California Department of Fish and Game checkpoint

[emc002]

I was briefly stopped at a "Green Sticker" checkpoint, but the agent said "Oh, you have a camper shell, you don't have any OHV's in your truck do you?"
I said "No" and he waved me on.
They had about a dozen trucks pulled over for inspections and about two dozen agents there.

Good thing he didn't bother to peek in, I'm sure the ten gun cases, ammo, etc. would have freaked them all out...

[Meplat]

I posted this once in this thread, but I'll try again...

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

Am I in error that this specifically gives game wardens the authority to search without a warrant - regardless of whether they believe a crime has been committed?

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?

[BigDogatPlay]

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.

They are less constrained, within the narrow application of F&G code, Public Resources Code and the relevant titles of CCR. They are waaaay less constrained, as in pretty much any peace officer engaged in boating enforcement or the Coast Guard when the contact takes place on the water.

If 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.

[chris12]

Hey Chris,

As a licensed master marine and former tug boat captain, I can confirm your belief. USCG does have the right to stop vessels on federal waters per SCOTUS case law. The Supremes ruled that it was related to national security; somehow, a safety inspection protects the nation (a safety inspection which includes 19-year-old-kids holding handguns and submachine guns).

However, USCG cannot search your boat on a state waterway; they don't have jurisdiction.

When returning from the high-seas, you have no rights. Customs and USCG can rip your boat apart looking for anything, just because they want to.

markm

I hadn't heard the state waterways thing, I went looking for evidence and USCG begs to differ.

To enforce these laws, the Coast Guard is empowered to
board and inspect vessels. Many of the laws can be
successfully enforced only by boarding a vessel while it is
underway. Boardings are not necessarily based on
suspicion that a violation already exists aboard the vessel.
Their purpose is to prevent violations. The courts have
consistently upheld this authority. All Coast Guard officers
and petty officers are Federal law enforcement officers and
they may board any United States vessel anywhere.

http://www.uscg.mil/d1/prevention/NavInfo/navinfo/documents/Enforcement.PDF

[Untamed1972]

They are less constrained, within the narrow application of F&G code, Public Resources Code and the relevant titles of CCR. They are waaaay less constrained, as in pretty much any peace officer engaged in boating enforcement or the Coast Guard when the contact takes place on the water.

If 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.

Which again is just another reasonwhy 12031(e) NEEDS TO GO AWAY!

It's used as excuse to strip people of their 4A rights even though that person is engaged in completely legal activity.....and most LEOs can't seem to stick to just the (e)check and not use it as an excuse to go on a fishing expedition.

[BigDogatPlay]

The prefatory paragraph to the extract above is important to note as concerns the Coast Guard....

An important Coast Guard mission is maritime law
enforcement on the high seas and on water subject to
Federal laws. Of particular interest are laws dealing with the
200-mile Fishery Conservation Zone, drug smuggling,
illegal immigration, and safety and water pollution.

You generally will not find the Coast Guard doing enforcement or safety boarding on pleasure craft in the delta, leaving that largely to local law enforcement, but they will most certainly do so on San Francisco Bay. The Coast Guard doesn't work fresh water rivers and lakes, with some exceptions, and concentrate on salt water bays and the ocean.

[BigDogatPlay]

Which again is just another reasonwhy 12031(e) NEEDS TO GO AWAY!

It's used as excuse to strip people of their 4A rights even though that person is engaged in completely legal activity.....and most LEOs can't seem to stick to just the (e)check and not use it as an excuse to go on a fishing expedition.

I don't disagree for the most part... but you would also need to get rid of a couple of similarly structured F&G code sections as well.

I would disagree with your statement about "most LEOs". I was as aggressive or more so than the next LEO, but an (e) check is an (e) check, it's scope is limited, and I never took that as a license to conduct an illegal search. That some LEOs seem to think it to be a license is as much a function of poor training and the fact that they haven't had a case tossed for a bad search than it is anything else, IMO.

[Untamed1972]

I don't disagree for the most part... but you would also need to get rid of a couple of similarly structured F&G code sections as well.

I would agree......I'm tired of CA thinking it can simply nullify the constitution by legislation simply because they want to.

I think an easy extention of the Ezell decision is that if you have a right to practice at a firing range......that automatically includes the RIGHT TO TRANSPORT your firearms. Therefore you cannot be assumed guilty of a crime until proven otherwise, for exercising your 2A rights.

One should not have to surrender their 4A rights for openly admitting they are exercising their 2A rights.

[BigDogatPlay]

I am sure this has been covered before.....but what about those of us that have lic. to carry (CCW).

Say we run through one of these check points and are asked about any firearms?

No I am not hunting. No I do not consent to a search. Do you hand over rice paper and then what?

I am planning to accompany some friends who are hunting a X zone shortly to film the hunt. I will NOT be hunting or carrying a long gun....only my daily CCW handgun. So what are the options at this point during a DFG encounter?

When they ask if there are any firearms in the vehicle or on your person answer truthfully that you are LTC and carrying concealed. Your license could, potentially, be in peril if you do otherwise and your firearm is discovered later on during the contact. Be prepared to present your license upon request and follow the instructions of the officers / wardens. It shouldn't be a big deal... although I can imagine some of the younger wardens out there might think otherwise.

ETA: You might consider starting your camera as you approach a checkpoint. That way any foolness would be memorialized.

[xwarriorxx]

What is legal and what the F&G do are two completely different things.

[Goosebrown]

@Spyder. I live on the beach and last week a warden stopped on the corner and suited up in flak vest and AR15 and headed down to the rocks to arrest some suspected Abalone poachers. I was standing there so at least 1 DFG warden has an AR15.

[Goosebrown]

@markm. "However, I suggest you read the ruling at post #40 by freespool (copied below)."

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.

[BigDogatPlay]

@BigBamBoo

I am making the presumption that you and your buddies are all in the same vehicle? If so and your buddies are out hunting DFG gets the authority to inspect/search for taken game, illegal ammo (i.e. lead in the condor zone) etc. Assuming for the sake of the discussion that your buddies are 100% in compliance with tags, license, take etc. it's hard to see why there would be drama from a common sense perspective.

If it's you, by yourself, in your own car and you are not hunting, then sure it's perfectly okay to say "I'm not hunting". You also could then, I suppose, deny having any firearms in the car. But, speaking as a former LEO, if I or one of my partners somehow figured out that you are armed after you denied to me that you were, it would not be a good thing. That paints you as a liar, completely alters the tone of the contact, and could easily get a negative contact report made to the agency that issued your permit.

Also... is there something in the T&C of your LTC that requires you to disclose to a peace officer that you are armed?

If you don't have a hunting license and you do have a video camera and, presumably, have footage of your buddies actually hunting you could show them if they asked, you are LTC and carrying in full compliance with the T&C of that license, then it would occur to me that you weren't yourself hunting and that the story is ended at that point.

[Goosebrown]

"Which again is just another reasonwhy 12031(e) NEEDS TO GO AWAY!"

It WASN'T a 12031(e) check it was DFG2006.

[BigDogatPlay]

@Spyder. I live on the beach and last week a warden stopped on the corner and suited up in flak vest and AR15 and headed down to the rocks to arrest some suspected Abalone poachers. I was standing there so at least 1 DFG warden has an AR15.

I worked with wardens over the years who would laugh at that kind of an approach absent any previously known intel.

But hey, whatever gets them through their day I guess. Ab poaching can be a nasty business.