A first today-TWRA checking my car

[tcintn]

Today I met a young man who had asked if I would meet him and help him with T M's. I met him and we caught a lot of fish plus the young man caught one of those big ones they stock on Bison T M twitching.
TWRA checked my license and all was okay.About an hour later he was back and we were talking and all of a sudden he informed me that he was back because someone had called in and told them that I was catching fish and taking to my car and then going back and catching more and doing the same and also giving to others. So he told me he wanted me to take me to my car and open it and back up.He went through everything along with spare tire area and nothing there.I tried to explain to him that I was in my wife's car and she would kill me if I put a fish in her car.Also,i was a catch-and -release fisherman.He then went to the young man I brought and started asking him questions about fish I could have put in car.This was after searching my car.Then he started asking other folks there who might have seen me doing something wrong. The young man I was with did give his big fish to this other person who was so excited to get because he was wanting to get enough trout for a good supper for his family.
Well all ended well because we caught plenty of fish and put them back for others to catch and it was a great day to be with a great young man who was so excited about his big Rainbow he caught.

[Jdkxtreme]

I'm pretty sure I would have made him jump thru some hoops to get into my car

[jad2t]

That's ridiculous. I doubt he had the legal authority to do that from just a phone call, who knows if that phone call ever actually happened. Glad he eventually stopped harassing you and went on his way. I haven't fished the Caney since August now that I'm no longer living in Cookeville, I miss it!

[Tnriverluver]

Sounds like the Warden was the only one that was fishing and not catching:p

[Pookie]

So he told me he wanted me to take me to my car and open it and back up.

Know your rights!

You had the right to refuse. Regardless of what you have heard all your life about a game warden being able to search without a warrant, TWRA doesn't trump the constitution. He has the authority to inspect your license, tackle and firearms for compliance. Past that, your 4th Amendment Right concerning search and seizure and your 5th Amendment Right to remain silent are unaffected.

[Pookie]

That's ridiculous. I doubt he had the legal authority to do that from just a phone call

He had the best authority he could have had...tcintn complied with his request voluntarily.

[txnative]

Tcintn, kudos for complying. I know several police officers personally and a few TWRA agents, and having to search someone or their vehicle is in no way a good time for them. Dealing with the "who do you think you are ?" And "I know my rights" arguments makes the situation worse. Lets be honest, they are doing their JOB. How many of us have seen people blatantly violating the creel limits and wondered why the TWRA wasn't there to stop it ? It's 100% hypocritical to criticize them for investigating a complaint just because YOU are the alleged suspect. I applaud you, Tcintn, for letting the field agent search your car.


Chris Bryant

[Pookie]

Tcintn, kudos for complying. I know several police officers personally and a few TWRA agents, and having to search someone or their vehicle is in no way a good time for them. Dealing with the "who do you think you are ?" And "I know my rights" arguments makes the situation worse. Lets be honest, they are doing their JOB. How many of us have seen people blatantly violating the creel limits and wondered why the TWRA wasn't there to stop it ? It's 100% hypocritical to criticize them for investigating a complaint just because YOU are the alleged suspect. I applaud you, Tcintn, for letting the field agent search your car.


Chris Bryant

You can lay down and take it all you want. I refuse.

I don't think anyone here has a problem with a wildlife officer or a police officer "doing their job". However, it's not my job to assist them in gathering evidence against me. I have 20+ years LE experience and am pro law-enforcement, but I happen to be even more pro Constitution.

[TomD]

What are his options if you refuse to submit to his search demands? (legal options).

Removing my rant.

Its a fishing site not a hate the overreach site.. sorry but Im with Pookie.

[txnative]

Pookie,

I have not and will not feel like I am "assisting them to gather evidence against me" for the simple fact that there has not and will not be any evidence in the first place. I pride myself in being a law-abiding citizen. The Constitution does give me rights, and I appreciate them, but it is a far wiser choice to act in such a way as to never require my Constitutional rights to be necessary to protect myself from legal trouble. Tcintn had nothing to hide, and proved it by willingly submitting to a search of both his person and property. The biggest takeaway from his encounter was that he was doing the right thing legally to begin with, and THAT is something worthy of praise.


