This could change things in ohio

[Milo]

Small Business Owner Sues to Stop Ohio’s “Whenever, Wherever” Inspections - Institute for Justice

COLUMBUS, Ohio—Jeremy Bennett literally built his business from the ground up, teaching himself taxidermy and deer processing and then constructing his shop just yards from […]

ij.org

 

[Tipmoose]

Anyone know the details on this one? Sounds sketchy....

 

[Milo]

Thought I would share this landmark case coming to the Ohio Courts. This will impact hunters and fisherman. No more random license checks and game wardens interrupting hunters. Very very interesting case for those constitutionalist in here.

 

[Tipmoose]

Apologies for the duplicate thread in the Ohio Outdoors forum. I didn't know what this thread was about just by viewing the title.

 

[Milo]

Apologies for the duplicate thread in the Ohio Outdoors forum. I didn't know what this thread was about just by viewing the title.

This is a huge deal and I have a suspicion that this will be an easy win for them. This will also potential impact health departments and the other governmental bodies. I’m no where near anti government but the boundary needs to be set. Thanks for that video.

 

[brock ratcliff]

It would be nice to see them investigate actual complaints vs hassling law abiding citizens. I can’t tell you how many calls I’ve made regarding poaching and nothing come of it and had that same officer bug me when I’m minding my own business in the woods where I have every right to be. Hasn’t happened for a long time though. Probably because I quit calling to report.

 

[Milo]

It would be nice to see them investigate actual complaints vs hassling law abiding citizens. I can’t tell you how many calls I’ve made regarding poaching and nothing come of it and had that same officer bug me when I’m minding my own business in the woods where I have every right to be. Hasn’t happened for a long time though. Probably because I quit calling to report.

If this ruling goes through, there will be no more license checks or hunters bothered by the law until they break the law. That’s the same reason a police officer can’t just pull you over to check your drivers license. You have to have an infraction first then they can demand your ID

 

[Geezer II]

I was checked two days in a row in the same place at the same time by the same officer - wtf

 

["J"]

They definitely take advantage of the power given too them. Not all of them but a large percentage that’s for sure.
We had one in mahoning county in the 80’s and 90’s that was why this should change.

 

[Gern186]

If this ruling goes through, there will be no more license checks or hunters bothered by the law until they break the law. That’s the same reason a police officer can’t just pull you over to check your drivers license. You have to have an infraction first then they can demand your ID

How will they know someone is breaking the law without checking them? I could have a cooler full of 14 inch walleyes and until a warden opens it up and measures the fish, I could walk away easily if not kept in check. Random checks like that is what keeps alot of guys honest.

 

[Milo]

Yes but you don’t have to allow the search without probable cause. My personal experience is that less break the law than do. If we don’t have integrity to keep to the game laws then we have bigger problems than we think.

 

[bowhunter1023]

You're dressed like Swantucky and smell like poon, let me see the inside of that cooler son

 

[Jackalope]

I see both side of this argument, but I do not, and have never, believed that purchasing a fishing or hunting license automatically forfeits a persons constitutional right against illegal search and seizure, especially on private lands. Probable cause of a crime should be required for checks unless the checks are conducted in a checkpoint manner and are indiscriminate to specific individuals. The same as with a vehicle and drivers license checkpoints. While this would undoubtedly make it easier for wildlife violators to get away with crimes, it would be no different than any other crime capable of being committed, such as driving without a license. Engaging in an activity that requires a license should not be enough probable cause to assume a crime has been committed.

 

[Gern186]

Didn't know i could refuse them to search my cooler. Why wouldn't I allow them to if I have nothing to hide? Not allowing them to would open up a bigger can of worms in my opinion. Next thing you know they are watching you from a spotting scope from a mile away and checking your license and registration every time you leave the dock.

 

[hickslawns]

Didn't know i could refuse them to search my cooler. Why wouldn't I allow them to if I have nothing to hide? Not allowing them to would open up a bigger can of worms in my opinion. Next thing you know they are watching you from a spotting scope from a mile away and checking your license and registration every time you leave the dock.

