Open Fields Panel discussion at Stockgrowers meeting

[Brad S]

So Brad, if Conservation Officers conducting compliance checks on private property constitutes trespass, why has that not been upheld in court???

Einstein, Open Fields Doctrine addresses this exact issue. The evidence is illegally gathered, but not supressed. This is Open Fields Doctrine, and its been upheld everywhere and I've made the cites on this very forum. Try the search function.








SH, "Hmmmm????

We have all heard of cases where evidence has been supressed due to illegal searches,"


Yes, illegal searches of residences and their curtilage are supressed, not because they are more illegal, but because we have a greater expectation of privacy in these areas than on open fields.




SH, "well, if compliance checks on private lands constitutes an illegal search (trespass), as you imply, where is the case law to document this? "

Well its actually only necessary to cite statute not case law. Can we agree there exists a SD statute defining trespass? If not a wager is in order

SH, "Should be a simple matter of citing case law that interprets compliance checks as illegal search and seizure."


Stay with me here Einstein, the issue is trespass, open fields doctrine forgives the illegal search on open fields. here its the game warden's assertion that the fruit of their illegal searches is made admissable by open fields doctrine.

SH, "Bring the case law to support that position Brad!"

I already have, consult search feature.

SH, "As I said, there is no need to introduce legislation to change the Open Fields Doctrine if compliance checks constitute illegal trespass. "

As it is, there is no penalty to disuade leo from trespass. The Il fed court I cited said that there may be civil remedy to a leo trespass, but the illegal evidence was not to be supressed.


SH,"Bring the case law that proves that compliance checks on private land constitutes trespass."

The issue isn't adjudicated as the point is moot. Why the hell would an issue see a court room eventhough open fields doctrine is going to control. Again, Open Fields Doctrine makes the evidence admissable so who would ponder the issue?


SH, "Observe the Kansas two step ............... "

SH is still perplexed and blowing snot bubbles.

 

[Anonymous]

Brad: "The evidence is illegally gathered, but not supressed."

Brad: "Yes, illegal searches of residences and their curtilage are supressed, not because they are more illegal, but because we have a greater expectation of privacy in these areas than on open fields."

If compliance checks were illegal, there would be statutes not allowing those compliance checks.

Where are those statutes Brad and why would those same statutes not apply to emergency personell in their line of duty such as fire fighters, search and rescue, etc.????

The trespass cannot be illegal if it's allowed!


~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

SH is back!! Oh, hallelujah!! I was afraid the coyotes got him or something. His reading comprehension didn't improve even a little bit while he was gone though, did it?

He still hasn't been able to produce any LAW that says that "GF&P can't come on to private land and do ANYTHING THEY WANT." Maybe he missed reading this:

Liberty Belle: Thanks for making some very good points here Brad and SJ. There is NO LAW on South Dakota's books to stop GF&P from trespassing at will to do anything they want on private land at any time of the year, without the landowner's knowledge or consent. No matter how much John Cooper and SH protest that Conservation Officers are not allowed on private land for anything but compliance checks during hunting season, there is nothing to stop them from trampling all over both our pastures and our property rights ANY TIME, ANY WHERE, TO DO ANYTHING THEY WANT TO DO THAT IS NOT OTHERWISE DECLARED ILLEGAL BY STATE LAW!!!

If anyone can quote me any LAW that bars GF&P from trespass, I will gladly eat crow, and goodness knows, I much prefer beef!

Yes, there are laws barring trespass in South Dakota, but our attorney general backed Cooper and our governor by giving us his opinion (and it is just his opinion!) that conservation officers are "special" and don't need to abide by the law like the rest of us.

SH doesn't seem to want to discuss the information in the quote either, does he?:

Liberty Belle: Yesterday I asked a lawyer friend of mine about Cooper's statement during the Stockgrowers panel discussion when he said that none of the five states that have done away with the Open Fields Doctrine did it with laws, it was just policy. The attorney said that in Montana it is indeed law and Mr. Cooper was dead wrong!!!

