California Department of Fish and Game checkpoint

[sandman21]

TIf the OP said he was transporting a firearm, or there were firearms or firearm cases in plain sight, then he opened the door to an (e) check or a check under the relevant F&G section(s). If in an area where hunting is allowed, then they likely get to go a lot farther from the (e) check, and there isn't much that can be done about it, I'm afraid.

Not a hard case

"Which again is just another reasonwhy 12031(e) NEEDS TO GO AWAY!"
It WASN'T a 12031(e) check it was DFG2006.

Section 2006 does not give a warden the authority to search the weapon, unless there is another section you actually meant, 12031e is where they derive the authority.

I did and several others and the decision there was different from because it was out of season and there was nothing obvious in the car in plain view. If the warden can see in plain sight items which are used in the take of game, your answer to the question, were you hunting, is academic if he believes there is game in the car. Also if he sees a gun, he can do a 2006 check regardless.

How do you come about this?

MAIKHIO specifically talks about a warden having RAS that the person is hunting or fishing, the warden saw the person fishing, that's not the case here, where the warden has no RAS that the person was hunting.

[abalone hunter]

I would file complaints but don't expect much. D F G defends most anything Wardens do. We filed on a Warden in Fort Bragg and the fat woman who is in charge of complaints tried to spin it and belived everything the Warden put in his bogus report.

[Cokebottle]

What I never understood, is how government agencies at large got the idea that they somehow get an exception to the 4th amendment just because they aren't law enforcement or are enforcing "administrative laws". The 4A makes no distinction between law enforcement or any other agent of the state.

Because they are used to people rolling over and consenting when asked.

They don't quite know how to handle it when someone asserts their rights because they themselves don't fully understand our (and their) rights (speaking more of DFG/BLM and other agencies here, not traditional LEO). They know that they were trained to ask specific questions.
They don't know what to do when one of the answers does not follow the "script", so they continue with their script.


And BTW: DFG is a law enforcement agency with full powers of arrest. They generally aren't going to be pulling you over on the highway for speeding, but they can and will cite you for other activities including consumption of alcohol in prohibited areas, littering, campfires without a permit, etc....

[Soldier415]

To those saying that a tampon is perfect and advisable for a gunshot wound or other trauma...i'd like to ask you for your medical/trauma certifications and level of operational experience.

[Cokebottle]

To those saying that a tampon is perfect and advisable for a gunshot wound or other trauma...i'd like to ask you for your medical/trauma certifications and level of operational experience.

http://www.accidentscene.net/asmi.htm

[Which Way Out]

I spent almost 30 years in the Ca. Dpt. of Agriculture. We were exempted by the Ag. code from trespass laws and given a cart blanc right of "inspection" for agricultural pests. However, the legislature can pass any law they want, but that does not automatically make it constitutional. Being a libertarian, I always had my doubts and always instructed my people to treat people with respect and dignity and to get permission first! No permission, no inspection! period! The OP said he felt the DFG people had a badge heavy attitude. That would never cut it in my shop. It is amazing how far a little respect and dignity will take you. 99.9% of americans want to be good neighbors and good stewards. But they also feel they have a right to have themselves and their rights respected. I agree! I can't tell you the thousands of refusenicks that I have turned into; "Oh sure, no problem, do what you need to do," people with a little respect and assurance that they were in charge. But front line LE chooses to use intimidation, go figure?

Sadly men like you are not the norm.
I've had lots of encounters with the public and always found it much better to show equal respect. Sometimes I didn't get it back, mostly the drunks. Then the story changes as needed.

[Soldier415]

tampons should be part of your first aid kit. they are designed to absorb blood, have a string or extra material that can be used for tying, and are sterile (while packaged i think). especially for a hunting incident, or a wound such as a bullet hole, for which a kotex would be perfect for. i know it sounds gross, but its true.

Still doesn't change what he said.

They are perfect for stuffing into bullet entry and exit wounds, and can also be used as external dressing.

http://www.accidentscene.net/asmi.htm

So far nothing substantial.

[Which Way Out]

To those saying that a tampon is perfect and advisable for a gunshot wound or other trauma...i'd like to ask you for your medical/trauma certifications and level of operational experience.

