Does Checkpoint Violate Our Fourth Amendment Rights?

[WyoDoug]

There is no doubt that hunting rights are viewed as a "privilege" and if you read my post carefully I did not say otherwise so no need to post a bunch of google fu cites. What I am saying is that in a careful parsing of the law this only goes to the "reasonableness" of society's intervention as it relates to the meets and bounds of the 4thA and does not create some type of absolute waiver of right by a hunter by its mere fact. Even where states win these cases they do not argue that all drivers have waived their 4thA rights - they argue that it is reasonable to constrain those unwaived rights due to the importance of protecting wildlife.

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.

 

[Straight Arrow]

@Straight Arrow Did I miss something? Sorry SA, flew over my head. Are you mocking, tossing some adverse comment from the snip of a larger comment I made or supporting the snip you pulled or... adding to?

Sytes, my intent was to build on your important distinction between right and privilege.

 

[HandgunHunter]

Hunting and fishing are both constitutional rights in Wyoming.

and we know people have been stopped for not stopping for merely having an orange hat visible.....there is no way a hat color would rise to probable cause or the lower level of reasonable suspicion.

 

[Sytes]

Sytes, my intent was to build on your important distinction between right and privilege.

Oh gotcha. Understand now. Thanks. Sometimes posts without expressions in person or tone are challenging to understand the intent. Appreciate your response.

 

[WyoDoug]

Hunting and fishing are both constitutional rights in Wyoming.

Not absolute. Statute still references it as "priviledges".

The Wyoming House overwhelmingly passed Senate Joint Resolution 1 by a 56-3 vote in 2012. The Senate passed the legislation 23-7 earlier in February 2012.

The amendment asserts that "the opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual," though it could still be subject to regulation. I personally interpret that as a privilege that can be revoked as provided by statute.

The exact wording of that initiative: "The opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state, subject to regulation as prescribed by law, and does not create a right to trespass on private property, diminish other private rights or alter the duty of the state to manage wildlife."

Now as worded, you could consider it as a privilege or a right. That issue is kind of vague. In the last phrase "does not...alter the duty of the state to mange wildlife" is key here. It does not make game check stations unconstitutional in Wyoming. Actual rights can not simply be altered by statute. There has to be clear justification for it that will survive court challenges or it is ineffective. This is NOT what I call a full fledged "right" but more of a privilege especially since statute references it as privileges that can be revoked under certain circumstances. Wyoming is also a part of the Wildlife Violator Compact which also obligates the state to enforce suspensions by other states.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I personally think the "right" vs "privilege" is a red herring in almost all contexts. Is housing a right or a privilege? If it is a right does that mean I have to pay for your housing even if you refuse to work? Is education a right or a privilege? If it is a right can I suspend you from school if you punch your teacher? If going to church a right, but if you live in the country and need to drive there is your right to drive to church merely a privilege? Voting would seem to be a foundational immutable right in a democracy but you can surrender it by committing a felony, does that mean it is just really a privilege? etc. etc.

I have yet to see a discussion that is more intellectually rigorous or gets to a better conclusion because one or more advocates of a position advance a right vs privilege assessment. Just argue the pros and cons of the position - no value is added by the self-conclusory labels. YMMV.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Not absolute. Statute still references it as "priviledges".

The Wyoming House overwhelmingly passed Senate Joint Resolution 1 by a 56-3 vote in 2012. The Senate passed the legislation 23-7 earlier in February 2012.

The amendment asserts that "the opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual," though it could still be subject to regulation. I personally interpret that as a privilege that can be revoked as provided by statute.

The exact wording of that initiative: "The opportunity to fish, hunt and trap wildlife is a heritage that shall forever be preserved to the individual citizens of the state, subject to regulation as prescribed by law, and does not create a right to trespass on private property, diminish other private rights or alter the duty of the state to manage wildlife."
Now as worded, you could consider it as a privilege or a right. That issue is kind of vague. In the last phrase "does not...alter the duty of the state to mange wildlife" is key here. It does not make game check stations unconstitutional in Wyoming. Actual rights can not simply be altered by statute. There has to be clear justification for it that will survive court challenges or it is ineffective. This is NOT what I call a full fledged "right" but more of a privilege especially since statute references it as privileges that can be revoked under certain circumstances. Wyoming is also a part of the Wildlife Violator Compact which also obligates the state to enforce suspensions by other states.

This is exactly the type of assessment that underlies my belief that right vs privilege labeling adds no clarity to a situation.

