Illegal Search by FWC officer on WMA
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
 
  1. #1
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Illegal Search by FWC officer on WMA

    Hello,

    This weekend I decided to hike at my favorite location which is a WMA in central Florida. 5 minutes after arriving and beginning my hike, I encountered a truck marked FWC law enforcement obstructing the way through. As I approached the truck coming from the designated entrance, two persons on bikes were leaving the property and approaching the truck from the opposite way. The officer gave their attention to them first, quickly dismissing them, despite the fact that there is no biking allowed on the premises as instructed by signage posted at the parking area.

    Once the officer let the bikers on their way with little to no hassle, she gave much more interest into my whereabouts. Now I am in my 20's, have long hair and a beard, am Hispanic but look white, and am wearing plain clothing with hiking boots and have a medium sized day/overnight pack (32L) with fruit inside and water bottles clearly visible on the exterior of my pack.

    The officer begins to converse with me asking me where I'm headed. I tell the officer I hike at this location often and would like to be on my way. She goes on to say that she needs to look inside my bag for inspection. This begins to frustrate me as here I am in the last situation I want to be in on a day I am trying to enjoy nature. Regardless, I tell the officer I don't consent to search and there is no probable cause for authority to search my belongings. Bear in mind I do not have any gear which would indicate any involvement in a regulated activity in this location. I am simply a hiker with a day pack trying to get on with my hike. I told the officer I do not have any weapons and carry plenty of items in my pack in the event I get lost or stuck out for a night and do not want the officer to disorganize my arrangement.

    We begin to go back and forth about the search and the more I decline the officer's request the more aggressive the officer becomes, seeming to believe I have something I am trying to hide - but no, just trying to avoid anything and defend the rights I have (supposedly).

    When I tell the officer they have no probable cause for a search, they told me they did not need probable cause for any search or inspection on the property, and that so long as I was on the property I was subject to search at any time. This blew my mind.

    Here I am, literally just walked into this public land, and 5 minutes later I am subject to inspection. I should have asked for a supervisor or called the FWC at this point, but anxious in the situation and confident i have nothing to hide, I basically just caved in and wasn't going to fight the officer to keep their hands off my belongings.

    At this point, aggregated by my resistance, the officer seems hellbent on finding something to cite me for. The last thing I would have thought, I use a turtle shell to hold loose incense i.e white sage and resins. It was clearly a used and old shell, though she took it and told me that if it were an endangered turtle, that it could be a jail-able offense. Nuts.

    Anyways, at this point the officer returns to their vehicle for an extended duration, 25-30 minutes (of a total of 55 minutes this entire process took from encounter to dismissal). The officer is on the phone, filling paperwork, and trying to identify this shell. During this time I call the officer and the officer heard me out, I asked the officer why she would hold me up for something so ridiculous as I am just trying to hike and didn't want any issues, I assured the officer I would never damage the park or do something wrong and always pick up trash when I see it. The officer seemed to loosen grip a little bit and took a softer tone, so I guess talking can help sometimes but not always.

    Originally, the officer was going to write me a "property receipt" for the incident and once a biologist got back to them on the identification, they would contact me. Then after more time back in the truck, the officer came back and said they were able to get it identified there and that it was not an endangered species (it was a box turtle shell) and that I am able to have it back.

    At this point the officer kindly lets me go, but not after a very unnecessary and uncomfortable situation. If i were to encounter this situation often, it would ruin my experience of Florida's natural lands, in fear that my rights will be violated, potentially through being profiled or judged by an officer, and held up for an unnecessary amount of time in which anything I say do or posses could be turned into a violation that any ordinary person would not consider common knowledge to relate said things with criminal activity.

    If there is any advice on this situation, how to handle it better if I encounter it once again, and if there is any resources available that will confirm that wildlife officers are not above the 4th amendment and can not search me unless I am hunting, fishing, or observed removing wildlife, i would be very grateful to hear it.

    I plan to visit one of the FWC's regional offices and speak with them personally about the matter, hopefully getting someone to be in contact with if a situation like this ever occured again.

    Sorry for the long story here, wanted to be very thorough. Thank you!

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Your answer

    I am a retired FWC officer. If you look up the Fla. case Davis V Reynolds on Justia Law .com or another source, you will see that it has been settled law since the 1970s that then GFC- now FWC officers have the right and duty to determine if you are following the rules and law on all public lands. Sounds like you did not like the way the officer conducted themselves. That is a different issue and you should go to the Regional Office and talk to someone if that's the case.
    Look at the bright side. Now she knows you. Take care.

  3. #3
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Thanks for your input. If that is entirely the case, anything can be used to warrant a search, which is absolutely a violation of constitutional rights and should be challenged further.

    My insistence on continuing on my way without a hassle and refusal for search seemed to increase interest in conducting a search. This should never be a viable justification for search as it is an act attempting to uphold the constitution. If the way I look or the fact I'm hiking with a pack qualified for suspicion to an officer, would that be "acceptable"? This is profiling to me.

    FWC on patrol in large parks don't seem to have much to do when on average only one or two persons are traveling in a given area every hour or so. Possibly out of boredom one could get searched, or if they want to prove they're doing something to their superiors.

