# CO’s on private property



## LG1

This past February my cousins came out to hunt coyotes on my farm. They were set up behind my barns where I had put a round bale for them to sit up against and call coyotes. It was around 8pm and one of them walked back to the truck which was parked up by one of my barns to get a thicker pair of gloves. He saw a truck parked on the road but paid no mind to it. He walked back to sit with his brother and 5 min later a CO was behind them asking them what they were doing, asked for licenses, and checked their guns. They were both legal, after that they walked back up to the truck to go home and CO followed them to their truck and waited for them to leave. My question is, can a CO just walk onto private property and start asking and demanding to see licenses and anything else? Tammy cousins asked if he had received a call or complaint and he told them no said he saw the one go to his truck then followed him to see whAt he was up to. Just seems like they can’t just walk out there without probable cause.


----------



## mattawanhunter

I would say that sounds really fishy, I've been hunting my property and my hunting lease for over 30 years and I have never even seen a DNR truck around here! I could be wrong but I have a feeling that somebody,a neighbor or somebody saw or heard through the grapevine of something suspicious and called them and your property now is on some sort of a surveillance list for some reason.
Just my two cents seems weird to me!


----------



## mattawanhunter

In regard to what they can do I'm sure someone else knows better but I believe they had the right if under suspicion to come on your property at any time and inspect!


----------



## retired dundo

If they could not how would they ever be able. To catch violators on private land.


----------



## Nostromo

Sounds like they were investigating a complaint. So yeah they can enter and investigate.


----------



## LG1

Stated in the thread that my cousins asked if he had a complaint or a call and he told them no. Just saw the one come to the truck, then followed him back to their setup which was by the barns.


----------



## LG1

So if they have the right because of “ suspicion” then all they have to do is go or drive anywhere on private property and when see whoever hunting just say I have a suspicion so I’m going to check you out?


----------



## Nostromo

LG1 said:


> Stated in the thread that my cousins asked if he had a complaint or a call and he told them no. Just saw the one come to the truck, then followed him back to their setup which was by the barns.





LG1 said:


> So if they have the right because of “ suspicion” then all they have to do is go or drive anywhere on private property and when see whoever hunting just say I have a suspicion so I’m going to check you out?


I read your original post LG1. _It sounds like he was investigating a complaint_. Could be you have good neighbors who noticed something like strange vehicles. Count yourself lucky on that score.


----------



## LG1

True if I do have neighbors that saw something and called them I’m lucky. But would have been nice to atleast tell them that’s why he walked up on them instead of telling them nothing.


----------



## bobberbill

LG1 said:


> This past February my cousins came out to hunt coyotes on my farm. They were set up behind my barns where I had put a round bale for them to sit up against and call coyotes. It was around 8pm and one of them walked back to the truck which was parked up by one of my barns to get a thicker pair of gloves. He saw a truck parked on the road but paid no mind to it. He walked back to sit with his brother and 5 min later a CO was behind them asking them what they were doing, asked for licenses, and checked their guns. They were both legal, after that they walked back up to the truck to go home and CO followed them to their truck and waited for them to leave. My question is, can a CO just walk onto private property and start asking and demanding to see licenses and anything else? Tammy cousins asked if he had received a call or complaint and he told them no said he saw the one go to his truck then followed him to see whAt he was up to. Just seems like they can’t just walk out there without probable cause.


NO... Had a similar situation and the Co stayed on the roadside. After an hour I walked to the road and the CO asked what took me so long. For what. I WAS LEGAL, hunting my own land, new PETA neighbors made a call. Told the CO to go find something else to do. He NEVER set foot on my land. He left. Not happy, but he left.


----------



## LG1

I have been told years ago that they can’t just go wherever they please, but just found out bout this today when saw my cousins at family BBQ and they told me bout it.


