# Anyone had an Informal hearing for a DNR violation?



## WillA (Sep 12, 2018)

I was given an informal hearing for a DNR violation. Has anyone had one? Not allowed to bring a lawyer to it. I am wondering about if I should take it or just hire a lawyer? Thanks


----------



## Sprytle (Jan 8, 2005)

Depends on what it was for. What was the violation ?


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

Wow ...so many ways to get hammered but i do not know the violation .


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

DNR or DEQ? FM


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

i'm guessing a fine for lead shot in the car while out hunting squirrel with steel. DNR gave a ticket for hunting waterfowl with lead skeet shot? Am I close?


----------



## stickman1978 (Sep 15, 2011)

If the cost of the lawyer is more than the fine/penalty why bother.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

stickman1978 said:


> If the cost of the lawyer is more than the fine/penalty why bother.


To stand up to the man! Especially when (according to the poster) there was no law broken unless just having lead shot in your car is a violation.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

stickman1978 said:


> If the cost of the lawyer is more than the fine/penalty why bother.Sad but true .That's the edge law enforcement has .Not taking sides of wrongdoers but many go to jail or pay for lack of funds to fight .


----------



## WillA (Sep 12, 2018)

-Yea for the lead shot thing. DNR.
-The fine is not much at all, the lawyer is 10x the cost but worth it because:
-The charge is a misdemeanor and having that on my record would likely have significant negative affects on my professional life.

Sounded like my options were either go to the hearing without a lawyer or plead guilty. not sure if anyone has had any luck with the informal hearing or if its worth just getting a lawyer involved now.


----------



## tallbear (May 18, 2005)

WillA said:


> -Yea for the lead shot thing. DNR.
> -The fine is not much at all, the lawyer is 10x the cost but worth it because:
> -The charge is a misdemeanor and having that on my record would likely have significant negative affects on my professional life.
> 
> Sounded like my options were either go to the hearing without a lawyer or plead guilty. not sure if anyone has had any luck with the informal hearing or if its worth just getting a lawyer involved now.


So what happens if you plead not guilty?


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

So does the informal end up as a decision within the court, or do you still have an option to take it to trial?


----------



## Chromelander (Oct 1, 2011)

Where we're you hunting? Inside a waterfowl refuge?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Chromelander said:


> Where we're you hunting? Inside a waterfowl refuge?


Is it illegal to have lead shot in your car in a waterfowl zone?


----------



## HUBBHUNTER (Aug 8, 2007)

They just want to have a chat. If you were going in front of a judge you'd know it. I suspect they will attempt to get you to plead to a lesser charge. Something that may not go on your record for example, then just pay a fine. 

I wouldn't stress about it. Go talk to to the prosecuting attorney (I'm assuming on that one) and see what they want.

Or if they pull a quick one and make you plead to a charge in front of a judge just plead not guilty. Doesn't matter what the charge, just plead not guilty. Then they'll set a date for you to speak with the prosecuting attorney and work something out to a lesser charge. Maybe you'll want an attorney for that visit. 

They're not taking this to trial.


----------



## Lumberman (Sep 27, 2010)

I'm sorry this stinks. Just tell them you will not plead to a misdemeanor charge and you will fight it all the way because of this impact on your professional life. You don't need a lawyer. 

They will offer something else that is just a fine. Maybe littering or something of the sort. 

They just need their money. 

Welcome to the new DNR we agreed to pay for. SMH......


----------



## WillA (Sep 12, 2018)

Shoeman said:


> So does the informal end up as a decision within the court, or do you still have an option to take it to trial?


If I go to the informal hearing the officer and magistrate are there, if they decide against me I lose and can appeal to a full trial, but ill basically be found guilty then and there and have to appeal the finding.


----------



## grapestomper (Jan 9, 2012)

I went to one for a traffic issue.
Each side told there story. Magistrate made decision.
I could decide to go to court or pay fine.
If you have written evidence that what happened was legal then you should go.


----------



## Thirty pointer (Jan 1, 2015)

The problem with magistrates is they know most of these officers by name .Happened with my daughter on a different charge .They will believe him over you .


