Bowsite.com

What is Assembly Bill 411: This bill removes the authority of conservation laws to go onto the open fields of the 80% of Wisconsin that is privately owned to protect the publicly owned fish and game of this state.. Wardens would not be able to check to see if hunters, anglers and trappers have licenses or are in compliance with other important hunting, fishing and trapping regulations. Under the bill the only time that a warden could go onto the open fields of private property is when they had substantial information in advance that a violation had occurred. The “Open Fields” doctrine that allows conservation wardens and every other law enforcement officer in the state to go onto the open areas of private lands to check compliance with laws does not allow law enforcement officers to go into buildings on private land. Basically this bill singles out conservation wardens out by making them the only law enforcement officers in the state that will not be able to check compliance with laws in open fields. It is critically important that as many of you as possible attend this meeting and support your local conservation warden by attending the hearing and registering or testifying against the bill. If you cannot attend the hearing because of work or other unchangeable commitment, please send an email to the Committee Members by cutting and pasting the following block of emails of committee members and sending them an email opposing Assembly 411 before the hearing on Wednesday: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];

The wardens were searching for people hunting deer after hours while the farmer, who claimed he wasn't hunting, thought the wardens were trespassers.

The case was sent back to circuit court but in a concurrent opinion Justice Rebecca Bradley scolded the DNR for citing the "open fields doctrine" in defending the wardens' entry onto private land.

"The open fields doctrine does not transform private fields into public places that anyone is free to enter uninvited or without reason. Nor does it convert the act of trespassing into a lawful intrusion," Bradley said.

Seems more than reasonable that wardens need reasonable suspicion before entering private lands. If you say wardens can't do their jobs with that lenient standard you're just blowing smoke. This change is long over due and a win for property owners and the Fourth Amendment.

When does a government for the people, by the people begin to trust the people?

Bloodtrail, being our resident Leo, what are your thoughts? Do you think wardens should or should not be able to enter private lands for any reason whatsoever?

While some here do the "Ronny Happy Dance" and "start" a new tradition - you better be careful what you ask for.

Drugs and other criminal violations go on everyday on "the back forty" and when you attempt to "hamstring" the police in the lawful execution of their duties.... who loses? You lose right along with many families across the State. CO's still goes home, collects a pay check and shakes his/her head.

Cops get paid either way - getting to the point some don't really care anymore. "Whatever" - and I cannot blame them. When we continue to "handcuff" them in performing their jobs it only hurts us.

It has worked for many decades...But all of a sudden, someone gets a hair up their ass and "well Fred, we really need to change this...there was that incident in with the Farmer ya know" - What a crock.

It hasn't been abused and in fact many people (MOST) don't even know it exists.

Keep hamstring the wardens. They now have them patrolling State parks because the State is getting rid of all State Rangers. Your wardens will patrol State Parks in place of "Rangers". If that isn't a waste I don't know what is.

"I'd like to follow up on your the deer that was poached on your property Mr. Smith, but I have to go and patrol a State park this weekend." Come on people. Time to wake up.

This bill is foolishness and NOT in the best interest of the people of this State. Once again - those who violate "put your dancing shoes on again - your criminal activities will get easier to commit without detection"....

For those afraid of it, they're cops! They're not going to steal from you or frame you! They are there to look out for your best interests. It's not like you're giving the right to any Tom Dick and harry to walk on your land. It's just your neighborhood warden who is protecting you. You sound like the black guys in the neighborhood I grew up in...... FU until I need you, then please come help me. Hypocrites.

Did anyone actually read the bill? All the warden needs to act is reasonable suspicion.

I don't like the fact, that a warden if this bill passes, cannot enter private property to ask someone if they have a license. I have a license, I hope you do too, but I would like the warden to make sure everyone has one. Because I paid money for mine.

In areas were there is no baiting I like the warden to go check on that as well. Just because he wants too. I don't bait and violate, so I don't want someone cheating and not playing by the rules. They (Warden) should check if they wants. Regardless if it is private property. They should not get a pass.

When a warden sees a person dragging or transporting a deer, I want him to check that as well. Because when I transport a deer all the ducks are in a row. If I have to do it, why doesn't the next guy? If I can get checked so should he, just because I'm on public and he's on private should not make a difference. Public guy gets checked...private guy, well lets give him a pass shall we?

And Kevin, please accept my apology but this proves how little you understand what you speak of. You DO NOT need probable cause (PC) for a traffic stop.

It has NEVER been a requirement for a traffic stop. All I need to stop a vehicle is "reasonable suspicion". That's it. I need PC to arrest someone, but NOT to stop a vehicle.

There is many things in law enforcement that require PC, but a traffic stop certainly is not one of them. Hate to think I've been doing it wrong that long.....feel free to correct me.

To me this bill sounds like this. IF you hunt PRIVATE PROPERTY your safe from the wardens. IF you don't have the money for private and have to hunt public, then wardens can check you!!! Sounds like the little guy loses again?

Bottom line is we DO NOT need another STINKING LAW ..... It worked fine just how it was. Allow our wardens to do the work we pay them to do. My God.....

Unlike BT, I do not want a warden to be able to enter my property, simply to check me for my license. I have the right to a presumption of innocence. There are many communist countries where the people have no rights. If that is the type of policing you favor, go apply in one of those countries.

The real bottom line is that the LEO's job is to enforce laws, not make them.

can honestly say whether this bill passes or not , it will change nothing for me

But yet he wants to remove all the tools needed to do so. Since when did hatred of LEO's become so prevalent in even the common man?

Some of the comments in support of this change are beyond stupid. Surprised The race card hasn't been thrown yet!

I've been checked on the lakes many times for my fishing license. I've been boarded by the Coast Guard multiple times on Lake Michigan as they look at all my required safety equipment. Neither had a reason to do it but that is how it is and I am all for those checks. If LEOs can't enter private lands without suspicion, there is no need whatsoever to even buy a license.

Read the Cuffs and Collars in WON and most people caught were not originally suspected of violations. Without some "fear" of surprise and recourse, there is no need to be licensed, register deer, not illegally bait (good one for you Ronny), etc. I personally have no issues with LEOs checking me on my land.

That being said, no, as a law enforcement officer I can walk onto your property and the "fields" doctrine does not speak to "reasoning" which would lead someone to believe that you do not need a reason.

But believe me, I'm willing to guess here 99.99 % of Officers always had a "reason" to enter - time and energy prevents wardens from just go "take a walk."

Wardens are a little different however!

They're different in the sense that they check licenses, checking game tagging compliance and so forth. I believe this is a reasonable "reason" to enter private lands.

For years wardens have had the "expectation" and a job requirement to check licenses. That is what they do as so many wardens across the US. So to answer your question, if this passes, I believe as a deputy sheriff I would have more "authority" as I have no such restrictions like a warden would. The bill does not speak to any other branch of law enforcement.

This however is the "slippery slope" and I can see further legislation written with regards to law enforcement in general and withdrawing their authority to enter.

Even bigger than conservation would be drug enforcement "on the back forty".

I see no comments about hating LEO's, the exaggerated drama is unnecessary.

It only makes sense that wardens should be in line with other law enforcement officers and need some sort of reasonable suspicion before wandering all over people's private property, I see this as another good change. Wisconsin hunters and landowners should be thankful people are making wise decisions and questioning some of the draconian laws that have been on the books for way too long. What a great state we live in!

Now that I think about it if this were to pass and wardens wouldn't need to spend their time walking around on acres and acres of private property for no reason anymore possibly their workload would be reduced which I assume would be a good thing since we always hear about how understaffed the warden dept is. Seems like a win win no matter who you are. Go Wisconsin!!!

First - Wardens ARE in line with all law enforcement officers in this State. They have no more or less authority to act. We work under the same structure of laws equally.

Second - "spend their time walking around on acres and acres of private property for no reason anymore"...I don't know what planet your living on, but trust me... our wardens don't walk aimlessly through the woods. Waaaaayyyyy to busy for that crap. And no the workload would not be reduced because THEY DONT DO THAT.

Third - If your so interested in reducing the workload, why don't you call and ask why are wardens are now playing "Park Cop" as they have been further tasked to be State Park Officers as well as ALL the other things they have on their plate? Ya...GO WISCONSIN...Really?

Your another guy "Seems to me it just brings them in line with the rest of Law Enforcement"...

Why do so many people THINK that wardens have anymore authority than any other law enforcement officer in the State?

THEY DO NOT HAVE ANYMORE AUTHORITY - PERIOD!!!!

Really?

I'm sorry to hear that Tweed, but they do it for a reason.

In all the scenario's that take place in law enforcement "Boat Checks" make the greatest amount of sense to me.

Boating safety is a huge concern in this State. Every year people die needlessly because of boating issues that could have been easily prevented. Lack of PFD's and flotation devices is #1 for most boaters. Over weight on boats/crowding - No observer for a waterskier and my favorite with the uncovered terminals on a boat battery.

These are just a few of the issues that need to be addressed by someone. Perhaps you'd be more comfortable and less "disrupted" if the local Lake Association send "Boat Ambassador's" around to remind everyone to be safe.

Boating, like other recreational sports can and sometimes is a dangerous activity when BASIC safety rules are not followed. Boating OWI is huge in the State and I don't want to be on the water with a drunk.

So a little "disruption" goes a long way in making our waters a safer and more enjoyable place to be.

"Unlike BT, I do not want a warden to be able to enter my property, simply to check me for my license. I have the right to a presumption of innocence. There are many communist countries where the people have no rights. If that is the type of policing you favor, go apply in one of those countries."

You speak of "rights" - Please explain to us which "right" is violated when I come onto your property and ask to see your license? Are you not required by law to (a) have a license and, (b) carry and display same to a conservation warden on demand?

Your "presumption of innocence" you speak of applies to criminal law. These are all matter of civil forfeiture. No body suffers a criminal record for a conviction - no one spends "prison time".

As a private property owner, do you have "more rights" than me, someone who has to hunt public land?

We cannot treat you special Mike. Your just like all the rest of us here. Just because you think this has something to do with your "presumption of innocence" - wouldn't that apply to everyone? Shouldn't it? With that thinking NO ONE would have their licensed checked because ....THEY ALL MUST BE INNOCENT!!!

We all know that many folks don't bother to buy a license. They fish for free, hunt for free and basically engage in recreational activities for free. I don't like that. I think that is wrong.

Many hard working people here, pay their license fees and do so with the belief that EVERYONE has to buy a license. Why buy one otherwise?

Buying a license is NOT a suggestion. No one "suggests" we buy a license - you HAVE TO buy a license.

The reasoning that your a private landowner should not stand in the way of you or I or our friend "Ronny" not being checked by a warden. The public land guys have no say...now do they?

That is wrong!

Please explain, who said anything to make you think that there is hatred for LE officials?

You mention the taking of tools of LE. Wouldn't giving them complete, unfettered ability to do anything at any time be a good "tool" for them? Would you agree with that? If not, where would you draw the line?

I stand by my statement that the job of LE is to enforce laws and not to make them.

Then I'm not sure what all the emotional outbursts are for if they don't do it now they won't miss doing it in the future.

BTW, the CO for my area has a key to the gate and written permission to enter. He has never disturbed a hunt.

That being said, I like laws reducing government's authority normally. Volunteer cooperation ought to be encouraged IMHO. Thanks.

I see the other side of this issue doesn't like the fact that hunters will go unchecked by a warden, even when on private property. I also see a lot of resentment of for private land owners. I also see the perception that hunters need to be checked all of the time to keep them honest.

This issue for me boils down to private property rights. Property rights Trump random checks by a warden all day long.

Some here characterize hunters as violators in waiting, always looking to get over on the wardens. With this new law any warden worth his salt will easily find the reasonable suspicion if a check is warranted.

And Pat, we're going to have a cold beer or soda together someday even if you pull me over with only reasonable suspicion.

"Emotional Outburst" what thread are you reading - hardly an "outburst" - just facts as they are and what will be if this bill is passed. Pretty plain and simple.

I am hardly against or have a "bad taste" in my mouth for "private property" owners. But I think it's unfair that only a segment of the hunting populations are subject to checks by Conservation Wardens based solely where they are hunting. If you check some - you check all! That's where this bill fails.

Can a deputy sheriff approach you and ask to see your (a) hunting license (b) fishing license, if your engaged in those activities? Private or public land either/or?

Keeping it just the way it is, is a perfect start. There is no need for "unfettered" ability. You forget that there is a large number of CO's and LEO's in this State that Hunt/Fish and they as well do not want to be subjected to unreasonable laws.

But I have absolutely no problem at any time for ANY LEO to stop by and check me and my family for compliance. Glad to see the guys and gals out doing their job as we pay them to do that with tax dollars. Hooray!!!

Kevin sez:

"This issue for me boils down to private property rights. Property rights Trump random checks by a warden all day long."

Interesting statement Kevin - now explain it. Your not getting off that easy. How do you feel private property owners have any more "rights" that the schlock hunting public lands? I'm waiting to hear.....

" With this new law any warden worth his salt will easily find the reasonable suspicion if a check is warranted"

It sounds here Kevin, like your asking the wardens to "invent" reasonable suspicion when in fact it either exists or it doesn't - you cannot just make it up as you go. Or, is that what we are expecting of our law enforcement?

Now, why are you not randomly stopped for a "license" check while operating a motor vehicle? Again, the simple answer is....the courts do NOT allow for that. There are many decisions decided by our Courts that prohibit this practice.

