Does Checkpoint Violate Our Fourth Amendment Rights?

[FI460]

I got 99 problems but hunter checkpoints ain't one...

That's because our legislature refuses to fund them

 

[matt0550]

The only heartburn I get out of this is the true and ready acceptance of "profiling". If a guy says he's not a hunter or wasn't going to/coming from hunting and drives by a checkpoint yet has the typical orange cap on his dash and an NRA sticker or the like on the back window, does he get pulled over down the road under "suspicion"? If so, is this standard acceptable? A sane and normal person will obviously make the point that its "typical" for many (not all) hunters to match a certain profile of individual operating a certain profile of vehicle with certain accouterments adorning it - this passes the sniff test for me. This does not pass the sniff test with a society that advocates for ending profiling of ANY kind for ANY reason. Not being a feminine cleanser container about it, just stating an obvious problem with profiling and how it may be found totally acceptable in one instance and not another and is particularly odd where the weight of the crime is animals or fish and not humans lives.

 

[Mule3006Elk]

I guess we have to pick apart a simple F&G Checkpoint. They don't bother me at all.
In 8 years of hunting I have come across one.
The officer asked me a few quick questions and I was on my way. He gave me a little intel as well. It didn't change my hunt but he was helpful.
I told him I would be hunting the area for the next 5 days and I asked if he needed me to stop every passing. He said no only if I harvested something.
Seems simple enough. Hopefully they catch a few violators that would otherwise have slipped through the cracks!

 

[matt0550]

I guess we have to pick apart a simple F&G Checkpoint. They don't bother me at all.
In 8 years of hunting I have come across one.
The officer asked me a few quick questions and I was on my way. He gave me a little intel as well. It didn't change my hunt but he was helpful.
I told him I would be hunting the area for the next 5 days and I asked if he needed me to stop every passing. He said no only if I harvested something.
Seems simple enough. Hopefully they catch a few violators that would otherwise have slipped through the cracks!

I should've gone on in my post about being stopped at checkpoints on tribal land a couple times and in one of the instances had gone days without seeing anything worth a second look. The ranger gave me some really good intel and 2 days later shot a dandy in the location he gave me - in both cases the officers were absolute professionals and friendly as the day is long.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

I think many of us are missing the point, at least a point. The question is not whether you should stop, or if it's a inconvenience to you to stop. It's whether our 4th Amendment rights are being challenged here? Obviously, if many of us were in the shoes of the person in the article that we are discussing, we may see things differently. No one is advocating removing the checkpoints or stopping them and there is some established benefit to the Fish and Game.

Let's take it a step further, what if, as @BuzzH said and most people would not provide the information voluntarily or on the honor system. So it needs to be gathered by mandate. What if, they started knocking on doors to check your home for the info? Like how the census takers get their info? What then? Where do you draw the line? And no one is advocating anyone has anything to hide. But they may find something that you did not realize and would never have gotten into trouble for otherwise. Lets say like a picture with lighted nocks next to a giant buck taken in Idaho or other violations that are not even Fish and Game related. Just for discussion...

 

[Losing_Sanity]

In honor of this thread being unlocked after a whole week

I don't know why it should get locked. It's been a pretty good conversation for the most part. And, as a statistic point, it appears most people don't agree with the subject of the news article (which is really the point of the thread) and do agree with the judges ruling. But just because people agree, does not prove legality.

 

[BuzzH]

I stopped at a check station yesterday and wasn't even hunting. Helped a couple friends with a pronghorn hunt and had everything but a rifle in the truck, camping gear, spotter, binoculars, etc.

Enough stuff that the GF would no doubt suspect I was probably hunting. Rather than risk wasting everyone's time, stop and talked to the biologist at the check station. He thanked me for stopping and we chatted about pronghorn numbers, what he'd checked so far, all that.

Worthwhile visit, and I didn't even feel like my constitutional "rights" had been violated...strange.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

I stopped at a check station yesterday and wasn't even hunting. Helped a couple friends with a pronghorn hunt and had everything but a rifle in the truck, camping gear, spotter, binoculars, etc.

Enough stuff that the GF would no doubt suspect I was probably hunting. Rather than risk wasting everyone's time, stop and talked to the biologist at the check station. He thanked me for stopping and we chatted about pronghorn numbers, what he'd checked so far, all that.

Worthwhile visit, and I didn't even feel like my constitutional "rights" had been violated...strange.

That is strange...

Welcome back to the discussion. It is truly good to read about your productive visit. If you have kept up with the post, you realize that not all checkpoints are biologist. And some don't care a bit about collecting data. But, for the most part they are as you say. And, still, no one is disputing the role that they are playing.

It's also good to see you have stopped being a smart aleck.