# Probable Cause?



## jsopfe (Jan 21, 2007)

Talking to a coworker who swears that DNR can
a) Board your boat and search whatever they want - even something that is locked
b) Come onto your private property and search your house

I know DNR is allowed to board your boat, but what is the reasoning behind this

If something like this were to happen and they were to come across something illegal - there is probably no legal ground for them to stand on?


----------



## WalleyeHunter811 (Feb 26, 2007)

interesting ? i will be watching to see if boehr asnwers this one


----------



## wcalcaterra (Jan 25, 2007)

jsopfe said:


> Talking to a coworker who swears that DNR can
> a) Board your boat and search whatever they want - even something that is locked
> b) Come onto your private property and search your house
> 
> ...


The DNR has come onto our property without permission in the past, they drove around a locked gate to get on the property, as far as I know they had no reason to be there. The only reason we knew they were there is because we come onto the property from a different entrance.

They have been at the boat launch when we have com eback and they have searched the boat and we were totally honest with them 

I am not sure what determines probable cause, but if probable cause is just knowing that you were fishing or hunting then they had probeble cause. However, we had no fish, told them that, we were nto acting suspicious, and we still got searched!!!

I have been pulled over leaving hunting property and been searched, so what is probable cause?? This is a grey area that differes from probable cause with police pulling you over on the road. If you see DNR usually it is when you are in the palces where things like hunting, fishing, and camping.


----------



## JWICKLUND (Feb 13, 2005)

There is no state law or policy per se which governs law enforcement or conservation officer entry onto private property. Entry onto private property is governed by the Constitution of the United States. DNR conservation officers are no different from any other law enforcement officers (sheriff, state police, city police, etc.) or other agents of the government when it comes to entry onto private property.

For the purposes of search and seizure and criminal law enforcement, law enforcement officers can enter private property without a search warrant or without permission of the property owner if entry is outside the curtilage (house and associated yard). This has been upheld by the federal courts many times and is commonly referred to as the "open fields" doctrine. Probable cause is not a requisite. However, as a practical matter, conservation officers have more important things to do than be on private land without an enforcement reason for being there.

The enforcement reasons for officers to enter onto open fields vary tremendously. For many police agencies this is searching for illegal growing of marijuana and other illicit drug possession/manufacture. 
As for Conservation Officers it extends to search & rescue of lost persons/canoeists, body recovery, illegal baiting, illegal deer and other law enforcement purposes.

As for searching vehicles and boats. A Conservation Officers may search vehicles, boats, or other places where wildlife may be possessed or stored, if there is probable cause to believe that wildlife illegally taken or held may be found and a reasonable likelihood the wildlife evidence will be lost, destroyed, or hidden before a search warrant may be obtained.


----------



## ID-Birddog (Mar 9, 2004)

Marine law allows law enforcement (Sheriff's Marine Patrol, Coast Guard, Fish and Game), to check vessels for compliance with safety regulations. When the vessel is on the water, an operator cannot refuse the safety inspection the vessel can be boarded even against the owner/operators will. Again this is the maritime law dealing with safety. Vessels cannot be boarded forcebly for the purpose of looking for other violations. When the vessel is taken off the water and trailered and is sitting in a parking lot, then maritime law no longer applies.
Usually with the safety inspections, other violations will become apparent, then the LEO can take the appropriate actions.
States will differ with game enforcement, but the maritime laws are universal.
Our Fish and Game has to ask for permission to search anything for game violations if nothing is seen in plain sight. However, if someone says they have been fishing and they kept some fish, the LEO now has the right to require the angler to present the fish.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

On this same topic, I have always wondered why a c.o. can check your license just because your fishing or hunting, but a police cant pull you over to check your license just because your driving. fred trost was on this at one time I believe.


----------



## Ferg (Dec 17, 2002)

REF: Federal Statute, 14 U.S.C. 89

Here is a little light reading 

In general, here's how it works:

The Fourth Amendment does not bar all searches and seizures, only
unreasonable ones. What's reasonable varies according to circumstances. A
search of a building must meet a higher standard than a search of a boat,
car or airplane because these objects can be quickly removed from the
jurisdiction. Such highly mobile items can usually be searched without a
warrant but the officer still needs probable cause.
A car for example: The officer cannot stop your car because he wants to
search it, but if he has lawfully stopped your car for say, speeding, he can
look into the car and inspect, visually, whatever is in plain view. If he
spots something in plain view--a bag of dope, an illegal gun--he can arrest.
Also, if he has a suspicion that something illegal is afoot he may, for his
own safety, pull the driver and occupants out of the car for a "Terry Frisk"
(from Terry v. Ohio). This reasonable suspicion is something considerably
less than probable cause but is allowed because the officer's safety is
involved. He can also search the areas in the immediate vicinity of the
suspect (under the driver's seat or in the glove box) because a weapon could
easily be concealed there and the suspect could get at it.