Now, the courts do allow us to "randomly" check your license plate information.

They allow us to randomly check to see if the "registered owner" has a valid license to drive. The courts further allow us, that once we receive the information that the registered owner of that vehicle has either a SUSPENDED, REVIOKED or NO license, to stop that vehicle and demand to see a drivers license. That we can do.

So in a round about way, yes, you can be stopped to show your license if certain protocol is followed.

The Courts have ruled differently however when checking hunting and fishing licenses. They ALLOW for this practice by law enforcement (wardens/LEO) to occur. Perhaps the reason is the totality of the circumstances and intrusion? The Courts I believe to find a simple license check for fishing/hunting, less intrusive than a motor vehicle stop? That is my best guess on this.

The Courts have also ruled that police can use the "tactic of deception", what you call lying, as a way to interview/interrogate a suspect.

That being said, I cannot lie on a traffic stop say you were speeding at 56 mph in a 30 mph zone. Not only should I not, I cannot do that. I cannot say to you, I saw you run the red light, if I didn't.

But the Courts have allowed law enforcement to use deception as part of an investigative tool. Like it or not, police can and do use deception from time to time, most likely to extrapolate a confession. It is also noteworthy that police, when using deception, accurately articulate that in any reports.

So, can I lie to a suspect? Yes, under certain circumstances I can. It is up to the Courts to determine if my deception was called for and meets the merits of the Court.

Interesting, my wife has a real problem with this and we have had many "spirited" discussions about it.

So I cannot explain to you "how that is right" only to say it is a useful tool in interrogations. I can relate however, that the Courts across the US allow for this practice to occur.

Thank the Lord, most people are lawful, law abiding folks that go about their daily life's and never look for trouble. THAT is the general opinion of many LEO's. Those are the "limits" you speak of and yes, I believe in limits as well as all LEO's...we live in this society as well. We have a deep and dedicated belief in fairness and justice. We shop with you, attend the same churches and our children go to school and play together.

There are no secret agendas, no boogie man behind each tree. Spend time with your CO's, get to know them and interact with them, They are people just like you and me. They just have a shitty job that from time to time is not one appreciated or understood fully....

BT, I would quit arguing your line of thought given how little confidence most Americans have in government. Personally I would rather see more LEO time dedicated to flushing out all of the actions the politically connected get away with while we enter private property because of a suspicion.

Your response by asking the deputy if he had "any pot" on him and then adding the "could use a good toke to get his head straight" probably "went over like a fart in church." Everyone likes a little ass - no one likes a "smart ass" - I think the saying goes?

So, yes, law enforcement has changed. We make concentrated efforts to communicate better with the public and promote strong relationships and partnerships with the communities we work in.....

Something you NEVER saw in the 70's - I know...I was there. And apparently so was jjs. "Toke" ...you were raised in the 70's.....

Your going to have to excuse me please, but what in the hell does that mean?

As I try to "interrupt this" I believe you don't like the fact that the government can enter your "back forty" to conduct a police/warden investigation(s). I understand your concern, don't agree with it, but understand.

If your definition of " free market economies" includes the cultivation, marketing and subsequent sales of cannabis, we have a problem.

The fact is the Courts have ruled that neither you, me or Capt Mike have ANY expectation to privacy or the 4th amendment when it comes to the back forty.

That being said, your house, back yard, garage are ALL protected by the 4th amendment and rightfully so. The Courts have ruled in some cases however, that your driveway, as it is open to visitors, public and delivery people have less of an expectancy to the 4th amendment rule.

I do not believe it to be an intrusion, ever so slight, that would "shock the conscious" when it comes to being checked by a WDNR warden or deputy sheriff on the "back forty".

Coincidently...neither does the Courts in this State.

My comment above that you question was a response to yours about various rights. Private property rights are increasingly being recognized and protected.

I have never tried drugs, but could care less about the recreational user and don't want to pay taxes to go after them. Seems more Americans feel this way.

This law will put WI in line with other states. What is allowed now IMO is no different than spot checking LEOs for drugs in their system as the public's right to safety outweighs everything else. Nonsense!

Government beauracrats who do not recognize the sanctity of private property rights ought to scare the hell out of us.

Simple statement that is simply incorrect. Never is such a strong word.

I once had the pleasure of teaching hunter ed courses with a very well respected gentleman. In his youth, he was a poacher. He was raised that way. As he grew into an adult and surrounded himself with folks of different ethical standards, he changed. Never was in any trouble, just wanted to be more like the people he came to respect. I know more than one story that parallels this one. It did not take a legal problem to impact a change.

What I have found to be true is that when folks frequently judge others harshly, it sheds more light on their own character. They typically are the ones with more flaws and so assume others are the same way.

BT's heart is in the right place. It is tough for folks like myself who believe in freedom to not come off as anti-LE. I apologize for that. You have the toughest of jobs, outside of combat troops, and deserve our deep respect and empathy. I balance it by giving my CO the key to my place. I have respect, but also want private property rights held supreme. Thanks!

Ronny - Your blatant disrespect, "fish cop", "critter cop" speaks to your distain and utter disrespect for law enforcement in general - sad.

Could you or anyone else here, please show me, anywhere, the long line of "violated" Wisconsinites that have suffered by the Wisconsin Court approved "Open Fields Doctrine" - I have never heard of one, never seen one. BUT surely they must exist if such a travesty is permitted? But where could someone find one? Hmmmmm...

Because surely there many Americans that have suffered irreparable Constitutional damage from the outrageous intrusion perpetrated upon the American public by the many infractions of law enforcement across this State when one speaks of the "Open Fields" and the 4th amendment......

Surely, there must be a bastion of legal grievances now pending before Courts, Appellant Courts and/or any Court of record? I'd like to see such/some/any documented breech of such a travesty.

Truth is...the is none. And if there is, they are far and few and in between. I liked the "woodchuck" analogy. But can I not shoot that woodchuck if I'm also an "occupant" and non-owner of that land? Guess Id have to check....

If an unlicensed gang banger can drive around Milwaukee with his stolen loaded 9MM "ready to put a cap in someone's azz" and his bag of weed for distribution and the police can not just stop him for a "license check". I can see no reason as to why I can not be afforded the same rights when I am a field on private property. So in the end I am totally for this bill.

I've never been stopped by a warden fishing or hunting. I've never seen a warden while hunting either private or public property. Its not about the potential inconvenience. I do not care if there are or are not "legal grievances now pending before Courts, Appellant Courts and/or any Court of record". I do care that it is a slippery slope that erodes our rights.

pretty sure that's "frowned upon" on public land

When I hunted public land I was checked many times. To this day, I still get an occasional stop when I have clients out fishing. Never been found guilty of breaking any game laws.

People in LE like BT are simply against this because it might cause them to do some LE work.

So, are there none, or are there some that are few and far in between? BT, you make me nervous as a LE agent. That is why we need laws like this, IMHO.

There are about 154 field Wardens in the state. What are the odds of you being "bothered" while hunting your land unless someone tips them off?

My guess would be that it has happened at least once, and your experience with LE may not match others.

Also like to add that your behavior towards any LE has nothing to do with what crimes they can write you up for as long as it is non-threatening. Ask the Supreme Court. So why do some of you always make this an issue? A good LE agent knows this and cannot give you grief just because they do not like your personality or they feel disrespected. Being a jerk is not in violation of any criminal code I am aware of. Maybe that is some of what causes people to hold LE in less than a high opinion. Maybe they try and get away with punishing someone because they don't like how they were treated? And please don't tell me this has never happened.

And I do not mean for my words to be harsh, just gets a little tiring to hear we just have to treat LE with respect and our rights will not be violated or anything bad happen to us. This is America, not some .... All of us deserve respect whatever our legal profession, again JMHO. Thanks.

Again. How many here have been in stand and had a Warden bother them on private land that were not tipped off to something to bring them there?

"if the law the way it is gives people the idea they may be caught doing something actually keeps them from doing it then I'm all for it."

What helps keep me on the good path is my belief that my transgressions will need to be atoned for. Maybe we should just mandate going to church then? It helps keep people from doing bad things. I hope you get the point.

No one answers my question though.

We were also recently checked on browns lake while boating and I was approached by a sheriff after I had loaded the boat back on the trailer while I was tying down. I have no doubt he was checking to see if I was drunk. I wasn't and our conversation was pleasant. Should I have been offended? I'm glad they do things like that because it keeps me and my family safe from those who are less responsible.

We were checked by the wardens after a day on lake delevan a few years ago. They checked my license. Safety stuff and coolers. Again a pleasant encounter and both my son and I left feeling good knowing they're doing the job we pay them for. Should I have been offended then?

I've never been checked while hunting but again, I wouldn't mind if a warden decided to come on the land and check me. So long as it's not in the first or last hour of my hunt. Then I wouldn't be mad at the check but just annoyed at the fact he may have screwed up my hunt. I don't grow weed or poppies on my land and I don't have a bunch of dead bodies piled up somewhere so why in the hell would it bother me if a law officer wants to take a walk and shoot the shit with me?

This should not apply to private property is what many of us think.

The cop that lives down the street routinely pulls in and walks up my driveway when I'm putzing in my garage. Just for no other reason than to shoot the shit. He has caught me drunk as a skunk playing poker with some buddies out there more than once. Again, I'm doing nothing wrong so why should I care if he comes to say hi and see who's taking who's money that night. I happen to be a strong proponent of legalizing marijuana. I however no longer smoke it myself. Because I know he may swing by I also don't allow my one friend who still does partake to smoke it. So, the possibility of getting in trouble DOES keep me from allowing something illegal from happening on my property.

I'm all for less government but I don't consider cops part of that. I'm all for making their job easier.

Playing poker for real money at your house is NOT illegal. As long as the house doesn't make a profit. No matter the amount played for. I never take a rake and I've never charged anyone to play poker at my house. My money is at the same risk as everyone else's that sits down at my table. If you buy in for $100 and cash out for $300. That's what you get paid. I take nothing extra unless I win it. Totally legal.

Just another one of them bills that scream hey look at me I'm doing something. Right or wrong.

CD, I have an LEO friend who has participated in a number of adult beverages and food at my house. He has brought other LEO friends over as well, including a K9 unit. Unlike you, I never even tried pot so they are all welcome.

Just like we cannot trust all citizens, we cannot trust all LEO. With private property it is a matter of principle to me. I know you, then you are welcome. Otherwise stay out unless invited or circumstances allow you in your official capacity to enter. This applies equally as well to non-LEOs. If you want to call that fear, go ahead. I call it exercising sound judgement.

BTW, what happens if one hears me shoot, enters my property and is shot or otherwise hurt because I do not know they are there? I am not talking legal consequences. Can you not understand that would forever negatively impact that LO and how they feel about their place?

Hopefully these guys and gals have better things to do. Thanks.

So that mean all leo's can enter people's private property for little to no reason like wardens currently are allowed to do?

"I still don't understand the fear of CO's??? ALL my interactions with them have been positive and in some cases helpful. (If you don't act like a dick from the start)"

Acting "like a dick from the start" shouldn't be an automatic taze me bro or a take down with a knee in the kidney from a 300+ lb cop, no matter what some of you think (or would prefer.) Kissing ass whenever in the presence of a leo shouldn't be a requirement. That said, all of my dealings with leo's and wardens throughout the years have been nothing short of pleasant, but like others have said, I also feel I'm entitled to certain rights when it comes to private property.

What are you going to do when some crack head starts cooking meath in a shack next to your land and the LEO can't do anything because there is nothing in sight to give him reasonable suspicion to enter the land?

Many here condemn the LEO's for treating everyone as guilty till proven innocent but are quick to label all LEO's as bad and heavy handed.

WI. Is quickly becoming a poachers dream with the latest traditions. Rights, Rights, everyone has rights. I think I'll exercise my right to remain silent unless I'm called out and exit from this discussion of a frivolous Bill.

I agree, no one is condemning LEOs, but some are condemning citizens.

With this law, there is zero need to buy a license if you hunt your own land and zero need to register a deer and I feel 100% many people will follow that tact. There will be zero fear of getting caught because LEOs can't enter your land unless they feel certain you don't have a license and how would they even suspect that unless someone bragged it up?

I get both sides of the argument but look at the lakes and woods differently than what is in my house.

Comments like this one "People in LE like BT are simply against this because it might cause them to do some LE work. " are truly ignorant. Perhaps we should remove license plates from cars so LEOs can do some LEO work? That would be fun for them, no?

Spin it any way you want but hunting like driving is a privilege and can be taken away at any moment deemed by the courts.

I'd love to see someone getting any of those privileges taken away tell the judge "You can't do that. It is my right to hunt, fish, and drive a vehicle. It says so right here. Now give it back". Good luck with that.

Happy?????????????? Woods did not say anything different than you did!

Now, your going to take the word of some "Politian", that you have never met, yet spoken with and because "he's had several complaints from constituents" THAT is what you hanging your hat on? Really? Well, I guiess that makes sense, we all know "Politian's" ALWAYS tell the truth...

This proposed "change" in the law effects so FEW people it is a joke.

Just like the "Ronny" Shooting hours deal...LESS than 1% of the WI hunters effected. Really something to beat your chest and stomp all around about. Ron really works up a sweat.

But what it does do is EFFECT the warden's work and effectiveness in the field and safety.

You have no idea what credibility is, other than how to spell it. Keep it up...keep screwing with the Wardens and keep tying their hands gentlemen. When the shit hits the fan, people like you will be the first to cry "Where's the warden" "Why didn't he do something" Keep it up!

On a finally note "Woodsdweller" your "God like"obsession with Ron Kulas simply proves to anyone that you are our favorite "Ronny" - Truly anyone else you be truly embarrassed to make that association.

Happy Hunting - Stay safe.

Yes, knowing a little about the legislative process and that bills like this, again, usually are being pushed for a reason, I do believe the politician received some feedback. I believe that over your not being aware of any court cases.

If poop hits the fan you would be the last person I call. You show poor judgement. You blast politicians on a public forum, the same folks you need to have listen to your side before deciding.

IMO you hold just about everyone in low regard...politicians, posters who disagree with you, LOs who disagree with you...

You are exactly why we need laws limiting power of government to do what they decide is suspicious on private property. When a person wearing a badge is as judgmental as you have shown, I am concerned with their potential actions.

You want to change our minds? Give us more than one example where this will make a major difference in your ability to perform your job. Absent that you have more than me convinced this is just about You running around trying to find something on someone. I assume the vast majority of hunters abide by the laws including purchasing licenses. The state's desire to catch the minority who do not should not lessen private property rights. I always question the mind set of folks who assume the worst in people and are willing to subject the majority to more government intrusions that in your own words will affect few people.

But I agree that BT's style here SEEMS to hold anyone he disagrees with in low regard. Not a good approach IMO to building relations with hunters and others. But, I will assume like all of us have done his passions are at play. At least he cares enough to communicate!

Where do you see this? You have more twists than a country road.

When I'm giving an estimate and the homeowner talks like you guys (like an asshole) I double his price!!! Remain respectful and hope he gives me the job. I'll still do a great job as I do for everyone and so do most cops but dealing with an asshole, I make sure it's worth my time. Now you know you've probably paid double the going rate for your last contractors job!!! (Only a select few of you) the rest get the normal price and same great job.

"Opinions posted by this writer are exclusively mine and those of no one else. There should be no confusion with the fact that this is (my) sole opinion(s) and not the opinion(s) of ANY other organization, business or person."

Seeing your a BIG "rights" person Ron, I'm sure you'll agree that I have the RIGHT to my opinion and the RIGHT to express that opinion where and when I see fit. Or, does that just apply to property owners? (LOL)

Habitat - Where do you come up with "low regard"?

I don't even know you, but from the sounds of it, I'm sure however, your a decent, law abiding, God fearing fellow.

This is not personal like Ron would like to make it. These are different opinions and that is it between you and I. I just happened to strongly disagree with you. That simple. I don't think any less of you or anyone else...well, not totally true. Right Ronny? Appreciate the banter.

"If poop hits the fan you would be the last person I call. You show poor judgement. You blast politicians on a public forum, the same folks you need to have listen to your side before deciding."

OUCH - kind of hurt my feelings there Habitat - but since you live in another State...I guess the chance(s) of you calling on me would have been pretty slim anyways! (LOL).

Is it being "Judgmental" or is it because you don't agree with me and you find that terminology convenient?

What you don't understand, this "proposed" change in the law effects me = ZERO. I can still use the "Fields Doctrine." It truly has absolutely nothing to do with me at all, like you think. I'm NOT a field warden...

It has to do with Wisconsin Wardens and what they can and cannot do in the course of their lawful duties.

When a person has absolutely no clue what a (CO) does daily and what it takes to complete an investigation and everything in-between - how can that person make an educated statement on legislation like what is pending?

See, this is JUST for Wardens. PERIOD! It DOES not effect police officers, deputy sheriff's, US Marshal's, Department of Justice (DOJ), State Troopers, Constables, Park Rangers, Tribal Police or any Federal LE Agency. Not one bit.

Now doesn't that sound a little strange to you?

How does this make sense? I can be standing on the road with a Game Warden. We see a guy hunting private property. Warden says to me" Gosh, I would like to check that guys license"...I say "Hold my soda, I'll be right back"... I can go - he cannot? Makes a ton of sense to me!!

Habitat sez: "You want to change our minds? Give us more than one example where this will make a major difference in your ability to perform your job."

Sorry Habitat...I cannot do that. Because it DOSENT effect my job one tinch. Zero! But you may want to ask a warden....

Good Hunting

Actually, what I said was quite different in using privilege versus right even showing how the privilege (not right) has to be earned and can easily be taken away. Once again, I'd love to see someone having their fishing or hunting privileges revoked explain to the judge that those are rights and they want them back - now - or else...

Captain, I would have no issues at all with an LEO coming to take a tour of my house. I have nothing to hide. I welcome them on my land too but I know that odds of that happening without this law is still less than <1 %. I also have no issues getting checked on the water for my license. I have had great chats with the wardens during that time. One of my coast guard boardings was a real hoot. We were fishing out of the South Gap in May and were boarded. We were told to stay in gear (they tied up to our starboard side) and pull rods from the one side. We left the other rods out and hit a Coho while being checked and we let a CG person real in the fish. Good times indeed!

BT, then give us a couple of examples where this prevents a CO from doing their job.

BT, were you here a few years or so ago on the BGF when the thread about CO's was claiming they had more power than the FBI and did not need a search warrant?

I was the guy who stated I had legally harvested game in my freezer, with tags and that no LE was going to be granted permission to come into my home to look at it without a warrant.

None ever tried obviously. Finally a very honorable retired MO CO came on to say they did not have more power and short of cause or permission a warrant was needed.

I see this issue the same way. Ignorance to rights helps LE. Open Fields doctrine is a tough one. You see me shooting at an animal, that is different than just carrying a firearm on your own property.

CD, you do it your way, and some of us will continue to do it another way, but just as legal as you. Respect is a two way street. Thanks.

WD, you sound like you'd be an ass to deal with and I hope you get another baiting ticket if you still shuck corn. I was on your side for a long time. I saw that thread from your son before it got pulled. You have a lot more to deal with in your own family and shouldn't be on here until you figure that out. If my son ever talked about me like that, I'd be ashamed of Myself. I don't mind you posting on here but don't pretend your someone else.

I've said how I feel about this a few times and I don't think I've changed anyone's opinion. I won't post an further on this thread.

Some of you trust our cops, some don't. That's fine by me. I'll choose to trust them and anyone that has a legit badge is welcome on my land any time. Anyone without it that doesn't have prior permission from me better call the cops when they see me coming cause I'm tired of trespassers and going to whoop someone's ass this fall. I have nothing to lose and bail money to spend!

WD, if you want to prove your not him. Pm me with proof. Otherwise I'll assume you're him.

Ron, you have my phone number. If I'm mistaken, give me a call and let me know. I'll gladly be the guy to prove it to everyone on here.

I think we all are stuck in our positions but it's still fun to argue out different sides and aspects.

Doesn't that sound odd to anyone? Why would we just focus on one branch? Why not everyone? Deputies across this State are making entries onto properties every year and no one raises an eyebrow. A gray shirt walks in your woods and everyone hits the panic button?

Apparently no one has a problem with all the other branches entering and going about their business?

Where is the massive outcry?

Historically our Courts have allowed for law enforcement to enter properties for years without finding fault. Why is that?

Now, a group of guys complain to a politician and all of a sudden the sky is falling. I'm still scratching my head.

Yes, Habitat - our WI CO's do not and have never had any greater authority granted to any other LEO. It's funny how many people do believe that to this day.

Ignorance of the law/rights is your responsibility. You may choose not to educate yourself, but that is your choice. You don't have to study law/rights, it's not a life requirement. When you say "Ignorance to rights" helps law enforcement - that's why we read an arrested person his/her Miranda warning. To make sure they understand their rights.

It would be more beneficial for folks to know their "laws" before knowing their "rights." Because when you know what's legal, you wont have to worry about the latter....

Happy, I've experienced the same type of shops youmention. I don't mind it nearly as much when I am on my own time as compared to while on customers time. There are just as effective alternatives, like checking us at the dock, boat ramp, etc.

Anytime I am in my treestand I am hunting. I don't appreciate my limited hunting time being interrupted.

I have no tickets or violations over a rather lengthy life in the outdoors. I still cherish my right to privacy.

There have been many archaic laws that have been changed or modified over the years. Anyone who follows politics is aware of that. Some for the better, some for the worse. The bottom line is this law will be changed if public sentiment supports it.

And, our resident LE cheerleader has always supported any issue he feels gives LE the upper hand. I stand by my "ignorant" statement that he will support anything that makes LE's job easier. I do not believe the law-abiding person should be burdened, just to help catch a small minority of lawbreakers.

To answer your question on why this only applies to COs, maybe some thought they were abusing it?

Again though, my point is that this doctrine is not a pass for any LE to Snoop around without limits.

Habitat - The "Open Fields Doctrine" does not speak to the "intention or reasoning" a law officer may enter a piece of private property. It only allow for it to "occur".

Now - we need to ask ourselves, under what circumstances would an officer enter? Does he/she like to get exercise? Is there a particularly lovely grove of trees he/she like to gander at? Perhaps they like the smell of the flowers in a particular field?

That being said, I have never seen in my 35 years as a LEO - NEVER have a reason - there is ALWAYS a reason. LEO and wardens as well - do simply not take a walk in the woods for no reason.

So, Courts across the United States, have felt there is a considerable reduction to the expectancy of privacy in "Open Fields" and the 4th amendment. In fact, the Courts have said that you "have no" expectancy to privacy on the back forty.

Like it or not - "technically" if so desired, a LEO can enter without reason and "snoop" without limitation. But law enforcement just doesn't "willy-nilly" just walk on peoples property. There is a reason for the visit.

That is what our Courts have upheld for decades. You may not like that, Ronny may not like that, HunterR may not like it, but that is the law. Some don't like the fact that I can use "deception" as a technique in an interrogation - but that is also the law and upheld by those same courts as legal.

I'm not making this up as I go along here, for many. many years this has been our law. Most here, in fact I would bet almost everybody had no knowledge regarding this as all. Hearing this is a tad shocking I would suspect.

If someone "thinks" a warden or a LEO is "abusing" anything, that officer needs to be dealt with by supervision - you don't "change" laws because it's alleged someone is "abusing" his/her authority. My .2 cents

Good Hunting

I disagree that LE can poke any where on property, that is not what is meant by "open". There is a reason they, as you admit, do not do this, besides the probability of risk to themselves.

I believe that if I wanted to take a walk and look for baiting violations I could do just that. I believe I could look for a marijuana grows - if I wanted to. And so on and so on. No written documentation that I know of disallows for this by agents of law enforcement. "Curtilage" is protected by 4th amendment.

Again, I will tell you that I have never know anyone in the law enforcement community to act like that or take advantage of the doctrine under what you define as "snooping".

You may disagree, but WI Courts have upheld the authority of LE to enter private property.

When your free take the time to research that. If you find something different lets us know. Thanks!

Think about it Mike - It would be like me spouting out about your job. I have no idea what the hell you do, but I'm sure I don't have a clue how to do it, when to do it or what to do. I would be just like you Mike, clueless!!

The difference here, is I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about when it comes to someone else's job profession. They are the professional there...not me.

Be no different than me telling Cheesehead Mike how to be a surveyor! I don't have a clue on what he does or how to do it. And I can understand Cheesehead getting frustrated when someone with zero knowledge pretends to know what they think they know about a profession....

Get it?

Think about the kind of country we want to live in. Freedom is precious, and worth standing up for.

Ask them if the WI Courts allow LEO to enter private property for any reason?

What I'm telling you is that you don't have to have a reason.

BUT, with that said, I know of no one...absolutely no one... that enters private property WITHOUT a reason.

It would be just foolishness and a waste of time to do so...BUT, we as citizens have no expectation to privacy when it comes to "Open Fields" - That's not me saying that, this is the Court's. Don't shoot the messenger.

The OFD - is not so much of how you enter more than you don't not need a warrant.

I'm all about waving the Flag and celebrating Freedoms and such. No different than you. But the law...it is what it is.

Hope that helps.

Any officer of the law is expected to discharge their duties within the legal parameters set forth. If this law is changed, life, and jobs, will go on for LE officials.

Thanks.

CaptMike Sez: "BT, brush up on the reading comprehension. I am not telling you how to do your job, I am questioning the methods, as I feel they relate to my privacy and rights"

Well if you don't have an intimate knowledge of my job, how can you in the first place question the methods? Apparently my methods are wrong or you wouldn't be here questioning them, now would you?

When you make a statement like "People in LE like BT are simply against this because it might cause them to do some LE work." Well now, you must know ALL ABOUT "my work". To make such a bold statement. Your not telling me how to do my job? And I'm lazy right? Perhaps you need the reading comprehension bush up?

And finally - this has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with my job! You've made a mistake here, this doesn't effect any other branch of law enforcement. I posted that for readers, I guess you missed that.

Well you might want to ask all your law enforcement "buddies" as they will give you the same answer I will. (a) This law does not apply to anyone other than wardens. (b) Unless you live or hunt in my County/City/Village/Township, your best served by contacting someone were you live and hunt. Perhaps one of your friends can point you in the right direction?

Safe Hunting

Don't be so precious

I don't need to know what methods you might employ while doing your job, I am only talking about my perception of my rights and privacy. And again, I stand by my lazy statement, which originates from the positions you have taken on this and the shooting hours issue. You clearly are in favor of more police rights and less citizen rights. Your standard response about letting the courts settle it completely ignores the burden of costs and inconveniences associated with going to court.

