Does Checkpoint Violate Our Fourth Amendment Rights?

[Sytes]

I mentioned this earlier, sometimes it takes the nutters to set the stage for SCOTUS rulings such as the whackjobs protesting Military funerals... And now our 1st Amendment has been strengthened. They set the stage specifically for that intent. I don't agree one bit with them just as this nut job Tanner.
However, I don't believe he should be subject to F&G "reasonable" search and seizure as a person not involved with fishing or hunting activity. *This is based on my internet yammered opinion and a simple article.

Also civil or criminal precedence is significant for future cases.

SCOTUS focused legal firms specifically search for cases that could be taken all the way. If not SCOTUS at least to the Appellate 9th Circuit.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

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.

There are absolutely many people who believe the government has no authority to license these sorts of things. In both rural California and rural Oregon the mentality is pervasive. I often find it tied to a sort of 10th amendment issue. Most of these people think that since they live out of an urban area they're living some sort of pioneer life style where they live off the land, and they should be entitled to make that living.

I have no issues with the Idaho check stations. I understand they provide valuable information, but I've often wondered about them. I've stopped at the check station on highway 95 many times, and watched them run down many vehicles that failed to stop that could have been hunters. I've wondered what would have happened if I'd passed the station on one of my frequent non-hunting trips. My truck has a canopy so how would wardens have reasonable suspicion that I had been hunting?

 

[Straight Arrow]

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.

Me too ... and since I first began hunting in 1957.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Also civil or criminal precedence is significant for future cases.

SCOTUS focused legal firms specifically search for cases that could be taken all the way. If not SCOTUS at least to the Appellate 9th Circuit.

Interesting take on this, and I really don't want to focus on this. Just humorous to me. A person gets arrested for not stopping at a checkpoint. Then needs a lawyer to defend and sue. The lawyer gets paid for services. Then the lawyer pays to hunt that state or nonresident elsewhere supporting that fish and game and future checkpoints. Completing the cycle, right back where it started...

 

[OntarioHunter]

I don't see what the issue is here. We all must concede to unreasonable searches at airports or we get blown out of the sky which is just a bit more unreasonable. Similarly everyone, citizen or not is stopped and searched when entering the country. This Tanner clown is a pimple-picking sh*t disturber looking to get his name in the paper. Saddens me that he succeeded to this degree. Northern Idaho is full of those anti-government vigilante nuts. I taught HS there for a couple of years back in the eighties. It was tough being normal there.

 

[VikingsGuy]

There are absolutely many people who believe the government has no authority to license these sorts of things. In both rural California and rural Oregon the mentality is pervasive. I often find it tied to a sort of 10th amendment issue. Most of these people think that since they live out of an urban area they're living some sort of pioneer life style where they live off the land, and they should be entitled to make that living.

I agree with your remarks in general, but I think these issues bring out two different objectors. A group of "mainstream" folks who are generally ok with the current systems but still find value in being diligent about the risk of government overreach if not respectfully and logically pushed back upon at times (e.g., ACLU and their conservative counterparts). The second is a true fringe element that has created in their minds an entire parallel understanding of the law and how governments work - anarchists, freemen on the land, white separatists, posse comitatus, etc. These groups are way way out there and are not helping anybody including themselves. But I have to admit, I do find reading their bizarre views on admiralty law, UCC, strawman theory, the supreme authority of county sheriffs, etc interesting - in a trainwreck kind of way.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

I agree with your remarks in general, but I think these issues bring out two different objectors. A group of "mainstream" folks who are generally ok with the current systems but still find value in being diligent about the risk of government overreach if not respectfully and logically pushed back upon at times (e.g., ACLU and their conservative counterparts). The second is a true fringe element that has created in their minds an entire parallel understanding of the law and how governments work - anarchists, freemen on the land, white separatists, posse comitatus, etc. These groups are way way out there and are not helping anybody including themselves. But I have to admit, I do find reading their bizarre views on admiralty law, UCC, strawman theory, the supreme authority of county sheriffs, etc interesting - in a trainwreck kind of way.

That has not been my experience over here. While most of these people aren't claiming sovereign citizenship, the antigovernment mentality is deeply ingrained in many people I would consider mostly "mainstream."

I would hazard a guess that the majority of hunters I went to high-school with would support the argument. It's more than a fringe element in the PNW hunting culture.

 

[VikingsGuy]

That has not been my experience over here. While most of these people aren't claiming sovereign citizenship, the antigovernment mentality is deeply ingrained in many people I would consider mostly "mainstream."

I would hazard a guess that the majority of hunters I went to high-school with would support the argument. It's more than a fringe element in the PNW hunting culture.

Maybe there are three groups - the cautious, the strident and the crazy?

 

[westbranch]

That has not been my experience over here. While most of these people aren't claiming sovereign citizenship, the antigovernment mentality is deeply ingrained in many people I would consider mostly "mainstream."

I would hazard a guess that the majority of hunters I went to high-school with would support the argument. It's more than a fringe element in the PNW hunting culture.

After moving here and talking to people about hunting it seems like there are a lot of hunters that are anti "fish cop". Still a minority, but enough that I have heard some casual comments about illegal hunting activities. The biggest one that is mentioned frequently is guys going out with a spouse's or friends tag and illegally tag sharing and/or party hunting. And based on comments from a coworker just this past week it sounds like it will be more common this year when you can take hunters ed without going to a in person class. I don't think most of these people are hunting hard enough to make an impact, but still very frustrating to hear.

