FWC officers messing with game cams on private property
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
 
  1. #1
    North Florida HUnter
    Guest

    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?

  2. #2
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Florida Law

    Quote Originally Posted by North Florida HUnter View Post
    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?
    379.3311 Police powers of commission and its agents.—
    (1) The commission, the executive director and the executive director’s assistants designated by her or him, and each commission officer are constituted peace officers with the power to make arrests for violations of the laws of this state when committed in the presence of the officer or when committed on lands under the supervision and management of the commission, the department, the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund, or the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, including state parks, coastal and aquatic managed areas, and greenways and trails. The general laws applicable to arrests by peace officers of this state shall also be applicable to such director, assistants, and commission officers. Such persons may enter upon any land or waters of the state for performance of their lawful duties and may take with them any necessary equipment, and such entry does not constitute a trespass.

    (2) Such officers may enforce throughout the state all laws relating to game, nongame birds, fish, and fur-bearing animals and all rules and regulations of the commission relating to wild animal life, marine life, and freshwater aquatic life, and in connection with such laws, rules, and regulations, in the enforcement thereof and in the performance of their duties thereunder, to:
    (a) Go upon all premises, posted or otherwise;

    (b) Execute warrants and search warrants for the violation of such laws;

    (c) Serve subpoenas issued for the examination, investigation, and trial of all offenses against such laws;

    (d) Carry firearms or other weapons, concealed or otherwise, in the performance of their duties;

  3. #3
    North Florida HUnter
    Guest
    So by Statue he can come on the property just because he wants to (being nosy), but nothing in the Statue allows him to tamper with the cameras or anything else on the property.

  4. #4
    Unregistered
    Guest
    If he in fact did what you say he did then it is a big NO NO. If you have proof then turn him in. He will more than likely loose his job and can be held civially liable for his actions. However we are allowed to go onto properties where we think a violation has occurred or might occur. Entering into your camera is a violation of your privacy rights and can be prosecuted accordingly...

  5. #5
    Unregistered
    Guest
    He would need a warrant to go into somebody else electronic device.

  6. #6
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Unregistered View Post
    He would need a warrant to go into somebody else electronic device.
    But understand also, he can walk around all day being "nosing" as that is the only way to determine if the law is being followed. Most- but not all, FWC officers are very respectful of those rights and the rights of the property owners. If there is a problem child, do us all a favor and make the call. If it happened, sorry.

  7. #7
    North Florida HUnter
    Guest
    I really do not want the Officer to loose his job, I just want him to know that people know what he is doing, we do not appreciate it, and that we do have recovered pictures of him that were deleted from the SD cards by someone other than the owners. In some of the pictures he does appear to be messing with the cameras. Measures have been put in place to capture images of him in the act of removing SD cards or messing with cameras. If any FWC officer is aware of an officer in the Lake City area messing with game cameras please let him know that people are not happy about it, we have proof, and are in the process of obtaining more proof. We do not want him to lose his job, but if we have to go to his supervisor with the pictures we will, if he loses his job as a result of it the only person he has to blame is himself. We do not feel that to confront him on an individual basis is a good idea so are only left with the option of going up his chain-of-command.

  8. #8
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by North Florida HUnter View Post
    I really do not want the Officer to loose his job, I just want him to know that people know what he is doing, we do not appreciate it, and that we do have recovered pictures of him that were deleted from the SD cards by someone other than the owners. In some of the pictures he does appear to be messing with the cameras. Measures have been put in place to capture images of him in the act of removing SD cards or messing with cameras. If any FWC officer is aware of an officer in the Lake City area messing with game cameras please let him know that people are not happy about it, we have proof, and are in the process of obtaining more proof. We do not want him to lose his job, but if we have to go to his supervisor with the pictures we will, if he loses his job as a result of it the only person he has to blame is himself. We do not feel that to confront him on an individual basis is a good idea so are only left with the option of going up his chain-of-command.
    Just turn him in. He will not get fired....just written up.

  9. #9
    Unregistered
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by North Florida HUnter View Post
    So by Statue he can come on the property just because he wants to (being nosy), but nothing in the Statue allows him to tamper with the cameras or anything else on the property.
    FWC SOP's forbids officers from tampering with game cams. I'd report him.

  10. #10
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Exclamation 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.*

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
  •