Now, I welcome you to point out to us where I said this had anything to do specifically with your job.

Just pointing this out as an example of the reading comprehension thing I mentioned earlier. ;)

Finally, you double down on the same non-issue, reinforcing your lack of reading comprehension. You might think I "missed that" but again, you miss the mark. Do you just continue because you like to hear yourself or are you really that ignorant? You were on the losing side of the shooting hours issue and chances are you will be on the losing side of this issue. You argue against something that is significant to freedom and privacy, two stalwarts of this countries founding principles. To me that makes you either a communist or lazy. I have no reason to think you are communist so I choose the other.

By the way, congrats on the new cheerleader. A person who would make any of us proud to have on our side. LOL!

Safe hunting back at ya

BT, if an uninvited guest shows up on my property, LE or other, they will be told to leave immediately. I will then make one phone call. Failure to follow those instructions will only escalate the situation as most individuals will perceive that failure as a threat against them. Use a cell phone to record and save to the cloud immediately. Situations like this possibility create high risk environments for all parties that can lead to civil as well as criminal proceedings. My guess is this explains why the occurrence is infrequent.

I also saw the wi chapter of the BHA is posting George meyers statement in opposition to this bill.

That's funny from a newbie. Then again you and RC are pretty tight so...

Funny that a person's longevity here should grant them privileges.

Bloodtrail- Do CO's currently enter private property without reasonable suspicion? In your training how has reasonable suspicion been defined?

I'm a fan of the Patriot Act too. When I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.

I'll guess you meant A deer, not I deer. Mineral sites are legal year round if within 50 yards of the house in 'feeding' allowed areas. And even so, if an illegal 'baiting' site was present out of viewing range off season and a deer was taken during legal season later while the site is legal, that is a legal deer. The out of season baiting was illegal as a distinct violation. In current regs it seems 10 days wait cleanses all illegal baiting concerns. (not that I agree, but it seems to be the relevant law)

Further, what is your gripe (legality wise) about hunting over corn?

Perhaps you meant to type something different?

CD was spot on and everyone here knows (Rancid Crabtree, RC, Howatt, woodsdweller, rickflare, jimbow, et al). Your son has been the same with multiple monikers too. How's that apple not falling far from the tree saying go. The daily chuckle is appreciated.

Well done CD.

So....about that bill........?

Anywho.....so....how bout that bill.

Bloodtrail- we might not agree on this but I sincerely appreciate your input.

There is another part of me that can always appreciate the law enforcement side of things. My Dad was a cop for a long time and I always appreciated what he did and went through to do his job. So I guess what I am saying is that I'm pretty much on the fence on this one.

After reading Pats warning I figured it had to do with this thread. Now I wish I would have at least opened and read it. I must have struck a nerve with WD. To him, if I was wrong which I don't think I was, I'm sorry.

To everyone else, my opinion remains the same and any member of law enforcement is welcome to take a walk on any land I control any time they want. Maybe if I had enough cops and wardens walking around I wouldn't have to deal with all the douchbag trespassers during gun season.

This Bilk applies only to wardens. Sll other leos can still enter private property so it is targeting the DNR and wardens specifically.

It also aplies only to Chapter 29 which is specific to hunting and fishing regulations. It doesn't apply to the rest of a wardens duties suvh as recreation and environmental regulations. This creates a nightmare of complications. Say a warden sees a family out for an atv ride. It appears one doesn't have a registration and jr. doesn't have a helmet on. The warden follows the family onto private land to check on the the registration and remind them that kids need to be wearing helmets. When he catches up to them he discovers that they have too many fish, the dad has blood on his hands apparently from gutting a deer but has no license, or any other Chapter 29 question. The warden wou be prohibited from following up on anything he finds.

This Bill stems from a specific incident that involved an armed standoff by wardens and deputies with someone they had frequent contacts with while they were looking for known poachers in the area but unrelated to the individual. The Court ruled that the individuals personal right to privacy was violated and specifically noted the open fields doctrine was valid and constitutional.

AB 411 is flawed and should not make it out of committee. The testimony on Wednesday was overwhelmingly opposed to it. This includes nearly every major sporting and conservation group in WI.

"You clearly are in favor of more police rights and less citizen rights."

Clearly? Are not the police "rights" extrapolated from citizens rights? Do not the police get their authority (power) from the citizens? Do not the police work for the citizens of this State? Here's a sobering thought - I actually work for you!! I believe the citizens have a right to expect to be protected and served by our police. Smashing apart Meth Labs, uprooting 500 marijuana plants and checking for license(s) are ALL ways the police/law enforcement serves it's citizens.

You like to wave the "us against them" banner, CaptMike!!. The police and wardens are "plotting" against us boys, so circle the wagons guys, load them there rifles.

In reality, it's the citizens of this State and the elected officials, elected by the citizens of this State, that provide police with not only their authority, but the laws that they follow. You talk like law enforcement is some secret society. Clearly the law enforcement community enforces laws, you cry they like to think they write the laws. Could not, absolutely could not, be further from the truth.

Currently, the citizens via our Courts have empowered the police with the authority to enter private property and conduct police/law enforcement business. This is and always has been an exclusion to the 4th amendment. The Courts have ruled that no one has any expectation to privacy in a matter of "Open Fields". That simple.

You don't like that.

I suggest then, you take your "money" and gather as many supporters than you can and lobby to change the law. Once the law changes, you'll be happy, you wont bother me on Bowsite and life will be good for you again....

Do you think for one second, that the "Constitutionally" of what we know to be the"Open Fields Doctrine" has never been challenged in a Court of law? Or, is "Bowsite" the first place someone has pitched a bitch or questioned it's "Constitutionality." Think again.

How many defense attorneys have tried to muster a defense to this? I'm think it must be around oh, I'd say....."a ton"...

Ya see, the biggest opposition to this (besides yourself - on laws that handcuff the police), are marijuana growers and Meth Lab "staff". You can imagine their disappointment when the police, dressed in camo, carrying all sorts of different equipment and weapons come uninvited to their little party. Now those are some "unhappy campers", but such is life. Ya deal drugs, ya gotta expect the good with the bad sometimes!

So you see, this exception to the 4th amendment is quite important, not only to law enforcement but more importantly to every citizen. Not only does it offer them Constitutional protection, the lack of it's application provides LE a tool in the ole' tool box.

In closing, that "Shooting/Hunting" law you like to banter about. News Flash - It effects LESS THAN 1% of the WI Hunting population. LESS than 1%.

Don't break an arm patting yourself on the back!

Good to hear from you again - You'll have to excuse me, I'm going to get busy being "Lazy" (LOL)

Stay safe!

It's not so much that anyone thinks anyone is doing something illegal, as it is, your paid to do a job. Please do it.

One poster here has a problem with LEO's being "lazy" sounds like the warden you speak of is anything but lazy - yet he catches slack. "Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't" the old scenario....

If there's a problem, it a supervision one. We should not "change" laws based upon the "alleged" actions of a few. There is a process for that and it starts and ends with supervision. If we changed every law because of it, that's all we would be doing.

Reports "sound" like the hearing on the bill AB 411 was well attended and that there is overwhelming support to kill it.

If I had a nickel for the amount of people who have said to me on traffic stops "Why are you not catching murders and rapists." Point is some folks just plain don't like being stopped.

Rut sez: "There is no reason for a warden to assume you are doing something illegal just because he sees you/someone hunting on your land."

So I shouldn't set my squad car up at a controlled intersection because I'm "assuming" someone is going to blow through, failing to stop for a sign? Are my "intentions" what drives the laws and their enforcement?

It's not about "assuming someone is doing something illegal". Not at all!!

It is about maintaining compliance to our laws, that's a one big reason we have police and wardens. If no one had a expectation of being stopped and checked, why the hell buy a license and why the hell would you stop for a traffic sign? Through us checking on folks, we gain what I call "voluntary compliance". People know they might be checked, and that becomes "one" of the reasons people buy a license and they stop at stop signs. No one checks a license, no one watches the intersection - Compliance takes a holiday.

I know what your saying Rut - good post and observations - these are just some other things to consider I think!

Thanks -

Good post!

I just have a few observations I would like to discuss, that I believe need some clarification.

Although the wardens and LEO don't have the time or the energy to run around someone's property "willy-nilly", I believe the doctrine never truly "speaks" to this sort of issue. I don't believe, that entering land for a walk cannot occur. Rarely, if ever, is that the case, in my experience. Definitively I know of no such restriction. Maybe I should read the decision of Judge Rebecca Bradley? I understand the wardens were on the property looking for "deer poachers", sounds like a reason to me however.

I'm not so sure this just applies to Chapter 29 Skookumjt. My information tells me that "no" entry on any property, at anytime can be made without "reasonable suspicion." There is no dissection between Chapters of laws are my understanding.

Just because it interests me, I wish to speak about the ATV scenario you posted.

I disagree. I believe that once a law enforcement is in a place he has lawfully gain entry too, he/she can take LE action. In other words, if I find myself in a house to which I have legally gained access to (outside a warrant), I can take action on anything I see in "plain view" - (i.e. "too many fish, gutting a deer") - The fact that I have gained access to a certain place DOES NOT prohibit action on any lawful observation.

What if I observed a deceased body with a knife sticking out the throat of the victim? Am I supposed to "pretend" I didn't see that? Of course I can take action. And I would.

The only thing this law address's is the fact that wardens now need "reason suspicion" to enter. No longer would they be able to check a group of hunters milling around a vehicle. No longer could they just walk into a property to make sure that the owner/hunter has the right amount of bait placed at his deer or bear stand. No longer could a warden enter private property simply because someone is shining a spotlight around, which they "might" be raccoon hunting.

It is not a good bill, it creates a "safe-haven" for those that would not follow the rules.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks!

I think there are different "expectations" based upon past history. No, I don't believe every motorist is "breaking the law". Just like I don't believe every hunter is "breaking the law" - no difference.

The difference here is the expectations of both the citizen and the hunting community or the people of this State.

Motorist have never been stopped for a simple license check, at least since I started in 1978.

That being said, hunters/fishermen/snowmobilers/ATV'ers have been stopped for at least that long and most likely longer and asked to produce a license. That is what the law allows for and because of that, this is what we have come to expect of our recreational law enforcement. You're going to get checked.

Overall, I believe the majority of the hunting/fishing public is fine with that check and expect it. Not only for themselves, but for EVERYONE. Yes, I want LE to check people for bag limits, licenses and overall compliance.

Is it just because I'm a cop? Hardly.

We should not build a bastion or castle surrounded by a moat, that would prohibit wardens checking on folks on private land. And NOT just for license violations, this includes ALL types of situations that is void of reasonable suspicion. The LAW states that "open fields" do not enjoy 4th amendment protection.

I think most folks that are conservation minded like that!

It's been that way for decades and now, somehow, someway this has been a bad thing? You say "Wardens should not be able act on their assumption that every hunter needs to be harassed/checked."

I agree. Any warden that thinks that way should be fired and not allowed to work in LE. No argument.

Truth is however, checking people can not only be a drag, but it can be very dangerous as well. Not everyone is as "happy go lucky" as you Rut, some people would like to kill me, yes - shoot, stab or run me over with a vehicle and get on with their day.

The job is far from "cupcakes and rainbows" - Anyone tells you different is a liar.

Thanks -

Allow me to point out that your are talking apples and oranges. Training and recruitment is one issue and the other issues deals with activities in the field, an area that needs a "great amount" of attention and training so our citizens are best served by LEO and Wardens alike.

Thanks for the positive exchange!

BT

"Landowners in WI pay high taxes, they should have say who enters their property."

Does that mean if you don't pay high taxes someone should be able to come on to that land and check on THAT property? How about Native Americans or Amish lands? Can or should those lands be checked with concern because they don't pay taxes on the property?

Once you enter "money" and "people" in the same sentence and what should be done (or not done) because of it, I get a little concerned.

So it's OK to walk in on a public land hunter because (a). He pays no taxes and, (b). He's not on private land.

If you and your family are eating lunch when the warden stops by, pretty sure he's not asking for a license. However, you might want to ask him/her about a local problem, like shinning or shots being heard late at night. You may ask him/her about clarification of a new law in tagging. Any exchange could occur. You might invite him/her to a sandwich? Who knows?

I think it's a dangerous are when we start splitting hairs when it comes to people with money and those with not. I believe everyone should be treated the same regardless of financial or lack of, financial gain. Everyone is the same.

And lastly, as far as "probable cause", not needed and not a requirement to enter private lands. AB 411 proposal is asking that ONLY wardens be required to have "reasonable suspicion" before entering lands of another. Nothing mentioned/stated regarding "PC" which is a much higher standard.

Thanks -

If not which ones don't and under what circumstances?

In a committee room in Madison testimony on a proposed bill to restrict access to private property for DNR wardens. Those behind it using the extreme example of Robert Stietz from Lafayette County as justification. Stiez was arrested after an armed standoff with two game wardens during deer hunting season in 2012 - while out looking for trespassers on his property.

“The two wardens trespassed on his land, confronted and violently accosted him, subsequently prosecuted him,” said Charles Giesen, Stietz’s attorney.

The wardens went on Stietz's land to investigate a parked car. Wardens often go on private property and federal and state law permits it. But Assembly Bill 411 would limit that right.