Chris Bryant

[Alphahawk]

He was doing the right thing. I am not conversant with every TWRA law...I do know however they have much broader reach than a city police or sheriffs office. It has been this way for many, many years. I have complied to this request on several occasions over the past 50 or so years. It took all of about 30 minutes at the most out of my time and I went on with what I was doing. I guess I could have said no and then spent the next several hours...or more....waiting on what comes next....whatever that would have been. tcintn was just relaying his experience and txnative was just commenting on it...without any disparaging remarks. To say someone is "laying down"......is that really called for on here? TWRA has a hard enough time as it is and while we all run into the occasional "Barney Fife" that is no reason to refer to him as a "TWRA jerk".




Regards

[Travis C.]

I dont understand how its over reach?

He did his job with just cause and it was complied with like it should have been because there was nothing to hide. If someone contacted TWRAs poaching hotline and watched the agent arrive to thier call would that not be expected. A complaint would be made if they didn't respond that way.

[TomD]

I dont understand how its over reach?

He did his job with just cause and it was complied with like it should have been because there was nothing to hide. If someone contacted TWRAs poaching hotline and watched the agent arrive to thier call would that not be expected. A complaint would be made if they didn't respond that way.

I guess Im not seeing it the right way. Does he have the legal authority based on the law or is hear say sufficient? I still think its overreach if he does not have a warrant? Thats why Im asking what is the law If the TWRA witnessed him doing something illegal no problem but based on a phone call, supposed phone call, my question is what is the limitations? If someone declared another doing something illegal and the accused declares he is not is it up to LE to determine who he wants to believe. Whats the law? It seems to me the TWRA guy should have watch the suspect and determine for himself if a crime was taking place.

[Alphahawk]

There are a few on here who work for TWRA and hopefully they will chime in as to what is the law as written.






Regards

[TomD]

There are a few on here who work for TWRA and hopefully they will chime in as to what is the law as written.






Regards
It would be good to know. Doesn't it border on innocent until proven guilty? If there were no violations it could be proved by popping the trunk.
It would be easy to prove his innocence but is the accused obligated to. I'm making the assumption he is innocent and what would be the legal process to prove guilt? Not looking for an argument just getting really sensitive to DC and whats taking place and letting it spill over.

[Alphahawk]

It would be good to know. Doesn't it border on innocent until proven guilty? If there were no violations it could be proved by popping the trunk.
It would be easy to prove his innocence but is the accused obligated to. I'm making the assumption he is innocent and what would be the legal process to prove guilt? Not looking for an argument just getting really sensitive to DC and whats taking place and letting it spill over.


I have never questioned the law of TWRA or I would have an answer. I see your point and I too would like to know the answer to that also. We also have a couple of attorneys on here who might can answer the question also.




Regards

[txnative]

Tom,

Use this scenario:

A person witnesses a robbery and calls the cops. A description of the suspect is then sent out. A cop sees someone matching the description and goes over to them to investigate.

In Tcintn's situation, he either matched or was the subject of a call made to TWRA. The field agent then conducted an investigation. Tcintn complied completely (knowing he was innocent) and once the agent corroborated his innocence by doing a thorough investigation, the issue died. Tcintn would be totally within his rights to have refused to cooperate, but that would have cost him time he could be fishing. Complying was by far the easiest way to clear the matter up.

To answer the question of the accused's obligation, I think the burden of evidence lies on the accuser. If it was the other way around, people could be detained any time a crime was committed ANYWHERE and then be forced to prove their innocence one by one until the perpetrator was left by process of elimination. That would be WAAAAY too much work for the judicial system.


Chris Bryant

[tcintn]

I need to also point out that the TWRA agent was very nice but because of the info given him by who knows who,he had the obligation to check it out. I guess my surprise to all of this is how I am always putting fish back.Yes,I did give either two or three to some folks standing near me who asked if they could have.We were at one of those winter stockings where folks are lined up next to each other.
About three years back,someone at the Harpeth River had complained about me catching so many fish even though I was releasing them.I guess it is time to stay away from these releases.

[txnative]

About three years back,someone at the Harpeth River had complained about me catching so many fish even though I was releasing them.I guess it is time to stay away from these releases.

Next time hand 'em a Trout Magnet, wink, and say "you're welcome." Best way to overcome Mr Sour Grapes is with a kind gesture.


Chris Bryant

[Pookie]

He was doing the right thing. I am not conversant with every TWRA law...I do know however they have much broader reach than a city police or sheriffs office. It has been this way for many, many years. I have complied to this request on several occasions over the past 50 or so years. It took all of about 30 minutes at the most out of my time and I went on with what I was doing. I guess I could have said no and then spent the next several hours...or more....waiting on what comes next....whatever that would have been. tcintn was just relaying his experience and txnative was just commenting on it...without any disparaging remarks. To say someone is "laying down"......is that really called for on here? TWRA has a hard enough time as it is and while we all run into the occasional "Barney Fife" that is no reason to refer to him as a "TWRA jerk".