----------



## Waif

LG1 said:


> This past February my cousins came out to hunt coyotes on my farm. They were set up behind my barns where I had put a round bale for them to sit up against and call coyotes. It was around 8pm and one of them walked back to the truck which was parked up by one of my barns to get a thicker pair of gloves. He saw a truck parked on the road but paid no mind to it. He walked back to sit with his brother and 5 min later a CO was behind them asking them what they were doing, asked for licenses, and checked their guns. They were both legal, after that they walked back up to the truck to go home and CO followed them to their truck and waited for them to leave. My question is, can a CO just walk onto private property and start asking and demanding to see licenses and anything else? Tammy cousins asked if he had received a call or complaint and he told them no said he saw the one go to his truck then followed him to see whAt he was up to. Just seems like they can’t just walk out there without probable cause.


If they got his name ,you could ask him. Otherwise........you are left with speculation. But yes they can enter your property when suspicion exists without a warrant.
Truck parked near barns with non owners going back and forth is not cause for suspicion? Did the c.o. know there were guns involved?


----------



## LG1

He knew nothing of what was going on until he followed my cousin to the round bale where his brother was sitting set up for coyotes. He sat back down by him and bout 5-10 min later the CO is shining his flashlight in their face asking what they are doing. I assume he saw the guns then cause my one cousin. That walked to the truck didn’t take his with him he left it with his brother by the bale.


----------



## LG1

How does he know that they were the non owners? Never asked him at the truck or confronted him there. What if it was me or my brother that was hunting ? Does he ask me at my truck then just goes on his way? Or does he hassle me bout what I’m doing on my land with no cause.


----------



## LG1

Just seems like a grey area as to what they can consider to tell themselves what they deemed suspicious to go on to land to ask people what they are doing. If there’s a complaint or call. I totally understand the need to, or if see a law violation in action.


----------



## JAA

bobberbill said:


> NO... Had a similar situation and the Co stayed on the roadside. After an hour I walked to the road and the CO asked what took me so long. For what. I WAS LEGAL, hunting my own land, new PETA neighbors made a call. Told the CO to go find something else to do. He NEVER set foot on my land. He left. Not happy, but he left.


 Without a Search warrant No they can't ! That is Illegal trespass!! And a good way for him to get shot. Now they have the right to knock on the door, And try to ask Questions, But if you don't like the questions you don't even have to answer. Tell them to get a Warrant that this is Privet Property. And close the door. But just entering Your property and and walking around, NO They Have No Rights At All !!!!! Unless someone in the house gave them a prior OK. Or they have a Search warrant for probable cause.


----------



## JAA

LG1 said:


> Just seems like a grey area as to what they can consider to tell themselves what they deemed suspicious to go on to land to ask people what they are doing. If there’s a complaint or call. I totally understand the need to, or if see a law violation in action.


 They have to have a Search warrant!!!!


----------



## Scout 2

Would you even be asking this if it had been someone breaking into one of your barns and he caught them


----------



## JAA

Scout 2 said:


> Would you even be asking this if it had been someone breaking into one of your barns and he caught them


 First Off, That is not a CO's Job!!! From Mich.Gov 
*Conservation Officers*









Conservation officers (COs) are responsible for enforcing laws and regulations under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Stationed in nearly every county of the state, these fully licensed peace officers enforce laws related to fish and wildlife, state parks, trails and forests, and outdoor recreation activities such as off-road vehicle use, snowmobiling and boating. They are also first responders to a variety of natural disasters and emergencies.

*DUTIES*
CO duties vary from season to season and include observing and checking hunters and anglers, enforcing snowmobiling, off-road vehicle and watercraft regulations; enforcing laws that protect the environment; outdoor recreation safety education; writing criminal case briefs and giving court testimony. They work varied shifts, often outdoors in inclement weather. Because they enforce hunting regulations, COs often deal with those possessing firearms. As peace officers, on occasion they make physical arrests of criminals who may be intoxicated and/or disorderly.
They However can and will Assist a sheriff or state trooper if requested.


----------



## Scout 2

JAA said:


> They However can and will Assist a sheriff or state trooper if requested.


There you go how do you know they were not requested


----------



## MossyHorns

If they can make you open livewells and coolers I don't see why they can't come on your land. A CO drove his truck on my uncle's farm just to check his deer license and make sure he had his gun properly cased. Screwed up his morning hunt several years ago.