“This bill will simply enforce the law of trespass against the DNR, unless they've got reasonable suspicion,” said Dean Strang, Stietz’s attorney.

“We would be directly opposed to this type of legislation,” said Jodi Arndt Labs, president of the Izaak Walton League of Brown County.

The Izaak Walton League is a group dedicated to preserving our natural resources. Labs says most state land is privately owned and this bill would cause problems.

“If people don't believe the DNR can come on their land to determine if they have a hunting or fishing license, what would motivate them to purchase a hunting or fishing license,” Labs said.

It is a feeling shared by the president of Whitetails Unlimited.

“If this going on private property is serving the purpose of protecting our wildlife, catching poachers and game thieves - then yes, we are concerned about the new law,” said Jeff Schinkten.

For now, this is only a proposal before the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and Sporting Heritage. It's not yet scheduled for a vote.

Stietz spent a year in jail - his conviction was overturned in June."

Reading that the farmer in this case spent a year in jail before his conviction was overturned is scary stuff.

BT, this is the catalyst behind the bill that you missed. Like I said, pending legislation does not just pop up. This is to prevent similar occurrences that courts later over turn after the damage is done.

Just reading the news over the past couple of weeks, MN, the possible planting of evidence in Baltimore, the beating etc., why would you want LE on your land without an invite? Things can go wrong and not everyone is honest.

This is a judge, not an LEO. Contrary to what some are being led to believe here, no LE has unfettered rights to check your land.

The judge admonished the agency for using Open Fields Doctrine as justification for their actions and went further to say this does not give them a free pass.

This is a District Federal judge, not local LE stating this.

This law needs to pass. This farmer is lucky he only lost one year of his life instead of being killed by some over-zealous CO. Think about what could have happened.

RJN - How do you know I am not a landowner? But that really doesn't make a difference. Just because someone owns 400 acres it shouldn't make them more "inaccessible" or "untouchable" because they have a lot of money. Should it?

Should we start having classes of people? The "Haves" and the "Have Not's"...Law Enforcement you check the "Have not's" and leave the "Haves alone"...damn it! After all, the "Haves" pay a lot of money, they deserve that! I call BS.

"Huge difference between LE acting on tips or reasonable suspicion and them freely entering lands with no suspicions."

Why would they enter land with no suspicions. Do you have any specific information that would back that up? Please tell?

Captain -

"BT, big difference between lazy and over-zealous. Rules/restrictions are in place to protect the citizen from those over-zealous ones. We are still granted an assumption of innocence until proven guilty. And, just because a law has "been on the books" is no logical or real argument for it to stay. Many archaic laws have been changed over the years."

We go from "lazy" to "overzealous" WOW - quite the quantum leap I gotta agree. But Ill bite!

Laws are written not to protect the citizens form the police more so they are written more to protect citizens from other citizen(s) (criminals) AND to punish those who violate those laws. OUR laws serve as a "road map" for society to follow and obey. Laws are written and they apply to ALL peoples, citizens and including the police. I have to follow the law just like everyone else.

Civil Rights are also "laws" as they protect the INDIVIDUAL rights of each and everyone of us. Be you black, white or any other race of color, you are protected by our "civil rights".Civil Rights more than anything else in my opinion protects citizens from unlawful intrusions, arrests and improper police procedure. They protect everyone in any number of situations.

Now an "overzealous police officer" most time can be handled by supervision.

But think about it. Police in one 24 hour period in the Untied States have THOUSANDS of contacts with citizens. Literally thousands of contacts and few of any matters of any concern.

Good hearing from you again!

BT

I fairly certain in my limited experience as a DHS investigator that reasonable suspicion is needed to enter private property.

Heck even if a cop wants to search your vehicle driving in a public road they would need reasonable suspicion, not just a busted taillight.

And please...do not take this view as being anti-law enforcement. I get the frustration. I tell people there's a big difference between knowing something and proving something but we cannot violate people's rights no matter how small we think they are.

You say it rarely occurs, and the reason is there is no legal basis for it.

Something that I find puzzling is the subtle point some make about those of us who at times may be a little critical of certain LE tactics. They ask, who we going call if we have a problem?

LE obviously. I hope that just because some of us exercise our Constitutional right to express disagreement with government, we would not be treated differently when we need LE. Think about that, these are the same folks many of you say we must support, yet there is an implication they may not do their job professionally to those who might at times question their behavior? I think the vast majority of LE will do their job regardless, thankfully!

Actually wardens do not protect your property. Any trespasser issues are handled by the county cops in the county your property is in. They also don't really protect anyone per say. Sure under their scope of law enforcement they do/can. But they are not intended to as regular leo's are. Really their objective is game/fish, recreation and environment.

So, it is easier for larger land owners to get away with shooting deer after/before hours .... but more expensive to illegally shoot the landowners deer? Law enforcement has no restrictions investigating on public land.

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2017/related/proposals/sb326

What are they out there for then. Do they not tell us when our boats are overloaded or that a dangerous condition exists on our boats. How about the underage operation of an ATV? Do they not enforce and council us of safe and responsible operations of a boat/ATV/snowmobile? Do they not prevent a potential tragedy before it happens?

Do they not back up regular LEO on dangerous calls involving domestics and man with a gun calls? Yes, they do!

Of course they protect us from doing stupid things that can and often do kill many folks in Wisconsin every year.

As far as trespassers, yes they protect that as well. Even thou this is not a function of the WDNR, that does not mean that cannot act on it if placed in that position. Times they receive complaints it shuffled off to the local S.O.

Just because they don't write citations for the violation, they can still take enforcement action and either see that a citation is issued or the County writes the citation as he detains folks.

By the way, our warden also works as a part time deputy sheriff. He has the added authority to write trespass citations if he see's the need!

So the statement made by Bobbinhood is correct!

"I fairly certain in my limited experience as a DHS investigator that reasonable suspicion is needed to enter private property. Heck even if a cop wants to search your vehicle driving in a public road they would need reasonable suspicion, not just a busted taillight."

Open fields is not protected under the 4th amendment and documented on the OPD. The only "property" that see's any "protection" is property adjacent to a residence or the "curtilage" of a home. Under these circumstances a "warrant", "consent", "exigent circumstances" or "plain view" observation(s) or "Community Caretaker" allows a LEO to enter that property.

So even property protected by the "curtilage" rule would need "probable cause" - "reasonable suspicion" does not fit the bill and would warrant an unlawful entry.

As far as a "cop wanting to search your vehicle" they would need more than "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" would be the standard - They only need "reasonable suspicion" to stop a motor vehicle. Please refer to the "Carroll Doctrine" for more information on vehicle searches . The same standards however apply (closely) to your motor vehicle and your house - only exception(s) is the courts have ruled that since a vehicle is mobile - searches are applicable to the "Carroll Doctrine." The back "forty" and a motor vehicle are a "poor" comparison Tweed - two different sets of rules for each.

"BT, No, LE does not have any right to enter private property without reason. If you or your department believe so, it is a disaster waiting to happen. You say it rarely occurs, and the reason is there is no legal basis for it."

You take one little "tid bit" and your off to the races. Let's assume your right. OK, your right! Happy now?

Now, if I have "any" reason, I can enter land that does not meet the standards set down for "curtilage." My God, why would anyone take a walk on private property for no reason? Really?

Find a new topic.

"But, but, but you said"...I know Habitat... "I know I said" - no changing your mind - your right I'm wrong!! Please give it a rest already. OK?

There's no 4th amendment right to open fields and you the Captain have a real problem with that. Gather your supporters and storm Madison.

In the meantime, it's the law!!

First, "Property rights trump LE privilege" Well... I AGREE with that 100%!!

What I disagree with is, that this is a "LE privilege", because it's not!! It's the law!

And every good officer follows the law and works within the law. The law states there is NO 4th amendment protection in open fields or your "back forty". You made it quite clear here that you don't like that.

Now, if you don't like it, don't take it out on law enforcement!! Perhaps calling a Politian that works for you and unload on him or her. Your complaint(s) respectfully, really means nothing posted here, other than we could feel sorry for you. You really need to take this somewhere you can get some assistance. I cannot help you out however, not only because I cannot, but I like the law the way it is. I like it as a "citizen" and "hunter", too which I both am.

Secondly, " I choose, gave up, and continue to give up many things others do not to have my property. I will fight for private property rights just like I will fight for free speech, religion and the rest."

I say - respectfully, "Good for you" - but take your "fight" were it means something.....because "Bowsite" aint cutting it. Not enough legislators here to make a difference.

Lastly - "Give an inch they take a mile" - Really - who may that be? You make an unwarranted observation here. I can only assume you mean law enforcement and I would like you to expand on all the "miles" they have taken when given an "inch"...

As always - good hearing from you -

Good Hunting!

BT may be wordy, but he's respectful and just happens to have some opinions that differ from others. No different that the rest of us posting in this thread. IMO, he does not give LE a bad name at all. He's passionate about what he does and I believe he's damn good at it.

I agree with BM69 above too.

He is correct, if an officer sees something or has a reasonable suspicion they may enter without a warrant. But as the judge said above, the doctrine is not a free pass to enter for any reason.

If he wants to show respect, do so by dealing with the simple facts I outlined here, not some long circuitous route of rambling to distract from the fact LE cannot without reason enter private property to snoop around. It works for LE when you do not know your rights.

Like I said before, it's like me trying to tell Cheesehead Mike how to be a "surveyor" or me trying to tell Tweed how to work in "HSD" (Human Services Department) - I've never done that/those job(s) and I wouldn't have a clue. And I'd be the last one top argue anything about their jobs. I know absolutely nothing about it.

But we have 2 folks in particular that seem to know it all.

I'm really done with you guys. Play your games and call me this or that, say I'm "lazy", "poor officer", "arrogant" "dictator"...whatever. I know the type...you become frustrated so you start in with the name calling. Very adult gentlemen. Fact still remains that ANY law enforcement for whatever reason can and will enter your property as he/she discharges their lawful duties.

You have no expectations to privacy on the "back forty." So if the warden wants to look for baiting...get the welcome mat ready as it stands now. That's the way it is.

The 4th amendment does not apply Ladies and Gentlemen.

If you don't like it, change it. Your rants here do little but perhaps make you feel better.

Period.

Always interesting!! Stay safe!

Please tell us all, what a law enforcement officer need(s) BEFORE he/she enters private lands or the "back forty" minus "curtilage" ?

Because, if I have a reason to check on something I'm going! Why do you think they (authors of the bill) want to add "reasonable suspicion" as a precursor to wardens going onto property? Hello?

Please tell us what a LEO needs to enter private property? What must first occur before he/she enters.

If I do a "fly over" and see what I think might be a marijuana grow...can I tip toe in and not tell anyone?

Please let us know.

Thanks -

Take care -

Pat

So please tell us, what we need to enter a private piece of land.

You take your trash to the curb at 7:00 PM, for the morning pick up. At 3AM, I go "steal" your trash as it sits on the curb. I put it in my squad and drive away. I go and "look" inside to see what's up in your house, I think you might be dealing weed.....

Is that my garbage or yours? Can I look through it? Does the 4th amendment protect your "trash"? If I find marijuana residue (stems/seeds) can I arrest you? How about a warrant to search your entire residence and the people in it at the time of service?

Who's says I can? Who says I cannot? Why?

Here's a second one -

You are running from the police in a high speed chase. It goes about 5 miles and you drive into your neighborhood, dump your car and then run into your house and slam the door.. Can I follow you into your house without a warrant? Or do I have to stop at the doorway and call it quits and get ahold of a judge?

Let us know what ya think. These are good - not that anyone here would run from 5 -"O" or the "Po-Po" Hope for cooler weather!

BT, you continue to press your little non-issue examples while ignoring the big picture. Why don't you tell us how you would give Mr. Steitz a year of his life back? Explain to him how the wardens were there, acting in his best interest. At any rate, you have become a master at beating a dead horse. The fact that I support LE does not give a free pass to someone like you, who over time, continues to exhibit an attitude of supporting over-zealous LE methods while trampling on one of the basic principles of this country.

BT, if they want to check a license and know you are in the woods. Why not just wait for you to come out and check you? This would be more efficient and cause less hassle. But then again maybe some wardens don't care about those things. There use to be a few wardens up around Barnes that were pricks no matter how respectful you were to them. I am almost sure they aren't in the profession anymore, and not by their choice.

You ask a good question and hopefully you'll understand my answer which is actually 2 fold.

First off, waiting is not a bad idea other than while you "wait" you can be making other license checks and taking care of other business. Sitting for what may be 5 minutes or two hours is ineffective/unproductive time on the job. There are many things to do in the day of a warden - waiting for a license check gobbles up too much time.

Secondly, how could the warden take any enforcement action if he did not SEE the person actually hunting or fishing?

The person could make a convincing legal argument "You never saw me fishing" "you never saw me hunting" - "What do I need a license for?" When in fact he was hunting/fishing? The warden has too see you engaged in the activity OR you admit to it (confession) - most folks who don't have a license lie - even when the warden catches them red handed.

"But then again maybe some wardens don't care about those things." I think most do and usually apologize for the interruption.

Years ago, I was watching an old black fella fishing in Racine County. Bass season was closed and he was keeping small bass in his 5 gallon bucket he was sitting on. I approached him and asked to see his license which he gladly produced. Very cooperative nice guy.

I asked him about the fish in his bucket and he said he had no fish. I told him I was "born at night, but it wasn't last night!" I saw him place what I believed to be bass in the bucket. He argued politely "This aint my bucket" I said your sitting on it, must be yours. Again, "dis aint my bucket"...