Regards

No, TWRA has no broader reach than any other city, county, or state LE organization. We've both heard all of our life that the game warden can come into our homes and inspect our freezer for deer that was untagged without a warrant. That is simply a myth. The 4th Amendment addresses unlawful search and seizure. There are 7 ways a person can be searched and 6 ways for property search. The only way the vehicle could have been searched in this instance is through permission. Otherwise, if the officer felt strongly enough that fish were being hidden, he would have had to obtain a search warrant. The officer would have had to been able to convince a judge or magistrate that he had probable cause to believe the fish were there. Based on an anonymous phone call and lack of plain view evidence, it couldn't have been done.

As to your last sentence, I don't ever advocate disrepect to authority.


Tom,

Use this scenario:

A person witnesses a robbery and calls the cops. A description of the suspect is then sent out. A cop sees someone matching the description and goes over to them to investigate.

In Tcintn's situation, he either matched or was the subject of a call made to TWRA. The field agent then conducted an investigation. Tcintn complied completely (knowing he was innocent) and once the agent corroborated his innocence by doing a thorough investigation, the issue died. Tcintn would be totally within his rights to have refused to cooperate, but that would have cost him time he could be fishing. Complying was by far the easiest way to clear the matter up.

To answer the question of the accused's obligation, I think the burden of evidence lies on the accuser. If it was the other way around, people could be detained any time a crime was committed ANYWHERE and then be forced to prove their innocence one by one until the perpetrator was left by process of elimination. That would be WAAAAY too much work for the judicial system.


Chris Bryant

You are correct in saying that cooperation reduced the amount of time he was entangled in this mess. The burden of proof ALWAYS rests squarely on the prosecutor though. A little known fact is that police are NOT required to tell the truth when dealing with the public. Maybe he got a complaint, maybe not. Maybe that was a ruse to search the vehicle on instinct.

All I am saying is that personally, I would readily show my license, tackle and firearm to a wildlife officer. When I purchased the license, I agreed to do so. Once it develops into another realm of searches and a line of questioning, I am through cooperating.

[agelesssone]

I have to side with Pookie on this one.

There are those of us who have served in the military and had the possibility of dying, all in the name of freedom (but that is also a very debatable issue), freedom from certain intrusions into our privacy, guaranteed by the Constitution.

We also have the right to face our accusers, which in this case didn't happen. I cannot, in good conscience, give up any of the rights I (presumably) fought and killed (and could have died for) for.

Show the required licenses? Not a problem. Search my vehicle? Not a chance, without a written warrant.

Just so no one can question the validity of my service, I am including a link to the web page dedicated to the 42nd IPSD (Infantry Platoon Scout Dogs). I was in this unit from April 1969-April 1970. Our job was to walk point for the line units throughout VietNam. There were many Scout Dog units throughout South Vietnam.

http://42nd-ipsd.freeservers.com/new/handlers_dogs1_69_70pg5.htm

[Pookie]

What are his options if you refuse to submit to his search demands? (legal options).

Removing my rant.

Its a fishing site not a hate the overreach site.. sorry but Im with Pookie.

A couple of things here...

First, I'm sorry, but I didn't catch your question on reading this thread until now. Secondly, I am not an atty. I am a retired LEO.

Like I previously stated, there are several ways to search a vehicle. They are:
1. By Consent
2. By Warrant
3. By Plain View Doctorine
4. Search incident to towing/arrest

The easiest is by consent. Assuming tcintn refused to give consent, the wildlife officer would have just 2 options: 1) He would have to call another game warden to detain the vehicle and tcintn until he could go to town and find a judge or magistrate who he could vocalize the facts of the matter to, and convince the judge he had reason to believe that contraband (illegal fish) were in the vehicle. The complaint being anonymous would probably not be sufficient enough to obtain such warrant. 2) He would have to be able to look in the vehicle from the outside and see more than 7 fish, or, more than 7 total between tcintn's creel and vehicle. That's it! Those are all the options.

I didn't intend to start a storm here, but the thread title suggests the storm was already brewing. Fishing is recreational for me. While out, I mind my own business, abide by the law, and try to enjoy myself. If/when I see a violation, I still mind my own business. You can cut corners, be a game hog, and intentionally poach without getting caught for awhile. You will never outrun karma though. It always catches up to ya. When it does, it carries interest.

