makes is as you say but it is only policy--- with their interpretation of the open field covering as back up protection for the CO.

[~SH~]

SH (previous): “Ken Knuppe's statements are misleading from two standpoints. First, Ken's statement suggests that Conservation Officers can conduct searches without permission on private land and that simply is not the case."

SJ: "Ken is right and you are wrong SH."

No, I am right and You, Betty, and Ken are wrong!

CONSERVATION OFFICERS CANNOT CONDUCT SEARCHES OF HOUSES WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT AND THEY CANNOT CONDUCT SEARCHES OF VEHICLES WITHOUT PERMISSION OR "PROBABLE CAUSE".

TO DO OTHERWISE IS ILLEGAL!!!!!

The implication that a Conservation Officer can conduct searches of whatever he wants on private land is simply untrue.


SJ: "What are they doing on our land without permission?"

"IF" they are on your land without permission, they would only be there to check hunting licenses, fishing license, or to assist with an emergency situation unless they had other "probable cause" such as a report of a game violation.


SJ: "WE were also told by a GF&P official that they could come and go anytime anywhere they wanted without permission."

But they don't and policy won't allow it. If they are on your land without permission they are checking hunting licenses, checking fishing licenses, assisting with an emergency situation, or they have probable cause to suspect a game violation. If not, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE ANY REASON TO BE THERE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

If they are stocking fish, assisting with deer depredation, they are in contact with the landowner.

To suggest that Conservation Officers are running all over people's lands for no apparant reason is untrue! They are not there without having a good reason and that is primarily checking hunting and fishing licenses.


SJ: "If you believe they have to have permission then our CO was guilty when he was arrested for trespass."

They have to have "probable cause" to be there! I won't list it again!


This was never an issue until a few decided they had an axe to grind with GF&P for a number of reasons and needed a torch to carry.


Both BO and SC admitted that they had never seen a Conservation Officer on their place.

"MY GOD, BAR THE DOORS"!!!!!



~SH~

[SJ]

SH- When do they need to get permission?

Just because I have never seen a CO on my land, doesn't mean they haven't been here. They did not need to ask permission to enter my land before policy was changed.

If you are right why did they buck the bill in legislature. I'll bet you they would have fought the new policy had we amended the bill to that. Bottom line is they want to go where ever when ever they want and be covered if they get caught without permission.

I never said they could search my home without a warrant as far as that goes I wouldn't let them search my vehicle without a warrant. As far as out buildings, before I could answer I would have to read the case law again. I think GF&P stretches the Open field doctrine as far as compliance checks. They only way to find out is through the courts. I know I know you will come back with the Attorney Generals opinion and that is all it is no different than your opinion or mine.

[SJ]

SH- When do they need to get permission?

Just because I have never seen a CO on my land, doesn't mean they haven't been here. They did not need to ask permission to enter my land before policy was changed.

If you are right why did they buck the bill in legislature. I'll bet you they would have fought the new policy had we amended the bill to that. Bottom line is they want to go where ever when ever they want and be covered if they get caught without permission.

I never said they could search my home without a warrant as far as that goes I wouldn't let them search my vehicle without a warrant. As far as out buildings, before I could answer I would have to read the case law again. I think GF&P stretches the Open field doctrine as far as compliance checks. They only way to find out is through the courts. I know I know you will come back with the Attorney Generals opinion and that is all it is no different than your opinion or mine.

[SJ]

: “The "Open Fields Doctrine" is specific to allowing Conservation Officers the right to access private land to check hunters for their licenses while hunters are actively hunting and to access private land for protection of human health and safety



Show me where it specific to allowing CO the right to access ---------

[Liberty Belle]

SH: “Betty, I'll bet you a $100 that a Conservation Officer cannot search your home and buildlings without a search warrant. I'll also bet they cannot search your vehicles without permission or probable cause.
Want to put your money where your mouth is and take my bet?”

You’re on. As I said in my earlier post, “A CO cannot search the house without a search warrant. They CAN search buildings outside of the immediate surroundings of the home, including any sheds, barns, cellars, etc., without a warrant.”

Following is a direct quote from the attorney general's OFFICIAL OPINION NO. O4-01 given to Secretary John Cooper.(from page 5 of 6): Therefore, any law enforcement officer, including a conservation officer, may enter an "open field" in the performance of his statutory duties even though the officer lacks probable cause, reasonable suspicion, consent or permission, or a search warrant without committing a trespass. As to buildings, the best I can say is that I believe law enforcement can approach a building by going across open fields. If the doors are open and they can observe something that looks like a violation then law enforcement can enter, but not otherwise.

Have you ever heard the term curtilage?

This is from Bouvier's Law Dictionary: CURTILAGE - the open space situated within a common enclosure belonging to a dwelling-house.

Anything outside of that common enclosure is vulnerable to search without a search warrant. It doesn’t matter if it is the barn, the privy, the doghouse or a vehicle.
A South Dakota case that went to the US Supreme Court, South Dakota v. Opperman, allowed evidence gathered without a search warrant during a search of Opperman’s car to send him to the pen for possession of marijuana. A car is a vehicle, right?

SH: “Ken's implication that CO's can conduct searches without warrants, permission, or "probable cause" was clearly the intent and your support of that sensationalism is obvious to further your agenda.
To tell the whole truth would be "self defeating".

At this point, I’m not sure if you would recognize the “whole truth” if it bit you in the leg, but stay with me here and I’ll try again. Nowhere in the quote you posted from Knuppe did he even imply that game wardens could search the inside of a house without permission. All he said was that ranchers, “who happen to operate their businesses on wide open spaces should be afforded those same rights as landowners who may operate their businesses on smaller parcels of land such as a hardware store or a law office."