He finally stood up and he had 4 (four) undersized largemouth bass, before season opened.

I asked him what kind of fish those were and he said he didn't know..."suckers" he replied. I stated that no, they were bass and he couldn't fish them as the season was closed and even if it was open, he had undersized (obvious) fish.

He argued that he had no idea and that he had never seen fish like that before.

He was quite convincing. I almost believe him...

His downfall -

He was wearing a baseball cap that had a picture of a largemouth bass on it, with the wording "I cast for bass".

Once I pointed that out, he agreed he shouldn't have kept the fish. Yes, he was cited and released.

Quite the comical character!

I cannot speak for everyone but I don't think that is the case. They need to check, you have one, there gone. For the amount of times a warden checks you, a small inconvenience, but an inconvenience at that. I get that. Just the nature of the beast and we live in a complicated world.

Most people here I would suspect have never been checked by a warden.

"The fact that I support LE does not give a free pass to someone like you, who over time, continues to exhibit an attitude of supporting over-zealous LE methods while trampling on one of the basic principles of this country."

Just the opposite Captain, most of my career, I've been a supervisor. A Sergeant, and then promoted to Lieutenant. You don't have a clue what or who I am. And if your making a judgment about a man's reputation based simply on a hunting forum, that speaks only to your character or lack there of. But, whatever.....this time ya managed not to call me a name! Only that I'm supporting "overzealous" police tactics.

I do not and will not stand for any "over-zealous" police practices from the people that I supervised or myself, Thank you!

Following the guideline of the law is "overzealous" - Since when? The law allows for it and law enforcement across this country use it to curb all sorts of crime. So, because we use it and ITS THE LAW, that makes us "overzealous" because we support that. Many people here support it...they "overzealous" as well?

I believe in working within the framework of the law. Don't over step your bounds, that is how bad laws are made.

Once again, the law clearly allows law enforcement to enter. You don't like that and you have made that quite clear.

Instead of beating this thing to death - go out with your "money" like you say, and make a difference. That's the way to change it, not on Bowsite....

How's fishing?

True enough, but. You could make the same argument that a warden would be wasting just as much time wandering around property they are unfamiliar with.

"supporting over-zealous LE methods while trampling on one of the basic principles of this country."

One of the "basic principles" is that you should not be checked by a warden on your own property? This is a "over zealous" act, supporting our current law?

Our current law, like it or not allows for a warden to walk into your property and check your license.

I don't get it - You like to "wave the freedom flag" but if the laws are being followed what is the bitch? Who's "trampling" - Talk to your lawmakers...right now the law allows entry.

As far as Mr. Steitz is concerned he's a non-issue to me. (You talk about non-issue?) I have not read the court decision on this matter and you can cast all the suspicions you want. My understanding is the reversal on the sentencing courts decision had nothing to do with the "Open Fields Doctrine".

Care to take a stab at the "garbage" question of the "Fleeing suspect" question. Since your so interested in our freedoms - you might find it interesting?

If you truly understood the 4th amendment - you would.

Always good chewin the fat!

Once again, this Bill would stop LE from entering without reason. You clearly do not like that.

As a lieutenant and supervisor, tell us again how you would give Mr Steitz that year of his life back. Show us your character.

But yes, a warden likes to see you actively engaged in a sport hunting/fishing, so if you don't have a license, he can testify he saw you doing just that Hunting/Fishing w/o license.

Good topic. Thanks!

If the bill was as simple as "entering w/o a reason" - I think everyone and their Mother would jump on the wagon and say GO FOR IT!!!

That's CLEARLY what this bill IS NOT ABOUT - It's about "Reasonable Suspicion" - "Reasonable Suspicion" has a "Greater Standard" of proof. That is WHY some folks want that. They want to have wardens to have "Reasonable Suspicion" before they enter private property.

Here's another "WRONG" statement -

Captain sez:

"Once again, this Bill would stop LE from entering without reason" Really?

I and everyone else here on WI Bowsite, believe this ONLY has to do with Wardens - NOT the whole Law Enforcement Community like you would lead us to believe. JUST wardens - read the bill!!

Wow?

Lastly - I was never involved in any case involving anyone named Steitz. You most likely have more of a "connection" my Coho fishing friend. Quite the in appropriate question. Maybe you have an idea?

Long day at the office? And, how is the fishing? You never talk much about that. Have you been able to get out?

I used to fish Reef Point Marina. In my younger days I was "Deputy Warden" and I used to go out in a Boston Whaler with full time guys and do boat checks. My favorite was the commercial fisherman with all the perch - they were all nice guys...never a problem! I would jump onto their boat and God, most times they had allot of fish. Fun days gone by!

This has never happened to me. But I do know a few people it has happened to. Not through the grapevine stories. But first hand from good friends and one relative that had it happen to him.

I led you to believe this included all LE? If so, you are easily led.

How was fishing? On Bowsite? See L-L for fishing reports. But, just for you, it was fine. A limit of walleye on Green Bay.

Now, please tell about those wonderful commercial perch fishermen. Were they part of those busted for taking more than a million pounds over their quota? The ones who were caught by the DNR purchasing fish from a phony fish wholesale operation that was set up in MN? Are those the nice guys with no problems? Yes indeed, they had a lot of fish.

Yes, I get what your saying - it sucks. But so do a lot of things in life.

I believe for the "remote possibility" that you "may" get checked on your private land is FAR outweighed by the potential of catching and making bad guys pay like - conservation violators, drug offenders including marijuana and methamphetamine labs.

I get it...I just happen to disagree. I believe the small intrusion that "might" occur is out weighed by a better cause -

Thanks! P.S. Never happened to me either Rut - when checked, I'm always on public land.

"I led you to believe this included all LE? If so, you are easily led." Maybe it's because I pay attention to details like that? Ya led me and everyone else to believe it because you wrote "LE" and you were wrong! Nice try.... Where do you see the word wardens in this statement you wrote? "Once again, this Bill would stop LE from entering without reason. You clearly do not like that." And while were on that paragraph you posted - you conveniently "forgot" to address your second error by stating this bill was, ..."entering without a reason"...Wrong!

The bill is for "reasonable suspicion" in order to enter. You may want to stop reading the "Robert Steitz" deal and actually read the proposed bill.

It's about requiring "reasonable suspicion"...of ONLY wardens and no other LE officials.

Glad ya cleaned house on the walleyes! Outstanding....must have been a blast!

How about that "fleeing suspect" - any thoughts? It's a tough one I'll have to admit.

As far as your question - what are you doing?

I don't have the time or the energy to go on a "walk about". So if Im there, I have a reason to be there.

Now get "cracking" on that second scenario! It's a hum dinger!! Deals with the 4th amendment - and maybe the "Castle Doctrine"?

Take Care -

In an effort to clean this up - I already admitted - NO ...you need a reason. Your right!! there ya go!!

Why is he fleeing at high speed?

An increasing number of localities nationwide do not allow police to pursue suspects at high speed except in certain felonies. This is for the safety of the public and the officers.

So based on your answer we would have to adjust. You made us think, hopefully we also proved we are not stupid;)

Nice avoidance of a simple question. How do you give a guy a year of his life back after it is wrongly taken? THAT is why laws need to take into account people's rights before worrying about making the job of LE easier. How about those "nice" commercial perch guys? Was this during your tenure as a warden or did you not have the tools needed to catch them?

For those thinking it is good to let LE go where they want, Google 'civil asset forfeiture'. Assets can be seized without any proof or conviction of criminal activity. Police Departments are suspected of using this to raise revenue for things they want.

"Fresh pursuit" "Fleeing felon" law - the simple act of fleeing the police is a "felon" in WI.

Habitat - Can the Officer enter a private residence without a warrant? The answer is "yes" he can. So there is no expectance of privacy and pursuit can continue into the house.

Captain sez: "BR, I'm typing on my phone and used "LE" for wardens as a means of convenience"

I guess you must be typing on your phone again "for convenience" Captain - that should be "BT" not "BR" -

But, it's your story tell it the way you want! I never said OFD is a "free pass" those are your words, not mine. All a LEO needs is a reason to walk onto the property as it stands now, and you two, (when your not complimenting each other), have a real problem with that. Sorry, I cant change that.

The Captain like to make it sound like the Lafayette County case was "my" fault - here's a clue...I wasn't there! How do YOU give a man a year of his life back?

Have a good day!!

You keep forgetting to mention your statement that identified this as a bill regarding "entering without a reason" - when the bill is clearly about "reasonable suspicion" and ONLY effecting wardens.

Was that another "convenience" manifested by using your phone?

Or, were you simply "wrong" once again? Because, the bill is about "reasonable suspicion"....Id like to hear your side, because you seem to be "dodging" or avoiding my question.

Looks like a great day shaping up!

And still to this point, you lack the cajones to address a straightforward question. Let me help you with your poor comprehension. I never placed you at that incident, I simply ask you how you justify it. Your continued choice to ignore it shows you lack the depth to enter any conversation without telling others to "get a room." You are the type of LE officer the public needs protection from. Judgmental and lacking the ability to comprehend, you lack the basic tools needed to administer your job. How is crime on Hodunk, USA?

Police cannot just take a drug dealers car - or his money and start spending it. A ruling by the Court is necessary for all of that. Anyone tells you different is a liar.

The Midwestern Drug Enforcement Unit (MEG Unit), located in LaCrosse, WI has one person in charge of ALL asset forfeitures. There is SO much paperwork one person needs to be assigned to be in charge of that mess.

Even in a case involving the seizure of money, automobiles, houses, ect.... the Federal Government receives (when I last checked) 12% of the assets. Any other police agency involved in the seizure or case receives a portion of the asset forfeiture as well. The MEG unit (Metropolitan Enforcement Group) also gets a piece of the pie.

Yes, everyone is getting rich! NOT - But they are helping the taxpayer!

You make it sound like the police, Marshall's Office, County Sheriff and DEA are all getting rich and the Officer's are out buying expensive jewelry for their wife's and girlfriends.

When the truth is "asset forfeiture" can and does go to the "General Fund" for Counties (at times) and the LE agency never actually sees a dime. Sometime, purchases are made on asset forfeiture funds. This relieves the taxpayer again.

It can be used to make up for ALL the overtime Officers spent on the case. It has even been used in school funding programs. Taxpayer plus!!

Yes, the police just drive around, take items and cash from good citizens and sell them or use the money to buy a new squad car for the Sheriff.

There was an older Sheriff, years ago in Trempealeau County that actually drove (for his squad) a vehicle seized BY THE COURT - as his squad. It was an older model Cadillac, and it WAS ugly. (My opinion) - Guy had a large amount of drugs in the vehicle when stopped by the police. He lost his drugs, freedom and that wonderful car.

I wonder how that gentleman felt when he got out of prison to see that Sheriff driving his "drug wagon."

But it saved TAXPAYERS money! Yep, the police....something really needs to be done!

Yes, everyone's getting rich violating the Constitution of the U.S.

Really, where did I even imply this? BT, this is why I said you give LE a bad name.

You are probably not a subscriber to the WSJ so you might not be able to open this link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/striking-the-right-balance-on-asset-seizures-1501106785

I have read multiple stories on this. So, you once again know everything and this just makes one of, if not the, most respect publications because it is a non-issue. I hope you were able to read my posts before they were deleted.

Some tidbits from the article:

over $5B seized in one year, beating the burglary amount for the same year.

Average seizure is under $600 so this is not all about drug dealers. Yes it is a real problem and why many, even in Congress, are resisting Session's green light for more of this to occur.

Habitat - On one hand you claim your a LE supporter. On the other hand..."planting evidence" (now you don't want LE there because they might plant evidence - you for real?) "asset forfeiture" demonizing law enforcement and supporting their efforts are really two different things!

Your a guy that reads something in the newspaper and it's etched in stone. Because we all know reporters...ALWAYS get it right! Like my friend "The Captain" says - "you can easily be lead."

You failed to mention the "Taxpayers." Yes, they do see a savings!

Law enforcement can enter property legally and you don't like that.

Start a petition!

And of course the WSJ has NEVER retracted a story or issued an apology for false reporting in all those years?

You really need to read law books instead of newspapers.

But your not alone. Many people get their "training"" and "experience" from the newspaper/Facebook and on-line.

On an unrelated note, I read there was an "Elvis" spotting yesterday in Canton, Ohio. It's been reported by a reliable source, he's been living there all these years masquerading as a local farmer.

Yes, when BT places the WSJ up there with the Enquirer, people better take notice! Think I'll head to Mayberry and get Barney's opinion.

Yep, they can enter property legally, but not illegally. We agree then, duh?

Reading this I couldn't help note how many times the Justice mentioned that this was not just a "fishing trip" but the officers were acting on reports. The decision also keeps referencing Hester v US which seems to give more privacy. I didn't have a chance to read it but maybe when I get home to night I'll look it up.

Fun thread!

Tweed - Cool - I like researching case law as you appear to be doing! Now that is something we can sink our teeth in. Either way - good read.

You post an article that is THREE years old. Three years and the law on "asset forfeiture" has not changed one bit in that time.

No civil rights law suits, no splash in the Wisconsin State Journal!

IF, and I say "IF" this author had so much "good" information on how LE rapes the little guy of his house, home and belongings....wouldn't you think the law would have changed by now? THREE years old and it's still the same?