 

[WyoDoug]

I personally think the "right" vs "privilege" is a red herring in almost all contexts. Is housing a right or a privilege? If it is a right does that mean I have to pay for your housing even if you refuse to work? Is education a right or a privilege? If it is a right can I suspend you from school if you punch your teacher? If going to church a right, but if you live in the country and need to drive there is your right to drive to church merely a privilege? Voting would seem to be a foundational immutable right in a democracy but you can surrender it by committing a felony, does that mean it is just really a privilege? etc. etc.

I have yet to see a discussion that is more intellectually rigorous or gets to a better conclusion because one or more advocates of a position advance a right vs privilege assessment. Just argue the pros and cons of the position - no value is added by the self-conclusory labels. YMMV.

Here is how I interpret what you just stated: If the state requires a permit or license before you can exercise that "right" and can revoke it at will or refuse to grant a permit or license, then it is a privilege by definition ("An ability to perform an action that can be selectively granted or denied; permission.")

Legal Definition according to my wife's Blacks Law Dictionary "A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. ... By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth." Best I could find that would provide a legal definition.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Here is how I interpret what you just stated: If the state requires a permit or license before you can exercise that "right" and can revoke it at will or refuse to grant a permit or license, then it is a priviledge by definition ("An ability to perform an action that can be selectively granted or denied; permission.")

What I am trying to express (all be it poorly maybe) is that once "rights" are qualified by regulations, limitations, and subject withdrawal then they really aren't "rights" and they are no different than privileges practically speaking. And since our current law allows for nearly no absolute rights, then the term does not really add any clarity to the discussion or carry much persuasive value. I am also saying that people often decide what outcome they want and then rationalize their position by labelling things as rights or "mere privileges" to suit their preferred outcome - again, not adding value.

 

[WyoDoug]

What I am trying to express (all be it poorly maybe) is that once "rights" are qualified by regulations, limitations, and subject withdrawal then they really aren't "rights" and they are no different than privileges practically speaking. And since our current law allows for nearly no absolute rights, then the term does not really add any clarity to the discussion or carry much persuasive value. I am also saying that people often decide what outcome they want and then rationalize their position by labelling things as rights or "mere privileges" to suit their preferred outcome - again, not adding value.

Boy are you right on your last sentence.

 

[VikingsGuy]

Legal Definition according to my wife's Blacks Law Dictionary "A privilege is a certain entitlement to immunity granted by the state or another authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. ... By contrast, a right is an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens or all human beings from the moment of birth." Best I could find that would provide a legal definition.

Yup - and that's why "rights" don't have much practical application anymore since all most none are irrevocable. Right to life? Death Penalty. Right to liberty? Prison. Right to the pursuit of happiness? All kinds of joyful things are restricted, regulated, and outright illegal. Right to vote? Felony loss. Right of private property. Seizure, forfeiture, eminent domain.

I get the philosophical appeal to the concept of "rights", but I just find them of little value in actually distinguishing right and wrong anymore given how the term is now used.

 

[HandgunHunter]

Here is how I interpret what you just stated: If the state requires a permit or license before you can exercise that "right" and can revoke it at will or refuse to grant a permit or license, then it is a priviledge by definition ("An ability to perform an action that can be selectively granted or denied; permission.")

so if a state requires a license to buy a weapon is it a right or privilege

Search and seizure is a point of big discussion in the higher courts since basically the beginning of our country.


What I do know from my drug interdiction days is if I stopped someone for the sole reason based on the color of their clothing or any other similarly loose “suspicion” I would have been under the jail and/or broke.

If anyone thinks they can stop a pickup just because they see an orange hat they need to go back to training.

Are check points legal....yes

Whenever someone spends the money to take checkpoints to the Supreme Court I think you’ll see them chipped away at more again.....they knocked outs narcotics check points long ago...and that’s contraband which no one is allowed to possess...

 

[JohnCushman]

If you've got nothing to hide, then what's the point about being pissed about being stopped?

 

[WyoDoug]

so if a state requires a license to buy a weapon is it a right or privilege

Search and seizure is a point of big discussion in the higher courts since basically the beginning of our country.


What I do know from my drug interdiction days is if I stopped someone for the sole reason based on the color of their clothing or any other similarly loose “suspicion” I would have been under the jail and/or broke.

If anyone thinks they can stop a pickup just because they see an orange hat they need to go back to training.

Are check points legal....yes

Whenever someone spends the money to take checkpoints to the Supreme Court I think you’ll see them chipped away at more again.....they knocked outs narcotics check points long ago...and that’s contraband which no one is allowed to possess...

First, I am a hardcore 2A advocate so I am very biased.