----------



## LG1

MossyHorns said:


> If they can make you open livewells and coolers I don't see why they can't come on your land. A CO drove his truck on my uncle's farm just to check his deer license and make sure he had his gun properly cased. Screwed up his morning hunt several years ago.


Just to check his license and gun properly cased?


----------



## plugger

MossyHorns said:


> If they can make you open livewells and coolers I don't see why they can't come on your land. A CO drove his truck on my uncle's farm just to check his deer license and make sure he had his gun properly cased. Screwed up his morning hunt several years ago.


 This is what has been addressed in other states and some finding probable cause was necessary for a search. Minnesota has gone so far as to rule that a CO can not enter aan icehouse without permission even when it is on public waters. The rulings related to an expectation of privacy.


----------



## MossyHorns

LG1 said:


> Just to check his license and gun properly cased?


That is correct! My uncle is still a little pissed and it happened several years ago. CO drove his truck about 200 yds onto his property and pulled up next to his truck.


----------



## LG1

Wow. Must be looked suspicious


----------



## MossyHorns

LG1 said:


> Wow. Must be looked suspicious


He was just a 70 year old guy heading out to hunt in the morning. The CO followed him from his down the road and into his field.


----------



## Nostromo

plugger said:


> This is what has been addressed in other states and some finding probable cause was necessary for a search. Minnesota has gone so far as to rule that a CO can not enter aan icehouse without permission even when it is on public waters. The rulings related to an expectation of privacy.


Michigan had a case that is somewhat similar Taylor v Paul Rose. The final determination as far as I know is entering property to investigate does not violate your 4th amendment rights.


----------



## Nostromo

MossyHorns said:


> He was just a 70 year old guy heading out to hunt in the morning. The CO followed him from his down the road and into his field.


It would have been funny if he got stuck.


----------



## retired dundo

petronius said:


> Stupid reply.
> So what you are saying is you don’t believe in the Constitution?
> LEO should be able to walk around your property or in your house anytime they want?
> This answer that “if your legal, you have nothing to worry about” doesn’t fly. Enough incidents will attest to that.


So if you own a coulple hundred acres you can have truck loads of bait and gun during bow se a son.And never worry about a CO. I wonder ho w they are going to catch violators on private land.I They need a whole lot more COs


----------



## YOTEANTIDOTE

CABELKINS2000 said:


> Open Fields Doctrine. They (any LEO actually can) may come onto any property they can see on and BELIEVE a crime MAY have or is being commited. Less probable cause needed, than say, entering a dwelling where either permission or a warrant is required. U.S. V. HESTER; U.S V. KATZ; U.S. V. OLIVER.
> 
> Sent from my SM-S907VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Ok I guess were making stuff up now. “Believe a crime may have or is being committed”
From what we were told, which is all you have to go on also...is a guy walked back to his car to get thicker gloves, does not say he was even armed which we can presume he wasn’t. So with special training a LEO can tell by someone’s gait that they may be committing a crime?
As a retired LEO you know this wouldn’t hold up at all, fortunately most violators are not the sharpest knife in the drawer so you may be able to get away with it on them.

This doctrine doesn’t fit into the confines of the story relayed to us.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CABELKINS2000

YOTEANTIDOTE said:


> Ok I guess were making stuff up now. “Believe a crime may have or is being committed”
> From what we were told, which is all you have to go on also...is a guy walked back to his car to get thicker gloves, does not say he was even armed which we can presume he wasn’t. So with special training a LEO can tell by someone’s gait that they may be committing a crime?
> As a retired LEO you know this wouldn’t hold up at all, fortunately most violators are not the sharpest knife in the drawer so you may be able to get away with it on them.
> 
> This doctrine doesn’t fit into the confines of the story relayed to us.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


OP's question was can a C.O. come onto private property. Answer is yes and Open Fields Doctrine is one of the circumstances in which he can.