    Right outside FWC regional office in Titusville tons of people are fishing and I bet many are violating regulations unknowingly but in a high-volume area authorities are less focused on it.

    Amison v. State seems to conclude the opposite of the case law you mention, as well as the following statue:

    FWC statue 379.334
    "Search and seizure authorized and limited

    The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and its conservation officers shall have authority when they have reasonable and probable cause to believe that the provisions of this chapter have been violated, to board any vessel, boat, or vehicle or to enter any fishhouse or warehouse or other building, exclusive of residence, in which game, hides, fur-bearing animals, fish, or fish nets are kept and to search for and seize any such game, hides, fur-bearing animals, fish, or fish nets had or held therein in violation of law. Provided, however, that no search without warrant shall be made under any of the provisions of this chapter, unless the officer making such search has such information from a reliable source as would lead a prudent and cautious person to believe that some provision of this chapter is being violated."

    Also a copy I found of policy documents from the FWC in my search:
    http://myfwc.com/media/407572/go17.pdf

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Which WMA?

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Little Big Econ WMA. Such a beautiful place.

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Not so fast

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Thanks for your input. If that is entirely the case, anything can be used to warrant a search, which is absolutely a violation of constitutional rights and should be challenged further.

    My insistence on continuing on my way without a hassle and refusal for search seemed to increase interest in conducting a search. This should never be a viable justification for search as it is an act attempting to uphold the constitution. If the way I look or the fact I'm hiking with a pack qualified for suspicion to an officer, would that be "acceptable"? This is profiling to me.

    FWC on patrol in large parks don't seem to have much to do when on average only one or two persons are traveling in a given area every hour or so. Possibly out of boredom one could get searched, or if they want to prove they're doing something to their superiors.

    Right outside FWC regional office in Titusville tons of people are fishing and I bet many are violating regulations unknowingly but in a high-volume area authorities are less focused on it.

    Amison v. State seems to conclude the opposite of the case law you mention, as well as the following statue:

    FWC statue 379.334
    "Search and seizure authorized and limited

    The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and its conservation officers shall have authority when they have reasonable and probable cause to believe that the provisions of this chapter have been violated, to board any vessel, boat, or vehicle or to enter any fishhouse or warehouse or other building, exclusive of residence, in which game, hides, fur-bearing animals, fish, or fish nets are kept and to search for and seize any such game, hides, fur-bearing animals, fish, or fish nets had or held therein in violation of law. Provided, however, that no search without warrant shall be made under any of the provisions of this chapter, unless the officer making such search has such information from a reliable source as would lead a prudent and cautious person to believe that some provision of this chapter is being violated."

    Also a copy I found of policy documents from the FWC in my search:
    http://myfwc.com/media/407572/go17.pdf
    If you read the posted signage, you will note that you are agreeing to a "search" when you agree to enter the lands. Think of it like a court house.

  7. #7
    Unregistered
    Guest
    There is no clear signage stating this, nor do I see in the brochure posted on the board at the entrance, that any person is subject to search at any time on the property for any reason.

    The only regulation authorizing searches I see on the actual brochure pulled up online is limited to an extent:
    "19. An FWC Law Enforcement Officer may search any camp, vehicle or boat, in accordance with law."
    www.myfwc.com/media/2516233/LittleBigEcon.pdf

    In person, the regulations are almost unreadable because it is in very small print. No ordinary person will sit there and squint to read it. This regulation does not imply or state officers have outright authority to search an individual simply because they are on the premises. "in accordance with law" should also refer to constitutional rights and Florida statues, but correct me if I am mistaken - I am no lawyer.

    If normal rights are relaxed in any public location, it should be clearly posted in an obvious manner where all persons entering the property could not avoid seeing it. I.e. A big red sign at the entrance with capital letters stating "Subject to inspection on this property - any time, any reason" and associated statue or regulation should be posted under. Otherwise, this is almost deceptive and could cause a scuffle between officers and people who are not aware of proposed regulations which are not clearly understood or stated.

    Let me re-iterate that I have never seen in any public natural land, any wording of searches to be conducted on anyone for any reason when they are not engaged in prohibited or regulated activities.

    I will need to see statues, regulations, or any legal documents which give this lawful authority above citizen rights to wildlife officers in public locations.

  8. #8
    Senior Member LEO Affairs Corporal
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    166

    Inspection vs. search

    big boy these FWC nazis don't understand the 14th & 4th amendment. You've just been pinked. You're buttocks should be burning by now. Call a good civil rights lawyer and file suite.

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Paine View Post
    big boy these FWC nazis don't understand the 14th & 4th amendment. You've just been pinked. You're buttocks should be burning by now. Call a good civil rights lawyer and file suite.
    Like you were there. Stop trolling and a life a$$hole.

  10. #10
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Look at the bright side. Now she knows you. Take care.
    The "brighter side" for the OP, was the fact that the FWC Officer didn't find his/her dope...Had there been a "pot puppy" on scene, things would have been entirely different outcome.. Hey OP, I think Colorado might be the place for you...

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •