BigGameHoundsmen.com

A friend emailed me this article. Just what I wanted to read!

The original article can be found on SFGate.com here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1NGE8D.DTL

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, March 6, 2012 (SF Chronicle)
Game wardens don't need a warrant to stop cars
<a class="email fn" href="mailto:begelko@sfchronicle.com">Bob Egelko</a>


The U.S. Supreme Court granted California game wardens the authority
Monday to stop and question motorists on the way out of hunting or fishing
grounds to check on what they've bagged.
The justices denied review of a California Supreme Court ruling in June
that upheld the vehicle stops without requiring a warrant or evidence of
lawbreaking. The National Rifle Association had joined a defense lawyer in
asking the high court for a hearing.
The case comes from San Diego, where a warden patrolling a fishing pier
through a telescope in August 2007 saw fisherman Bouhn Maikhio reeling in
either a lobster or a fish and putting it in a black bag.
The warden stopped Maikhio's car and found a live California spiny lobster
in the bag. Charged with the misdemeanor of catching a lobster out of
season, Maikhio challenged the vehicle stop and search. Lower courts ruled
in his favor, but the state's high court ruled unanimously that the warden
had acted legally.
The need to protect wildlife for future generations outweighs the minor
intrusion of a vehicle stop, said state Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani
Cantil-Sakauye in June.
She said a warden would be acting for the purpose of conservation and not
criminal law enforcement, which would require a search warrant or probable
cause of wrongdoing.
Someone who has "chosen to engage in the heavily regulated activity" of
hunting or fishing has a "diminished reasonable expectation of privacy,"
Cantil-Sakauye said.
The case is Maikhio vs. California, 11-527. Bob Egelko is a San Francisco
Chronicle staff writer. begelko@sfchronicle.com ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2012 SF Chronicle

What am I missing here. The warden witnessed the guy poaching a lobster pulled him over and wrote him a ticket. Now if the guy hadn't poached a lobster, he wouldn't have been given a citation. So somehow the warden is at fault? Looks like he had probable cause to pull the guy over.

ditto ain't no differant than having them sit on a mountain top and see you shoot at deer out of season . thats probable cause to stop you . the police see you exchange money on a street corner thats probable cause to stop and search you . i see no problem . if you don't poach or buy and sell drugs you got no worry's just maybe a little inconviniece . as paul harvey would say gooood day.

I believe the reason this case went so far is because the officer didn't see what the guy had. The officer had no idea if it was legal or not and still stopped the guy after he was in his car and headed home. If I remember right a lower court ruled that the officer should have stopped him while he was still fishing. Whether we see it as a big deal or not, police need to have a reason to stop you. We all have constitutional rights.

I have a hard time with this topic because I do want to see poachers get caught. But at the same time stomping on a mans constitutional rights because he happens to hunt or fish is quite the slippery slope.

It is just like the California folks saying that a fish and game officer has more power than other police. They do not. This ruling simply gives them the go ahead to stop people on their way in and out of hunting or fishing grounds. Since hunting and fishing is a highly regulated activity, the officers need to be able to have the ability to do their jobs. Keep in mind folks, having a dog box in your truck is no different than having a fishing sticker in your back window. If I was on a highway and a game warden pulled me over I would ask how he knows I was hunting and not going to a dog show or the vet.

[quote"George Streepy"
I have a hard time with this topic because I do want to see poachers get caught. But at the same time stomping on a mans constitutional rights because he happens to hunt or fish is quite the slippery slope.

It is just like the California folks saying that a fish and game officer has more power than other police. They do not. This ruling simply gives them the go ahead to stop people on their way in and out of hunting or fishing grounds. Since hunting and fishing is a highly regulated activity, the officers need to be able to have the ability to do their jobs. Keep in mind folks, having a dog box in your truck is no different than having a fishing sticker in your back window. If I was on a highway and a game warden pulled me over I would ask how he knows I was hunting and not going to a dog show or the vet.[/quote]

+1
I also want to see guys who are out poaching deer and other animals or catching way over there limit or fishing illegally get caught but its the majority of guys with a badge and a chip on there shoulder that really turn things sour. George once again you have spread your wisdom. I always enjoy your posts.

Also keep in mind that Law enforcement only needs to meet the reasonable suspicion requirement to stop or make contact with someone. They need probable cause in order to search, apply for a warrant, or arrest someone. Sounds to me like this officer had more than enough in this case.

" the minor intrusion of a vehicle stop"? Sorry, but we have a constitutional right to travel the roads of this country, without being harrassed by law enforcement. In this case the guy was guilty. The wording of this ruling sticks in my craw. Infringing on constitutional rights is a little more than a "minor intrusion" in my book!