Illegal Search by FWC officer on WMA - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
 
  1. #11
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    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...
    That's completely reasonable and mature. I applaud you in your disapproval of a right to privacy and your condoning of excess authority on innocent citizens. Please do let the dogs out and find all the terrible, terrible pot smokers out there ruining the world for everyone.

  2. #12
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Smokin' something?

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    That's completely reasonable and mature. I applaud you in your disapproval of a right to privacy and your condoning of excess authority on innocent citizens. Please do let the dogs out and find all the terrible, terrible pot smokers out there ruining the world for everyone.
    If you think growing dope on public lands is a safe, acceptable thing you are not only wrong, but are very naive. I have seen growers who would ruin your family picnic in a heart-beat to prevent getting caught with their crop. I, myself was assaulted when I confronted three subjects who were watering plants on guess what? Public lands. Think about it. These lands should be available to folks who just wish to take their family out and enjoy the day without worrying who is committing crimes out there with them. Their rights are the ones I concern myself with.

  3. #13
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    If you think growing dope on public lands is a safe, acceptable thing you are not only wrong, but are very naive. I have seen growers who would ruin your family picnic in a heart-beat to prevent getting caught with their crop. I, myself was assaulted when I confronted three subjects who were watering plants on guess what? Public lands. Think about it. These lands should be available to folks who just wish to take their family out and enjoy the day without worrying who is committing crimes out there with them. Their rights are the ones I concern myself with.
    Nobody stated they agree with illegal substances being grown on public land, or the engagement in any illegal activity on public land for that matter. This is irrelevant to the issue addressed in this thread and actually perpetuates the preconceived notions and empty assumptions law enforcement officers often make on citizens not engaged in wrongdoing nor acting suspiciously. To investigate an illegal growing operation does not relate to unreasonable searches on any public natural land at any time. Unless there is any evidence that a person is committing a violation or has intentions to in a particular instance, there should be no reason to hold them and subject them to a search, which is what the statues state.

    I agree that lands open to the public should be safe for those who wish to enjoy nature.
    This is exactly what I expect when I step on any preserve to enjoy nature myself. I commend wildlife officers for protecting wildlife, though I am not fully convinced they are as much concerned about protecting the users of these lands as much as they are concerned with finding a violation to cite a user for. I do not condone excess authority and suspicion on users of public land and do not feel safe if any officer is using authority which is beyond the authorities they have been granted and outlined in order to preform their duties. The purpose of this thread is to gain insight on citizens rights while on public natural lands, as well as to gain knowledge on the factual authority of officers patrolling natural lands pertinent to interactions with users of those lands.

  4. #14
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    Please do let the dogs out and find all the terrible, terrible pot smokers out there ruining the world for everyone.
    Actually, I can name one pot smoker who has done just that (Ruined the world for everyone)... His initials are BHO, and he was a founding member in the "Choom Gang."

  5. #15
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Lightbulb doctrine of preemption

    they FWC 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.

    What is the Florida Statute or Law that dictates this? Where can this be found?
    FWC LEO confused between definitions of Procedure, Regulation, Policy, and Law?

    the doctrine of preemption, which is based on the Supremacy Clause, federal law preempts state law, even when the laws conflict. Thus, a federal court may require a state to stop certain behavior it believes interferes with, or is in conflict with, federal law.

    2016 Florida Statutes FISH AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION

    379.334 Search and seizure authorized and limited.- 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,

    379.3313 Powers of commission law enforcement officers.— Such authority to search and inspect without a search warrant is limited to those cases in which such law enforcement officers have reason to believe that fish or any saltwater products are taken or kept for sale, barter, transportation, or other purposes in violation of laws or rules adopted under this law.

    Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ␣ Division of Law Enforcement
    Title GENERAL ORDER 17 EFFECTIVE DATE July 21, 2008 APPLICABILITY ALL SWORN MEMBERS

    B Members
    (1) The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches. Sworn members of the Division have taken an oath to uphold the Constitution. If any sworn member has a question as to whether or not a search is lawful, the sworn member shall contact a supervisor. Any doubt should be resolved in favor of the individual's reasonable expectation of privacy.

    3 PROCEDURES
    F Vessel Inspections (1) Vessel Inspections pursuant to Section 379.3313, Florida Statutes.
    (a) Sworn members shall have probable cause to believe the vessel was engaged in fishing “prior” to the inspection. The term “prior” shall be construed to mean: 1. Actually engaged in a fishing operation; 2. Returning from fishing; or 3. Transporting fishery products.
    (b) Under no circumstances shall this section be used to inspect vessels not engaging in fishing activities or transporting fishery products.

    G Highway Checkpoints
    (9) Sworn members who have reason to believe that individuals are, or have been, fishing, hunting, or are in possession of fish or wildlife, may inspect those individuals to ensure compliance with resource protection laws and regulations. Such inspections, occurring in places where these activities normally occur, are not considered highway checkpoints.

    Little Big Econ WMA General Area Regulations:
    All general laws and regulations relating to wildlife and fish shall apply unless specifically exempted for this area.
    19. An FWC Law Enforcement Officer may search any camp, vehicle or boat, in accordance with law.

  6. #16
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Stupid civil servant

    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    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.
    It has nothing to with if we like how we are treated. I am going to sight for you Terry v/s Ohio. And officer in a stated that is not a stop and identify state has to have reasonable cause to the acts that you are committing, have committed or are about to commit a crime. Just being somewhere in public does not extend extra rights. According to the constitution of America and and the United states supreme court we have the right to travel with out being accosted or hindered in any way. There has to be probable cause or a reasonable suspicion that we have committed about to commit or are in the act of committing a crime. The law is clear here and at no time is any type of law enforcement halt to a lower standard as another. I live in Florida am a white Male born in the United states and have been told that I am not a United states citizen that i live in Florida and that I am not protected by the constitution of the United states. This man was wrongfully detained accosted in his pursuit of happiness and his right to free travel, unlawful search and seizure was violated. I hate stupid ass cops that think a badge and a fun give them rights over me. Get it right you are a civil servant and work for me not me here for you. You was fwc because you could not pass the bar exam otherwise you was have been an attorney. It is because cops think they know the law and **** it up is the reason we have courts, judges and lawyers.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •