SDSGA Ken Knuppe Corrected on Open Fields Doctrine

[~SH~]

SJ: "SH- When do they need to get permission?"

According to policy, when COs enter private land outside of checking hunters, fisherman, checking out a report of a game violation, or emergency situations involving human health and safety.


SJ: "Just because I have never seen a CO on my land, doesn't mean they haven't been here."

Just because I have never seen an elephant on my land doesn't mean they haven't been there either. LOL! Oh lighten up!


SJ: "They did not need to ask permission to enter my land before policy was changed."

And they don't now if they are checking hunters, checking fishermen, responding to a report of a game violation, or assisting with emergency situations involving human health and safety.


Can I expect to find these comments on a private website taken out of context like my livestock loss complaint prioritization "idea" that was misconstrued to suggest that losses had to reach those levels before we would even respond????

I haven't forgotten about that!


SJ: "If you are right why did they buck the bill in legislature."

Because the bill in legislature would not have allowed COs to check hunters and fisherman in the act of hunting and fishing without first having "probable cause". You can't tell if someone has a license, if they are hunting the right area, if they have taken too many fish, etc. etc. unless you check their license.


SJ: "Bottom line is they want to go where ever when ever they want and be covered if they get caught without permission."

Bottom line, they want to be able to effectively enforce the wildlife laws.


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

You do your own research and if you think I have stated something incorrectly, bring it.



~SH~

[SJ]

SH--And they don't now if they are checking hunters, checking fishermen, responding to a report of a game violation, or assisting with emergency situations involving human health and safety.

Now tell me again when or if they ever need to ask permission?

SH--Bottom line, they want to be able to effectively enforce the wildlife laws.

That's a joke I hope. They want to effectively cover themselves.


SH--You do your own research and if you think I have stated something incorrectly, bring it.

You mean you couldn't find it because it isn't there--GF&P has stretch the meaning to cover there need to be able to come onto land without permission.



SH--Can I expect to find these comments on a private website taken out of context like my livestock loss complaint prioritization "idea" that was misconstrued to suggest that losses had to reach those levels before we would even respond????

SH-I haven't forgotten about that!

Don't you feel confident with your answers and research. I wasn't the one who wrote it and had it put on either.


AN old guy told me once--"I hated the smell of ink ---That stink can end up some where else."

[SJ]

Sh read the doctrine.

If CO's can only come on without permission to check licenses and whether the guy is hunting in the right unit. Why don't they just put a chip in the license, that way they can follow him and know if he is in the right unit, also request that they stop at a game check and see if they got the right thing and if they don't, the CO can go to their house and violate there right to privacy.

I had one hunter tell me that hunting is just a pastime and he doesn't need to do it. We don't need hunting either. GF&P has never managed the deer to lessen the cost to the landowner. Mother nature has but that is the only thing that has. GF&P is a business and they manage the wildlife to an abundance, to sell licenses. license sales is their livelihood.

When you said you could have elephants on your land and not know it. When I was trapping I also did a little tracking. I think even I would notice the signs of an elephant.

[Jinglebob]

EJ and Liberty Belle;

You might as well just ignore SH. He takes peoples words out of context and tries to use them against them. He wants everyone to funish him with evidence but doesn't want to do so himself.

Both of you made excellent postings. The way the law reads now is to cover the butts of CO's so they don't have to worry about going anywhere or doing anything to do their "jobs".

SH will never admit to anyone elses opinion yet wants everyone to agree with his. He must be an immature person. When he was a child, he probably took his toys and went home if the rest of the children wouldn't play the games the way he wanted.

I refuse to reply to him any longer as it's a waste of time.

My father always told me, "You can't argue with a dang fool". I see now that it is possible, but you are wasting your time by doing so.

Wish there was some way to get SH's CO or some other law official to run all over his freedoms so that he could understand the frustrations better.

SH wants to take a matter of law personally and can't understand that he is losing freedoms and will continue to do so untill they are all gone, if he doesn't fight to get those freedoms back.

Again, great posts you two.

[Liberty Belle]

Thanks for the kudos, jinglebob. Appreciate the comments.

