• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Comments on South Dakota property rights issue

Help Support Ranchers.net:

L

Liberty Belle

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
1,818
Reaction score
4
Location
northwestern South Dakota
Property rights

I have been driving in South Dakota since before drivers licenses were instituted. I have never been stopped by a Highway Patrolman to check for a valid license, yet South Dakota Game, Fish and Parks insists they have a right to go on private land (not public highways) to check whom they "think" may be hunting for licenses.

Landowners want hunters to keep wildlife numbers in check. What they don't want is unwarranted search and seizure, with disregard of private property rights.

Since the large majority of game is produced on private land, it would seem to me that landowners deserve more respect and consideration of these rights.

The lockout will continue, and increases of acres locked out to hunting are expected until the S.D. Legislature passes meaningful legislation to curb the erosion of our private property rights (open fields, road hunting, buying property) by SDGF&P. A bill defeated by the S.D. House would have, if codified, curbed the abuse of private property rights by GF&P personnel.

Landowners provide food, water, shelter for wildlife. Hunters, non-hunters, rural and urban South Dakota: let's provide the landowners the property rights protection we all have a right to.

JOE LOGUE

Oelrichs
 
If I were Secretary of GF&P or Governor

If I were Secretary of GF&P or Governor I would have embraced the proposed legislation limiting the open fields doctrine. Here is why:
A group called the west river issues working group met several times over the last year. There was diversity of opinions in the group, but one thing topped the list of concerns, the lack of communication between the GF&P Dept. and landowners.
After viewing legislative committee hearings it appeared that the primary concern of the GF&P Dept. opposing the open fields bill was compliance checking of bag limits and licenses. There is nothing to prevent game officer from seeking prior permission to enter private land for those purposes. Current GPS and mapping technology already in place in many counties, soon in all, make landowner identification as easy as pushing a button. The scenario could have unfolded like this:

1. The bill limiting the open fields doctrine passed.

2. The Governor signs it.

3. A million, possibly two million, acres are reopened to hunting.

4. GF&P management using the open fields statute as a motivator establishes competition among districts and individual game officers to see who can obtain the highest percentage of landowner prior permissions for compliance checking.

5. GF&P dept discovers that addressing predator and pest control, game depredation and limiting game numbers at responsible levels garner them the highest prior permission levels.

6. The communication problem topping the list of working group concerns has evaporated.

7. Socialists who claimed property rights and game management weren't compatible are proven wrong.

Statesmen in leadership positions accept new ideas and information and change their minds accordingly. Politicians in positions of power entrench, dispute new ideas and continue to expand their power.

When a Governor interferes with the legislative process to side with the power and convenience of a bureaucratic agency and sides against producer property rights it is time for a change in executive branch leadership.

Craig Shaver
 
The above comments were taken from www.sdlockout.com and it is interesting to note that the number of acres now in the hunting lockout is 3,100,000 and climbing. Attention Tony Dean: this is NOT a "Harding County" issue, and never has been. The new acres have all been added from other counties across the state. Spin it all you want, but this is a private property rights issue and a major concern for most landowners.
 
Joe Logue from Oelrichs: "What they don't want is unwarranted search and seizure, with disregard of private property rights."


Liberty Belle,

Why do you post something like this when you know damn well it's not the truth?

We just went over this!

Conservation officers cannot search your homes and the buildings surrounding those homes (cutilage) without a search warrant.

Conservation officers cannot search vehicles and buildings outside the curtilage without permission or probable cause.

Any search without a warrant, permission, or probable cause is an illegal search.

Think you'll get more mileage out of your cause by creating the impression that Conservation Officers can conduct illegal searches?

If you have a problem with Conservation Officers checking hunters and fisherman on your land without permission, that's one thing.

To suggest they can conduct illegal searches like Ken Knuppe and Joe Logue have is quite another.



~SH~
 
SH, "Why do you post something like this when you know damn well it's not the truth? "

It is the truth.


SH, "We just went over this! "

Yeah, and you were factually askew as usual, I didn't care to correct you. Calling Liberty Belle a liar changes my ambivalence.