That’s sensationalism? Sorry, I can’t see it. He simply stated an opinion that of us share.

{SH (previous): “Nor can they enter private land at any time for no apparant reason.”}
{LB (in response): "Oh, yes they can and they do it all the time. There is absolutely no way to stop them. That’s what this whole issue is about."}

SH: OH NO THEY CAN'T!!!!
They have to have probable cause such as checking a hunter or human health and safety.

$100 says that you can’t show me any LAW that says a game warden has to have probable cause. That was what SB122 would have done, had it been passed into law. SB122 said that game wardens must have probable cause before they could enter private land without permission from the landowner.

Here’s the text of the bill:
No conservation officer may, in the course of performing the ordinary duties of a conservation officer, enter any private land unless the conservation officer has the permission of the landowner or the lessee. However, any conservation officer may enter any private land without permission:
(1) If reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists that a violation of a law that the conservation officer is authorized to enforce has been, is being, or is about to be committed;
(2) To investigate a report of illegal hunting, fishing, or trapping activity;
(3) To dispatch crippled or distressed wildlife;
(4) To respond to emergency situations, accidents, or other threats to public safety.

SH: “GF&P policy does not allow CO's to enter private land without permission unless they are checking hunters in the line of their duties.”

Policy is NOT law and can be changed as often as it suits the purposes of those setting policy. If you want that hundred dollar bill, show me the law that would stop a game warden from entering my land at anytime without either my knowledge or permission. If you can find one, please post it here, email me your address and I’ll send you a check. If not – you owe me.

SH: “There is laws to protect citizens from illegal searches without warrants, permission, or probable cause.
Ya got nothing Betty!”


Au contraire, my dear Scott, it appears that YOU have nothing. Will that be check or credit card?

[~SH~]

SH: “Betty, I'll bet you a $100 that a Conservation Officer cannot search your home and buildlings without a search warrant. I'll also bet they cannot search your vehicles without permission or probable cause. Want to put your money where your mouth is and take my bet?”

LB: "You’re on."

LB: "As I said in my earlier post, “A CO cannot search the house without a search warrant."

I'll take that as your admission that COs cannot do whatever they want and cannot search your home, and the buildings that surround it (curtilage) without a search warrant.

Thanks for making my point!


LB: "they CAN search buildings outside of the immediate surroundings of the home, including any sheds, barns, cellars, etc., without a warrant.”

NOT WITHOUT "PROBABLE CAUSE"


Attorney General: "As to buildings, the best I can say is that I believe law enforcement can approach a building by going across open fields. If the doors are open and they can observe something that looks like a violation then law enforcement can enter, but not otherwise.

ie "PROBABLE CAUSE"


I REST MY CASE!


LB: "Nowhere in the quote you posted from Knuppe did he even imply that game wardens could search the inside of a house without permission."

Here's what Ken said..........AGAIN!

Ken Knuppe: "Those businesses don't want law enforcement officers entering their premises and performing searches at any time for no apparent reason and neither do we. Most of us would grant them permission to enter; we simply want them to ask."

Ken Knuppe: "To allow law enforcement to enter a landowner's property and engage in search procedures without permission insinuates that we are guilty until proven innocent," Knuppe said.

Nowhere did Ken Knuppe mention that Conservation Officers couldn't search a house or the buildings surrounding it. He stated "SEARCHES" which implies "ALL SEARCHES". His intent was clearly to mislead.

Nowhere did Ken Knuppe mention "illegal searches" because like you, he wants to make the implication that COs can do whatever they want whenever they want and that is not the case and you provided the proof of that.


LB: "A South Dakota case that went to the US Supreme Court, South Dakota v. Opperman, allowed evidence gathered without a search warrant during a search of Opperman’s car to send him to the pen for possession of marijuana. A car is a vehicle, right?"

The officer apparently had "PERMISSION" or "PROBABLE CAUSE" which is what I stated.


Don't need to cover "illegal searches" again! You made my point!

Let's move on to "entering private land".


LB: "$100 says that you can’t show me any LAW that says a game warden has to have probable cause."

There is policy in place that says a game warden has to have "probable cause".

"Probable cause" is seeing hunters or fisherman in the act of hunting and fishing and checking their licenses.


LB: "If you want that hundred dollar bill, show me the law that would stop a game warden from entering my land at anytime without either my knowledge or permission. If you can find one, please post it here, email me your address and I’ll send you a check. If not – you owe me."

Hahaha!

"If not, I owe you"???? HOW DO YOU FIGURE???

My bet is at the top of the page and specific to "searches".

Your bet is "entrance" without permission. I didn't take your bet because I know the law.


I'm going to let you slide on my $100 bet because I could have clarified my challenge better to allow less wiggle room on "buildlings".

Here's what I said: "Betty, I'll bet you a $100 that a Conservation Officer cannot search your home and buildlings without a search warrant."

I meant the buildings within the curtilage and I knew that CO's could not search buildings outside of the curtilage without "probable cause" which the Attorney General confirmed. Either would be considered an "illegal search".

This would have clarified my challenge: [i]"Betty, I'll bet you a $100 that a Conservation Officer cannot search your home or the buildings surrounding your home (curtilage) without a search warrant and they cannot search your buildings outside of the (curtilage) without "probable cause".

Either way, the facts fly in the face of the implication that COs can do whatever they want, whenever they want.


As I said at the beginning, COs cannot randomly conduct searches which is what Ken clearly implied and that is flat wrong.



~SH~