No one went to court in three years, nobody lobbied our Justice System to have it changed? Come on, with so many people being hung out to dry.... to have this horrible law still in effect? Something must be wrong.

Hello - Does that maybe tell ya something? Perhaps the author was just a little bit off base with his "interpretation."

Ah yes, reporters know more about people's jobs than the actual workers do. It is scary to think someone actually believes such nonsense. So, I'm going to go to law school and then become a reporter. I've never actually done brain surgery but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express once and read some articles so now I'm going to write some articles telling other brain surgeons of their mistakes...

I never thought of it that way. I had to chuckle. Actually my good friend Habitat is NOT totally wrong. There are some OUTSTANDING reporters afoot - but you have to be careful in what ya read.

You make a good point I think.

Speaking of reading....jump over to "Part 2" of this thread - interesting article by my good friend Paul Smith of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Many many children have. Been conceived in such settings.....

Have you been paying attention at all to this issue. You are either one ignorant person or lack integrity.

I respect he is a lieutenant in a local department, but I have access to individuals much higher up on multiple sides of the criminal justice system.

He is incorrect that LE can enter private property without reason, and he knows that. Us not knowing it helps him. Notice his parsed wording and how it has changed. Notice his lack of response asking what he would do when told to leave private property he entered for a fishing expedition.

You have Scotus, a Federal District judge, yet BT would have you believe he knows more than they do.

Further, Federal supercedes state laws. The state cannot take away what the Constitution guarantees. LE makes a recommendation only regarding prosecution. Thankfully this decision is not BT's.

Someone please pinch me or are we three adult men back in 5th grade again? Because I remember allot of childish name calling back them.

That's it. It's that simple. It's the law and it's what we are talking about.

Your all hung up on "reason" ..."reason"...they need a reason!! Personally I don't care, reason, no reason, whatever! LE always has a reason. You may not want to believe that but, whatever.

You do NOT, nor does any LE officer have the authority under OF to pull up to any private property and take a walk just to see what they can find. That has already been decided by the courts. You know it and you are playing with words. That is a lack of integrity IMO.

You come onto my property only because you just want to have a look. No tips, no previous unlawful activity. You have no idea who I am.

I discover your presence and instruct you to leave immediately. What is your response and your actions.

Folks, he is not going to answer directly. But he would be required to leave as directed.

Here's my response - "Any law enforcement officer in Wisconsin can enter private property/lands, "not" protected by "curtilage ." This authority is granted under a law referred to as the "Open Fields Doctrine." The Doctrine relates in part, that due to the lack of the 4th amendment protection or/and the lack of an "expectation of privacy" outside of the "curtilage", law enforcement may enter the property to discharge their lawful duties." That's it. It's that simple. It's the law and it's what we are talking about.

Deal with it and move on....

Looks like today is going to be a great day!

Here's the answer to your question:

I don't go onto property without a "reason" (See below)

"Any law enforcement officer in Wisconsin can enter private property/lands, "not" protected by "curtilage ." This authority is granted under a law referred to as the "Open Fields Doctrine." The Doctrine relates in part, that due to the lack of the 4th amendment protection or/and the lack of an "expectation of privacy" outside of the "curtilage", law enforcement may enter the property to discharge their lawful duties." That's it. It's that simple. It's the law and it's what we are talking about.

Now...you may not like my answer...BUT, I have answered your question. You may start stomping your feet and jump up and down, but that is my official stance on this subject.

In the SCOTUS decision I referenced above it acknowledged that the CO might be trespassing but that would not constitute a violation of the 4th amendment.

Forgive me if I missed it but has reasonable suspicion been defined above? If not can you please define with references?

Thanks for the education.

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'";[1] it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts",[2] and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual.[3] If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard,[4] in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

So as the law stands now, RS is not required to enter private lands.

Reasonable suspicion is also the "standard" I need to stop a motor vehicle in this State. I cannot randomly stop vehicles w/o "reasonable suspicion" when doing so.

Was hoping for a LEO policy definition.

Seriously - you were stopped and detained "for hours." Hours is a LONG time. What the hell went on? What did they "do" for "hours"...I'd be very interested to know.

I cannot speak for North Dakota authorities but I can tell you in Wisconsin - the stop was illegal. By simply having three phones visible (I don't know how they saw that) (Who needs 3 phones - I cannot figure out 1 phone)) and being out of State is NOT a valued reason for stopping a vehicle. In order to be stopped in WI you must commit an infraction to "trigger" reasonable suspicion. (Anything from a burnt out license plate light to DWI).

What they had there was NOT reasonable suspicion to stop you. You did nothing wrong IF in fact what you are telling us is true. At the very least... you should have requested a shift commander and/or seen an attorney for your unlawful detention.

If you read the definition "reasonable suspicion" it is not a "broad brush" and should never be treated as such. 3 phones, out of Wisconsin and stopping for a "Happy Meal" is not and will never be "reasonable suspicion". They may be suspicious once a legal traffic stop has occurred, but we first need a legitimate reason to stop you before entering that gamut of the law. Enquiring minds need to know Pasq...you weren't coming back from an out of State youth hunt were you? :^)

If your looking of more of a policy of "what you can" and "cannot do" under policy - you'd be better off research "Police Policy of Reasonable Suspicion". There has to be a draft out there somewhere. But this definition IS what "Reasonable Suspicion" is and our policy would not deviate from that verbiage.

Sorry I cannot be more helpful.

By M.D. Kittle

[Madison, Wis...] -In his breathless coverage last week of a bill aimed at reining in the power of DNR game wardens, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Paul A. Smith forgot something.

He forgot to mention one of the inspirations for the bill, Robert Joseph Stietz, 69, who spent a year in prison in large part for the crime of minding his own business on his southwest Wisconsin farm.

Stietz doesn't see conservation wardens - a couple in particular - as "the 'good guys' in natural resource protection," as Smith characterizes.

Stietz and his family, who have been through hell thanks to the very long arm of the state Department of Natural Resources, certainly don't see the legislation as the "greatest threat in the 138-year history of the force," as Smith insists.

The newspaper's outdoor editor cited the "robust show of support" that Wisconsin's "thin gray line" received from opponents - many of them former conservation warrants - at a committee hearing Wednesday on Assembly Bill 411.

Smith heavily quoted the dozens of critics, including members of conservation groups, who testified the bill is a "disaster waiting to happen," and that the proposal is a "poacher's dream."

Here's what the bill intends to do: Wardens would no longer be free to pop onto citizens' private property without reasonable suspicion of a violation.

Under the "open fields doctrine," DNR wardens can do warrantless searches of "the area outside a property owner's" home without running afoul of the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

State Rep. Adam Jarchow, lead author of the bill, says DNR agents have taken liberties with the openness of the open field doctrine at the expense of private property owners' liberty.

"The reason for this bill is very, very simple. I'm a constitutionalist and I believe in the constitution," the Balsam Lake Republican said. "The open fields doctrine says wardens can waltz onto your property any time they want, for any reason."

"We are setting the lowest constitutional bar, reasonable suspicion...the same standard law enforcement has to have when they pull over a car to check license and registration," added Jarchow, a private attorney. "Police have to have some reason to pull you over. Here, (DNR wardens) don't have to have a reason to go on private property to check your license."

But there is good reason, the former wardens and their Journal Sentinel PR agent contend.

"If wardens were prohibited from checking game law compliance on private land, it would seriously undermine protection of the public resource," Smith wrote in his rant against the legislation.

The wardens will not be prohibited from checking compliance, but they must have reasonable suspicion before they enter PRIVATE PROPERTY.

"I don't know what experiences you've had with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources wardens, but in my four decades of licensed hunting, angling and assorted outdoor recreation in the state, I've come to know them as the 'good guys' in natural resource protection," Smith wrote.

In other words, Jarchow's bill makes wardens out to be the bad guys. It does no such thing, the lawmaker says. It gives private property owners protection from those abusive agents who cast aside the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in the name of law enforcement.

Exhibit A: Robert Stietz.

The Lafayette County farmer was sentenced to a year in prison in 2014 on charges of resisting arrest and pointing a gun at an officer. Last month, the state Supreme Court in a 4-2 decision ordered the lower court to grant Stietz a new trial because Circuit Court Judge James R. Beer refused to instruct the jury on Stietz's defense of self-defense.

On the last day of the gun-deer season in November 2012, Stietz was on the lookout for trespassers. It was a recurring problem for the farmer, who, according to testimony, has long dealt with trespassers hunting on his land and vandalizing his property. All of that was in his mind as he was checking his fences as two DNR wardens approached him, according to case files. The wardens had noticed Stietz's car parked in his field, about a quarter mile from the highway.

It was nearly dark when the wardens, wearing their blaze-orange DNR uniforms, confronted Stietz.

"Stietz testified that he did not see the DNR insignia or badges as the men approached, and that in his mind, the blaze-orange signified hunters. In addition, Stietz testified that neither man clearly identified himself as a game warden as they approached him, leading him to suspect they were two trespassers hunting illegally on his land," wrote Deborah Spanic in a piece for the State Bar of Wisconsin.

"After the wardens asked Stietz if he had seen any deer, they then asked if his rifle was loaded. He said yes. One warden asked twice for the rifle and Stietz said no both times. Stietz testified that at this time he feared for his life. The warden then grabbed Stietz by the front of his jacket while reaching for the rifle."

After one of the agents grappled with Stietz and grabbed his rifle away, Stietz said he saw the other warden reaching for his handgun. Stietz then took out his handgun, telling the wardens he had a right to protect himself. A standoff ensued, broken only after deputies arrived and assured him that he wouldn't be "gang tackled." Stietz was promptly arrested.

In a concurring opinion, Justice Rebecca Bradley wrote that the wardens "were not in a public place" and that they "did not have reasonable suspicion that Stietz was breaking the law when they drove onto private property to investigate."

"A car legally parked on private property does not, alone, create a reasonable suspicion of a hunting violation. A mere 'hunch' that the car means someone is hunting illegally is also insufficient," the Supreme Court justice wrote.

The state cited the open fields doctrine in its case against Stietz, arguing the law "justified the wardens' intrusion on private property, reasoning that the doctrine made Stietz's secluded, remote land a 'public place' on which the wardens were privileged to traverse," Bradley noted.

"The state is wrong."

Stietz's wife, Sue, described to committee members the price her family has paid and laid out why the bill is so important for all private property owners in Wisconsin.

"For me, the DNR's belief that it somehow was free to open the cattle gate to our pasture land, wander around inside for merely curiosity and then disarm my husband who was checking the fence line and obeying the law, that almost cost me my husband of over 40 years. It almost cost my kids their dad. And it almost cost my grandchildren their grandpa," she testified.

"That confrontation on our land and on our easement did not have to happen," Sue continued. "Bob was obeying the law and the DNR had no reason to believe he wasn't. And it wouldn't have happened if the DNR needed just reasonable suspicion to barge into our pastureland, a quarter mile off the nearest public road."

"This has been a nightmare. Words can't even describe it. It was so humiliating that this happened to our family," she said.

The nightmare isn't over. The Stietz family has racked up tens of thousands of dollars in legal bills, more than the Stietzes paid for their farm in 1985, Sue said.

"That's why people don't fight these things," she said. "But you can't put a dollar on a life...We fought for everyone," despite hearing from some who told them they couldn't win, that the DNR can do whatever it wants.

But you won't find any of that in Smith's account in the Journal Sentinel. He has a right to his opinion, but leaving out Stietz's account is a journalistic sin of omission.

Smith contends AB 411 promotes a "very anti-American principle," privatizing wildlife.

What about the very American principle of private property rights?

Jarchow called the piece a "hatchet job."

"It might as well have been written by the former DNR wardens," the lawmaker said. "It's embarrassing that the paper of record for the state of Wisconsin publishes this kind of story. That thing was masquerading as news."

Smith wrote that a DNR warden is welcome in his camp or boat anytime. Would he feel that way if her were standing in Robert Stietz's boots?

Trample through bedding and food and the general peace and tranquility you'd expect.

Captain sez:

"In BT's mind, no LE officer can do any wrong. That is a recipe for disaster."

Really? Now the Captain has added to his "resume" "Mind Reader" - he know exactly what I'm thinking! Crystal ball? You don't have a clue Captain. Not a clue.

Truth be told, yes, police and LE do screw up from time to time. It's sad and unfortunate. If we could perhaps build a robot minus what I call the "human factor" - maybe that would be the answer. Until then, were stuck with what we have. Hard working dedicated law officers, who on occasions make yes, mistakes.

Captain posts:

"Yes, in his earnest to do the job easier, he is willing to sacrifice citizen rights. Not a good recipe for a country based on freedoms."

Now the Captain knows what I'm willing to do, even before I do it? Please tell me and the folks here, WHICH citizen rights I'm willing to sacrifice?

Once again Captain READ the bill - this has NOTHING to do with my Job. I am NOT a Warden! Get that, NOT a warden - so it has NOTHING to do with MY job....My God man. Does not effect me at all. Job easier or harder - not a factor - does not apply to me!!

You go off half-cocked, making all sorts of ridiculous, baseless accusations, solely fueled by your emotions, which you clearly wear on your sleeve.

Baseless, ignorant statements.

Oh - and have a nice evening - wife and I just got back from a walk - Beautiful out there!! Love Wisconsin!

.