Sent from my SM-S907VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Ranger Ray

Ladies and gentlemen: the story you are about to hear is true. No names have been used to protect the innocent. A farmer lived on a river. A CO would drive through the farm and to the river to check for salmon snaggers frequently. Now the farmer asked the CO not to use one road, as it was narrow and tractors with trailers were constantly running it at high speed. It truly was a safety hazard. Well the CO didn't care, and continued to do it. So one day when the CO ran out to the river, the farmer blocked all roads with tractors. The CO had to walk a 1/2 mile up to the farm to get the farmer to move one of his tractors. A great shouting match ensued between farmer and CO. Eventually cooler heads prevailed and the tractors were removed and the CO left. The farmer contacted his lawyer to stop the CO from accessing his property and found out he couldn't. However, the CO was relegated to only using one road, that was much safer for all involved, per his boss, after the farmer contacted him. Here endith the story.


----------



## MossyHorns

YOTEANTIDOTE said:


> Ok I guess were making stuff up now. “Believe a crime may have or is being committed”
> From what we were told, which is all you have to go on also...is a guy walked back to his car to get thicker gloves, does not say he was even armed which we can presume he wasn’t. So with special training a LEO can tell by someone’s gait that they may be committing a crime?
> As a retired LEO you know this wouldn’t hold up at all, fortunately most violators are not the sharpest knife in the drawer so you may be able to get away with it on them.
> 
> This doctrine doesn’t fit into the confines of the story relayed to us.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


CO's have powers that regular LEO's don't have. Can't compare the 2!


----------



## [email protected]

Scout 2 said:


> There you go how do you know they were not requested


If they were, why lie?


----------



## [email protected]

John Koos said:


> Life is too short to be so negative. Get busy living and be nice to the one person that knows what works in the outdoors. You can make your day better or You can make your days worse. I would want to hear what works and get back to enjoying the outdoors. You can email your questions to the DNR for the correct answers also.


Have you ever been unlawfully arrested?


----------



## Petronius

Nostromo said:


> petronius, you disappoint me. I guess I thought as an attorney you would have more insight on this. The OP's situation is clearly _not _a 4th Amendment issue.
> 
> Even an old jailhouse lawyer like me knows that.


I was just responding to retired sundown who said if you are legal, you have nothing to worry about. I hear that statement a lot. 

BTW, I am what you would call a back alley lawyer, much like Fred Sanford’s lawyer, Sonny Cochran.


----------



## [email protected]

Ranger Ray said:


> Ladies and gentlemen: the story you are about to hear is true. No names have been used to protect the innocent. A farmer lived on a river. A CO would drive through the farm and to the river to check for salmon snaggers frequently. Now the farmer asked the CO not to use one road, as it was narrow and tractors with trailers were constantly running it at high speed. It truly was a safety hazard. Well the CO didn't care, and continued to do it. So one day when the CO ran out to the river, the farmer blocked all roads with tractors. The CO had to walk a 1/2 mile up to the farm to get the farmer to move one of his tractors. A great shouting match ensued between farmer and CO. Eventually cooler heads prevailed and the tractors were removed and the CO left. The farmer contacted his lawyer to stop the CO from accessing his property and found out he couldn't. However, the CO was relegated to only using one road, that was much safer for all involved, per his boss, after the farmer contacted him. Here endith the story.


Here's another interesting story. 2 Muslims set off pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon. Law enforcement decided they were going to search people's homes door to door and armed to the teeth while wearing swat gear. No one had apparently had a sack large enough to refuse them entry even though they had the right. Why?
"Under the Fourth Amendment, homeowners have the right to refuse a request for a search if the police don't have a warrant. But that rule has an exception. If there are exigent circumstances, like the threat of imminent danger, a warrant isn't necessarily needed, but the police must still have probable cause."
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/boston-door-to-door-searches-legal/316042/
There was no probable cause that if they searched the homes of resident's they would find the bombers. Why? Because Law Enforcement HAD NO IDEA AT ALL where they were so how could they have "probable cause" that they were hiding in citizens homes?
Guess what? Several charges were filed against people for things found during those searches even though they had NOTHING to do with the original reason for the search.
Moral of the story: NEVER, EVER, EVER, let any LE on your property, if you have the right to deny them access or if you didn't invite them.