[browntrout]

Spinning reels or bait casting reels? Everyone has an opinion on this and how to handle the situation. I would have let him search my car with no problem as I realize he is just doing his job. Ed did say he was respectful and courteous. I also respect the opinion of those who would require legal documentation to allow the search. I think that there isn't a right or wrong answer. It does make for interesting conversation however and it is fun to hear each other's opinion.

As far as opinions for you old school guys I do believe the trout weighed over 9 pounds. Remember the days when we argued over the weights of fish. Lol.

Roy

[Pookie]

I need to also point out that the TWRA agent was very nice...

Of course he was nice. He knew that you could refuse entry to the vehicle, whether you knew it or not. He was travelling under the theory that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Secondly, he was a seasoned officer. Where he comes from, poaching and night hunting are a HUGE concern, and dangerous for the violator as well as the warden. I know because we have talked before. A young man armed with a fly rod and one or two too many trout is not a big concern for him.

At the end of the day, he did what he was supposed to do, you complied with his requests because you are not an outlaw, and had nothing to fear. He has forgotten about the incident 5 minutes after you two parted ways. You, on the other hand, are second guessing what you could/should have done differently, as evidenced by your contemplating not fishing these stocking events anymore.

Being a conservationist is what enjoying the outdoors is all about. Stopping at your limit, purchasing ALL of the correct license, and with fishing; catch & release. With these trout, there is not much conservationist to them. If you don't keep what you catch, they are going to die anyway. They don't affect the eco-system one iota. Once the water temp hits 70* they die en masse.

[Pookie]

Spinning reels or bait casting reels?
Roy

Remember, we're talking about trout fishing. :D

The correct question would be fly rod, or spinning rod? :p

[agelesssone]

Actually, Rotenone works better than a flyrod or spinning rod/reel setup. It's guaranteed to get fish!

[txnative]

Spinning reels or bait casting reels? Everyone has an opinion on this and how to handle the situation. I would have let him search my car with no problem as I realize he is just doing his job. Ed did say he was respectful and courteous. I also respect the opinion of those who would require legal documentation to allow the search. I think that there isn't a right or wrong answer. It does make for interesting conversation however and it is fun to hear each other's opinion.

As far as opinions for you old school guys I do believe the trout weighed over 9 pounds. Remember the days when we argued over the weights of fish. Lol.

Roy

I agree with you 100%...except for the weight of the trout, but that's because I didn't look at the picture, so I don't know either way :)

I don't have any problem with opinions that differ from mine, but telling Tcintn what he "should" have done is unnecessary. He made a decision based on his own logic. Refusing the search would have been equally right. He decided to put his pride away and acquiesce to a law officer, something that should be applauded.


Chris Bryant

[Pookie]

I agree with you 100%...except for the weight of the trout, but that's because I didn't look at the picture, so I don't know either way :)

I don't have any problem with opinions that differ from mine, but telling Tcintn what he "should" have done is unnecessary. He made a decision based on his own logic. Refusing the search would have been equally right. He decided to put his pride away and acquiesce to a law officer, something that should be applauded.


Chris Bryant

I've gone back and re-read the entire thread just because of your allegation. I can't find a single instance where anyone stated what he "should" have done. Personally, I stated what I would have done, which was somewhat contrary to his action. There were some "I don't knows" and a few disagreements as to how "they" would have handled it, but I never once saw "should". If you don't mind, please point that out?

[txnative]

I'm pretty sure I would have made him jump thru some hoops to get into my car

Chris Bryant

[Transplanted Sportsman]

I have to side with Pookie on this one.

There are those of us who have served in the military and had the possibility of dying, all in the name of freedom (but that is also a very debatable issue), freedom from certain intrusions into our privacy, guaranteed by the Constitution.

We also have the right to face our accusers, which in this case didn't happen. I cannot, in good conscience, give up any of the rights I (presumably) fought and killed (and could have died for) for.

Show the required licenses? Not a problem. Search my vehicle? Not a chance, without a written warrant.

Just so no one can question the validity of my service, I am including a link to the web page dedicated to the 42nd IPSD (Infantry Platoon Scout Dogs). I was in this unit from April 1969-April 1970. Our job was to walk point for the line units throughout VietNam. There were many Scout Dog units throughout South Vietnam.

http://42nd-ipsd.freeservers.com/new/handlers_dogs1_69_70pg5.htm

Merv, and to all of our past and present military (specially the ones on here) thanks for your service!!!