[Liberty Belle]

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

My admission? I’ve said from the start that NO ONE, game wardens included, can search your house without a search warrant. Now show me THE LAW that stops a CO from searching my out buildings without a warrant. You can’t, because there isn’t one. If your case is founded solely on the attorney general’s OPNINION, you don’t have a case, so rest lightly.

Now, back to your quote from Ken Knuppe. I’ve never spoken to Mr. Knuppe and you probably don’t know him any better than I do, but it appears that you are reading things you want him to say into what he actually said. I know you hate it when people do that with you. I don’t like having what I say misconstrued to fit someone else’s agenda any more than you do, so let’s just stick with what he said and not what you want to twist it to mean.

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?"

SH: “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!”

The following is taken from South Dakota v. Opperman. You should note that the police had neither permission nor probable cause. They were simply digging through the guy’s car:
After respondent's car had been impounded for multiple parking violations the police, following standard procedures, inventoried the contents of the car. In doing so, they discovered marihuana in the glove compartment, for the possession of which respondent was subsequently arrested. His motion to suppress the evidence yielded by the warrantless inventory search was denied, and respondent was thereafter convicted. The State Supreme Court reversed, concluding that the evidence had been obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment as made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth.

Held: The police procedures followed in this case did not involve an "unreasonable" search in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The expectation of privacy in one's automobile is significantly less than that relating to one's home or office, Cardwell v. Lewis, 417 U.S. 583, 590.

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

Although your interpretation of probable cause seems to be prevalent among employees of GF&P, it is dead wrong! A two minute internet search will give you the definition of probable cause and it is NOT seeing a hunter, clad in hunter orange and packing a rifle, walking through a pasture during hunting season any more than seeing Grandma driving down the highway, wearing her seat belt and obeying the speed limit gives a highway patrolman probable cause to stop her to see if she has a license. He’s not allowed to do that. The HP has to have reason to believe Grandma has broken a law (probable cause) before he can stop her, unless he does license checks and stops everyone without discrimination.

PROBABLE CAUSE - A reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. The test the court of appeals employs to determine whether probable cause existed for purposes of arrest is whether facts and circumstances within the officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. U.S. v. Puerta, 982 F.2d 1297, 1300 (9th Cir. 1992).

Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)

Our local CO told his neighbor that he (the CO) can come on the neighbor’s private land without the neighbor’s knowledge or permission ANY TIME HE WANTS TO!! And no, this did not come from the guy who tried to have the CO arrested from trespassing on private property when there was no hunting season and no legitimate reason for the CO to be there without permission.

There are more people in Harding County who have had run ins with both our CO and our trapper than there are folks who get along with them, a fact that Sec. Cooper has chosen to totally ignore, despite his purported emphasis on communications.

Communications to GF&P appears to mean that GF&P will speak and the landowners had doggone well better listen.

LB: "they CAN search buildings outside of the immediate surroundings of the home, including any sheds, barns, cellars, etc., without a warrant.”
SH: “NOT WITHOUT "PROBABLE CAUSE”

See the above definition of probable cause. They can. They have. And they will continue to do so until stopped by a law that says they can’t.

Now that I’ve shown you the “error of your ways” you can skip sending me that $100 if you’ll spring for coffee next time we meet. I really do think you are a pretty nice guy, well read and well informed on most issues, with a decidedly conservative bent, of which I whole heartedly approve. I guess everyone is entitled to a blind spot or two every now and then.

[~SH~]

SJ: "Now tell me again when or if they ever need to ask permission?"

Once again, unless conservation officers are checking hunters, checking fisherman, responding to a report of a game violation, or assisting with an emergency situation involving human health and safety, they need to obtain permission to enter private land based on policy.

Now will you believe that? Of course not! It doesn't fit your conspiracy theory that Conservation Officers can go whereever they want and do whatever they want because that's what you want to believe.


SJ: "That's a joke I hope. They want to effectively cover themselves."

Cover themselves from what?

If they are not checking hunting licenses, fishing licenses, responding to a report of a game violation, or responding to an emergency, just what reason can you think of for them to access private land?

It's always some "shot from the grassy knoll" conspiracy isn't it???


