FWC officers messing with game cams on private property
It would seem that here in North Florida there is a FWC Officer that messes with game cameras on private property.
If he thinks the camera has taken his picture he will take the card out of the camera and take it to his truck and erase the pictures. If he sees the camera before getting to close he will slip up behind it and either turn it off or or disengage the card. The officer has admitted to this to some of the property owners/lease holders, says he does not want people to know he has been there.
In many instances he has no reason to be there in the first place other than being nosy.
He has done it to my camera, I guess he does not know about the program Recuva.
Everything I do on my property is legal and ethical so I am not worried about that aspect of the officer being there, the problem I have is him being there without cause (being nosy) and messing with private property (camera) he has no right or business messing with.
As a retired LEO it is in my opinion unethical, bordering on illegal (trespassing) by being on the property without cause. Is there a hidden or little known Statute that allows FWC Officers to do this? I am sure that the Officer can come up with an excuse, even if not legitimate or the truth for being on the property. I know the game.
Is this common practice for FWC Officers?
Federal Law trumps State ignoramus
1.2 What are the Constitutional guarantees related to search and seizure that Service officers should know about? The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution gives people the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
1.4 What terms do you need to know to understand this chapter?
*
A. Affiant. Person who makes an affidavit.
*
B.* Affidavit. A written declaration made under oath before an authorized officer.
*
C. Curtilage. The curtilage is the area that protects the intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a person’s dwelling place and the privacies of life. Areas immediately appurtenant to a dwelling place may be considered curtilage. Such areas are generally enclosed in a way that indicates their connection to a dwelling. The Fourth Amendment protects this area against unreasonable searches.
*
D. Probable Cause. Probable cause is when an officer can objectively deduce from a set of facts that a person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. Probable cause for a search is established when facts are sufficiently strong to lead a reasonable, prudent person to believe that evidence of a crime is probably located in the place to be searched.
*
E. Property Seizure. A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s ownership interest in that property. A seizure does not include detention for inspection or refusal of wildlife items that are entering or leaving the United States at the border or functional equivalent of the border.
*
F. Search. A search is any Government intrusion into an area in which there would be a reasonable expectation of privacy. Courts use a two-prong test to determine whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy:
*
(1) The individual must exhibit an actual subjective expectation of privacy, and
*
(2) Society must be prepared to grant that expectation as objectively reasonable.
*
G. Service officer. Service officer means any Service special agent, wildlife inspector, refuge officer, or any other officer authorized to enforce Service statutes and regulations through delegated authority (e.g., through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), and Deputy Game Warden Commission).
1.5 How does the Service determine whether or not a search and seizure of property is reasonable?
*
A. Generally, for searches and seizures to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, they must:
*
(1) Be supported by probable cause, and
*
(2) Authorized by warrants that describe with reasonable precision any evidence or property to be seized.*