Does Checkpoint Violate Our Fourth Amendment Rights?

[VikingsGuy]

I'm not adverse to giving up some freedom to help law enforcement fight crime. Sometimes it's my turn for the random vehicle search when crossing the border. I always tell the customs inspectors I don't mind at all. If it would help stop drug trafficking I'd strip naked every time I crossed. Spent some time as a military police desk sergeant at Madigan Hospital in Tacoma where I saw first hand what street drugs do to families. Same with poaching. We should all be pleased to do our part to help law enforcement stop it, especially if it only means taking a minute out of our time to chat with folks at an inspection station. Instead everyone wants to get wrapped up in their own little world of personal rights and freedoms. All about "me, me, me." It's pretty obvious that Sunday school attendance has fallen off in the 21st century.

I agree with much of your perspective (except for your enthusiasm for being naked at the border - but that's between you and your therapist ). I personally don't get my undies in a bundle over these minor inconveniences, but it is not unreasonable to read history and see that as governments extend their powers to affect things we agree with, that they also grow powers to effect things we don't agree with - it is a balancing act.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

I'm not adverse to giving up some freedom to help law enforcement fight crime. Sometimes it's my turn for the random vehicle search when crossing the border. I always tell the customs inspectors I don't mind at all. If it would help stop drug trafficking I'd strip naked every time I crossed. Spent some time as a military police desk sergeant at Madigan Hospital in Tacoma where I saw first hand what street drugs do to families. Same with poaching. We should all be pleased to do our part to help law enforcement stop it, especially if it only means taking a minute out of our time to chat with folks at an inspection station. Instead everyone wants to get wrapped up in their own little world of personal rights and freedoms. All about "me, me, me." It's pretty obvious that Sunday school attendance has fallen off in the 21st century.

I'm not sure the inconvenience part is what I would be concerned with either. I do agree that with the war on crime (used loosely) we should afford some variations to help with that. However, for the sake of debate, even people that appear to be, or are a criminal have some freedoms. We, IMO, can't afford to prejudge them and make it easier for law enforcement to search their lives for a crime to punish on. They, again IMO, have to reveal their crime, or have a reasonable suspicion to look for one. And even reasonable suspicion is subjective at times. At least I think so...

But I do see your point.

 

[brymoore]

So I re-read the article again...and I know some of those may tee off on me, but I'm also curious. Tanner wasn't just cited for stopping at the check station, it sounds like he was cited for eluding as well. I'm not sure what "probable cause" that Nye stated allowed the initial pursuit, but IDFG wardens from what I recall are full-fledged LEO's under Idaho Law *(can pull you over for speeding on highway if they feel like it). So, not only did he not stop, but he acted in an evasive manner eluding law enforcement. That being said, if IDFG checkpoints are against the 4th, what about DOT check/weigh stations. If a harvest outfit for a farmer or 18-wheeler rolls by those, they can get cited for the same things. Now I know DOT is looking at interstate commerce, but doesn't IDFG do the same when checking a non-resident hunter? Seems to me like two different state agencies doing the same thing. If a trucker rolls through can't they lose their CDL (special driving privilege), the same way a hunter in Idaho can have their hunting/fishing privileges revoked rolling through a check station?

I read an article about the arrest. He was pursued a few miles, local police were present and held Tanner on DUI charges for 15 minutes before being released with no DUI charge.

 

[Sytes]

but it is not unreasonable to read history and see that as governments extend their powers to affect things we agree with, that they also grow powers to effect things we don't agree with - it is a balancing act.

In common folk lingo; give an inch, take a mile.

 

[Xbolt]

Unless your hunting fishing or takeing part in an illegal activity that violates f&g laws i dont see a problem with going through a check.point

 

[HandgunHunter]

Unless your hunting fishing or takeing part in an illegal activity that violates f&g laws i dont see a problem with going through a check.point

If you are not doing anything illegal do you consent to cavity searches?

where do you draw the line?

where to draw the line is the whole point of this thread.

 

[406dn]

If you are not doing anything illegal do you consent to cavity searches?

where do you draw the line?

where to draw the line is the whole point of this thread.

There is a mile of distance between submitting to cavity searches without probable cause and being required to stop at f&g check stations.