As soon as Cooper gave that asinine statement, Larry Nelson read to us from the Texas state law that also does away with the Open Fields Doctrine. Now, tell me something – why would Cooper offer up such a bald-faced lie to us? Perhaps he thinks ranchers aren't smart enough to find out the facts for ourselves?

He also lied when he said that the problems that landowners have had with certain GF&P personnel had been taken care of. I about fell off my chair laughing! He sure has taken care of the complaints in Harding County, hasn't he?

BTW, none of this was hearsay; several hundred people heard the whole thing. Too bad SH wasn't there with his tape recorder… but maybe there are some things he'd just rather hear about indirectly so he doesn't have to process the truth and try to make it jibe with his preconceptions.

I quoted what the lawyer told me and what Larry Nelson read to us from Texas state law. If SH cares to "prove" what Cooper told us is fact instead of fiction, he is welcome to present any facts he can find to back up Cooper's lies. What do you suppose did do away with Open Fields in those five states, if not LAW?

SH: If compliance checks were illegal, there would be statutes not allowing those compliance checks.

Brad, I don't recall you or anyone else saying compliance checks were illegal. It is the trespass itself that is illegal and the fact that no conservation officer has been prosecuted for trespass because of the fact our attorney general stated in his opinion that they are "special", doesn't make it legal. SH is twisting your words again. Surprise! Surprise!

SH: Where are those statutes Brad and why would those same statutes not apply to emergency personell in their line of duty such as fire fighters, search and rescue, etc.????

The trespass cannot be illegal if it's allowed!

Huh? Firefighters, EMTs and Search and Rescue are trespassing the same as GF&P? Now that's a stretch!!

 

[SJ]

That case law the AG and Sh talk about consists of drug dealers, moonshiners, and illegal betting, now to include the hunter and the landowner. I can't believe, without a compliance check. that hunters and landowners of south dakota would put the public in as much eminent danger as the drug dealers. I never thought by allowing hunting I would be put in the same category as drug dealers, and I never thought by hunting I would be such an eminent danger to the public.

 

[Anonymous]

LB: "It is the trespass itself that is illegal and the fact that no conservation officer has been prosecuted for trespass because of the fact our attorney general stated in his opinion that they are "special", doesn't make it legal."

If compliance checks conducted by conservation officers on private land, without permission, were illegal, as you and Brad suggest, the evidence would be supressed.

The fact that the evidence is not surpressed proves that these compliance checks are not illegal.

LB: "He still hasn't been able to produce any LAW that says that "GF&P can't come on to private land and do ANYTHING THEY WANT."

Why would I produce a law that stated GF&P can come onto private land and do ANYTHING THEY WANT when you and I both know that's a lie?

GF&P cannot come onto private land and conduct illegal searches. We've addressed this yet you keep spewing the same lie thinking that some idiot might actually believe you.

LB: "H doesn't seem to want to discuss the information in the quote either, does he?"

Oh gosh I'm just trembling in fear of addressing this issue aren't I????

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzz again!

If you have a question, ask it!

LB: "If SH cares to "prove" what Cooper told us is fact instead of fiction, he is welcome to present any facts he can find to back up Cooper's lies. What do you suppose did do away with Open Fields in those five states, if not LAW?"

I am going to ask you again.

What was John Cooper's exact statement WITHIN CONTEXT?

SJ: "I can't believe, without a compliance check. that hunters and landowners of south dakota would put the public in as much eminent danger as the drug dealers. I never thought by allowing hunting I would be put in the same category as drug dealers, and I never thought by hunting I would be such an eminent danger to the public."

Where on earth did that come from?

Who said anything about illegal hunting being the same as drug dealing or are you just playing the poor little victimized landowner again?

It never ceases to amaze me what you folks will pull out of your hats.

Game laws are in place to make sure our wildlife resources are not abused by those who would take more than their fair share or take from areas where they were not permitted. As long as the public owns the wildlife, there will be laws in place to enforce fair and equal distribution of those resources and there will be conservation officers to enforce those game laws. Nobody ever said these game violations were comparable to drug dealers. What a ridiculous statement!