----------



## PERCHGILL (Feb 19, 2012)

What I SUSPECT will happen at the informal hearing is that you will check in with the clerk at the courthouse. You will then take a seat out in the hallway until the prosecutor calls your name. You will then meet the prosecutor in his/her office, where you will be told of (& given a copy of), the charge(s) & the possible penalties attached to those charges. At that time, you will let the prosecutor know whether you intend to plea guilty or to plea innocent. The prosecutor will then tell you to have a seat in the courtroom. When your case is called, you go stand up at the podium in front of the judge. The prosecutor will be in the courtroom, at his table. The judge will then ask you a few questions, (Did you get a copy of the Complaint? Do you understand the charge (s) against you? Do the understand the possible penalties attached to that charge (s). Do you understand that you can have a trial in this matter & that you can have attorney as well. Etc...). If you plea guilty in front of the judge, he might sentence you right then & there, or set the case for a sentencing date. If you plea innocent, it will simply be set for another hearing date, where you & your attorney can try to resolve this with the prosecutor without going to trial. If the case is set for trial, you & your attorney can still try to get the case resolved on the day of the trial. The prosecutor typically wants to get these kind of cases resolved, even on the day of trial. I SUSPECT that something along these lines is what will happen.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

I have had good luck doing this with traffic violations. I was pulled over for doing 63 in a 45 and given a ticket for 55 in a 45. It was a 55mph zone. Judge sides with me and lectured the officer on taking his job more serious.

I have a cousin who was accused of not wearing his seatbelt in a seatbelt enforcement sting on I 75. He was wearing his seatbelt and won....the judge believed my cousin over the officer. Once again officer was given a stern lecture. 

I would say go and be polite and accurate with the judge as to what happened. If your story is different than the officers the judge will ask the officer point blank about the differences in opinion. Judges can tell which one of you is honest and genuine. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

If you have no other hunting related violations which I assume that you don’t I would have the informal hearing and explain your side and plead with the judge or magistrate about how this will affect your professional life. Some are very understanding but some go only by the law. If you don’t like the results then appeal and have a formal hearing. I will tell you this that from my professional experience I don’t think I ever had a case overturned from the informal hearing stage.


----------



## GIDEON (Mar 28, 2008)

Informal hearing means they use lubricant, formal hearings they arent so nice.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

GIDEON said:


> Informal hearing means they use lubricant, formal hearings they arent so nice.


They may still use lube, but they add a little ground glass.


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

The new Wildlife Conservation Order. Pg. 44 should interest you.

Where were you hunting?


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

ESOX said:


> They may still use lube, but they add a little ground glass.



Well they have to use some kind of grease. It’s an adhesive for the sand and ground glass


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Big Frank 25 said:


> The new Wildlife Conservation Order. Pg. 44 should interest you.
> 
> Where were you hunting?


Is "possession" in your vehicle while you are out in the field hunting? I think that's the real question.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

DirtySteve said:


> I have had good luck doing this with traffic violations. I was pulled over for doing 63 in a 45 and given a ticket for 55 in a 45. It was a 55mph zone. Judge sides with me and lectured the officer on taking his job more serious.
> 
> I have a cousin who was accused of not wearing his seatbelt in a seatbelt enforcement sting on I 75. He was wearing his seatbelt and won....the judge believed my cousin over the officer. Once again officer was given a stern lecture.
> 
> ...


I had the exact opposite experience the last time I was in court in front of a magistrate for a traffic violation :lol:

My ex's family owns a bar and I'd occasionally help out. One night as I was leaving there was an officer parked in the adjacent lot. Said my goodbyes to my gf and then began backing out of my parking space at which point the officer peeled out onto Woodward and I went through the alley to get to the street. Cop pulled me over for running a stop sign (impossible to see from his location), tossed my car, and gave me a breathalyzer and then sent me on my way with a ticket for running a stop sign. Had all this on security footage though an attorney is required to present video evidence. Not wanting to hire an attorney, I went to court with a bunch of still shots from the security camera. When it was my turn to plead my case, the magistrate asked where did I first see the officer - I told him in the adjacent lot. Magistrate gets a smug look and then says well obviously he was watching the stop sign, shook his head, and said guilty. When I asked to speak he said I think you've said enough.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

Me thinks the CO might have been fishing. BB shot hunting squirrels... hmmm

That would raise feathers on my end. Ok, let’s bust him on something else! Basically something suspect on the CO’s front.

Some are just pricks, trying to prove something... even as minute like coming out of a parking lot without using a turn signal....

And I’ll repeat, I would have made contact with the superior officer within that district and questioned the offense. To rely on the prosecutor and/or judge to be up on game violations is a big fetch!


