Hacker News Reader

Comment by neaden | Hacker News Reader

I don't think this is true. Game wardens cannot enter your house to search it without a warrant, and you certainly don't always have to have meat tagged.

View on HN

I’m afraid it is[1]. It’s straight up medieval Sheriff of Nottingham authority. Feel free to check with an attorney in your state.

[1] https://www.quora.com/Can-a-game-warden-come-into-your-house...

Trying to find an authoritative source for this claim leads to a mountain of right-wing sites asserting it to be correct, along with some sites saying it is bunk. Lacking is an actual, reputable source that addresses the question. Seems like this question is more conspiracy theory than anything.

As I said, call an attorney in your state and ask. I’m not offering legal advice, I’m just telling you what everyone with a hunting license knows. Poor Google search results don’t change the law.

Edit: Imagine thinking that acknowledging an odious but legal government power is “SovCit garbage.” By all means, mess with a game warden and see what happens. It’s about as stupid as sassing customs.

Can you provide a documented example of this actually happening--of a game warden coming into someone's house and looking in their fridge without a warrant and without the owner's consent?

This might vary by state. I looked up for my state, Louisiana, and the law[1] is worded fairly broadly and it doesn't specifically list homes but it seems to me it could easily be interpreted that way.

I found one case of searching on private property without a warrant where initial trial court said it was a Fourth Amendment + Louisiana Constitution violation but the appeal court reversed the decision[2] and the state supreme court denied the review request[3].

I think it's probably nuanced? Like if a game warden sees you unload game from your truck them maybe they can go into your home without a warrant? But they probably couldn't legally pick a random house and search it for no reason without a warrant? I am not a lawyer, not legal advice, etc etc.

[1] http://legis.la.gov/legis/Law.aspx?d=105379

[2] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1491867.html

[3] https://calculators.law/caselaw/decisions/x5yN6QjJe3Z0/cason...

>I think it's probably nuanced? Like if a game warden sees you unload game from your truck them maybe they can go into your home without a warrant?

so just like if a cop sees you unloading dead people from your truck they can go into your home without a warrant.

The cop needs probable cause, which seeing you transporting corpses clearly is.

However, the game warden only needs suspicion. That’s a considerably lower bar to clear. He definitely doesn’t need to see the poached animals.

This isn't true though. Police can search with reasonable suspicion in all kinds of circumstances, Terry v Ohio for instance allows for the police to stop and frisk someone on reasonable suspicion of them being involved in a crime and armed. I haven't seen any citation that a game warden can enter your home and search your freezer on reasonable suspicion and all you've linked in a Quora answer by some guy who's qualification is "published author" not a lawyer or a legal opinion. If a game warden has reasonable suspicion that you are committing a crime they can pretty clearly search say a cooler you have with you when fishing, trying to say this means they can enter your house and search it is an unfounded leap.

I get that you don’t like it. I don’t like it either, but it’s still the law in most if not all states.

I assume you don’t hunt. As I’ve said already, you don’t have to believe me. Talk to a game warden or an attorney who is familiar with conservation law and they will confirm that game wardens have expansive warrantless search powers.

We're on the internet, if this is such a simple thing to certify by asking a lawyer or a game warden then it should be reasonably easy to provide an authoritative link.

The closest I can find is this https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/california-case-law/scotu...

To Quote: "The California Supreme Court ruled that a game warden who reasonably believes that a person has recently been fishing or hunting, but lacks reasonable suspicion that the person has violated an applicable fish or game statute or regulation, may stop the suspect's vehicle to demand the person display all fish or game the person has caught or taken."

This is obviously more power in some ways than a police officer has , but in some ways also very limited. If you can provide something more authoritative, extensive and to the point than that I think you should.

Here's the best I can find[1]. It very much depends on the state, but that constitutional analysis says that it's possible the relaxed search rules could even apply to individual hunters or fishers. I can't find any definitive court rulings either way on specifically searching a freezer inside a house, but in other cases the courts have generally been deferential to the state's interest in protecting its wildlife. Plenty of hunters have experienced such searches, so it's a real problem.

Why then have these interior searches never been challenged? One reason might be that these abuses virtually exclusively affect low income suburban and rural white men. They don't have the resources to take a case to the SCOTUS. The prestige media is uninterested in advocating for them and the ACLU and other pro bono law firms don't prioritize that demographic either. Given the choice of paying hundreds of thousands of dollars out of pocket to litigate or pleading to a misdemeanor and paying a $1,000 fine, so far everyone has chosen the latter.

[1] https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?articl....

It's standard SovCit garbage. Don't wear yourself out reading the nonsense.

For Texas: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/docs/PW/htm/PW.12.htm

See section 12.102

It shows the truth is mostly "no, they can't", at least for Texas. "Residence" and "Temporary Residence" are specifically excluded. There's some room for maybe a freezer in plain view on your porch or similar.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com