Reasonable suspicion is not a requirement. Now you, then the Captain and Habitat need to understand - I DIDNT write the law that allows entry onto private property! I wasn't even in the room - Don't kill the messenger here. I support the law but I certainly didn't write the law.

And I certainly did NOT say "go on fishing expeditions."

You continue with "Trample through bedding and food and the general peace and tranquility you'd expect."

Again...I DID NOT write the law. It is what it is.

I'd like to hear from someone who was actually checked on private property - anyone?

Tweet, have to say your post surprises me.

Now I don't say that to be an ass or cut anyone down - but I believe it's the truth, myself included here.

I have to admit when reading the piece by The Milwaukee Outdoor writer I was like damn - Home run!

I'm sure many of you had the same emotions when you read the piece by the reporter for the MacIver News Service. Damn - Home Run!!

Well who's right here - both those writer's cannot be right? They definitely have different opinions on this matter.

To be truthful - I believe their both wrong!

I believe that the truth lies somewhere between what the Journal reported and what the MacIver News Service reported.

I have decided that I am going to do my own research on the case in Lafayette County and see for myself were the truth lies. What has been revealed and what has not.

There may be some case law coming down on a ruling like this and it would be very interesting to see what is or will/will not transpire.

I have posted a copy of Kevin's post on the opposing News Service article on (Part 2 - thread) because in all fairness, I believe all of us people should read that article as well...to see both sides!

Interesting stuff -

Good sleeping weather tonight! Truly never enough nights like this in Wisconsin!

In each of those precedents there was reasonable suspicion.

Why the Justice made that statement is confusing. Please see my previous post, I'm going to do a little searching for myself.

Thanks!

Tweed, at least for me you keep getting in right and why I asked BT to answer the scenario I did. Reading the case that drove this legislation, there might be a reason the court made mention of trespass?

If the farmer had asked the gentlemen to leave his land first, would this have placed them there unlawfully if they stayed around? Then, their actions would not be justified? I hope BT will explain better, but is this a reason he does not want to clarify what he would do if a LO instructed him to leave his land? If this gets pulled again, I will be convinced this is about not making folks aware of how they can handle themselves in a similar situation.

BT, I believe there are some interested parties watching this discussion. My opinion here, some probably do not want this case to be re-tried. I agree WI allows you to enter, but would federal law allow for it? I am of the mindset based on everything we have read that the state would lose. Better to not have a decision and continue to proceed forward with the current tactics than to be told you cannot do that. It is not uncommon when a superior court remands a case back to a lower court to provide some direction or insight as to key issues that would be reviewed. Again, this trespass I believe is key.

BT, I am not even right half of the time in my life. But, I do my research beforehand before staking out a position. This is not about either of us being right or wrong, to me it is about rights of private property versus rights of LE.

Kept it very polite hoping this will not be deleted. Thanks.

I'm running late for a barbeque but will answer some of what you said later, thought it important that I said I appreciate your efforts and you should see a change on my side as well.

Regards -

BT

Review my posts!!!- I have NEVER pushed for MORE "leniency" on anything. Nor have I pushed for more "Intrusion" - The ONLY thing I have done here is interrupted the law as a LEO and given my opinion on what the current law allows for and what it doesn't allow for. I have given definitions on "reason suspicion" "curtilage" and what I believe the 4th amendment protects and what it doesn't.

That's ALL I have done.

As I have stated that I have started to take a very hard look at this case involving STIETZ and his subsequent arrest and conviction. A conviction now, that has been overturned.

The WI Supreme Court ruled in favor of this by a 3-2 margin. Very close and not a unanimous ruling by the court. Two (2) justices descended - It was only (1) one Justice that swayed the vote - so a very close decision by the high court. STEITZ will get a new trial. I truly want to be there for that. Extremely interesting.

I'd like to look online and see if it's posted somewhere, reports by the wardens that were there and the trial transcript would be most revealing. That is what I would like to work on.

Initial reports indicated that STIETZ was "out" looking for "trespassers" - seems to be a weird activity on the waning minutes of the very last day of the deer gun season - but, OK. Further reports STIETZ who related that he wasn't hunting deer did possess a high power rifle and a side arm. It has been reported that STIETZ was dressed in camouflage and not in hunter orange. OK? - It was further reported that as light was fading and it was not dark STIETZ related that he wasn't sure who these men were. Wardens allegedly testified that they were in blaze orange that bears the department patches and badge.

All very interesting to me. I'm waiting for the court date.

Thanks -

I agree that we have not been able to find a case that specifically ties this type of activity by LE to whether or not it is constitutionally allowed. But other cases SEEM to point to not allowing what we have loosely called "fishing expeditions" here.

I am left wondering why they would try him again, limit possible liability from a potentially wrongful conviction in the first place? 1 year, no one was injured, seems a reasonable amount of time even if he were in the wrong. I don't know all of the facts, so not judging.

But if I had a problem with trespassers and/or poachers, I would invite LE to stay at my cabin with their vehicles hidden and see what happens. I would have a cooler of sandwiches/snacks and beverages (non-adult of course;)) and be there to help them at the trial if needed. I would not go dressed in camo during deer season at near dark for obvious reasons. This guy may just not be that smart as opposed to being a criminal? The rifle part also concerns me, was he going to shoot someone from a distance? I don't think the laws would allow that, in fact almost certain of it. So, he could have been trying to fill a tag, but again, IMHO this was a potentially disastrous situation that could have ended with the loss of life of him or one of the officers. Not worth it, even if he is a poacher. Let a drone get the need video, wait until he is either in his vehicle or back at the house and make the arrest if he did in fact do something wrong. Just a suggestion I think most reasonable people would support.

One judge in the course of all of this stated that the defendant was lucky to still be alive as the wardens were within their rights to have fired upon him to protect themselves.

This guy has had numerous run ins with law enforcement and local hunters and I personally know people who have had him point guns at them and threaten them. He is crazy and will likely be the instigator in a shooting one day.

The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the 4th ammendment does not apply except in the area of curtilage and that all law enforcement has authority to enter private property to investigate. This does not mean they can just go on a piece of property and wander around to look and see what they can find. They must have a reason to be investigating something. The need to protect the public's resources is tremendous and much of those public resources are on private land which constitutes 82% of the State.

I don't understand this statement - please explain.

"I agree that we have not been able to find a case that specifically ties this type of activity by LE to whether or not it is constitutionally allowed."

Whether what was constitutionally allowed?

I'm left wondering why they would NOT try him again. From what I have read so far, STIETZ after being order to surrender his rifle and he refused to. He argues that he still at this point did not know the men he was dealing with were Conservation Wardens. STIETZ is engaged by one warden who after advising him to turn over the weapon, goes hands on with him and the men go to the ground. It is only then STIETZ from what I understand realizes that he is now engaged himself with a Conservation Warden. The warden is able to wrestle the weapon away from STIETZ. The second warden had upholstered his service weapon, pointing it at STIETZ who had upholstered his handgun and pointed it at the warden. At this point it appears to be an act of God that no one was shot and killed. STIETZ then upholsters his handgun and points it at the warden - a stand off ensues. At this point STEITZ testifies that he knows he is engaging law enforcement. Warden summon the Sheriff's Department for back up.

IF what the wardens testified to is accurate - STIETZ wrestled with a loaded firearm (rifle) and uniformed warden. He further draws a loaded handgun on these uniformed wardens and a rather length stand off ensues. Neither side withdraws their weapon(s) as they are pointed at each other.

The reason this matter has been overturned and a new trial ordered is not due to the fact the wardens were on property "with no" authority. And yes, the Justice did make mention of probable cause and such and questioned why the wardens were there -

This matter is overturned on the basis that the High Court felt that STIETZ was not provide the appropriate opportunity by the "Trial Judge" to offer a defense of "self defense." That is correct, a defense of "self defense".

So that is what I know so far.

" You all realize this could happen to any of us, our family etc" He speaks of the STIETZ case after reading some quotes from Mrs. STIETZ.

Have a couple of questions for you screwball- Now I can see how someone may get upset with this case - but I don't think by an stretch of the imagination that you or even myself have ALL the facts to make a sound decision on Bill 411 based solely on this case.

So I ask...would you or any of your family when asked to by a LEO surrender a firearm when ordered to do so. I think you would and/or your family would.

Would you or any of your family wrestle with a LEO over a firearm after being ordered to hand it over or drop it? I don't think you or your family would.

Once a LEO disarms you, would you now secure a second weapon and point that at LEO? I don't think you or your family would!

At this point these are undisputable facts that STIETZ was ordered to surrender a weapon and that he engaged in a physical altercation when a LEO tried to disarm him and then, once disarmed, arms himself with another firearm and points it at authorities...No, I have a real hard time you or any of your family would do something that crazy.

BT, what I meant was a case where LE just decided to have a look-see w/o any reason and whether or not OF doctrine allowed this. From expressions of concerns in some of the cases, I still do not think it is legal. Yes, I know you do and that is why we are still debating this thread.

"Would we surrender our legally possessed weapon while we're standing on our own property when demanded?"

The quick and smart answer would be absolutely! When ordered to surrender your firearm by a police officer, Warden or any other law official and you fail to do so is nothing short of foolish.

Given the facts we know regarding STIETZ, one could only imagine how different this contact would have been. There is always plenty of time "after" an incident for those that feel they have been "wronged" to file complaints, lawsuits or any other actions they/you would care to pursue.

If I encountered an on-duty law officer and he ordered me to relieve myself of my firearm, I would do so in a New York minute even through I am a LEO and can carry anywhere....makes no difference. Follow instructions and things will go so much easier. STIETZ and the Wardens are lucky they are not dead. So very scary.

Failure to do so is a battle you will not win and one I wouldn't even consider in my wildest dreams.

No disrespect - but we really need to let this "no reason" die on the vine. I have told you both that I always have a reason to enter private land. No one I know never has a reason to go and I think ALL LEO have a "reason" when they enter private property.

Now, do I believe you have to HAVE a reason - No, my opinion, but I believe that you don't. That doesn't mean that I do it, I don't know anyone that has or do I plan on doing it in the next couple of months. Just my opinion on the matter. I cannot find anywhere were it specifically prohibits such LE activity.

That being said, AGAIN - I always have, everyone one I know, always does.

With respect, I am of the camp that letting it go is not enough. Just because it never happened does not mean it never will. IMHO it ought to be codified so that it never does happen. Again, JMHO and with respect.

I agree with you 100%!

RJN - Says - "If I'm out looking for trespassers and I see two unknown guys in orange on my land I would automatically be pissed. Now they tell me to drop my weapon, yea right! Why would the wardens even confront the lo not knowing he did anything wrong? "

They (wardens) observed a vehicle parked with an empty gun case - they saw a man with a rifle without blaze orange. Why would they NOT confront him? Nothing wrong RJN? If your deer hunting are you not supposed to wear orange ? I know I am. The wardens testified they wore orange, departmental patches and badges along with gun belts. Sounds like typical "trespasser" garb to you? It doesn't to me, but just an opinion on my behalf.

Was STIETZ out looking for "trespassers" OR is that a convenient defense strategy? I don't know...ask yourself? It's the LAST minutes of the LAST day of deer gun hunting and he's out with no orange, dressed in camo - and he's looking for trespassers? Really? Is that a good time to look...I don't know. Maybe he was - is that how and when you would go looking for trespassers?

I'm now hearing that STIETZ was not even on his own property and this occurred outside of his property, that is not confirmed and may be gossip....more to follow on that.

Sometimes common sense needs to kick in.

Again - the reason this case was "overturned" IS NOT because the wardens were in a "wrong place" it's because the High Court believed the "Trial Judge" was in error by NOT allowing STIETZ to mount a "self defense" - defense. He has been granted a new trial.

So we have one person that gets into a "incident" with law enforcement - "time to change the law" I whole heartedly disagree. It's been fine for decades.

I'm heading over to "Part 2" really getting old scrolling over 300 posts. If ya need me, I'll be over there. Feel free to stop by and chit-chat!!

Regards -

BT

Let's keep all the content in one easy place. Easier for the lurkers to make an informed decision.

Looks like a win for the property owners of WI.

It is suspicious, but so is rolling around with an armed man. Seems there is a safer way to handle this. JMHO.

BT, just the facts sir;). Remember Dragnet?

Let's leave unconfirmed rumors out as well as not prematurely drawing a conclusion about the status of any pending changes.

Not to beat a dead horse but was able to talk with an attorney friend I was waiting to hear back from who actually has some experience with Expectation of Privacy cases, especially more recent ones as relating to drones. Was very familiar with OFD.

Ok, I will try to summarize...OFC does NOT allow for fishing expeditions whatsoever. If for cause, reason etc, LE can enter private property, and so can others, even if posted, for public safety issues such as discharge from a private facility to check for compliance , utilities etc.

He went on to say most states have handled OFC which stems from Common Law with regulations of posting property in a specific manner. Most being the operative word!

What he did say is a state can pass a law such as what Wisconsin has and LE will be within their rights under that law until the point at which it will be challenged by someone in court and will no doubt be overturned. He cited some examples to make his point, such as a MO law that is in place that does not allow for certain speech regarding the ACA, which is the law until, and it will, be challenged under First Amendment Rights and be overturned.

Hope that helps. I guess I am trying to say I think both sides of the issue are partially right and partially wrong and it will take a future court case to determine which side is completely right. I also believe this is why my question on what a CO would do if told to leave private property went unanswered.

Sorry, just my personality to look for clarity, thank you.