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

Tony Dean apologizes?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

LB and sj are showing their true colors...that they are the extreme here in SD and that is why the lockout has fizzeled....They will never admit to either one but even Lucky could see it...... :roll:
Open fields has nothing to do with invasion of your home or curtilege and has everything to do with your open lands. I dont care what law enforcement agency, if they see or think something is going on out in a field they are going to investigate.
 
publichunter said:
LB and sj are showing their true colors...that they are the extreme here in SD and that is why the lockout has fizzeled....They will never admit to either one but even Lucky could see it...... :roll:
Open fields has nothing to do with invasion of your home or curtilege and has everything to do with your open lands. I dont care what law enforcement agency, if they see or think something is going on out in a field they are going to investigate.
Click to expand...


THERE LAND is the key phrase. If they donot want you on it what do you have to complain about. Would the average hunter let the public at large have the free use of there lawn and garden whenever they care to?
 
MWJ you are so right it is their land but they are trying to change a law that affects everyone and everyone's land. If they want to live in their narrow way of life and not allow any hunting on their land more power to them, I hope they do, but they are trying to affect everyone's land.
 
Publichunter why do you have a need for change but you would deny the change to the landowners? Sounds to me like some of the landowners are happy to just keep the hunters off of there property and that ends there problems with the state. If I were a hunter looking to hunt private land this would make me wonder about the states policy with landowners.
 
MWJ I do not want a change, I agree with the open fields doctrine, it is SJ and Lb who advocate a change, I dont want to hunt on their land, thats my point, they can do now as they please allow or dont allow hunting. But I as a hunter think it is a very good thing to have compliance checks to keep everyone honest and on the right side of the law.
 
MWJ it just isnt South Dakota that uses the open fields doctrine, there is only 3 states that disallow it, the doctrine has been supported by the US Supreme Court and in their opinion does not go against yours and my Constitutional right to privacy.
 
publichunter said:
MWJ it just isnt South Dakota that uses the open fields doctrine, there is only 3 states that disallow it, the doctrine has been supported by the US Supreme Court and in their opinion does not go against yours and my Constitutional right to privacy.
Click to expand...


The open fields doctrine is not a problem by itself! When you have a game and fish that is a problem there is no way to keep them in check. As in most things it is the head's of game and fish that set the tone of there policy and if they have an agenda ,it will show in there enforcement.
 
MJW, these people do say open fields is the problem. thats their reasoning FOR the lockout.

There is not a dang thing wrong with locking out. Yet some go to the capitol and complain there are too many deer.

Why should Pierre take them seriously when they organize a lockout, then complain their are too many deer?

And does it make any sense to not let deer hunters but let those who want to coyote hunt? Hunting is hunting.
 
Happy go lucky said:
LB your an extremist! Open fields and behind closed doors are 2 separate things. No different than those that fly and take aerial photo's they don't your or my permission to take photos of anything and can sell them to anyone. Google earth will allow anyone to check out buildings,grounds etc.

Abuse? How is a license check abuse? Every hunter,trapper or fisherman know they can be checked.
Click to expand...
The abuse happens when GF&P insists on trespassing on MY land to check on YOUR license. You signed the contract with them when you bought your license, I didn't sign anything. Now if GF&P would have asked me before hunting season if it was okay with me if they came on my land if the need arose, I would have gladly signed their permission slip while we drank coffee at my kitchen table or across the table at the local Farm Bureau, Farmers Union, or Stockgrowers meeting.

Now if GF&P wants to check on hunters 500 feet above my land, which is as close as the law allows airplanes to get without permission, I'm fine with that. Our predator control pilots can't fly any lower than that over my land unless they have my signed permission.

We don't understand why GF&P thinks they should be treated better than the predator control pilots who are taking care of our livestock for us at our request? Perhaps you, Southdakotahunter, or publichunter can explain the difference to us extremists? :???:
 
1st offd LB your predator pilots are regulated by the Federal govt. and LB I will use your own words.I will type slow so you iunderstand. GF&P CO's have nop more legal authority than any other law enforcement has. All Law enforcement can use the "open Fields Doctrine" I do not understand that you think they are so special or so far out in left field. Do you not beleive in our Supreme Court and their rulings?
 
publichunter said:
1st offd LB your predator pilots are regulated by the Federal govt. and LB I will use your own words.I will type slow so you iunderstand. GF&P CO's have nop more legal authority than any other law enforcement has. All Law enforcement can use the "open Fields Doctrine" I do not understand that you think they are so special or so far out in left field. Do you not beleive in our Supreme Court and their rulings?
Click to expand...
Awww, PH, did you take offense when I wrote the slow typing thing? I would suggest that you would check your spelling and grammar while you are doing your slow typed answers to me. Maybe then we could figure out what you're trying to say. Slow typing probably helps you though.

I will attempt to correct some of what you said that I did understand. All law enforcement officers CAN NOT use the Open Fields Doctrine. Period. End of story. I'd appreciate it if you would back up your wacko claims with some documentation.

Legitimate law enforcement can not go onto private property unless they have reasonable suspicion to suspect a crime has been committed, probable cause to believe there has been a violation of the law, or if they actually see a crime in progress. They can't just go snooping around in hopes that they might find something they can arrest someone for.

To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has never ruled that game wardens or any other law enforcement officer can trespass on Open Fields without probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe someone was committing a crime. If the game warden just wants to check hunters to see if they have the proper license, the Game and Fish has been granted NO authority to do that by the Supreme Court.

If you have information to the contrary, why don't you share it with us? Give us the case names and show us some evidence to back up what you say or quit displaying your ignorance.
 
The open fields doctrine is a U.S. legal doctrine created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The open fields doctrine was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hester v. United States[1], which stated that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects,' is not extended to the open fields."[2] This opinion appears to be decided on the basis that "open fields are not a "constitutionally protected area" because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects."

This method of reasoning gave way with the arrival of the landmark case Katz v. U.S.,[3] which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."[4] Under this new analysis of the Fourth Amendment, a search of an object or area where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is, in a legal sense, not a search at all. That search, therefore, does not trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
In Oliver v. United States[5], the Supreme Court held that a privacy expectation regarding an open field is unreasonable:

…open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. [6]

Courts have continuously held that entry into an open field--whether trespass or not--is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what steps a person takes, he or she cannot create a reasonable privacy expectation in an open field, because it is an area incapable of supporting an expectation of privacy as a matter of constitutional law. In situations where the police allege that what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of shifting the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, to whether the given place is actually an open field or some other type of area like curtilage. This is because a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas classed as such.

Above LB explains open fields, I know you have a Harding Co Law degree but if you read it a couple of times I am sure you can understand it.

''Open Fields.'' --In Hester v. United States, 96 the Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect ''open fields'' and that, therefore, police searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, open water, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause

Looks like to me that all Legitimate law enforcement CAN USE open fields

LB make sure you read the third paragraph a couple of times, I think it says the Supreme Court and no it does not specify game fish and parks or game wardens it does say law enforcement

I am holding my breath for YOUR harding co spin on this one.....
 
Sooooo much bickering going on!!!!!! YOU'D THINK that violations of the "open fields" happend everyday in South Dakota!!?????? :eek: :shock: :D

SJ, LB have you ever had caught/heard/seen a GF&P person snooping around on YOUR land without permisson????????????

With the exception of the big coyote/plane fiasco?? :lol: :eek:
 
publichunter said:
The open fields doctrine is a U.S. legal doctrine created judicially for purposes of evaluating claims of an unreasonable search by the government in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The open fields doctrine was first articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hester v. United States[1], which stated that "the special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their 'persons, houses, papers, and effects,' is not extended to the open fields."[2] This opinion appears to be decided on the basis that "open fields are not a "constitutionally protected area" because they cannot be construed as "persons, houses, papers, [or] effects."

This method of reasoning gave way with the arrival of the landmark case Katz v. U.S.,[3] which established a two-part test for what constitutes a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The relevant criteria are "first that a person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."[4] Under this new analysis of the Fourth Amendment, a search of an object or area where a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy is, in a legal sense, not a search at all. That search, therefore, does not trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment.
In Oliver v. United States[5], the Supreme Court held that a privacy expectation regarding an open field is unreasonable:

…open fields do not provide the setting for those intimate activities that the Amendment is intended to shelter from government interference or surveillance. There is no societal interest in protecting the privacy of those activities, such as the cultivation of crops, that occur in open fields. [6]

Courts have continuously held that entry into an open field--whether trespass or not--is not a search within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. No matter what steps a person takes, he or she cannot create a reasonable privacy expectation in an open field, because it is an area incapable of supporting an expectation of privacy as a matter of constitutional law. In situations where the police allege that what was searched was an open field, this has the practical effect of shifting the argument from whether any given expectation of privacy is reasonable, to whether the given place is actually an open field or some other type of area like curtilage. This is because a person can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in areas classed as such.

Above LB explains open fields, I know you have a Harding Co Law degree but if you read it a couple of times I am sure you can understand it.