A condition of holding a hunting license includes obeying all of the conditions attached to that license. Those conditions include a lot of things. The days of the year, the hours of the day, the proof of gender, the manner of taking and on and on. Among those conditions is stopping at game checks. If a person can't abide those conditions,,, they can find another outdoor activity that does not include them.

Every check station I've gone thru is looking PRIMARILY for biological data. The violations largely fall into their lap. A person set on poaching has a game plan to avoid a check station.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Every check station I've gone thru is looking PRIMARILY for biological data. The violations largely fall into their lap. A person set on poaching has a game plan to avoid a check station.

Although that may be partially true, there are many that are just Fish and Game Law Enforcement. I go through them that are just for Law Enforcement quite a bit. The last one I went through a few years ago, they did not care about taking biologist data. In fact, they harassed the crap out of my wife and I (our interpretation), insisting we were lying to them and hiding something. After approx 30 minutes of checking us, the pickup, and my deer, they (two officers and a K9) "Let" us go. But as I have said many times, we believe the checkpoint was set up in a remote area dirt road and looking for someone specific. And it was not us. We were a bit more than inconvenienced.

I also think some "poachers" do try to get through the check station thinking it's only biologist and they can lie their way through.

 

[VikingsGuy]

There is a mile of distance between submitting to cavity searches without probable cause and being required to stop at f&g check stations.

A condition of holding a hunting license includes obeying all of the conditions attached to that license. Those conditions include a lot of things. The days of the year, the hours of the day, the proof of gender, the manner of taking and on and on. Among those conditions is stopping at game checks. If a person can't abide those conditions,,, they can find another outdoor activity that does not include them.

Every check station I've gone thru is looking PRIMARILY for biological data. The violations largely fall into their lap. A person set on poaching has a game plan to avoid a check station.

Even if we accept every word of your post as gospel, if we stick to the OP, this discussion is not about hunters accepting stops as a condition of a hunting license. It is about a non-hunter being stopped with no such consent for the convenience of F&G. Using the latest USF&W data, that means 95% of Americans are subject to stops and searches without cause or warrant as a way to keep track of the 5% who do buy hunting licenses and consent to such stops/searches. That's why even though not a big deal on my worry list, I think SCOTUS might rule against this if they were presented the question. Gorsuch in particular is trying to lead the court towards challenging the never-ending growth of the regulatory state. YMMV.

 

[Sytes]

A condition of holding a hunting license includes obeying all of the conditions attached to that license.

The issue here... This person was not hunting nor fishing. A person going to town to p/u groceries - not a hunter nor fisher(wo)man, maybe completely anti hunt / fish a reasonable 4th amendment search/seizure?

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Although that may be partially true, there are many that are just Fish and Game Law Enforcement. I go through them that are just for Law Enforcement quite a bit. The last one I went through a few years ago, they did not care about taking biologist data. In fact, they harassed the crap out of my wife and I (our interpretation), insisting we were lying to them and hiding something. After approx 30 minutes of checking us, the pickup, and my deer, they (two officers and a K9) "Let" us go. But as I have said many times, we believe the checkpoint was set up in a remote area dirt road and looking for someone specific. And it was not us. We were a bit more than inconvenienced.

I also think some "poachers" do try to get through the check station thinking it's only biologist and they can lie their way through.

Let me just add, that my wife was not hunting, but just out for a trip. Yes, she had a hunting license during that time, but was not hunting. They checked her papers and seperated us to question us. Probably of no value to the story, but I forgot to put that in...

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think most IDFG checkpoints are "all hunters must stop", not everyone. Pretty sure I have only went by one and I did not stop because I was not hunting/fishing that day. Depending on the location and time of year, for example November on the edge of the national forest in Boundary County ID I think it would make sense to stop everybody with the assumption that they are hunting. A couple quick inquiries and the individual can be on their way.

Based on a quick google, it looks like this guy has a bit of a reputation with the courts:

Steve Tanner, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Debra A. Heise, Individually and As Magistrate Judge, 1stjudicial District; Peter B. Wilson, Prosecutor for City Ofbonners Ferry; Garth Tenney, Individually and As a Deputyof the Boundary County Sheriff's Departm

Steve Tanner, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Debra A. Heise, Individually and As Magistrate Judge, 1stjudicial District; Peter B. Wilson, Prosecutor for City Ofbonners Ferry; Garth Tenney, Individually and As a Deputyof the Boundary County Sheriff's Department; David Kramer;harry Shearer, Individually...

law.justia.com

As an ambassador of the Kingdom of God not subject to the laws of secular kingdoms, basing your opposition to being convicted of violating laws of the secular kingdom of the USA on the premise that your secular Constitutional Rights were violated seems to be an abuse of logic.

Book him, Danno.

 

[406dn]

The issue here... This person was not hunting nor fishing. A person going to town to p/u groceries - not a hunter nor fisher(wo)man, maybe completely anti hunt / fish a reasonable 4th amendment search/seizure?

And his case was dismissed. I agree,, he should not have been stopped,, it was a phuck up. IMO that does not mean that hunters should be free to skip game checks.

 

[Sytes]

And his case was dismissed. I agree,, he should not have been stopped,, it was a phuck up. IMO that does not mean that hunters should be free to skip game checks.

I agree though, tbh, I don't believe anyone said anything of the sort. I believe Buzz assumed it was a hunter that did not want to be checked and didn't read the article though no one involved with the OP topic/article said anything of the sort, that I am aware.

To add: "it was a phuck up" is the underlying theme, and contrary to the U.S. District Judge's ruling.

 

[406dn]

Even if we accept every word of your post as gospel, if we stick to the OP, this discussion is not about hunters accepting stops as a condition of a hunting license. It is about a non-hunter being stopped with no such consent for the convenience of F&G. Using the latest USF&W data, that means 95% of Americans are subject to stops and searches without cause or warrant as a way to keep track of the 5% who do buy hunting licenses and consent to such stops/searches. That's why even though not a big deal on my worry list, I think SCOTUS might rule against this if they were presented the question. Gorsuch in particular is trying to lead the court towards challenging the never-ending growth of the regulatory state. YMMV.

Again,, Law enforcement screws up from time to time. That doesn't mean they should quit enforcing the law,, where it applies. Buying a hunting license is not a right by a long shot. Try as I have,, I do not get to hunt mountain goat, bighorn sheep or moose most years. It is perfectly legal for a state to grant a license subject to conditions. So why if stopping at a check station is unconstitutional,,,,, why do I have to quit hunting at the time of the state's choosing?

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Again,, Law enforcement screws up from time to time. That doesn't mean they should quit enforcing the law,, where it applies. Buying a hunting license is not a right by a long shot. Try as I have,, I do not get to hunt mountain goat, bighorn sheep or moose most years. It is perfectly legal for a state to grant a license subject to conditions. So why if stopping at a check station is unconstitutional,,,,, why do I have to quit hunting at the time of the state's choosing?

Interesting spin... Just don't drive past a checkpoint in a muddy pickup after not hunting, wearing an orange hat and a camo jacket.

 

[Jdp010]

Attorney here - but don't practice in an area anywhere close to this.

I don't know what has been upheld in this area, but I suspect these would be upheld. Whether all persons or asked to stop or just hunters. See the case law on stopping motorcyclists for "safety checks" and then seizing guns/drugs, etc.

I do believe we would all be better off doing less "consenting". Law abiding folks doing too much consenting has done much to erode our privacy rights. G&F can get their data other ways. I'm not stopping if I have a decent argument I wasn't reasonably close to the activity of hunting.

Keep in mind that DUI checkpoints are illegal in Idaho (and other states) because those states chose to pass law forbidding them. NOT because DUI checkpoints violate the 4th amendment of the US Constitution.

 

[406dn]

Interesting spin... Just don't drive past a checkpoint in a muddy pickup after not hunting, wearing an orange hat and a camo jacket.

I drive past one all hunting season long,,often in a dirty pick up. If not hunting, I don't stop,,, and if wearing an orange ball cap,,,,,,it is removed as I drive past. So far not police a chase has happened.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

As a funny side note, I bet Cheech would see things different.
Funny movie about citizenship and mistaken identity. Mostly, has nothing to do with the topic other than being an American Citizen and freedom.

 

[406dn]

As a funny side note, I bet Cheech would see things different.
Funny movie about citizenship and mistaken identity. Mostly, has nothing to do with the topic other than being an American Citizen and freedom.

Between Cheech and Chong,,,I always suspected Cheech was the legal scholar. I never found either very funny.