SH, "Conservation officers cannot search your homes and the buildings surrounding those homes (curtilage) without a search warrant."

Agreed

SH, "Conservation officers cannot search vehicles and buildings outside the curtilage without permission or probable cause."

Enter buildings or cars, mostly agreed. They can if they use the right "code words"

SH, "Any search without a warrant, permission, or probable cause is an illegal search."

Technically, yes.

SH, "Think you'll get more mileage out of your cause by creating the impression that Conservation Officers can conduct illegal searches?"

yes the search without a warrant or probable cause is illegal. It is the Open Fields Doctrine that describes these illegal searches - we wouldn't need any cute catch phrase for lawful searches - we call that probable cause.

SH, "If you have a problem with Conservation Officers checking hunters and fisherman on your land without permission, that's one thing."

GOOD GAWD BOY, that's it. TRESPASS WITHOUT PERMISSION. If the CO can, while standing on public ground, ID a probable deer hunter with insufficient orange, or spotlighting after dark, we call that probable cause. The CO can ID an exact infraction that is more likely than not taking place, and cross private lines. No objection. No probable cause, ask for access.

SH, "To suggest they can conduct illegal searches like Ken Knuppe and Joe Logue have is quite another. "

THat's the open fields doctrine. They are illegal searches, but not excluded. So the illegally obtained evidence is admissable in court. We already have words like search warrant and probable cause to describe legal trespass, Open Fields determines what we do with evidence from illegal trespass
 
Brad S.: "It is the truth."

It's not the truth! It's deception.

Joe Logue: " What they don't want is unwarranted search and seizure, with disregard of private property rights."

Again, Conservation officers cannot search homes and buildings without a search warrant and they cannot search vehicles and buildings outside the curtilage without permission or "probable cause".

Joe Logue and Ken Knuppe did not specify what searches they are referring to so their statements, as written, suggest to anyone reading them that Conservation Officers can conduct any search they want without warrants, permission, or "probable cause" and THAT IS NOT THE CASE!


Brad S.: "yes the search without a warrant or probable cause is illegal."

WE AGREE!!!!


Brad S.: "Yeah, and you were factually askew as usual, I didn't care to correct you."

Oh, I see, I was factually askew but then you agree with me. Ahhh....ok?


Brad S.: "Calling Liberty Belle a liar changes my ambivalence."

I never called LB a liar.

That in itself is a lie Brad!

If you would like to prove me wrong, BRING IT!


Brad S.: "GOOD GAWD BOY, that's it. TRESPASS WITHOUT PERMISSION. If the CO can, while standing on public ground, ID a probable deer hunter with insufficient orange, or spotlighting after dark, we call that probable cause. The CO can ID an exact infraction that is more likely than not taking place, and cross private lines. No objection. No probable cause, ask for access."

BOY? I'm probably older than you!

Accessing private land does not preclude an officer from needing to have "probable cause" or permission to search vehicles and buildings outside the curtilage nor does it preclude an officer from needing a search warrant to search a home.


Brad S.: "THat's the open fields doctrine. They are illegal searches, but not excluded. So the illegally obtained evidence is admissable in court. We already have words like search warrant and probable cause to describe legal trespass, Open Fields determines what we do with evidence from illegal trespass"

What illegal searches are you talking about here and what evidence was obtained illegally?

You just got done admitting that Conservation Officers cannot conduct illegal searches and access is allowed via the Open Fields Doctrine.

Accessing private land, as allowed by the Open Fields Doctrine, does not allow illegal searches.

The trespass is not illegal either as the access is allowed under the Open Fields Doctrine.


Now don't give me your usual bullsh*t about comprehension because it's you that has trouble making your point.

Perhaps you are defining "search" as accessing private ground without permission to obtain evidence such as hunting without a license or shooting a deer out of season. I am specifically referring to searching homes, vehicles, and buildings. Is that our hangup here?


~SH~
 
SH, "I never called LB a liar.
That in itself is a lie Brad!
If you would like to prove me wrong, BRING IT!


You wrote: "Liberty Belle, Why do you post something like this when you know damn well it's not the truth? "

Don't insult me and embarass yourself by saying this isn't calling Liberty Belle a liar.