Equally why does everything in this world need to be certified? Just saying.
A tampon or anything similar would only be a stop gap until proper medical treatment can be found.

[HowardW56]

I've always heard that CA wardens are less constrained by 4A than any other LE, that they can search without reasonable suspicion beyond simply suspicion of F&G 'activity' by the stopped party. Here's a recent case on that point.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S180289.PDF

ETA: scooped!!

F&G powers still appear to be predicated on evidence that the stopped party had engaged in F&G activity. If you are in a relatively multi-use place and time, and deny fishing or hunting when stopped and they have no other evidence on that issue, I'm not sure how these expanded search powers apply.

AGreed...

If they do not observe you fishing or hunting, it would appear that the opinion wouldn't apply. Unless of course you admitted to hunting....

[billybob_jcv]

AGreed...

If they do not observe you fishing or hunting, it would appear that the opinion wouldn't apply. Unless of course you admitted to hunting....

Really? That's certainly not how I read this paragraph:

For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that the Court of Appeal erred in determining that, under the applicable California statutes and the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, a game warden may make such a vehicle stop only if the warden is aware of facts that give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the angler or hunter has violated a fish and game statute or regulation. As we shall explain, California authority has interpreted the relevant statute as authorizing a stop of a vehicle occupied by an angler or hunter for such purposes, and the United States Supreme Court has held in a number of decisions that an administrative search or seizure may be conducted, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a violation of a statute or administrative regulation has occurred. Such administrative searches and seizures are permissible when (1) the governmental action serves a special and important state need and interest distinct from the state's ordinary interest in enforcing the criminal law, (2) the administrative rules or regulations that are required to achieve the state's interest are of such a nature that limiting inspection only to those persons reasonably suspected of committing a violation would seriously undermine the state's ability to meet its special need, and (3) the impingement upon the reasonable expectation of privacy of those subjected to the procedure is sufficiently limited such that the state‟s need to utilize the procedure outweighs the invasion which the search entails, thus rendering the procedure reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment.

[HowardW56]

Really? That's certainly not how I read this paragraph:

I need to re-read the entire opinion...

[VaderSpade]

I would file complaints but don't expect much. D F G defends most anything Wardens do. We filed on a Warden in Fort Bragg and the fat woman who is in charge of complaints tried to spin it and belived everything the Warden put in his bogus report.

[VaderSpade]

Because they are used to people rolling over and consenting when asked.

They don't quite know how to handle it when someone asserts their rights because they themselves don't fully understand our (and their) rights (speaking more of DFG/BLM and other agencies here, not traditional LEO). They know that they were trained to ask specific questions.
They don't know what to do when one of the answers does not follow the "script", so they continue with their script.

Funny that MOST people on THIS site expect/want you to just roll over also?

[taperxz]

Money would never stop me from seeking honest justice. Failing to pursue when you have tape and they are lying, IS rolling over IMHO. Complaining about what happens in the field and not do ing the follow up work only encourages LE to error in their ways.

[sandman21]

Really? That's certainly not how I read this paragraph:

The quote you posted is talking about stopping and performing an administrative search on someone that the warden has RAS was fishing but did not have RAS that they violated a F&G law, not that an administrative search could be performed because the warden wanted to. The court is not saying that if I am at the beach with an ice chest that a warden can search it because it might have a lobster. The warden needs RAS that you are engaged in fishing or hunting then they may perform an administrative search.

...Balancing the importance and strength of the state‟s interest and need for the suspicionless stop and demand procedure against the limited impingement upon privacy resulting from that procedure, we conclude that the Fourth Amendment does not preclude a state from authorizing a game warden to briefly stop a person the warden encounters on a pier, in a boat, or in the field, who the warden reasonably believes has recently been fishing or hunting, to demand that the person display all fish or game that he or she has caught or taken, even in the absence of reasonable suspicion that the person has violated a fish and game statute or regulation....

....In light of the importance of the state interest served by such a stop, and the practical need to be able to make such a stop and demand even when there is not reasonable suspicion that an angler or hunter has violated a statute or regulation,we conclude that when a game warden reasonably believes that an occupant of a vehicle has recently been fishing or hunting, the warden does not violate the Fourth Amendment by stopping the vehicle to demand the display of all fish or game that have been taken....