• Thank you for creating an account on Hunt Talk! We require that all new users contribute at least 10 posts before gaining the ability to start new threads. Once you have made 10 posts, you will be able to start new threads in the forum.

Does Checkpoint Violate Our Fourth Amendment Rights?

Joined
Jul 7, 2016
Messages
865
Location
Wherever the bugles are
I’ve had fish and game in ID weigh animals, pull teeth etc. I don’t have an issue with stopping at a checkpoint because I believe data collected from them can benefit the areas I hunt. But some people just like to get their feelings hurt over everything.... carry on.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
12,036
Location
Laramie, WY
Apparently check stations in MN are different than the ones in MT. They are running tape measures, pulling teeth and aging birds. They run one just a couple miles out of town and I am there often. Don't recall seeing a warden very often, but do see all the biologists from across the HiLine throughout the season.
What would you know?

I know a guy from MN...
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
5,548
Location
Twin Cities
Apparently check stations in MN are different than the ones in MT. They are running tape measures, pulling teeth and aging birds. They run one just a couple miles out of town and I am there often. Don't recall seeing a warden very often, but do see all the biologists from across the HiLine throughout the season.
I'm not saying this isn't valuable, I am saying that there all kinds of valuable things the government is restricted from doing under various constitutional provisions. MT could probably get even better information about outdoor and wildlife activities if they used Google or NSA to read every citizen's email, view every citizen's pictures and track every citizen's cell phone location all year - but I don't think the only consideration on this topic is the value of the information to the govt. But if the ID Supreme Court is fine with it and SCOTUS doesn't take it up then its the law of the land for ID - not my issue. In MN the courts have chosen to be more protective of citizen's rights - even in the case of drunk driving which in my opinion is far more compelling reason than collecting wildlife info. YMMV.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
5,548
Location
Twin Cities
You said what I quoted.
Yup you did quote a sentence of mine. In your selected quote I did not say the information was not useful. I also did not say that wildlife info was not being gathered. What I questioned was if it was just wildlife data they wanted why arrest a non-hunter as they did. I also questioned rather there may be other ways to collect the data (maybe there is maybe there isn't) or that regardless, the end does not necessarily justify the means. Carry on.
 

BuzzH

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2001
Messages
12,036
Location
Laramie, WY
Miller...give it up, isn't an attorney made that doesn't know it all and get the last word...

Even when they're wrong.
 

longbow51

Active member
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Messages
173
Which is exactly why I feel people should comply with game check stations for the most part. There are a huge number of people especially those aligned with citizen militias that think the government should not have control of the permitting process or check you at all and you should not need a license. And I agree with one of your prior statement, least I think it is you...no right is absolute. I also agree with you that there has to be a reasonable purpose before rights are constrained. And excess or abuse in law enforcement activity must be kept in check and sometimes prosecuted as much as criminal violations themselves.
Are there really a huge number? Maybe some very vocal ones, but I have never personally heard of any hunter who argues against buying a license around here, nor in the local media. Poachers, sure but that's a different thing. We know that PR funds support the sport we love. I know there are lots of "citizen militias" on TV shows, and we have seen a few historically, but I think most of us are happy hunters. As for check stations, usually the Wardens have to tell us to move along as everyone wants to look at animals and shoot the shit about where, how far, what caliber, etc. YMMV.
 
Last edited:

406dn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
521
Makes sense, but in OPs post, this guy wasn't a hunter - he wasn't exercising his privilege to hunt he was exercising his bill of rights granted protection from unreasonable search while driving to his destination unrelated to hunting. I have no problem with mandatory stops for hunters. I also have no problem with having meth possession being illegal. What I am suggesting is that might not be a great idea is to allow police to pull over 100% of the cars on a road looking for either. Does that mean some guilty folks will get off - yup. But it is the price of the protections in the bill of rights. But again, reasonable folks can disagree - as have many courts over the last 30 years in various jurisdictions - there is no simple single answer.
Yes, the guy should not have been arrested. He can get in line on that one. Many people are arrested wrongly.

His case was dismissed. Then he got his shorts in a bind and wanted to sue them for violating his rights.
 

VikingsGuy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 2, 2017
Messages
5,548
Location
Twin Cities
Yes, the guy should not have been arrested. He can get in line on that one. Many people are arrested wrongly.

His case was dismissed. Then he got his shorts in a bind and wanted to sue them for violating his rights.
I agree the civil suit seems a bit much. On the flip side he probably spent $10k getting his initial dismissal so over-eager enforcement does have its price.
 

Losing_Sanity

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
863
Location
Sometimes, I don't even know.
His case was dismissed. Then he got his shorts in a bind and wanted to sue them for violating his rights.
Well within his "rights/privileges" to pursue what ever action he desires. That's America and everyone has the same choices. This thread is not about him though. I don't think deferring attention to what he does and making it seem a bad thing is supporting our freedom. As long as legal, should not matter. Even if we don't like the person or if it's not what we would do.
 

Losing_Sanity

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
863
Location
Sometimes, I don't even know.
Miller...give it up, isn't an attorney made that doesn't know it all and get the last word...

Even when they're wrong.
Just be be clear, I'm understanding you to feel that if anyone has a different opinion, they are wrong. And you should be allowed to force people to do your will, if it's within your interpretation of "for the better".

Again, to be clear, no one said the information is not of value. And even if you can not see it, most are supporting your strong feelings on having a checkpoint. But are having a conversation about a news article and not judging you or even implying to stop checkpoints. It just a discussion...
 

406dn

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
521
I agree the civil suit seems a bit much. On the flip side he probably spent $10k getting his initial dismissal so over-eager enforcement does have its price.
Well, the price he might have paid seems pretty modest when compared to the price others have paid for their interactions with law enforcement.

It seems he had money left over to file a suit.
 
Last edited:
Top