A
Anonymous
Guest
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~
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~