Using your drug dealer comparison logic, since littering is not comparable to drug dealers perhaps we shouldn't have laws against littering either. Same ridiculous notion!

Why don't you just stick to the argument that your private property rights are more important to you than proper enforcement of our game laws and leave it at that. At least that is a valid argument.



~SH~

 

[Brad S]

If compliance checks conducted by conservation officers on private land, without permission, were illegal, as you and Brad suggest, the evidence would be supressed.

The fact that the evidence is not surpressed proves that these compliance checks are not illegal.


Dude, you're just not getting it. The fact the evidence is not supressed only proves the court has decided supression is not the apropriate remedy to the trespass search on open fields. An open fields doctrine case inherantly deals with an illegal search in an area not protected by supressing evidence. There exists a state between illegal evidence and supression and not supression therefore not illegal search.

 

[SJ]

SH-Who said anything about illegal hunting being the same as drug dealing or are you just playing the poor little victimized landowner again?

Anybody that says we need the open fields to do a compliance check, says that hunter and landowners are no different than drug dealers, moon shiners and illegal beting.


One real simply question tell me which case or cases you have read?


You never cease to amaze me either.

 

[Anonymous]

Brad: "The fact the evidence is not supressed only proves the court has decided supression is not the apropriate remedy to the trespass search on open fields. An open fields doctrine case inherantly deals with an illegal search in an area not protected by supressing evidence. There exists a state between illegal evidence and supression and not supression therefore not illegal search."

There is two seperate issues here Brad.

#1. The legality of the search

#2. The supression of the evidence obtained in that search.


If a conservation officer entering private land constituted illegal trespass, the evidence would be supressed due to the illegality of the search.

One does not preclude the other. You cannot have an illegal search and permissable evidence. The courts have tested this over and over.

SJ: "Anybody that says we need the open fields to do a compliance check, says that hunter and landowners are no different than drug dealers, moon shiners and illegal beting."

That answers my question regarding playing the poor victimized landowner.

If you are going to exaggerate, why not include serial killers and rapists?

SJ: "One real simply question tell me which case or cases you have read?"

I read a long list of court cases regarding this issue but I don't remember their specific names now. I have bigger fish to fry than to think my world is coming to an end because I might see a conservation officer on my land checking hunters and fisherman.


~SH~

 

[SJ]

Did the long list of cases you read talk about landowners, hunters and compliance checks?

 

[Anonymous]

SJ: "Did the long list of cases you read talk about landowners, hunters and compliance checks?"

Some of them, yes!


~SH~

 

[SJ]

I would like to see them. Send me the cases.

 

[Anonymous]

SJ, I don't feel like sorting through hundreds of emails to find these court cases and I don't even know if I saved them after reviewing them.

You don't want the truth anyway. You want anything that will support your bias.

I don't care enough about this issue to take it any further than I have.


~SH~

 

[SJ]

SH-You don't want the truth anyway. You want anything that will support your bias.

I do want the truth and was really excited when I heard you had found a case or cases that dealt with compliance checks involving landowners and hunters. I know Larry would be interested. I do hope you take the time and I am willing to wait. What I do find fascinating is that the AG didn't bring these cases that you speak of, especially after reading this quote.

This quote by a top official and is referring to a former law enforcement person's post on sdlockout.

" I was especially struck by his rather off hand comment that the opinion of the attorney general was just that, an opinion. I must be frank and state that I, along with the vast majority of citizens, would assign a much higher degree of credibility to the legal opinions rendered by the trained experts at the attorney General's Office than that rendered by the author"

I

wonder how all the rest of the Attorney's feel about this statement. I didn't know an "EXPERT"was determined by who you work for or what prefaces your name. The former law enforcement individual may have consulted an Attorney before he made his statement about the open fields. The AG might be an expert but he still just gives an opinion, no different than any other attorney.

 

[SJ]

BTW have you asked Cooper about the para plane issue?

Could you send me the proclamation?

 

[Anonymous]

SJ: "BTW have you asked Cooper about the para plane issue?"