SJ: "Don't you feel confident with your answers and research. I wasn't the one who wrote it and had it put on either."

Of course I feel confident in my answers and research. If I didn't do you think I would display them here for the world to see where I am held accountable? My comments regarding livestock loss thresholds were clearly taken out of context. Funny how I have presented that very same idea to many others and never had anyone else take it out of context.


JB: "You might as well just ignore SH. He takes peoples words out of context and tries to use them against them."

Jinglebob, rather than jumping into a cheerleading outfit and waving your pom poms, why don't you provide the statement that you believe was taken out of context??? Hmmmmm????

Talk is cheap!

Pretty hard to take someone out of context WHEN YOU PROVIDE THEIR EXACT QUOTE.

As always, those who have nothing to offer to the discussion make their feeble attempts to discredit those they cannot debate. Same-O, same-O!


JB: "SH will never admit to anyone elses opinion yet wants everyone to agree with his."

Listen to you. As if I would expect everyone to agree with me. LOL!

I readily admit that others have opinions. This post was clearly about an opinion on "searches" conducted by Conservation Officers which was clearly proven wrong based on facts.

All opinions are not equal. Some are supported by facts and some are just opinions.

In your world I suppose the jury would respond, "we have reached a verdict your honor. In the people vs. Conservation Officers, we the jury do not have a verdict because everyone is entitled to their opinion". LOL!

FACT - CO'S CANNOT CONDUCT ANY SEARCH THEY WANT WITHOUT EITHER HAVING A WARRANT, PERMISSION, OR PROBABLE CAUSE.

Can you offer anything to the contrary?

Of course not because you have assumed the role of cheerleader, not debater or fact provider. GO TEAM GO!


JB: "He must be an immature person. When he was a child, he probably took his toys and went home if the rest of the children wouldn't play the games the way he wanted."

Oh here we go again. Another Dr. Phil psychoanalysis by someone who brings nothing to the table other than moral support for those who support his views.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!

Typical of the "factually defenseless"!

Those who can't debate, discredit!

Some things never change!


JB: "I refuse to reply to him any longer as it's a waste of time."

I fully understand. If I couldn't bring anything more to the discussion than cheerleading, I wouldn't respond either.

Please honor that and don't respond if you have nothing to bring to the table. Funny how you don't respond yet here I am responding to your response. LOL!



~SH~

[~SH~]

LB: "Now, back to your quote from Ken Knuppe. I’ve never spoken to Mr. Knuppe and you probably don’t know him any better than I do, but it appears that you are reading things you want him to say into what he actually said. I know you hate it when people do that with you. I don’t like having what I say misconstrued to fit someone else’s agenda any more than you do, so let’s just stick with what he said and not what you want to twist it to mean."

Oh come on, unless someone specifies the "searches" that person is referring to, "searches" implies "ANY SEARCH".

WORDS MEAN THINGS!

The implication of "searches" fits the agenda here perfectly. After all, so what if people think CO's can conduct any search they want without a warrant, permission, or "probable cause"??? RIGHT???

There is no twisting the words when you use someone's exact quote. The twist is to pretend that "searches" doesn't imply "ALL SEARCHES".


LB: "The following is taken from South Dakota v. Opperman. You should note that the police had neither permission nor probable cause. They were simply digging through the guy’s car:"

Quote: "After respondent's car had been impounded for multiple parking violations the police, following standard procedures, inventoried the contents of the car. In doing so, they discovered marihuana in the glove compartment, for the possession of which respondent was subsequently arrested."

In this case, the judge apparantly believed that "multiple parking violations" constituted "probable cause".

No need to argue with me about it because I never made the decision based on the facts presented, the judge did. Perhaps there was more to constitute "probable cause" than "multiple parking violations". I would have no way of knowing.

My personal opinion is that "multiple parking violations" BY ITSELF should not constitute probable cause.


Now answer a couple simple questions LB.....

1. Can a law enforcement officer search any vehicle they want without permission or without "probable cause"?

YES or NO?