''Open Fields.'' --In Hester v. United States, 96 the Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect ''open fields'' and that, therefore, police searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, open water, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause

Looks like to me that all Legitimate law enforcement CAN USE open fields

LB make sure you read the third paragraph a couple of times, I think it says the Supreme Court and no it does not specify game fish and parks or game wardens it does say law enforcement

I am holding my breath for YOUR harding co spin on this one.....
Click to expand...
Oh for Pete's sake, couldn't you come up with ANYTHING that actually pertains to the issue at hand?

None of these cases – I repeat – NOT ONE of these cases have anything to do with game wardens trespassing on private property where there has been no reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

Read the cases over carefully and you will discover that every one of the cases quoted in your article involved probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the LANDOWNER was committing a crime, with the exception of Katz vs US which involved a public phone booth, for Pete's sake!! None of them had anything to do with a game warden trespassing to find a HUNTER committing an illegal act on someone else's property.

I am going to give you quotes from each of these cases that illustrate my point and then I will provide you a link so you can read the actual cases yourself. I even added another case that is often quoted in defense of Open Fields, Dunn vs US, where, again, it is the landowner who is the criminal and the law enforcement officers were acting on a tip (probable cause and reasonable suspicion!)

Here are the cases. Now see if you can provide me with clear evidence the Open Fields Doctrine give the deer police or legitimate law enforcement officers justification to trespass without - dare I repeat this again? - reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe a crime has been committed.

I'll be waiting for your answer. But I'm not going to hold my breath!!

Oliver vs US: The evidence adduced at the suppression hearing established that on July 18, 1980, an anonymous informant advised a Kentucky state police officer that petitioner was growing marijuana on his farm. The officer had heard other reports in the community to the effect that petitioner was engaged in some kind of questionable activity on his farm, so the officer, joined by a second detective, drove to petitioner's farm to investigate. http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1982/sg820022.txt
Click to expand...

Hester vs US: The plaintiff in error, Hester, was convicted of concealing distilled spirits, etc., under Rev. St. 3296 (Comp. St. 6038). The case is brought here directly from the District Court on the single ground that by refusing to exclude the testimony of two witnesses and to direct a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff in error, the Court violated his [265 U.S. 57, 58] rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States.
The witnesses whose testimony is objected to were revenue officers. In consequence of information they went toward the house of Hester's father, where the plaintiff in error lived, and as they approached saw one Henderson drive near to the house. They concealed themselves from fifty to one hundred yards away and saw Hester come out and hand Henderson a quart bottle. An alarm was given. Hester went to a car standing near, took a gallon jug from it and he and Henderson ran. One of the officers pursued, and fired a pistol. Hester dropped his jug, which broke but kept about a quart of its contents. Henderson threw away his bottle also. The jug and bottle both contained what the officers, being experts, recognized as moonshine whisky, that is, whisky illicitly distilled; said to be easily recognizable. The other officer entered the house, but being told there was no whisky there left it, but found outside a jar that had been thrown out and broken and that also contained whisky. While the officers were there other cars stopped at the house but were spoken to by Hester's father and drove off. The officers had no warrant for search or arrest, and it is contended that this made their evidence inadmissible, it being assumed, on the strength of the pursuing officer's saying that he supposed they were on Hester's land, that such was the fact. It is obvious that even if there had been a trespass, the above testimony was not obtained by an illegal search or seizure. The defendant's own acts, and those of his associates, disclosed the jug, the jar and the bottle-and there was no seizure in the sense of the law when the officers examined the contents of each after it had been abandoned.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=265&invol=57
Click to expand...

Katz vs US: Petitioner was convicted under an indictment charging him with transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1084. Evidence of petitioner's end of the conversations, overheard by FBI agents who had attached an electronic listening and recording device to the outside of the telephone booth from which the calls were made, was introduced at the trial. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, finding that there was no Fourth Amendment violation since there was "no physical entrance into the area occupied by" petitioner.
They did not begin their electronic surveillance until investigation of the petitioner's activities had established a strong probability that he was using the telephone in question to transmit gambling information to persons in other States, in violation of federal law. Moreover, the surveillance was limited, both in scope and in duration, to the specific purpose of establishing the contents of the petitioner's unlawful telephonic communications. The agents confined their surveillance to the brief periods during which he used the telephone booth, and they took great care to overhear only the conversations of the petitioner himself.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=389&invol=347
Click to expand...

DUNN vs US: In 1980, Drug Enforcement Administration agents, having discovered that one Carpenter had bought large quantities of chemicals and equipment used to make controlled substances, placed tracking "beepers" in some of the equipment and one of the chemical containers, which, when transported in Carpenter's truck, led the agents to respondent's ranch.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/480/294.html
Click to expand...
 

Latest posts

Top