No I haven't!

SJ: "Could you send me the proclamation?"

I saw a copy of the proclomation, I do not have one.

I'll trade you a copy of the proclomation for an antelope hunt? HAHAHA!


~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

SH says: It's no mystery why LB didn't back her allegation by stating the lies she was referring to. She can't because they didn't exist!

Here are some of the lies I was referring to. SH must have missed this post from me:

Liberty Belle: Yesterday I asked a lawyer friend of mine about Cooper's statement during the Stockgrowers panel discussion when he said that none of the five states that have done away with the Open Fields Doctrine did it with laws, it was just policy. The attorney said that in Montana it is indeed law and Mr. Cooper was dead wrong!!!

As soon as Cooper gave that asinine statement, Larry Nelson read to us from the Texas state law that also does away with the Open Fields Doctrine. Now, tell me something – why would Cooper offer up such a bald-faced lie to us? Perhaps he thinks ranchers aren't smart enough to find out the facts for ourselves?

He also lied when he said that the problems that landowners have had with certain GF&P personnel had been taken care of. I about fell off my chair laughing! He sure has taken care of the complaints in Harding County, hasn't he?

LB: "He still hasn't been able to produce any LAW that says that "GF&P can't come on to private land and do ANYTHING THEY WANT."

SH: Why would I produce a law that stated GF&P can come onto private land and do ANYTHING THEY WANT when you and I both know that's a lie?

Compare those two statements. I asked SH to produce a LAW that says GF&P CAN'T come on private land to do ANYTHING THEY WANT.

SH seems to think that I want him to produce a law that allows GF&P to trespass. He won't find either a law that allows GF&P to trespass or a law that forbids it because there are none, which is exactly why we tried to get the abuse of the Open Fields Doctrine stopped with SB122. GF&P personnel trespass because they have been able to get away with it, thanks to Gov. Rounds and Attorney Gen. Long.

SJ: "Did the long list of cases you read talk about landowners, hunters and compliance checks?"

SJ,
It doesn't look like SH is able to produce any of these cases he mentioned, he is not going to question Cooper about the paraplane issue and he's not going to send you a copy of Janklow's proclamation. He's not very good about backing up his statements, is he? No antelope hunting for him!

 

[Anonymous]

LB: "Liberty Belle: Yesterday I asked a lawyer friend of mine about Cooper's statement during the Stockgrowers panel discussion when he said that none of the five states that have done away with the Open Fields Doctrine did it with laws, it was just policy. The attorney said that in Montana it is indeed law and Mr. Cooper was dead wrong!!!

As soon as Cooper gave that asinine statement, Larry Nelson read to us from the Texas state law that also does away with the Open Fields Doctrine. Now, tell me something – why would Cooper offer up such a bald-faced lie to us? Perhaps he thinks ranchers aren't smart enough to find out the facts for ourselves?"

Why don't you give me Cooper's exact statement word for word so I know it hasn't been taken out of context.

You have proven time and time again that you will misinterpret what has been stated in your feeble attempts to discredit Cooper. To be completely candid, I don't trust you to tell me the truth WHEN IT COMES TO QUOTING JOHN COOPER.

LB: "He also lied when he said that the problems that landowners have had with certain GF&P personnel had been taken care of. I about fell off my chair laughing! He sure has taken care of the complaints in Harding County, hasn't he?"

If John Cooper said he has taken care of all the complaints in Harding Co. I would fall out of my chair laughing because you can never satisfy chronic complainers.

What exactly did you want him to take care of that has not been taken care of? Fire every GF&P employee that doesn't click their heels to your every demand?

You'd hate me if I was there and wish you had the other two back because I don't click my heels to anyone and I wouldn't hesitate to tell you what I thought of anything. You'd have a good ol' Harding County lynching with me in the Cave Hills or you'd have to duct tape my mouth shut. LOL!

LB: "I asked SH to produce a LAW that says GF&P CAN'T come on private land to do ANYTHING THEY WANT."

Let me ask you a yes or no question before I proceed with this so it's worth my time.