SH, "What illegal searches are you talking about here and what evidence was obtained illegally?

The illegal searches in question are the ones where leo trespasses on open fields to gather evidence without probable cause. Probable cause to trespass on open fields would be like seeing spotlighting and hearing gunfire; now the subsequent trespass isn't illegal because of probable cause. An illegal search is the arbitrary trespass to check for a shotgun plug and a duck stamp. The issue isn't the probable cause searches, they have nothing to do with Open Fields Doctrine. The issue is the random trespass that finds a law infraction.


SH, "You just got done admitting that Conservation Officers cannot conduct illegal searches and access is allowed via the Open Fields Doctrine."

No No No and Hell NO. Listen closely and don't add to my writing. Open Fields Doctrine Does Not give access to ****. Open Fields Doctrine sez that evidence gathered on open fields via trespass or whatever illegal means won't be supressed. The remedy to the wrong doing is not supression of evidence like it is in a residence. It is the pernicous nature of government to conclude "if the evidence ain't excluded, the government can go on private lands. There is a fellow named Ben Franklin, hell you may have heard of him, he warned us about government intruding on private property rights.




AH, "Perhaps you are defining "search" as accessing private ground without permission to obtain evidence such as hunting without a license or shooting a deer out of season. I am specifically referring to searching homes, vehicles, and buildings. Is that our hangup here? "

First, let's simplify things. House, yard area, building interriors, these areas have nothing to do with Open Fields Doctrine - they are distractions.
Open Fields Doctrine is only relevant to nonprobable cause searches in the nonresidence areas. If there is probable cause, the resulting search is lawful, so we're not talking about seeing spotlights and hearing shots. So what is left is leo wallowing arroung on private property, casting a broad net, and hoping to pull in some violations. Open Fields Doctrine allows the evidence produced from such offensive practices be used in court, BUT OPEN FIELDS DOCTRINE DOES NOT GIVE LEO ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. One case I cited here some time ago mentioned this very issue. The judge said that while the remedy to the trespass was not supression of ilegally obtained evidence, the private property holder could still find remedy in civil court for the trespass.


Personally, I demand Law Enforcement be held to the highest standard of conduct, and this excludes any unlawful activities. This Open Fields trespass in South Dakota is really about standard of conduct.
 
SH (previous): "Liberty Belle, Why do you post something like this when you know damn well it's not the truth?"

Brad (in response): "Don't insult me and embarass yourself by saying this isn't calling Liberty Belle a liar."

Oh come on Brad?

I asked LB her motive for posting something that isn't true and at the least, misleading. That is hardly calling someone a liar. She probably just wanted to get a reaction out of me.

I can't hold her responsible for what someone else said. I can only question her motive for repeating something that isn't true (the implication that CO's can conduct any search they want without a warrant).

I don't pull punches. If I knew she was lying, I'd say it and you have been around long enough to know that.


Brad S.: "The illegal searches in question are the ones where leo trespasses on open fields to gather evidence without probable cause. Probable cause to trespass on open fields would be like seeing spotlighting and hearing gunfire; now the subsequent trespass isn't illegal because of probable cause. An illegal search is the arbitrary trespass to check for a shotgun plug and a duck stamp. The issue isn't the probable cause searches, they have nothing to do with Open Fields Doctrine. The issue is the random trespass that finds a law infraction."

Excellent explanation!

Herein lies my problem. Joe Logue and Ken Knuppe clearly did not define "searches" as entering private land without permission or checking a shotgun plug as you have. They clearly wanted to create the impression that Conservation Officers can conduct any search they want without a warrant, permission, or "probable cause" which is not the case. That's my only hangup here.

Your shotgun plug example is an excellent example of an "unwarranted" search.

In contrast, searching buildings or vehicles outside of the curtilage area without "probable cause" or permission is an illegal search.


Brad S.: " Open Fields Doctrine is only relevant to nonprobable cause searches in the nonresidence areas. If there is probable cause, the resulting search is lawful, so we're not talking about seeing spotlights and hearing shots. So what is left is leo wallowing arroung on private property, casting a broad net, and hoping to pull in some violations."