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

Radar420 said:


> I had the exact opposite experience the last time I was in court in front of a magistrate for a traffic violation :lol:
> 
> My ex's family owns a bar and I'd occasionally help out. One night as I was leaving there was an officer parked in the adjacent lot. Said my goodbyes to my gf and then began backing out of my parking space at which point the officer peeled out onto Woodward and I went through the alley to get to the street. Cop pulled me over for running a stop sign (impossible to see from his location), tossed my car, and gave me a breathalyzer and then sent me on my way with a ticket for running a stop sign. Had all this on security footage though an attorney is required to present video evidence. Not wanting to hire an attorney, I went to court with a bunch of still shots from the security camera. When it was my turn to plead my case, the magistrate asked where did I first see the officer - I told him in the adjacent lot. Magistrate gets a smug look and then says well obviously he was watching the stop sign, shook his head, and said guilty. When I asked to speak he said I think you've said enough.


Some Magistrate.


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

I equate that to fishing regulated waters. No bait, no scent while fishing those restricted waters!

So I might hit 3 watersheds on my week long trip. Yup, got worms in my vehicle, but none on me or in the boat. So Mister CO shows up and writes me a ticket for a dozen worms in my vehicle? I’ll see your pompous ass in court! Just sayin’.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Nostromo said:


> Some Magistrate.


Yeah he gets wonderful reviews online


----------



## Big Frank 25 (Feb 21, 2002)

sureshot006 said:


> Is "possession" in your vehicle while you are out in the field hunting? I think that's the real question.


Personally, I don't think so. If this were the case, while hunting a managed waterfowl area with say an 18 shell limit, you would be in violation of too many shells in possession by taking 18 out of a box of 25!

Rest your firearm against your vehicle is written for hunting from a vehicle!

Like a buddy always said; "The game laws are written to make us ALL violators!"


----------



## GIDEON (Mar 28, 2008)

Shoeman said:


> I equate that to fishing regulated waters. No bait, no scent while fishing those restricted waters!
> 
> So I might hit 3 watersheds on my week long trip. Yup, got worms in my vehicle, but none on me or in the boat. So Mister CO shows up and writes me a ticket for a dozen worms in my vehicle? I’ll see your pompous ass in court! Just sayin’.


Dont forget to bring your own lubricant!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## BucksandDucks (May 25, 2010)

Some buddies of mine got popped for goose hunting in Saginaw county. 1 mile south in shiawassee goose season was still open. Luckily they hadn't shot anything. They worked out a deal with the prosecutor where they got a delayed sentence and paid a fine. As long as they didn't get into any trouble for a set period of time it would not go on their record 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> i'm guessing a fine for lead shot in the car while out hunting squirrel with steel. DNR gave a ticket for hunting waterfowl with lead skeet shot? Am I close?


That's a famous hunting violation case. I read about it not long ago. I wondered how it all ended.


----------



## Petronius (Oct 13, 2010)

WillA said:


> -Yea for the lead shot thing. DNR.
> -The fine is not much at all, the lawyer is 10x the cost but worth it because:
> -The charge is a misdemeanor and having that on my record would likely have significant negative affects on my professional life.
> 
> Sounded like my options were either go to the hearing without a lawyer or plead guilty. not sure if anyone has had any luck with the informal hearing or if its worth just getting a lawyer involved now.


If you are found guilty of anything or admit guilt this violation, it's not the end of the world. How is anyone going to find out you are a "misdemeanor criminal"? It's such an insignificant offense in the scheme of things, it won't have any affect on your professional life unless you run with some strange people.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Petronius said:


> If you are found guilty of anything or admit guilt this violation, it's not the end of the world. How is anyone going to find out you are a "misdemeanor criminal"? It's such an insignificant offense in the scheme of things, it won't have any affect on your professional life unless you run with some strange people.


So is baiting but supposedly a guy got 45 days jail and 15k fine!


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Radar420 said:


> I had the exact opposite experience the last time I was in court in front of a magistrate for a traffic violation
> 
> My ex's family owns a bar and I'd occasionally help out. One night as I was leaving there was an officer parked in the adjacent lot. Said my goodbyes to my gf and then began backing out of my parking space at which point the officer peeled out onto Woodward and I went through the alley to get to the street. Cop pulled me over for running a stop sign (impossible to see from his location), tossed my car, and gave me a breathalyzer and then sent me on my way with a ticket for running a stop sign. Had all this on security footage though an attorney is required to present video evidence. Not wanting to hire an attorney, I went to court with a bunch of still shots from the security camera. When it was my turn to plead my case, the magistrate asked where did I first see the officer - I told him in the adjacent lot. Magistrate gets a smug look and then says well obviously he was watching the stop sign, shook his head, and said guilty. When I asked to speak he said I think you've said enough.


I am sure not all judges are reasonable. 