Are you suggesting there is no law in state statute that addresses search and seizure without probable cause or search and seizure without a search warrant?

YES OR NO?

Remember, you said, "do anything they want" because that's what you want to portray.

Answer the question please!

Observe as LB does the Reva two step!

LB: "It doesn't look like SH is able to produce any of these cases he mentioned, he is not going to question Cooper about the paraplane issue and he's not going to send you a copy of Janklow's proclamation."

Sounds good to me! LOL!

NEXT!



~SH~

 

[SJ]

SH--What exactly did you want him to take care of that has not been taken care of? Fire every GF&P employee that doesn't click their heels to your every demand?

You talk of misinterpretation, twisting, taking out of context and doing the two step, you are hard to beat.


Who do the trappers work for?

Who pays their wages?

Why do we need state hired trappers?

You would sure like to have people think you are privy or have the inside track on everything that goes on in GF&P.

It's obvious you are not privy to the orders that have come down as far as communication and CO's asking permission. Why would you be, you are a trapper not a CO.


Tell me again why the CO's need to have permission to enter my land?

 

[Anonymous]

SJ: "You talk of misinterpretation, twisting, taking out of context and doing the two step, you are hard to beat."

Why wouln't I talk of misinterpretation, twisting, and statements taken out of context? That's what you folks do best!

Anything to avoid the truth and present your twisted version of the truth ("COs can come on your land and do whatever they want", "RY refuses to work with any private pilot other than LB", "GF&P did everything they could to ground para planes", yada yada).


Let me give you a perfect example of MORE deception from your camp. Read the bold print very carefully.

LB: "Liberty Belle: Yesterday I asked a lawyer friend of mine about Cooper's statement during the Stockgrowers panel discussion when he said that none of the five states that have done away with the Open Fields Doctrine did it with laws, it was just policy. The attorney said that in Montana it is indeed law and Mr. Cooper was dead wrong!!!

As soon as Cooper gave that asinine statement, Larry Nelson read to us from the Texas state law that also does away with the Open Fields Doctrine. Now, tell me something – why would Cooper offer up such a bald-faced lie to us? Perhaps he thinks ranchers aren't smart enough to find out the facts for ourselves?"

I did a little checking up on this and guess what I found? Cooper was right. There is no state that did away with the Open Fields Docrtrine WITH STATE CODIFIED LAWS THROUGH THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. SD would be the first!

You want to challenge me on that? Get 'R Done!

Those states that do not honor the open fields doctrine did so through CASE LAWS. A judges ruling! SD would be the first state to do away with the Open Fields Doctrine with a state codified law.

STATE CODIFIED LAW IS NOT THE SAME AS CASE LAW (Judge's ruling on a case).


Now if you want to accuse Cooper of not presenting the whole story, fine, but what he stated was truth. You'd naturally assume he intentionally misled you while I know Cooper well enough to know that he was focused on state codified law and the legislative process with his statement.

You can call it "semantics" if you wish but Cooper did not lie!

LB's allegation of Cooper lying was the lie, AS USUAL!


Like OJ's defense, you just keep throwing more sh*t against the wall to see what will stick. Unfortunately for you, this is the one place you won't get away with it.

SJ: "Who do the trappers work for?"

SD Dept. of Game, Fish, and Parks

SJ: "Who pays their wages?"

SD Sportsman, Federal tax dollars, and a small percentage from the County.

SJ: "Why do we need state hired trappers?"

Because the public's wildlife is causing damage to private livestock therefore the public needs to share responsibility for addressing that damage.

No other state in the nation has sportsman paying the share of the Animal Damage Control program that they do in SD.

The County programs in other states are always scratching to come up with enough money to pay their trappers forcing these trappers to take 6 months off to trap for fur. Wonder how lucrative that is at $15 coyotes when 40% of them have mange? To say nothing of the sandbagging that can occur so those same problem coyotes can be harvested during the prime fur season when furs are worth something. That's exactly why we are not allowed to trap coyotes during our vacation time. The temptation is not there for us to hold off on killing coyotes.