But that is not the case. Conservation officers in this state are not accessing private property hoping to find hunters and fisherman. They are seeing hunters and fisherman in the act of hunting and fishing then accessing private land to check their hunting and fishing licenses. The "probable cause" in this situation is seeing a hunter or fisherman in the act of hunting and fishing or a report of a game violation.

Your shoe doesn't fit in this situation.


Brad S.: "Open Fields Doctrine allows the evidence produced from such offensive practices be used in court, BUT OPEN FIELDS DOCTRINE DOES NOT GIVE LEO ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. One case I cited here some time ago mentioned this very issue. The judge said that while the remedy to the trespass was not supression of ilegally obtained evidence, the private property holder could still find remedy in civil court for the trespass."

I'm going to check into this further.


Thank you for a civil and well thought out response.

Excellent job!



~SH~
 
Sorry I have been so slow to get back on here, but we have been pretty well tied up looking for a neighbor of ours who disappeared on his way to the airport in Rapid City. He was found dead yesterday by a rancher friend of ours on a back trail in the Custer National Forest. The car he was driving high centered and Keith was found dead over two miles from his car.
SH, please note that our neighbor was found on Forest Service land by a local rancher and the only law enforcement involved in the search were the county sheriffs from Perkins and Harding Counties. The CO was nowhere to be found, and in fact, no one even thought to call him!!

Now, to get back to the subject at hand:

SH: "Liberty Belle,
Why do you post something like this when you know damn well it's not the truth?
We just went over this!"

Brad S: "Yeah, and you were factually askew as usual, I didn't care to correct you. Calling Liberty Belle a liar changes my ambivalence."

SH: "I never called LB a liar. That in itself is a lie Brad!"

Brad S: "Don't insult me and embarrass yourself by saying this isn't calling Liberty Belle a liar."

SH: "I asked LB her motive for posting something that isn't true and at the least, misleading. That is hardly calling someone a liar. She probably just wanted to get a reaction out of me."

I'm flattered boys! I haven't had this much fuss made over me by two young fellows since high school, and no, I'm not going to tell you how long ago that was.

Brad, thank you for defending my veracity; I appreciate it.

Scott, don't be surprised when someone holds you accountable for what you say. I offer you a quote of your own from an earlier post, "WORDS MEAN THINGS!" When something is not the truth it must, by definition, be a lie. And I've never posted anything about open fields that wasn't the absolute, unvarnished truth.

I will admit you have me dead to rights in one area though, I was hoping to get a rise out of you!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brad S.: "Open Fields Doctrine is only relevant to nonprobable cause searches in the nonresidence areas. If there is probable cause, the resulting search is lawful, so we're not talking about seeing spotlights and hearing shots. So what is left is leo wallowing around on private property, casting a broad net, and hoping to pull in some violations."

SH: "But that is not the case. Conservation officers in this state are not accessing private property hoping to find hunters and fisherman. They are seeing hunters and fisherman in the act of hunting and fishing then accessing private land to check their hunting and fishing licenses. The "probable cause" in this situation is seeing a hunter or fisherman in the act of hunting and fishing or a report of a game violation."

Okay, here we go again – probable cause means that the CO has some indication that a crime is either in progress or has been committed. Probable cause is NOT seeing someone in the process of conducting a legal hunt during a legal hunting season! Why can't you understand something so simple that even my kindergarten-aged grandson was able to grasp the concept?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Brad S.: "Open Fields Doctrine allows the evidence produced from such offensive practices be used in court, BUT OPEN FIELDS DOCTRINE DOES NOT GIVE LEO ACCESS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY. One case I cited here some time ago mentioned this very issue. The judge said that while the remedy to the trespass was not suppression of illegally obtained evidence, the private property holder could still find remedy in civil court for the trespass."

Good post and good point, Brad.

Scott, I issued you a challenge in an earlier post: "Show me where South Dakota law limits game wardens from coming onto private land any day of the year and for any reason. You can't do it. That law does not exist." I'm still waiting……
 
First, I'm pleased to stand corrected with reguard to calling LB a liar.