----------



## [email protected]

retired dundo said:


> Why worry about being checked by a CO.If your legal you have nothing to worry about.


You definitely have never been unlawfully arrested!


----------



## Scout 2

[email protected] said:


> If they were, why lie?


Did you talk to them. As a landowner I am sure they would have talked to you. I could see them not talking to the party that was there as they were not the owner


----------



## retired dundo

[email protected] said:


> You definitely have never been unlawfully arrested!


Nope pretty sure I n ev e r w I’ll b e .


----------



## Nostromo

petronius said:


> I was just responding to retired sundown who said if you are legal, you have nothing to worry about. I hear that statement a lot.
> 
> BTW, I am what you would call a back alley lawyer, much like Fred Sanford’s lawyer, Sonny Cochran.


The other Cochran.


----------



## Jiw275

retired dundo said:


> Nope pretty sure I n ev e r w I’ll b e .


Take the time to watch 




It is eye opening. You may not be as sure.


----------



## Nostromo

[email protected] said:


> Here's another interesting story. 2 Muslims set off pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon. Law enforcement decided they were going to search people's homes door to door and armed to the teeth while wearing swat gear. No one had apparently had a sack large enough to refuse them entry even though they had the right. Why?
> "Under the Fourth Amendment, homeowners have the right to refuse a request for a search if the police don't have a warrant. But that rule has an exception. If there are exigent circumstances, like the threat of imminent danger, a warrant isn't necessarily needed, but the police must still have probable cause."
> https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/boston-door-to-door-searches-legal/316042/
> There was no probable cause that if they searched the homes of resident's they would find the bombers. Why? Because Law Enforcement HAD NO IDEA AT ALL where they were so how could they have "probable cause" that they were hiding in citizens homes?
> Guess what? Several charges were filed against people for things found during those searches even though they had NOTHING to do with the original reason for the search.
> Moral of the story: NEVER, EVER, EVER, let any LE on your property, if you have the right to deny them access or if you didn't invite them.


This is a thread about CO's investigating on private property. It has nothing what-so-ever to do with the 4th amendment, the Boston bombings, or hidden terrorists. I'm pretty sure what you said about arrests being made in connection with the searches conducted is false. If you can provide links to the contrary good for you.

You do not have to let the police into your home in most circumstances. But if heavily armed officers knock on your door don't argue with them. You can always fight them in court later.


----------



## Petronius

Nostromo said:


> The other Cochran.


Fred Sanford : Are you really a lawyer?

Sonny Cochran : Well, some folks say I am a lawyer, while other folks say I ain't.

Fred Sanford : Who says you ain't?

Sonny Cochran : The State of California!


----------



## Lumberman

Yes they can go on private property. 

If the police start wandering around searching innocent people for anything they could find them doing wrong there would be rioting in the streets. 

Yet COs do it all the time. 

3 times this year I had them come into my shanty and do long very thorough searches and then leave. 

It not a huge deal because I have nothing to worry about but it is super intrusive and unwarranted.


----------



## YOTEANTIDOTE

MossyHorns said:


> CO's have powers that regular LEO's don't have. Can't compare the 2!


Please list these powers that CO’s have that “regular” LEO’s don’t.

No law enforcement can supersede the Constitution....unless you are ignorant of your rights or just to broke to fight them.

Do they do things that they are not allowed to do legally? Yes and if they all knew the laws themselves perfectly then there would be no need for defense lawyers. Are most of them good people trying to do the right thing? I would say so but I don’t believe in giving up my rights just because I’m not doing anything wrong or hiding anything.

