Illegal Search by FWC, no more "resource/reg checks allowed"

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but if this sticks they might as well put a fork in you guys, because ya'll are done!!!!!!!!






Appellate court ruling tosses conviction in state park marijuana bust
By Molly Moorhead, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Sunday, April 5, 2009


Gerald Amison eased his pickup through the Richloam tract of the Withlacoochee State Forest around dusk on April 29, 2006.

A wildlife officer charged with catching illegal hunting and fishing activity spotted him and flipped on his overhead lights. Walking toward Amison's pickup, the officer smelled marijuana smoke. He searched the truck and found a baggie with the drug in a toolbox.

Amison, then 22, was arrested. He later pleaded no contest to the drug possession charge.

His public defender fought the evidence, arguing it was obtained improperly because the wildlife officer had no suspicion that Amison had been poaching wildlife in the vast forest that spans parts of Pasco and Hernando counties.

A Pasco judge rejected the argument, but this week an appeals court sided with Amison, of Dade City.

"We conclude that the officer needed reasonable suspicion to stop Amison's vehicle," the 2nd District Court of Appeal judges wrote.

The decision means Amison's conviction is vacated, and the state cannot charge him again.

But it's unclear what, if any, effect the decision will have on how wildlife officers patrol state lands.

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Law enforcement officers must have probable cause to stop and search someone.

But in a state-owned wildlife management area, officers regularly check to make sure people are obeying hunting and fishing regulations. Such stops are called "resource inspections."

The appellate judges wrote that the officer who arrested Amison hadn't observed him hunting or fishing and didn't see any guns or fishing poles. Nonetheless, the officer believed he had the authority to detain anyone for a regulatory inspection in the wildlife management area, the opinion says.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officials did not return a message for comment Friday.

Assistant State Attorney Stacey Sumner said no decision has been made on whether the state will appeal the decision to the Florida Supreme Court.

The state had cited a Wildlife Commission rule that authorizes its officers to do regulatory inspections.

But the appellate judges said such broad power conflicts with state law.

"We have found no statutory authority for a wildlife officer to stop a citizen for a regulatory inspection without any reasonable suspicion that the person is violating any law or wildlife regulation," the opinion says.

Before the officer stopped Amison and smelled marijuana, all he'd seen him do was back his truck away from a nearby waterway.

Assistant Public Defender Gary Welch, who wrote Amison's appeal, explained the ruling this way: "They just took the position that if you're there, they get to search you." But, "the statute says otherwise."

Molly Moorhead can be reached at moorhead@sptimes.com or (727) 869-6245.

I have always wondered about that: what authority did a wildlife officer have to stop a vehicle in a management area and do a search for evidence of illegal hunting or trapping when no reasonable suspicion existed? I know a police officer can't just arbitrarily stop a car on the street and search it to see if something is illegal (drug, weapons or currency trafficking) so I could not understand where this other "authority" came from. Will this also extend to stopping vessels on the water for "safety checks" also now? I have always wondered about that one, too. I have never been stopped by a wildlife officer, so I don't have any axe to grind or anything, but was curious about the comparative differences of violations of civil rights on the roadway vs. management areas and waterways. Just curious.

[Bluelight]

A Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Law Enforcement Officer may search any camp, vehicle or boat, in accordance with law. This applies to any management area.

A Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Law Enforcement Officer may search any camp, vehicle or boat, in accordance with law. This applies to any management area.

The catch is, and has always been, in accordance of law. That has never changed. What has changed is that the public is getting better informed and that some of the old tactics can no be used.

the boating safety inspections will never go away. there is case law from the us supreme court that says that it is legal state v. casael.

the boating safety inspections will never go away. there is case law from the us supreme court that says that it is legal state v. casael.

Reason being is that safety gear can and does get removed from vessels from time to time. Unlike a car where seat belts and airbags are permanently mounted.