If your point is that since you pay a portion of the trapper's salary that we should click our heels to your every demand, that won't happen with me. If you want doormats you'll have to start hiring a new bunch of trappers.

If you have a legitimate complaint it will be addressed. If you have a wire cut horse and want to blame it on a Mountain Lion, you're going to hear the truth. If you don't like the truth, I don't care! Same goes on issues we don't agree on.

SJ: "You would sure like to have people think you are privy or have the inside track on everything that goes on in GF&P."

You would sure like to have people think that I am not privy or have the inside track on the issues we discuss here but your inability to prove me wrong suggests otherwise doesn't it?

SJ: "It's obvious you are not privy to the orders that have come down as far as communication and CO's asking permission. Why would you be, you are a trapper not a CO."

What have I stated that is inaccurate?

I am well aware of the policy in GF&P requesting CO's to have permission to enter private land FOR REASONS OTHER THAN game compliance checks and issues of human health and safety and I am well aware of their efforts to improve communications with landowners.

Personally, I disagree with catering to the "vocal minority". As far as I am concerned most of the COs have always communicated with their landowners.

I would like to see a better means of gaining input from landowners on season recommendations, big game numbers, hunter tolerance, etc. through phone surveys. I believe we cater to the "vocal minority" too much on season setting as well but I could be wrong about that. Through a better survey process we may find out that the "vocal minority" is actually the "majority" but I doubt it. I think it would be good for all landowners to know what the "majority" of landowners feel about season setting, game numbers, and hunter numbers. I believe there is room for improvement there and I believe landowners should have more input into this process than they do currently. Take that as a trapper's opinion on the issue of landowner input.

SJ: "Tell me again why the CO's need to have permission to enter my land?"

Based on internal policy, COs are required to have permission to enter your land for any reason other than game compliance checks for hunting and fishing and reasons of human health and safety.


Must be frustrating not being able to get more satisfaction out of me than the truth that you don't want to hear huh?


Let me put this issue into proper perspective for you. Considering all the CO's in this state that conduct compliance checks on hunters and fisherman on private land and considering all the "chronic bitchers" in this state that have an axe to grind with GF&P (on the days they are not cussing their local school board, church board, water board, etc. etc), wouldn't you think someone could come forward with a case of CO's abusing that privelage? LOL!

In contrast, LB and you have never seen a CO on your place.

"Lions, tigers and bears, OH MY"!

"BAR THE DOORS"!!!!!!!!!!!!!



~SH~

 

[Liberty Belle]

SH didn't highlight enough of Cooper's quote. Cooper said: "that none of the five states that have done away with the Open Fields Doctrine did it with laws, it was just policy!"

POLICY! He said, "it was just policy"!! Not case law. He said nothing about either case law or state statue. Again, Cooper said "said that none of the five states that have done away with the Open Fields Doctrine did it with laws, it was just policy." If he meant to say something else, and I don't for a minute believe that he did, why didn't he say what he really meant?

SH: Let me put this issue into proper perspective for you. Considering all the CO's in this state that conduct compliance checks on hunters and fisherman on private land and considering all the "chronic bitchers" in this state that have an axe to grind with GF&P (on the days they are not cussing their local school board, church board, water board, etc. etc), wouldn't you think someone could come forward with a case of CO's abusing that privelage? LOL!

Do you think someone should tell SH about the CO in Harding Co. that was arrested for trespass on private land he had been told to stay off of? It was not during hunting season and there was no game around to count. The attorney general let him go because Conservation Officers are "special".

Oh, wait! We did tell him, didn't we?

This is the same CO who forced a commercial trapper to turn a wounded mountain lion he had caught loose in the CO's neighbors calving pasture where his grade school kids ride on the livestock. The CO had been told by the neighbor that under no circumstances was the CO allowed on the neighbor's land, so he not only released a dangerous predator on a private landowner, he trespassed to do it.

I don't know what SH considers abuse, but folks around here figure this irresponsible behavior defiantly constitutes abuse. What does SH consider abuse? Murder, mayhem and rape?