YouTube is full of videos of knowledgeable citizens recording unlawful LEO’s. It can be unbelievable how ignorant or arrogant some LEO’s are when it comes to the law, but just like every profession there are only a handful like that....but what if your dealing with that guy?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MossyHorns

YOTEANTIDOTE said:


> Please list these powers that CO’s have that “regular” LEO’s don’t.
> 
> No law enforcement can supersede the Constitution....unless you are ignorant of your rights or just to broke to fight them.
> 
> Do they do things that they are not allowed to do legally? Yes and if they all knew the laws themselves perfectly then there would be no need for defense lawyers. Are most of them good people trying to do the right thing? I would say so but I don’t believe in giving up my rights just because I’m not doing anything wrong or hiding anything.
> 
> YouTube is full of videos of knowledgeable citizens recording unlawful LEO’s. It can be unbelievable how ignorant or arrogant some LEO’s are when it comes to the law, but just like every profession there are only a handful like that....but what if your dealing with that guy?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


A quick example! They can search you're cooler and or livewell without needing a search warrant. They can come into you're property to check your hunting license without a warrant. I watched an episode of Wardens where they did aerial patrols for baiting on private land then investigated the illegal bait piles without a warrant. Common sense should tell you that CO's would not be able to enforce any game laws if they needed a warrant to do patrols on private land. In many cases, probable cause can be easily established by a CO.


----------



## Nostromo

Lumberman said:


> Yes they can go on private property.
> 
> If the police start wandering around searching innocent people for anything they could find them doing wrong there would be rioting in the streets.
> 
> Yet COs do it all the time.
> 
> 3 times this year I had them come into my shanty and do long very thorough searches and then leave.
> 
> It not a huge deal because I have nothing to worry about but it is super intrusive and unwarranted.


The price you pay for being a trouble maker. :lol:


----------



## YOTEANTIDOTE

MossyHorns said:


> A quick example! They can search you're cooler and or livewell without needing a search warrant. They can come into you're property to check your hunting license without a warrant. I watched an episode of Wardens where they did aerial patrols for baiting on private land then investigated the illegal bait piles without a warrant. Common sense should tell you that CO's would not be able to enforce any game laws if they needed a warrant to do patrols on private land. In many cases, probable cause can be easily established by a CO.


Are you saying that a “regular “ LEO can’t do those things?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ranger Ray

[email protected] said:


> Here's another interesting story. 2 Muslims set off pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon. Law enforcement decided they were going to search people's homes door to door and armed to the teeth while wearing swat gear. No one had apparently had a sack large enough to refuse them entry even though they had the right. Why?
> "Under the Fourth Amendment, homeowners have the right to refuse a request for a search if the police don't have a warrant. But that rule has an exception. If there are exigent circumstances, like the threat of imminent danger, a warrant isn't necessarily needed, but the police must still have probable cause."
> https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/boston-door-to-door-searches-legal/316042/
> There was no probable cause that if they searched the homes of resident's they would find the bombers. Why? Because Law Enforcement HAD NO IDEA AT ALL where they were so how could they have "probable cause" that they were hiding in citizens homes?
> Guess what? Several charges were filed against people for things found during those searches even though they had NOTHING to do with the original reason for the search.
> Moral of the story: NEVER, EVER, EVER, let any LE on your property, if you have the right to deny them access or if you didn't invite them.


Land and home, are two different things under the law. They are governed by different laws as to access.


----------



## motdean

Anyone else wish Fred Trost were still around to weigh in on this topic????


----------



## Ranger Ray

Another story. Two brothers, late in the day of opening gun, decide to drink some beers in a gun blind. Two CO's who had been searching for a trespasser on the adjacent land, got turned around and ended up on the brothers property. While checking for hunting licenses, one CO saw all the empty cans. The state boys were called and a breathalyzer administered, to which they both failed. Off to jail they go, guns confiscated. They fought the charges under the premise, the CO's had no right to be on their property, as there was no reason to suspect a crime going on. 1 year probation, 3 years lost hunting rights, and 1,200 in fines later, they learned, that CO's access to land is different then ones home. Here endith the lesson.


----------



## Hunters Edge

Ranger Ray said:


> Another story. Two brothers, late in the day of opening gun, decide to drink some beers in a gun blind. Two CO's who had been searching for a trespasser on the adjacent land, got turned around and ended up on the brothers property. While checking for hunting licenses, one CO saw all the empty cans. The state boys were called and a breathalyzer administered, to which they both failed. Off to jail they go, guns confiscated. They fought the charges under the premise, the CO's had no right to be on their property, as there was no reason to suspect a crime going on. 1 year probation, 3 years lost hunting rights, and 1,200 in fines later, they learned, that CO's access to land is different then ones home. Here endith the lesson.


I agree. Only like I posted before, if the land is fenced and a locked gate. Doubt it would have the same outcome. 

For one CO's statement of being turned around and accidentally being on wrong property would not fly. Then again they could use the fence or wire to make their bearings and walk out and the situation may never have happened. 

I believe if the property is fenced and gated/locked, they need probable cause and a search warrant to legally enter property. Similar to a house being locked, and again our lax tresspassing laws.

It maybe why we have lax tresspassing laws in Michigan.


----------



## Ranger Ray

I know in the farmer instance, a gate was tried on the road, and all the CO had to do was ask that it be opened when he wanted to drive back. As the farmer also had to access the road constantly, it wasn't practical. The point being, is all he had to do is ask.


----------



## FREEPOP

Hunters Edge said:


> I agree. Only like I posted before, if the land is fenced and a locked gate. Doubt it would have the same outcome.
> 
> For one CO's statement of being turned around and accidentally being on wrong property would not fly. Then again they could use the fence or wire to make their bearings and walk out and the situation may never have happened.
> 
> I believe if the property is fenced and gated/locked, they need probable cause and a search warrant to legally enter property. Similar to a house being locked, and again our lax tresspassing laws.
> 
> It maybe why we have lax tresspassing laws in Michigan.



The *open*-fields *doctrine* (also *open*-*field doctrine* or *open*-fields rule), in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal *doctrine* that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.


The 4th amendment applies to instances where there is a an expectation of privacy, house, garage, pole barn etc. (and some of those could be challenged) .........it does not include fields, woods, swamps, etc. as indicated above.


Where da heck is Dead Short?


----------



## Hunters Edge

FREEPOP said:


> The *open*-fields *doctrine* (also *open*-*field doctrine* or *open*-fields rule), in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal *doctrines* that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
> 
> 
> The 4th amendment applies to instances where there is a an expectation of privacy, house, garage, pole barn etc. (and some of those could be challenged) .........it does not include fields, woods, swamps, etc. as indicated above.
> 
> 
> Where da heck is Dead Short?


You are correct. Even a fence or locked gate does not require a warrant or probable cause to enter property.

"It does state some expectation of privacy, house, garage, pole barn etc. (and some of those could be challenged)

It does Not include fields,swamps, etc as indicated above."

Not a portable blind, but permanent structure.Wonder if a fixed blind which is a shed and called that at times could be challenged under the same guidelines?


----------



## jr28schalm

motdean said:


> Anyone else wish Fred Trost were still around to weigh in on this topic????


Mr deer piss


----------



## FREEPOP

Hunters Edge said:


> Not a potable blind, but permanent structure.Wonder if a fixed blind which is a shed and called that at times could be challenged under the same guidelines?


I don't know of any cases that have been tried. It might be a plausible argument but then again, it is normally used in an instance of persuing game and that may conflict with an expectation of privacy. It'd be an interesting argument for both sides, IMO.


----------



## retired dundo

motdean said:


> Anyone else wish Fred Trost were still around to weigh in on this topic????


Ya I like his show he wasn’t afraid to say anything.Losing to the scent company was his down fall but I still think he was right


----------



## multibeard

motdean said:


> Anyone else wish Fred Trost were still around to weigh in on this topic????


Do not miss him in the least.

Jimmy and crew put out a show way better than ever his was.


----------



## Spartan88

Grand dad told me when I got my first hunting license to follow all the game laws. He went on to say that if I didnt, I better pray my soul goes to heaven because my @$$ would belong to the DNR...