2. Imagine a 60's multi colored hippie van with peace signs painted on the side being pulled over for speeding. A couple Cheech and Chong looking characters are seated in front and the officer smells marijuana as the window is rolled down. Meanwhile, the drug dog starts raising heck at the back door of the van.

Does anything listed constitute "probable cause" to justify a search in your mind?

YES or NO?


LB: "Although your interpretation of probable cause seems to be prevalent among employees of GF&P, it is dead wrong!"

That's your opinion. The context of the Open Fields Doctrine would agree that Conservation Officers checking hunters for their license during the act of hunting constitutes "probable cause" or the Open Fields Doctrine would not exist.


LB: "Our local CO told his neighbor that he (the CO) can come on the neighbor’s private land without the neighbor’s knowledge or permission ANY TIME HE WANTS TO!! And no, this did not come from the guy who tried to have the CO arrested from trespassing on private property when there was no hunting season and no legitimate reason for the CO to be there without permission."

In the context of checking hunters, checking fisherman, responding to a report of a game violation, and responding to an emergency situation, that would be correct. I did not hear the discussion so I don't know if specifics were addressed or not.


LB: "There are more people in Harding County who have had run ins with both our CO and our trapper than there are folks who get along with them, a fact that Sec. Cooper has chosen to totally ignore, despite his purported emphasis on communications."

That is simply your opinion. I have no way of confirming whether or not that is true. From the unbiased reports I have heard there is landowners that appreciate the GF&P employees and there is those who don't.

A lot of the anymosity towards RY has more to do with those who have an axe to grind with GF&P than it has to do with anything RY has done.

I found out rather quickly that many of those who had an axe to grind with GF&P could not look me in the eye and tell me that RY was not a good trapper, that he was not a hard worker, or that he had ever refused service to anyone who asked. Some just need something or someone to bitch about.

Heck I have people in my area that hate me too. Mainly because of my position on R-CALF. Standing up for the truth on the cattle and beef issues I am passionate about assures that I will have enemies, I honestly don't give a sh*t. I don't try to patronize people that are too gutless to address their differences with me personally one on one.


LB: "Now that I’ve shown you the “error of your ways” you can skip sending me that $100 if you’ll spring for coffee next time we meet."

Hahaha! Ok, I'll leave you to believe you have shown me the error in my ways. Coffee sounds good!


LB: "I really do think you are a pretty nice guy, well read and well informed on most issues, with a decidedly conservative bent, of which I whole heartedly approve."

I appreciate that and I can say the same for you. I respect your tenacity in standing up for something you believe in.

It's not that I do not share your same concerns about private property rights. I grew up on a ranch and I own property. The difference in our opinions stems from my prioritization of enforcement of wildlife laws over certain private property rights. I have had far more grief from trespassing, beer drinking, littering, fence clipping, rut leaving, crop mashing, poaching, slob hunters than I have ever had with a Conservation Officer checking hunters in the line of duty. My childhood memories of Conservation Officers are filled with nothing but respect and admiration. These guys are my friends and I know their side of this issue.


LB: "I guess everyone is entitled to a blind spot or two every now and then."

Hahaha! ok?


~SH~

[SJ]

You talk of a conspiracy theory--- I guess I just don't get it. Is there one? I just want my right to privacy and if by allowing hunting I give up my right to privacy and am considered a landowner who would conduct criminal activity-- there will be no hunting. That's my choice.

I also find it hard to believe by buying a license to hunt you give probable cause for a compliance check.

Why is it so hard for a CO to come in ask who is hunting and if they can check licenses?

[~SH~]

SJ: "Why is it so hard for a CO to come in ask who is hunting and if they can check licenses?"

Those who are abiding by the laws would grant permission and those who are not abiding by the laws would not grant permission.



~SH~

[SJ]

I think it is ridiculous to consider all landowners criminals over a compliance check without first giving them them a chance. If they deny, the CO could get a WARRANT but he probably should have a pretty good reason or probable cause not just a compliance check. To say some one who denies permission is conducting illegal activity is guilty until proven innocent. Maybe the hunt is in progress and he feels there is a better time or other reasons other than criminal activity.

Come on SH this is wrong and a invasion of rights.

There is a small percentage of illegal activity in all walks of life, that includes CO's.