SH, "The "probable cause" in this situation is seeing a hunter or fisherman in the act of hunting and fishing or a report of a game violation. "

You are misusing "probable cause" here. The mere sight of a hunter does not mean it is more likely than not the hunter is in violation of a very specific sort of violation. If the hunter appears to be deer hunting without orange, then the CO has probable cause to search. If a few fellas are walking out a pheasant hunt, there is no legal reason to search until an unlawful act is committed. So the CO can watch with those huge binoculars and see what sort of hunters he is looking at, and he still has not trespassed. If the CO chooses to search the hunting party before he's seen any unlawful behavior, Open Fields Doctine establishes the fruit from the illegal search is admissable in court. Quality law enforcement doesn't even need the shortcut of breaking the law, it just helps the lazy officers.

I think the report of a game violation may constitute probable cause and justify the trespass, so that isn't necessarily topical to Open Fields.
 
LB: "Scott, don't be surprised when someone holds you accountable for what you say."

Happens here everyday.


LB: "I offer you a quote of your own from an earlier post, "WORDS MEAN THINGS!" When something is not the truth it must, by definition, be a lie."

No that is wrong LB!

A lie is saying something that is not true WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD.

A lie is not simply saying something that is untrue.


LB: "And I've never posted anything about open fields that wasn't the absolute, unvarnished truth."

Keep telling yourself that!

You said (paraphrasing) "CO's could come on private land and do whatever they wanted to". You also defended the same implication by Ken Knuppe and Joe Logue. Both were wrong! You then went on to admit that Conservation Officers couldn't conduct certain searches without warrants and other searches without probable cause or permission.

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. Second, Ken suggests that Conservation Officers can perform searches at any time for no apparant reason and that is not the case either."

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

You were clearly wrong. There is laws that protect citizens from illegal searches.


Why don't you just admit that if you can create the "ILLUSION" that Conservation Officers can do whatever they want, when ever they want, including illegal searches, it furthers your agenda. You know it and I know it. That's why you wrongly stated that Ken Knuppe was right and that's why you posted Joe Logue's letter to the editor.



LB: "Scott, I issued you a challenge in an earlier post: "Show me where South Dakota law limits game wardens from coming onto private land any day of the year and for any reason. You can't do it. That law does not exist." I'm still waiting……"

I already told you it's a policy and not law.

Although you will not find a Conservation Officer on private land unless they are checking hunters, fisherman, responding to a game violation, have probable cause, or permission.


Brad: "If a few fellas are walking out a pheasant hunt, there is no legal reason to search until an unlawful act is committed."

There is no way to know whether or not someone hunting has a hunting license unless he's checked. In South Dakota, Conservation Officers have the legal right to enter private land to check hunters and fisherman for their licenses.



~SH~
 
Posted: Fri Mar 18, 2005 6:38 am    Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LB: "Scott, don't be surprised when someone holds you accountable for what you say."

Happens here everyday.


LB: "I offer you a quote of your own from an earlier post, "WORDS MEAN THINGS!" When something is not the truth it must, by definition, be a lie."

SH: No that is wrong LB!
A lie is saying something that is not true WITH THE INTENT TO MISLEAD.

Hey SH, notice the quotes. This is something that you posted earlier. So which way is it? Oh, I forgot, you can't handle the truth, so never mind! LOL


Brad: "If a few fellas are walking out a pheasant hunt, there is no legal reason to search until an unlawful act is committed."

SH:There is no way to know whether or not someone hunting has a hunting license unless he's checked. In South Dakota, Conservation Officers have the legal right to enter private land to check hunters and fisherman for their licenses.

Guess we should just change their names to "the Gestapo" then!
 
JB: "So which way is it?"

Did you actually think you saw a contradiction there?

Perhaps you'd like to explain it.

If you had a point, what was it or did you just feel the need to say something in response even if it didn't make sense?


JB: "Guess we should just change their names to "the Gestapo" then!"

If you think that will add credibility to the points you obviously don't have!




~SH~
 
SH: "You said (paraphrasing) "CO's could come on private land and do whatever they wanted to". You also defended the same implication by Ken Knuppe and Joe Logue. Both were wrong!"