----------



## MossyHorns

CHASINEYES said:


> A lumpy game bag does not constitute probable cause of a violation. Neither does someone sitting in an ice shanty. Nor does my boat, cooler or livewell floating on the lake.
> 
> I suppose an open field doctrine may warrant a license check on private property, but a check does not constitute probable cause for searches. Obviously, if a violation is found during the check the game is changed.
> 
> Signed: Just my opinion.


If a CO saw you put a fish in the livewell/cooler, then he has probable cause to question it's species, length and quantity. The same came be said for a game bag. You may have a dove, quail, or duck stuffed in there while only having a small game license. A CO could claim probable cause on almost any search.


----------



## retired dundo

How else are they going to catch violators .If your not violating why worry about being checked.I personally would like to see a lot more COs.Especial ice fishing


----------



## fishrod

retired dundo said:


> How else are they going to catch violators .If your not violating why worry about being checked.I personally would like to see a lot more COs.Especial ice fishing


BS. No violation, no reason to check. Hunter, fisherman harassment.


----------



## CHASINEYES

retired dundo said:


> How else are they going to catch violators .If your not violating why worry about being checked.I personally would like to see a lot more COs.Especial ice fishing


Who said I was worried about being checked. It's not about that at all. I know we need C.O.s and I will cooperate. But at the end of the day, my rights are more important. How did they bust violators in the past?


----------



## MossyHorns

fishrod said:


> BS. No violation, no reason to check. Hunter, fisherman harassment.


How else are they supposed to catch violators without checking?


----------



## CHASINEYES

MossyHorns said:


> If a CO saw you put a fish in the livewell/cooler, then he has probable cause to question it's species, length and quantity. The same came be said for a game bag. You may have a dove, quail, or duck stuffed in there while only having a small game license. A CO could claim probable cause on almost any search.


If he seen the fish or game, then I agree. Probable cause wasn't meant to be abused, IMO. I have no problem opening up the box for a C.O.. In fact, I've volunteered after a license check as he was pulling away without checking. Guess what? He accepted the invite! But what happens when you get an A.H.? I don't think you will get very many AH.. I expect a mutual respect.


----------



## fishrod

MossyHorns said:


> How else are they supposed to catch violators without checking?


Investigation, not just checking everyone and hoping to finding a violation.


----------



## Petronius

fishrod said:


> Investigation, not just checking everyone and hoping to finding a violation.


That would be like doing a traffic stop on everyone a LEO sees in hopes of catching someone on an outstanding warrant.


----------



## CHASINEYES

fishrod said:


> Investigation, not just checking everyone and hoping to finding a violation.


And the current method seems to work well. " can I see your fish "


----------



## fishrod

Was fishing in UP stream few years ago when young jar head and older seasoned CO asked to see buddy and my fishing license, told jar head, when i was done fishing my hole id show it to him. Old guy laughed young guy was pissed. Long of the short, wasnt doing anything wrong, no fish, not snagging, no booze, just enjoying ourselves. Felt harassed.


----------



## retired dundo

MossyHorns said:


> How else are they supposed to catch violators without checking?


Your right


----------



## Lucky Dog

Nine pages.

What's the verdict? Can a CO go on private property? When and why?


----------



## 9mm Hi-Power

Lucky Dog said:


> Nine pages.
> 
> What's the verdict? Can a CO go on private property? When and why?


A CO is an official State of Michigan law enforcement officer and has the same legal powers of arrest, trespass etc. as any other law enforcement officer - state, local, county etc.. If they have probable cause then a CO can go on private property. A CO can also play a law enforcement role in potential crimes (drunk driving etc.) unrelated to their general duties such as game law enforcement. A couple of years ago in west Michigan a CO was involved in the apprehension of suspects perpetrating fraud - I think it concerned bogus or stolen credit cards. A few years ago when I was bird hunting and back at my vehicle a CO stopped to ask how I was doing etc. Surprisingly he did not ask to see my license. I was "carrying" and told him so as I would do with any other LE officer who approached me for whatever reason. Hope this helps.

9mm Hi-Power


----------