That is my thought as well. With nothing to hide? Let them have a quick peek. Play hardball? Get a target on your back.

This court case is interesting though. Makes sense. You don't need to allow police to search your vehicle. You can force them to get a warrant. Why would this be any different?

In Tucky's case? Just profiling. Looks like a serial killer. Acts like. . . Well. . .no other.

 

[Chancegriffis]

This is the way it is in Florida as well. Some abuse their power and some don’t. I look at it this way, at least the dnr and wildlife officers are out doing their jobs. If you don’t like being checked, don’t hunt or don’t fish. It’s as simple as that.

 

[Jackalope]

If you don’t like being checked, don’t hunt or don’t fish. It’s as simple as that.

What if that philosophy applied to other areas of life.

Go shopping and you could be searched by the police at any time to make sure you didn't steal anything. No need for probable cause, you shopping is cause enough. Don't like it, don't shop at stores.

Your driving a car so the police pull you over and thoroughly search your vehicle and person. No reason other than you're driving so they can rightfully assume you're a drug smuggler. Don't like it, Don't drive.

You purchased a gun so the ATF decides that you could be a terrorist for doing so, now they have legal authority to do a warrantless search your home whenever they want. Don't like it, don't buy a gun.

Participation in a legal activity should not nullify someones individual protection against illegal search and seizure.

Where this gets tricky is the law claims they're not looking for your things, they're looking for their things as they own the fish and wildlife, even after you tag or catch it.

 

[Chancegriffis]

What if that philosophy applied to other areas of life.

Go shopping and you could be searched by the police at any time to make sure you didn't steal anything. No need for probable cause, you shopping is cause enough. Don't like it, don't shop at stores.

Your driving a car so the police pull you over and thoroughly search your vehicle and person. No reason other than you're driving so they can rightfully assume you're a drug smuggler. Don't like it, Don't drive.

You purchased a gun so the ATF decides that you could be a terrorist for doing so, now they have legal authority to do a warrantless search your home whenever they want. Don't like it, don't buy a gun.

Participation in a legal activity should not nullify someones individual protection against illegal search and seizure.

Where this gets tricky is the law claims they're not looking for your things, they're looking for their things as they own the fish and wildlife, even after you tag or catch it.

You’re trying to stretch this into something bigger than it is. The thing is it doesn’t pertain to other areas of life.That’d be like comparing terrorism to me playing call of duty with my kids. I don’t disagree with what you’re saying but this is just the way it is. There’s no point in complaining about it because this problem isn’t going away anytime soon.

 

[Chancegriffis]

What if that philosophy applied to other areas of life.

Go shopping and you could be searched by the police at any time to make sure you didn't steal anything. No need for probable cause, you shopping is cause enough. Don't like it, don't shop at stores.

Your driving a car so the police pull you over and thoroughly search your vehicle and person. No reason other than you're driving so they can rightfully assume you're a drug smuggler. Don't like it, Don't drive.

You purchased a gun so the ATF decides that you could be a terrorist for doing so, now they have legal authority to do a warrantless search your home whenever they want. Don't like it, don't buy a gun.

Participation in a legal activity should not nullify someones individual protection against illegal search and seizure.

Where this gets tricky is the law claims they're not looking for your things, they're looking for their things as they own the fish and wildlife, even after you tag or catch it.

I also don’t believe the law states that they own the fish or wildlife.

 

[Chancegriffis]

Trust me when I tell you that I’ve been around these two industries long enough to know that if they want to check you they will. I was a commercial fisherman for almost ten years while I lived in Florida. I’ve seen it all from seizures of boats to seizures of everything including permanent suspension of licenses…When your own government comes to board your boat to do a safety inspection while you’re 80 miles away from land are you gonna tell them no, get a warrant? No. You’re not. When they ask to check your fish that you caught are you going to tell them no, or are you going to let them check? Do they have certain rights within the law to do so? Yes. But do they also stretch and pull on these boundaries far more often than they should??? 100 percent. They way the laws are written, the grey areas are to vast to try to rebel against IMO, so in my case I have to go along with it and I have always found that if you’re open and honest with law enforcement, or military, it goes a lot further than being combative.