The story about my cousin was a good one and he tells it better than I do. He drove thru the zone where they were checking seatbelts going south bound to go to a specific store. My cousin said that the officer on that side of I 75 was standing right on the shoulder with his foot almost on the white line checking seatbelts as he went through. He told the judge he commented to his wife that the officer was a bit crazy getting so close to traffic. On his way home on the north bound side the officer was sitting in car parked back on a hill watching traffic. Both cases they were radioing ahead to another car to pull offenders over. The judge stopped my cousin in mid sentence and looked at the officer and said were you in your car while you were supposed to be looking for seatbelts? The officer said well for parts of the time yes I dont recall if I was in this case. My cousin brought in receipts to prove where he went and diagrams of where his house was in proximity. His receipts had the time stamps etc.... judge didnt even care to see them she just turned and lectured the officer about causing hassles for citizens by making mistakes because he was sitting in his car while he was supposed to be on seatbelt watch.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> So is baiting but supposedly a guy got 45 days jail and 15k fine!


That story wasnt for baiting alone. He was cited for illegal baiting, poaching, failure to wear orange and trespassing.....among some other charges I believe. The fines he received were because of the trophy buck poaching rules we have in place. Baiting alone is generally around $350 fine.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> That story wasnt for baiting alone. He was cited for illegal baiting, poaching, failure to wear orange and trespassing.....among some other charges I believe. The fines he received were because of the trophy buck poaching rules we have in place. Baiting alone is generally around $350 fine.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Yeah but I didn't think a 9 point was worth quite that much. I cant remember exactly but I thought it was more in the ballpark of 5k.

So I think I found it... $500 per point. That would make a 9 point 4500. Plus the 1000 for a deer, plus another 1000 for a buck. So 6500 for the deer. I cant believe it would be more for no orange than baiting. Just don't get the math.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> Yeah but I didn't think a 9 point was worth quite that much. I cant remember exactly but I thought it was more in the ballpark of 5k.
> 
> So I think I found it... $500 per point. That would make a 9 point 4500. Plus the 1000 for a deer, plus another 1000 for a buck. So 6500 for the deer. I cant believe it would be more for no orange than baiting. Just don't get the math.


You have the 6500 right for the deer as far as I can tell. Then add 500 for max fine for baiting. He admitted to baiting with a dump truck load of beets and two trailer loads of corn. Could be that they got him on 3 counts of over baiting? Then add a max penalty no for hunter orange which probably falls under general violation of the conservation act...That would be $500. I thought there was some discrepancy on if he had permission from the golf course so trespassing may be part of it.

The part we are missing here is court costs. The trophy Deer poaching law states that on top of his 6500 in fines he owes court cost restitution. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> You have the 6500 right for the deer as far as I can tell. Then add 500 for max fine for baiting. He admitted to baiting with a dump truck load of beets and two trailer loads of corn. Could be that they got him on 3 counts of over baiting? Then add a max penalty no for hunter orange which probably falls under general violation of the conservation act...That would be $500. I thought there was some discrepancy on if he had permission from the golf course so trespassing may be part of it.
> 
> The part we are missing here is court costs. The trophy Deer poaching law states that on top of his 6500 in fines he owes court cost restitution.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


The court cost is probably it then. I think 1 truck or 10 it's over the limit. Go big or go home? Lol


----------



## stockrex (Apr 29, 2009)

Do not plead guilty 
Go find out which judge might be assigned this case
Then go sit in his court one morning 
See how he/she rules 
Have your evidence and pleadings ready.
Request a full trial in front of a judge if they refuse vacate the fake ticket 

Did you get a copy of the co’s report ?


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

So was this you? From the DNR weekly report.


CO Brad Silorey was on patrol checking goose hunters when he spotted a vehicle parked on a road leading to state land. CO Silorey looked in the window of the vehicle and observed a box of goose decoys and a shotgun case. CO Silorey set out on foot to do a quick check on the hunter. After hearing several goose calls, CO Silorey found the hunter, who was packing up due to the heavy rain coming down. CO Silorey checked the hunter’s license and shotgun. When CO Silorey asked to see what type of shells he was using, the hunter hesitated for a moment then pulled several rounds out of his pocket. CO Silorey asked the man to show him inside his pack that he had with him just to verify there was no more ammunition. The man paused for a moment, then stated he did have more in there. In the pack there were multiple rounds that were rubber banded together. The man stated that they are all steel shot. CO Silorey looked at one of the packs which was “Kent Fast Lead.” Multiple rounds of lead shot were found. Enforcement action was taken.