Another exception to the warrant requirement is the Chimel Sweep (from
California v. Chimel). Again, the justification is the safety of the
officers. If officers are otherwise lawfully in a house or building, they
can quickly sweep through the place, checking in closets, under beds and
other places where a hidden assailant might be lurking.

Another exception to the warrant requirement is the administrative or
regulatory search. (Camarra v. San Francisco, See v. City of Seattle) The
regulatory officer (usually not a cop, but a safety inspector or civil
servant) can go into a building or other place as part of a scheme of random
safety inspections or health inspections or whatever as long as the scheme
is truly random. While there, if he sees any contraband in plain view he may
or may not report it to the police who may or may not come back with a
warrant.

Now here's what happens with the Coast Guard.
The CG has authority to enforce federal boating safety standards, vessel
documentation schemes and marine pollution and fisheries regulations (random
regulatory search). To accomplish these inspections, they have authority
under 14 USC 89 to go onboard any vessel in US waters and any US vessel on
the high seas. But under 14 USC 89, Coast Guardsmen are not mere regulatory
officials--they are full blown cops with all the authority of the FBI,
Secret Service or ATF to make arrests, etc.
So under 14 USC 89, the Coast Guardsman can lawfully board any vessel in US
waters since he is not only a cop but a regulatory officer. But once on
board he is also a cop so that if in the course of his regulatory inspection
he sees, in plain view, some contraband, he can seize it and arrest the
crew. Because the Coast Guard has so many regulatory functions, the Coast
Guardsman as regulatory inspector can go almost anywhere in the vessel and
inspect almost anything. Once he is lawfully in a place and he spots any
contraband in plain view, he becomes a Customs Officer or DEA agent, or
Border Patrol Officer and seizes the evidence and starts arresting people.

To do a document check, he has to see the main beam number. So he can
lawfully go down into the hold. To do a pollution check, he can get down
into the bilge or in the head. For fisheries he can look in the fish hold;
for a boating safety check, he can open engine compartments. He is trained
to do all these things and to OMIT NONE OF THEM IN EVERY BOARDING HE DOES.
If the crew starts acting strange, making the officer feel uneasy, he can
also do a Chimel sweep, and a Terry frisk.

*No other law enforcement officer, federal or state, has such sweeping
authority. None. Someone in this email usernet thread suggested that local
cops are sometimes deputized as federal officers and they then get the same
power, at least when they are on the water. Not true. ONLY THE COAST GUARD
OFFICER, WARRANT OFFICER OR PETTY OFFICER has this authority. All other
federal and state officers (except maybe customs) need probable cause to get
on board your vessel. And even though Customs might be able to get on board
without probable cause, they cannot go anywhere and do anything. Customs has
no authority to check Marine Sanitation Devices so they can't inspect the
head. They have no safety authority so they cannot check for fire
extinguishers, life jackets, flame arresters, VHF-Radio, etc.*

In short, the Coast Guardsman's regulatory authority makes it lawful for him
to go on board any vessel and while there go into every part of the vessel
and minutely inspect it. If in the course of this extremely thorough
inspection, the Coast Guardsman spots any contraband "in plain view" he can
seize it and arrest the master and crew. Also, if during the course of this
extremely intrusive search, the master or crew start acting surly or
"suspicious" the Coast Guardsman can do a Chimel Sweep and a Terry Frisk.

Each of these exceptions to the warrant or probable cause requirement seem
reasonable enough when taken by itself, but because the Coast Guardsman has
such wide responsibility under federal environmental, vessel documentation,
fisheries, commercial vessel safety, boating safety and marine pollution,
the Coast Guardsman is the only officer who is in a position to use all of
the exceptions at once. Essentially, what this means is that the Coast
Guardsman is the only law enforcement officer in America to whom the Fourth
Amendment does not apply, at least when he is on a vessel.

HTH's

ferg....
uscg/retired....
__________________


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Been explained/debated many times. Many different types of hypotheticals under the search address listed.

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/search.php?searchid=1718623

Simply, answer has already been answered as easily as possible above.


----------