You are wrong. The only thing stopping a CO from coming onto private land without permission is a GF&P "policy" which does not have the force of law and can be changed at any time at the whim of Mr. Cooper. After a couple years of listening to Cooper saying one thing and doing the opposite, we have found that we cannot trust the man.

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

SH: "You were clearly wrong. There is laws that protect citizens from illegal searches.
Why don't you just admit that if you can create the "ILLUSION" that Conservation Officers can do whatever they want, when ever they want, including illegal searches, it furthers your agenda. You know it and I know it. That's why you wrongly stated that Ken Knuppe was right and that's why you posted Joe Logue's letter to the editor."

Where do I even start with this? Pay attention now. I'll type really slowly and maybe you can follow this: Game wardens can come on private land any time that want to, at any time of the year, for any reason they see fit and there is nothing a landowner can do about it. A game warden can't legally search my house or anything within the curtilage (the immediate surroundings of the house), but he can drive across my grass, without my permission or my knowledge, and traipse through my pastures with impunity because, as our attorney general said in his opinion, a conservation officer is "special". An opinion shared by many CO's across the state.

You know full well that neither I, Knuppe or Logue said anything about the game wardens being able to make illegal, warrantless searches. Get off that mule before you ride it to death.

My agenda? The only agenda here is protection of a landowner's private property rights from trespass and there are lots of us pushing for that. In case you haven't noticed, there are quite a few landowners who are upset with the high handed policies of both GF&P Sec. Cooper and Gov. Rounds.

SH: "There is no way to know whether or not someone hunting has a hunting license unless he's checked. In South Dakota, Conservation Officers have the legal right to enter private land to check hunters and fisherman for their licenses."

Yup, they're a lawless bunch, those hunters and they just can't be trusted to obey the licensing rules. With a crime wave like that going on, it's no wonder the landowners need to have their rights trampled on! Why, can you imagine the horror of someone putting the wrong tag on the wrong antelope? Or worse, brazenly shooting a buck while walking through my pasture wearing hunter orange, and only having a doe license? No wonder GF&P feels that it needs to violate landowner's rights. What's a little trespass compared to a couple more pheasants or fish than the law allows? Especially when you can't be bothered to do license and limit checks on the public highway.

That's worse than a fellow driving a two-ton pickup truck seventy-five mph down the Interstate without a driver's license? Logue did note that the Highway Patrol can't stop a guy just to check for a driver's license. How many more people are killed by bad drivers than by bad hunters? Something is really out of whack here.

Gestapo? If the shoe fits....
 
GF&P is the only Government agency, that makes rules, that are enforced as law by a law enforcement agency of their own. If a complaint against a GF&P employee is made, GF&P does its own internal investigation,which does not usually include the one making the complaint, and they are judge and jury with the penalty phase being confidential.

If I am picked up by a patrolman for speeding it is public information and usually put in the paper.
 
Brad: "If a few fellas are walking out a pheasant hunt, there is no legal reason to search until an unlawful act is committed."

SH, "There is no way to know whether or not someone hunting has a hunting license unless he's checked. In South Dakota, Conservation Officers have the legal right to enter private land to check hunters and fisherman for their licenses. "


AND WHAT THE F#$% GIVES CONSERVATION OFFICERS THE LEGAL RIGHT TO TRESPASS. Don't even say open fields doctrine or I'll be forced to prove AGAIN Open Fields Doctrine means the evidence of a trespass search is not supressed. The jackbooted thugs merely seize the access not because its legal but because the remedy or cost to such wrongful acts is insignificant.

By the way, the legal right to seize private property rights is a colossall outrage to all of America's freedom fighters. Sorta makes those flag burning punks look like amatures.
 
SH to LB (previous): "You said (paraphrasing) "CO's could come on private land and do whatever they wanted to". You also defended the same implication by Ken Knuppe and Joe Logue. Both were wrong!"

LB (in response): "You are wrong."

No, once again you are wrong and here's the proof.


HERE'S YOUR OWN WORDS LB...........

LB (previous): "Sorry SH, I should have clarified my statement to say that GF&P game wardens can go wherever they want and do whatever they want without landowner knowledge or consent."