----------



## steelyspeed (Apr 10, 2016)

WillA said:


> -Yea for the lead shot thing. DNR.
> -The fine is not much at all, the lawyer is 10x the cost but worth it because:
> -The charge is a misdemeanor and having that on my record would likely have significant negative affects on my professional life.
> 
> Sounded like my options were either go to the hearing without a lawyer or plead guilty. not sure if anyone has had any luck with the informal hearing or if its worth just getting a lawyer involved now.


The misdemeanor should have no affect on your professional life... I have a DNR misdemeanor from running 9 tip ups when I was 20 . Hasn’t come up at all in my professional life. Most job applications only ask for felony convictions or if the misdemeanors meant the loss of your drivers license.


----------



## zimmzala (Oct 20, 2007)

My buddy has told me he has been passed over on a couple of jobs because of his misdemeanor. I don't recall the exact charge but essentially him and his roommate at college got busted with pot, which believe it or not was not his, it was a small amount but it's on his record. He does work in academia, at the university level so they want a full criminal back ground check. He hates having to try to explain it to the interviewers. You would think in this day and age that wouldn't be a big deal, although I guess that's for another post. So it can have an effect, depending on what you do.


----------



## DecoySlayer (Mar 12, 2016)

Two things, I wonder what will happen to that record after the election? Two, I guess he learned that he should not hang around with scofflaws.


----------



## steelyspeed (Apr 10, 2016)

zimmzala said:


> My buddy has told me he has been passed over on a couple of jobs because of his misdemeanor. I don't recall the exact charge but essentially him and his roommate at college got busted with pot, which believe it or not was not his, it was a small amount but it's on his record. He does work in academia, at the university level so they want a full criminal back ground check. He hates having to try to explain it to the interviewers. You would think in this day and age that wouldn't be a big deal, although I guess that's for another post. So it can have an effect, depending on what you do.


Yes but those are very different misdemeanors, just like a first time offender DUI is also a misdemeanor. You have nothing to worry about


----------



## jd4223 (Feb 12, 2012)

I was a Detroit cop for 25 years and have seen all kinds of outrageous claims by police officers issuing traffic tickets not counting reasons for conducting illegal searches. I would have family members and friends always asking me if what the officers done when investigating them or issuing tickets to them were legal. Like I told all of them,if what you are telling me is true,then no. However,a lot of what they told me wasn't exactly true. But being in the business for 25 years,you develop the ability to know when a person,or cop is not telling the truth. The story WillA tells compared to what Chessieman reports(IF WillA is the person the C.O investigated) are day and night!


----------



## bucko12pt (Dec 9, 2004)

sureshot006 said:


> Is "possession" in your vehicle while you are out in the field hunting? I think that's the real question.


That would be my question and I'm sure any attorney would argue that also. It says a "person" shall not "possess", which to me means you can't have it on your person. I would think a judge would find that questionable also.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

bucko12pt said:


> That would be my question and I'm sure any attorney would argue that also. It says a "person" shall not "possess", which to me means you can't have it on your person. I would think a judge would find that questionable also.


Yep. But the dnr's report says he had it on him... not in the vehicle. So it's his word against the CO's now. Who is lying?


----------



## Nostromo (Feb 14, 2012)

sureshot006 said:


> Yep. But the dnr's report says he had it on him... not in the vehicle. So it's his word against the CO's now. Who is lying?


I could hazard a guess how that's going to swing. I agree with what jd4223 said. I also think people do not always remember what exactly happened and they fill in the blanks to suit their own narrative.


----------



## Chessieman (Dec 8, 2009)

Nostromo said:


> I could hazard a guess how that's going to swing. I agree with what jd4223 said. I also think people do not always remember what exactly happened and they fill in the blanks to suit their own narrative.


I see the originator of this thread has let to reply of that was him. If he was calling Geese I would venture to say he was hunting Geese. Of course that does not apply while I am practicing my calling going down the express way!


----------



## David_E_Ward (Oct 2, 2018)

IMO, some fish and game violations should not be misdemeanors, for example the guy who fails to measure one fish and keeps it gets the same misdemeanor as the guy who limits on undersized fish or the guy who keeps everything with no regard for limits or legal sizes. People make simple mistakes while others have full intent to ignore regulations


----------



## bluealaskan (Sep 18, 2011)

Well, WillA. you started two threads and received a lot of good info and help from a lot of great people. Fill us in a little, was that report your case? How about an update..If that wasn't your case, wish you the best. If it was, pay the piper and move on. Lesson learned .


----------

