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

"being on a WMA is Highly Regulated"

How is someones presence on public property "Highly Regulated". What type of regulations are placed upon a tax paying citizen merely sight seeing on public property? Why doesnt a City Cop have the authority to stop any vehicle he wants and search it in a City Park? A SRO cant search any students vehicle!! The reason being, ITS ILLEGAL!!!!!! The defendant could sue this Officer and take his home, his savings etc....because he violated his civil rights. All in the name of saving a racoon!!! You guys need to think twice before you infringe upon the publics rights, its not worth it. At least demand some written clarificaion from your stupidvisors, because after this you cant play dum anymore. !!!

Oh Shit....you have no clue. Go back into your bubble. Our stops have been upheld. This forum is not the place to get into it. Legal is battling the appelate court now and at the time was it a good stop...YES. After this, new case law may change that, but it does not change the fact that he was not doing what he was taught incorrectly, he was doing and applying the law correctly, but an appellate judge saw differently. If it was wrong, why did the local court not trhow it out or the other millions of cases that have been made. and do not say because NONE have been appealed because I can assure you that cases have been appealed. I have several felonies that have been made because of this, and they were appealed.. and upheld. So instead of saying " He was wrong, it always been wrong", know your case law, not just your Const. because you only end up sounding like you do not know your job...that is if some of these posts are by FWC employees. I venture to say some are not

Oh shizzat....you have no clue. Go back into your bubble. Our stops have been upheld. This forum is not the place to get into it. Legal is battling the appelate court now and at the time was it a good stop...YES. After this, new case law may change that, but it does not change the fact that he was not doing what he was taught incorrectly, he was doing and applying the law correctly, but an appellate judge saw differently. If it was wrong, why did the local court not trhow it out or the other millions of cases that have been made. and do not say because NONE have been appealed because I can assure you that cases have been appealed. I have several felonies that have been made because of this, and they were appealed.. and upheld. So instead of saying " He was wrong, it always been wrong", know your case law, not just your Const. because you only end up sounding like you do not know your job...that is if some of these posts are by FWC employees. I venture to say some are not

People love to bring up case law without truly knowing what case law they are citing. I am an FWC officer, not FMP or GFC. I never worked for either of those now gone agencies. One thing I can tell you is that some of the actions taken by former GFC employees that are still being taught today aren't exactly legal. Why? Because the tactics get passed from one new to the next as the way they are trained. I don't blame the new officers, it's the leaderships fault. All of these things have been brought up before and taken care of in my area years ago. If you need to stop someone then have a reason. Expired reg, broken tailight, etc.

How about walking up to a truck in a management area when no hunters are around and looking inside the cooler in the bed of his truck and finding beer. Then two hours later a birdwatcher comes back to this truck and you ask him to inspect his truck. He tells you he is not hunting or fishing and you have no right. So far, what has the officer done wrong and what are his options now?

1st off..depending on the WMA you do have that right to inspect them to ensure they have paid a daily user permit or have a WMA stamp and signed in , which is required to be paid, AND posted in the windshield. So if you do not see it...there is your legal regulatory inspection... AND probable cause.

2nd... if it is plain as day obvious looking in their vehicle that they were bird watching you may not want to waste your time waiting on them. But if you see a game bag, camo clothing, cases that may have contained guns, youmay want to inspect a little further. Nothing illegal in either case. And furthermore, if you see them outside the vehicle, I have never in 13 years FMP and now FWc been told I could not search, its all in how you ask.
We will see where this takes us

OMG!!!! Some of you guys are real idiots!! Hey Sherlock, if there is case law out there that neither the SA or the Judge knew about, then maybe you ought to do your civic duty and make them aware of it. When you do, please post it in this forum. You are talking out your a55. I'm willing to bet that you have never read it, you’re just quoting what you think you remember some other dipsh!t said!!!!

As far as the goober that wrote he can search their vehicle to see if they paid a daily user fee, he’s freaking drunk!!!! There is no way in this world you are allowed to search with the intent of determining whether or not someone satisfied a civil obligation!!!!!

This is not the response I thought I would be reading about. There are a few intelligent FWC guys posting on here, but some of you are just plain retarded.

It's funny. I posted the birdwatcher question just to see if I would get the response I did. I've educated my family members and friends, all active hunters/fishermen, birdwatchers, and hikers in the hopes that one day they they get stopped for no other reason they were in a WMA.

OMG!!!! Some of you guys are real idiots!! Hey Sherlock, if there is case law out there that neither the SA or the Judge knew about, then maybe you ought to do your civic duty and make them aware of it. When you do, please post it in this forum. You are talking out your a55. I'm willing to bet that you have never read it, you’re just quoting what you think you remember some other dipsh!t said!!!!

As far as the goober that wrote he can search their vehicle to see if they paid a daily user fee, he’s freaking drunk!!!! There is no way in this world you are allowed to search with the intent of determining whether or not someone satisfied a civil obligation!!!!!

This is not the response I thought I would be reading about. There are a few intelligent FWC guys posting on here, but some of you are just plain retarded.