Eventually, license to buy guns is an issue making it's way through the courts and we shall see what SCOTUS does. It's a right that is slowly being whittled away and will soon really be a "privilege" given to select few. Before SCOTUS will hear a 2A case, it has to reach a point where it has majority vote of the justices to hear the case which is usually after it completes the final appeals process. Sometimes they will not accept a case if similar cases are in process in other courts. I am following a number of 2A cases but right now justices such as Roberts are voting the opposite of what they promoted before they became justices which confuses me.

Spending money to fight checkpoints do me does way more harm than good and you might win a battle here and there but you will not win the war. It forces the state to spend money on something that could be better spend on conservation and good wildlife management. I also feel it's rather selfish. It's a way to preserve what we have for the long term in my opinion.

 

[VikingsGuy]

First, I am a hardcore 2A advocate so I am very biased.

Eventually, license to buy guns is an issue making it's way through the courts and we shall see what SCOTUS does. It's a right that is slowly being whittled away and will soon really be a "privilege" given to select few. Before SCOTUS will hear a 2A case, it has to reach a point where it has majority vote of the justices to hear the case which is usually after it completes the final appeals process. Sometimes they will not accept a case if similar cases are in process in other courts. I am following a number of 2A cases but right now justices such as Roberts are voting the opposite of what they promoted before they became justices which confuses me.

Spending money to fight checkpoints do me does way more harm than good and you might win a battle here and there but you will not win the war. It forces the state to spend money on something that could be better spend on conservation and good wildlife management. I also feel it's rather selfish. It's a way to preserve what we have for the long term in my opinion.

It's the same battle - how much will the government be able to narrow all of our constitutional protections to further its policy choices of the day. A weak constitution is a weak constitution. Accepting any plausible rationale to impinge one protection will result in more protections being impinged with similar rationales. Will we weigh the interests of individuals over the government, or have we decided we prefer our pet issues too much? To OPs post, as much as I love hunting and hate poaching, it is an embarrassment that we would surrender one of our most fundamental liberties (4A) to make catching poachers 2% easier.

 

[VikingsGuy]

If you've got nothing to hide, then what's the point about being pissed about being stopped?

It's pretty much the whole point of one of our most important constitutional protections. Why not let the cops go through your house without cause if you have nothing to hide? I believe this is an important principle. Others may disagree and I respect that, but I will never give permission for any search on principle, and I really don't have anything to hide (but a very messy office that drives my wife nuts and some unfortunate photos of my hair in the 80s). If they have cause or a warrant then I will stand aside, but would never offer a search to be agreeable.

 

[BuzzH]

I dont see the problem...just stop at the check stations, no big deal. I've been stopping at them since 1979 when I first started hunting.

What they're 99% for is to collect harvest data, hunter success, things like that. An ancillary thing is that they also catch stupid people from time to time.

I'm just reading this scratching my head why anyone would be opposed to a check station that is 99% about improving herds, collecting data, and trying to make things better.

Every once in a while I'm just left shaking my head in total disbelief...count this as one of those times.

 

[HandgunHunter]

First, I am a hardcore 2A advocate so I am very biased.

Eventually, license to buy guns is an issue making it's way through the courts and we shall see what SCOTUS does. It's a right that is slowly being whittled away and will soon really be a "privilege" given to select few. Before SCOTUS will hear a 2A case, it has to reach a point where it has majority vote of the justices to hear the case which is usually after it completes the final appeals process. Sometimes they will not accept a case if similar cases are in process in other courts. I am following a number of 2A cases but right now justices such as Roberts are voting the opposite of what they promoted before they became justices which confuses me.

Spending money to fight checkpoints do me does way more harm than good and you might win a battle here and there but you will not win the war. It forces the state to spend money on something that could be better spend on conservation and good wildlife management. I also feel it's rather selfish. It's a way to preserve what we have for the long term in my opinion.

Imagine how many gun crimes we could stop by having a check point just for guns outside of major cities. You know just to make sure the persons are in legal possession.

 

[BuzzH]

Imagine how many gun crimes we could stop by having a check point just for guns outside of major cities. You know just to make sure the persons are in legal possession.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I dont see the problem...just stop at the check stations, no big deal. I've been stopping at them since 1979 when I first started hunting.

What they're 99% for is to collect harvest data, hunter success, things like that. An ancillary thing is that they also catch stupid people from time to time.

I'm just reading this scratching my head why anyone would be opposed to a check station that is 99% about improving herds, collecting data, and trying to make things better.

Every once in a while I'm just left shaking my head in total disbelief...count this as one of those times.

If they are 99% about merely collecting "harvest data and things like that" why chase down and arrest a non-hunter? Voluntary stops and surveys would get you the same data. They want to catch violators - even without cause - which is unconstitutional in almost all other contexts. Not sure harvest data trumps import of catching killers or rapists so not sure why this is the instance where we make an exception. But this is a hunting forum so we can get myopic.