I agree that this subject is important but, it won't affect the way most officers do business. If you want to 10-50 a vehicle just find an equipment or driving violation. If you have no reason to stop a vehicle except that they are on management land then don't.

Proper stops for boating safety inspections/searches and wildlife inspections/ searches have been tested to the high court and held to not be inviolation of 4th ammendment rights. But these "stops" are limited in their nature.

Just being in a WMA, in and of itself and absent other circumstances, is not probable cause to stop. The Officer may have thought he had probable cause to stop anyone in a WMA because a senior officer told him so. In the description given, it would appear the officer made an IMPROPER stop (ie: no probably cause).

Does this mean FWC will no longer conduct these type of inspections? No. It just means there is a trainging issue that needs to be addressed.

I previously worked for the FWC division of law enforcement and have learned that a lot of things I did on State Land was not exactly, "Legal". I cannot blame anyone else and take full responsibility for taking someone's advice instead of researching the issues for myself. Probable Cause and Misdeamenor exceptions being the main issues for me( once again, my bad).

As a previous message suggests, there is more than one way to skin a cat, the marine inspection/stop is covered, but traffic stops were being re-evaluated when I was preparing to leave the FWC. One aspect, which seemed to be taboo when I was with the commission, is the traffic violation. A obscured tag, improper taglight, broken headlight. etc...., are all valid reasons to conduct a traffice stop on state lands and roadways. Get a troopers handbook, use every resource that you have availible to do your job. Of course, the wildlife/W.M.A violations are still a valid reason to stop and conduct an inspection(I still don't understand the securely encased rule in W.M.A.'s) and there a a ton of them!

I was fortunate to work with some really great men and women with the FWC and I can honestly say I do miss working with you guys. I have full confidence that the FWC Officers are intelligent and capable of continuing the good work and getting the job done, while complying with state law.

Never give in! Never give in! Never, never, never, never -- in nothing great or small, large or petty. Never give in except to convictions of honor and good sense-Winston Churchill

Hunting fishing and being on WMA's are highly regulated activities and by partaking in these activities there is a lesser expectation than in a vehicle driving down the highway. Case law has already proven this, which is why we can stop in a WMA, to ensure that the subjects are in compliance with the regulations Hunting fishing and WMA. This would be to check for any weapons and ensure the are properly stored, have paid the daily user fee if required....etc. The officer who made this case was correct in his stop, is a phenomenal officer, and is extremely professional. So lets not go there.

Let's just see it for what it is. A judge who is mis-interpreting the rules and case law. If case law gets changed so be it, we will deal with it then. But for now the guys are doing a great job, the right thing, and will not change the way we do business until the outcome is final.

Posted by 4s65vz3y

"Hunting fishing and being on WMA's are highly regulated activities and by partaking in these activities there is a lesser expectation than in a vehicle driving down the highway. Case law has already proven this, which is why we can stop in a WMA, to ensure that the subjects are in compliance with the regulations Hunting fishing and WMA. This would be to check for any weapons and ensure the are properly stored, have paid the daily user fee if required....etc. The officer who made this case was correct in his stop, is a phenomenal officer, and is extremely professional. So lets not go there.

Let's just see it for what it is. A judge who is mis-interpreting the rules and case law. If case law gets changed so be it, we will deal with it then. But for now the guys are doing a great job, the right thing, and will not change the way we do business until the outcome is final."

Great information... But as the appeals court ruled you still have to have probable cause to believe the person or vehicle being stopped is engaged in the regulated activity. Driving down a road in a WMA is not, in and of itself, engaged in said regulated activity. The appeals court decision reaffirms this AND the earlier case law you are citing.

I am not questioning the officer, don't even know who it is. But the officer has obviously been taught the old game warden lore that you can stop anybody or any vehicle in a management area. Again, this is not what the case law you cite says.

This is a training issue that is EASILY solved. The officer could have done 1 thing different and the defendant would not have an argument. But I am not going to explain those LE tactics on an public forum.