What to do about persistent poachers?

[arathol]

The Hester v. U.S. case is a totally different issue than what is being discussed here. There are many differences as the officers had probable cause and even witnessed it from numerous yards away from the private property. The defendant's ran from said property onto other property, NOT their private property, dropped and abandoned the evidence which was collected and proved to be in violation of the law. AGAIN, there was probable cause to enter upon the defendants own private property and then when one ran onto other property the officers were in pursuit of what they determined to be criminal and therefore with just cause. NONE of what happened in the Hester case was them entering private property WILLY-NILLY, even though they had no search warrant they did have probable cause and that cause was verified by the finding of illegal liquor in the abandoned broken jugs.

And still you are conveniently missing (or ignoring) the point. The key to that ruling the part I quoted......the part that says the 4th amendment only applies to your person, home and effects. The protection does not extend past that to what is called the "open fields". Its right there in black and white.

A violation of constitutional rights as per the Fourth Amendment. Where law enforcement conduct a search and seizure of a person or property without having (i) a search warrant and (ii) probable cause to believe that evidence of a crime may be present.

Here the definition of property doesn't mean the 100 acres you own somewhere in the woods. Your property is your car, your suit case, your shoes, etc, what Hester refers to as "effects". Hester still applies, and the open field doctrine is used every day by Fish and Game officers to monitor the hunting of State and Federally regulated game animals, populations of protected species and many other environmental issues.

 

[Bill G]

............ Having actually enforced the words of laws as a federal employee working in an Executive Branch Agency with the authority to enforce said written laws it becomes pretty clear that one must apply the exact definitions of the words and NOT what they think they mean.,...............

So what position did you hold that required you to enforce the law?

 

[Bill G]

TRUST ME

Having actually enforced the words of laws as a federal employee working in an Executive Branch Agency with the authority to enforce said written laws it becomes pretty clear that one must apply the exact definitions of the words and NOT what they think they mean.

Well I asked you yesterday what position you held that required you to enforce the law but for some reason you chose not to answer. A simple question should be simple to answer

 

[Bill G]

TRUST ME, Having actually enforced the words of laws as a federal employee working in an Executive Branch Agency with the authority to enforce said written laws it becomes pretty clear that one must apply the exact definitions of the words and NOT what they think they mean.

Well this is the third day I have asked you what position you held that required you to enforce the law. That should not be a tough question for you to answer

 

[wardog]

Well this is the third day I have asked you what position you held that required you to enforce the law. That should not be a tough question for you to answer

Been deer hunting and not on here until now BUT it should NOT matter as one being an employee of a Federal Regulatory Agency with a Congressional mandate of assuring the words of the pertinent laws are abided by, is no different than any other law enforcement officer including a Conservation Officer. The words say what they say and don't say what they don't say and the only OPINION that matters is one rendered by a court of law. IF you have not tested any of your scenarios then they are nothing more than your public OPINION and minus any actual case law or precedent. What position I held that REQUIRED me to enforce the law would be one that YOU could NOT comprehend and then I would have to explain to you exactly how that was the case by citing the law that gives such authority as there are many, many Federal employees doing them that those who are not or have not been a federal employee haven't a clue of.

 

[Bill G]

Been deer hunting and not on here until now BUT it should NOT matter as one being an employee of a Federal Regulatory Agency with a Congressional mandate of assuring the words of the pertinent laws are abided by, is no different than any other law enforcement officer including a Conservation Officer. The words say what they say and don't say what they don't say and the only OPINION that matters is one rendered by a court of law. IF you have not tested any of your scenarios then they are nothing more than your public OPINION and minus any actual case law or precedent. What position I held that REQUIRED me to enforce the law would be one that YOU could NOT comprehend and then I would have to explain to you exactly how that was the case by citing the law that gives such authority as there are many, many Federal employees doing them that those who are not or have not been a federal employee haven't a clue of.

I did not figure you could answer a very simple question.

What position I held that REQUIRED me to enforce the law would be one that YOU could NOT comprehend and then I would have to explain to you exactly how that was the case by citing the law that gives such authority as there are many, many Federal employees doing them that those who are not or have not been a federal employee haven't a clue of.

Interesting how you know I could not comprehend. I guess you must be the smartest person on earth because you seem to think you know me even though we have never met.

 

[motorhead99999]

I live just south of the Adirondacks. Dec would love to set up decoys/ robotic deer. Just have to call them and tell them you have a problem.