I was a bit surprised, but at the same time I grew up in rural MN and know people that would leave deer tags at camp for local family/friends to fill and claim they don't know its illegal. Party hunting is legal in MN, but only if all hunters are in the field.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

After moving here and talking to people about hunting it seems like there are a lot of hunters that are anti "fish cop". Still a minority, but enough that I have heard some casual comments about illegal hunting activities. The biggest one that is mentioned frequently is guys going out with a spouse's or friends tag and illegally tag sharing and/or party hunting. And based on comments from a coworker just this past week it sounds like it will be more common this year when you can take hunters ed without going to a in person class. I don't think most of these people are hunting hard enough to make an impact, but still very frustrating to hear.

I was a bit surprised, but at the same time I grew up in rural MN and know people that would leave deer tags at camp for local family/friends to fill and claim they don't know its illegal. Party hunting is legal in MN, but only if all hunters are in the field.

And many of those people, I'll bet don't get checked at a checkpoint anyway. So, it fails in that aspect. No data and no citations.

I don't think there is an answer for that one. Until they get caught. Then it's a different statistic they are contributing to.

 

[OntarioHunter]

An interesting dialogue. I'm new to this form and find the level of articulation and thoughtfulness more than a little refreshing compared to the forum I left.

 

[Panda Bear]

There are absolutely many people who believe the government has no authority to license these sorts of things. In both rural California and rural Oregon the mentality is pervasive. I often find it tied to a sort of 10th amendment issue. Most of these people think that since they live out of an urban area they're living some sort of pioneer life style where they live off the land, and they should be entitled to make that living.

I have no issues with the Idaho check stations. I understand they provide valuable information, but I've often wondered about them. I've stopped at the check station on highway 95 many times, and watched them run down many vehicles that failed to stop that could have been hunters. I've wondered what would have happened if I'd passed the station on one of my frequent non-hunting trips. My truck has a canopy so how would wardens have reasonable suspicion that I had been hunting?

Disclaimer: Different country, different laws. I wanted to say that there are still places in the world where---FI460-- " people think that since they live out of an urban area they're living some sort of pioneer life style where they live off of the land, and they should be entitled to make that living" "We" here in "The Territories " of Canada, most assuredly feel that way and in recent years we have been successfully in having certain laws "for us" and laws for others. Especially in regards to hunting and fishing. The world, not just some in Canada who still frowns down on our seal, whale, and polar bear hunting.

And speaking of checkpoints. We have checkpoints that deny entry into the three territories because of the Corona Virus. From what I understand you fellows are able to still drive from state to state.

I would also like to say that another member and I spoke about this yesterday. Many of the ladies and gentlemen on this site are very knowledgeable and smart. I am impressed with some of the knowledge and for the most part the ability you guys have to disagree without trying to kill each other. Kudos to those who are able to disagree without being disagreeable.

A couple of lighter moments about checkpoints: Someone ask about the virus not allowing people to enter the Territories. And I said with tongue in cheek, every cloud has a silver lining.

and why do you fellows let people like Tradewind, Oregonchris, Noharleyyet, Benlamb, Europe, and others, post music that nobody has ever heard of . Music from the 70s, 60's, and in Europe's case the 40's. that nobody knows , Shouldn't we have a "checkpoint" for the music posted ?

 

[huntid73]

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?

 

[VikingsGuy]

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?

SCOTUS has found human safety sufficient reason to waive 4A protection related to DOT stops and DUI stops. It is not clear that they would afford as much importance to F&G statistics collection. Probably a 50-50 proposition if someone pushed it.

 

[huntid73]

SCOTUS has found human safety sufficient reason to waive 4A protection related to DOT stops and DUI stops. It is not clear that they would afford as much importance to F&G statistics collection. Probably a 50-50 proposition if someone pushed it.

Hence the reason I defer to those who know more than me!

 

[Sytes]

My understanding, the, "eluding" was based on his failure to stop at the check point that the Judge dismissed in the State criminal case.

 

[Randi]

SCOTUS has found human safety sufficient reason to waive 4A protection related to DOT stops and DUI stops. It is not clear that they would afford as much importance to F&G statistics collection. Probably a 50-50 proposition if someone pushed it.

Which, brings me back to a point I made on a different thread. IF this is important to someone and they feel it will get to SCOTUS, then having Judges in the Appellant and Supreme courts, who you believe will vote in the manner you prefer is important.

As was correctly pointed out, they should all just follow the law as it is not their job to make laws. But obviously they dont all see each law in the same way, which is why all rulings are not 9-0

As to checkpoints themselves, I can understand both arguments. They have them to obtain research information to better serve the public, or for public safety, or to enforce a law, but the other argument is "where does it stop", on the highway's, our neighbor hood streets, our driveway, ---our garage. And, WHO decides what is best for my safety and to what degree that authority is given--back to SCOTUS? A bit of a stretch and/or off topic, maybe.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

WHO decides what is best for my safety and to what degree that authority is given--back to SCOTUS?

Dang good question....

 

[Losing_Sanity]

This has been an interesting thread for me. Many comments and different views. A good solid conversation about a news article that may suggest one of our freedom could be challenged. Thanks to @VikingsGuy, he normally gets paid for his interpretation of the law, and we get it for free. We should appreciate when he can take the time to participate. And to @WyoDoug for his years of experience and knowledge. What a great wealth of knowledge and insight. I also appreciate the comment from @Panda Bear in Canada. Sometimes it's good to see what other countries do. And others like @Randi, @BuzzH, @FI460, @Sytes and many others. Many times these threads get derailed and/or lock when people can't just discuss the topic. But, so far this one didn't.

Okay, mushy stuff is done...

 

[OntarioHunter]

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.