LB (previous): "Under the Open Fields Doctrine, you have the right to allow the game warden to do anything he wants on your land."


You have clearly contradicted yourself ("do whatever they want whenever they want") by admitting that CO's cannot conduct illegal searches.

Your admission: "A game warden can't legally search my house or anything within the curtilage (the immediate surroundings of the house)...."



LB: "You know full well that neither I, Knuppe or Logue said anything about the game wardens being able to make illegal, warrantless searches."

Hahaha!

RECAP...............

Ken Knuppe (previous): "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."

Joe Logue (previous): "What they don't want is unwarranted search and seizure, with disregard of private property rights."


Ken and Joe both clearly created the illusion that CO's can conduct illegal searches and both are clearly wrong on that as are you to suggest they never said it.


LB: "Why, can you imagine the horror of someone putting the wrong tag on the wrong antelope? Or worse, brazenly shooting a buck while walking through my pasture wearing hunter orange, and only having a doe license?"

Oh, I see, now lets pick and choose which laws we are going to enforce.

Heck it's just a little marijuana.

Heck I was only going 10 MPH over the speed limit, what's that going to hurt?

Heck, I'm going to be 21 next month, so what if I am having a few beers?

Yup, let's just annually review which laws we are going to enforce.





~SH~
 
LB, "Under the Open Fields Doctrine, you have the right to allow the game warden to do anything he wants on your land."

If LB posted this, she is mistaken. Private ownership rights allow a landowner to GIVE access - something we call cooperation in the free world.


SH, "In South Dakota, Conservation Officers have the legal right to enter private land"

SH, quotes, Ken Knuppe (previous): "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."

SH quotes Joe Logue (previous): "What they don't want is unwarranted search and seizure, with disregard of private property rights."


SH, "Ken and Joe both clearly created the illusion that CO's can conduct illegal searches and both are clearly wrong on that as are you to suggest they never said it."

A private property trespass is a taking and NO STATE can overide the US Constitution. Ken and Joe agree with me and Thomas Jefferson that leo wandering arround private property looking for something that might lead to the discovery of a legal infraction is rediculous. Some dullards would trade private property rights to make sure everyone hunts with a magazine plug - yeah that's a good trade.

The only way to stop jackbooted thugs from trespassing is sue for their trespass. It simply costs too much to defend many trespass suits.

Contrary to SH's legal scholarship, SD can't take surface property rights from landowners.
 
SH: "You have clearly contradicted yourself ("do whatever they want whenever they want") by admitting that CO's cannot conduct illegal searches."

Contradiction? I don't think so. Please read these former posts:

LB: ""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: "A conservation officer cannot do whatever he wants on your land. Open Fields is specific to checking hunters in the line of duty and assisting with human health and safety issues."

LB: "Oh for pete's sake! Of course he, or anyone else, can do anything on my land, provided it's legal, if I agree to let him. Where on earth did you get that idea?"

Hopefully, I've made my position clear.


SH: "Ken and Joe both clearly created the illusion that CO's can conduct illegal searches and both are clearly wrong on that as are you to suggest they never said it."

Would you please quit putting words in other folk's mouths? They said what they said. No more. No less. Give it a rest!


SH: "Oh, I see, now lets pick and choose which laws we are going to enforce."

Tut, tut, tut. You've got it wrong again. It's landowners who are insisting on laws being enforced and GF&P that is trying to circumvent the constitution. We have great respect for the laws of the land and we wish that GF&P did too.

Brad S: "LB, "Under the Open Fields Doctrine, you have the right to allow the game warden to do anything he wants on your land."
If LB posted this, she is mistaken. Private ownership rights allow a landowner to GIVE access - something we call cooperation in the free world."

I don't remember saying it that way, if I did, I misspoke because I can't give anyone, not even a game warden, permission to break the law. I DID say: "Of course he, or anyone else, can do anything on my land, provided it's legal, if I agree to let him," and I stand by that statement.

Brad S: "Contrary to SH's legal scholarship, SD can't take surface property rights from landowners."

Exactly!!
 

Latest posts

Top