Were is the case law???? ask the defense lawyers who have lost several cases. easy with the name callin. Just admit you are looking for case law to back up the fact you dont want to get out and work.

AsICit, Why when someone questions the legality of an officers actions you immediately accuse them of not wanting to work? Or that they need to go sit back in their manatee zone? This theory that some officers have of "any means to an end" is rampant in some of our rural counties. The reason officers have gotten away with using these tactics is the ignorance of the people they commonly come in contact with. I've met so many people doing this job that tell me of all of these special rights and abilities I supposedly have as a wildlife officer. When I here this I educate them and then get an earful of how they've been treated in the past by officers wearing my same uniform.
I guess one thought would be to try and keep up this charade and keep pumping the public full of these falsehoods. The problem is going to come when some guy gets his rights violated by an illegal search or seizure and knows it. People are getting educated.
The demographics of resource users is changing along with everything else. The avid sportsman that can afford to hunt and fish are members of great organizations like the NAWTF and DU. They're educated, they're wealthy, and they know the right people. Its only going to take one good high profile case to bring to light what is an ongoing training issue.
The officers that post on sites like this do so on their own. They're proactive. They care. They're are not lazy. It's takes a lot more work to make good cases than to make bad ones.

AsICit, Why when someone questions the legality of an officers actions you immediately accuse them of not wanting to work? Or that they need to go sit back in their manatee zone? This theory that some officers have of "any means to an end" is rampant in some of our rural counties. The reason officers have gotten away with using these tactics is the ignorance of the people they commonly come in contact with. I've met so many people doing this job that tell me of all of these special rights and abilities I supposedly have as a wildlife officer. When I here this I educate them and then get an earful of how they've been treated in the past by officers wearing my same uniform.
I guess one thought would be to try and keep up this charade and keep pumping the public full of these falsehoods. The problem is going to come when some guy gets his rights violated by an illegal search or seizure and knows it. People are getting educated.
The demographics of resource users is changing along with everything else. The avid sportsman that can afford to hunt and fish are members of great organizations like the NAWTF and DU. They're educated, they're wealthy, and they know the right people. Its only going to take one good high profile case to bring to light what is an ongoing training issue.
The officers that post on sites like this do so on their own. They're proactive. They care. They're are not lazy. It's takes a lot more work to make good cases than to make bad ones.

Well lets see.... I do that not knowing much of the poster... just the same as they dont know much of the points they are posting..... Unless you have read the whole case.... and then the whole descision of the courts to include the arguments made by the lawyers. Then you really dont know all the facts. It's just alot easier to say it was bad.. and the old ways are wrong blah blah blah. And when people do that... I feel as though it is my right to point out they are simple minded.

AsICit, Why when someone questions the legality of an officers actions you immediately accuse them of not wanting to work? Or that they need to go sit back in their manatee zone? This theory that some officers have of "any means to an end" is rampant in some of our rural counties. The reason officers have gotten away with using these tactics is the ignorance of the people they commonly come in contact with. I've met so many people doing this job that tell me of all of these special rights and abilities I supposedly have as a wildlife officer. When I here this I educate them and then get an earful of how they've been treated in the past by officers wearing my same uniform.
I guess one thought would be to try and keep up this charade and keep pumping the public full of these falsehoods. The problem is going to come when some guy gets his rights violated by an illegal search or seizure and knows it. People are getting educated.
The demographics of resource users is changing along with everything else. The avid sportsman that can afford to hunt and fish are members of great organizations like the NAWTF and DU. They're educated, they're wealthy, and they know the right people. Its only going to take one good high profile case to bring to light what is an ongoing training issue.
The officers that post on sites like this do so on their own. They're proactive. They care. They're are not lazy. It's takes a lot more work to make good cases than to make bad ones.

Well lets see.... I do that not knowing much of the poster... just the same as they dont know much of the points they are posting..... Unless you have read the whole case.... and then the whole descision of the courts to include the arguments made by the lawyers. Then you really dont know all the facts. It's just alot easier to say it was bad.. and the old ways are wrong blah blah blah. And when people do that... I feel as though it is my right to point out they are simple minded.

Hey Sherlock, go back and have someone read you the article. You call me simple minded, your right. It’s pretty simple. Let’s break it down. A Man is riding in the woods minding his own business. A FWC Officer initiates contact with him ILLEGALLY. Smells dope, finds dope and subsequently ILLEGALLY ARRESTS DOPER!!!!!!!!! That’s not my opinion that’s an Appellate Courts decision. Are you so ignorant that you can’t grasp the concept of presence does not equal PROBABLE CAUSE. Think about it. No I have not read the whole case. Have you read any of the case law that you base your criminal acts on? This Defendant has a great case for a Law Suit. Maybe not against the Officer, (because of good faith) but definitely against the State. So if saving the life of 1 or 2 raccoons means you will continue to put your personal assets at risk, then more power to you. Read your Statute book. If you can’t find PC to stop a vehicle ANYWHERE, than you need to go back to McDonalds!!!!!!!!!!!