Spinning reels or bait casting reels? Everyone has an opinion on this and how to handle the situation. I would have let him search my car with no problem as I realize he is just doing his job. Ed did say he was respectful and courteous. I also respect the opinion of those who would require legal documentation to allow the search. I think that there isn't a right or wrong answer. It does make for interesting conversation however and it is fun to hear each other's opinion.

As far as opinions for you old school guys I do believe the trout weighed over 9 pounds. Remember the days when we argued over the weights of fish. Lol.

Roy

Roy I like your response the best!!!

and Mr Ed kudos to you Sir!!, no need to stop going to these events specially if you took a new fisherman to teach him the ropes, no better way to start them good than with an episode like the one you endured and you prove yourself with a lot of class!!

[txnative]

Other than to criticize his actions or to simply be contrary, I don't understand the motive in saying anything other than commenting on his fishing. The "I'm just saying" disclaimer is a poor excuse to give an uninvited/unnecessary critique someone else's actions, especially over an issue such as whether or not to comply with a search request by a law enforcement officer.


Chris Bryant

[browntrout]

I have shared this story with y'all before but it is such a good story I will share it again in case some of you missed it the first time I shared it:

Where I went to Elementary school we had a big long pee trough in the boys bathroom and I could pee further across that trough than anyone. I was the best pisser that the school had ever seen. I could piss so good that the others just quit competing with me. I sure did "piss" a bunch of people off.

Roy

[MickT]

OP did right. The way the law for wildlife works in TN is this- having fishing or hunting gear in plain sight is implied consent to determine if your are in compliance with the law. In some states, it is common practice for wildlife officers to conduct "roadblocks" to assess licenses, bag limits, proper tagging, etc. Someone probably saw his fellow fisherman pass off the fish and assumed they were doing that to be able to keep on fishing. Most WOs will not search to such lengths without a reason to be suspicious. Was it a case of a jealous fisherman? Who knows.

Think about it this way- if the OP had gotten on here complaining about some guy hauling stringers of trout to the car and returning to fishing, how many on here would chastise him for not calling TWRA on the guy?

[SAMBOLIE]

I have shared this story with y'all before but it is such a good story I will share it again in case some of you missed it the first time I shared it:

Where I went to Elementary school we had a big long pee trough in the boys bathroom and I could pee further across that trough than anyone. I was the best pisser that the school had ever seen. I could piss so good that the others just quit competing with me. I sure did "piss" a bunch of people off.

Roy

Roy, once again you did not mention that you were 19 yrs old in elementary school.

[browntrout]

Roy, once again you did not mention that you were 19 yrs old in elementary school.



18.

Roy

[TomD]

I canoed up to the shallows on Bledsoe Creek a while back and started wading when I met a group not a group I'd confront using a long net 25' feet or so it would reach almost across the creek. a couple dozen or so folks wading passing a bottle around laughing carrying on hauling gunny sacks filled with their netted fish, anything they netted went in the bags my guess for a big fish fry. I went back to the canoe and headed back down stream and called the TWRA who said unless he caught them in the act wasn't much he could do.
Whats the point? Win some lose some I guess.

[tkwalker]

Yep I called the law on tcintn ... Just so I could get three pages of opinions ... :eek: No just kidding ! ... I have mixed emotions on this subject ...

I agree with merv (the agelesssone) in a lot of aspects ... Been there and done that in 1968 during the Tet Offensive , and as most of you know I take my freedom very seriously !!! ... But I see the job of the TWRA agents as well ... Plus we are always bitching about folks hauling fish to their vehicle and then continue fishing ...

Great post and subject ... Great food for thought on what you would do in this situation ... Thanks for all the posts on this thread ...

I am going to contact my friend and Staff Member and an unofficial Legal advisor on this subject ... bd ... <'TK>< ;):)

[Pookie]

Other than to criticize his actions or to simply be contrary, I don't understand the motive in saying anything other than commenting on his fishing. The "I'm just saying" disclaimer is a poor excuse to give an uninvited/unnecessary critique someone else's actions, especially over an issue such as whether or not to comply with a search request by a law enforcement officer.


Chris Bryant

This thread is NOT about fishing, but about an encounter with a TWRA officer while fishing. There are no disclaimers posted here, and furthermore, when a thread is initiated on a discussion board, critique/discussion is implied to be invited. If you and I found ourself fishing the same stream and I was using trout magnets but couldn't catch a fish longer than 10", your probable response would be something along the lines of: "I used crappie magnets and never hooked anything under 10"

I'm not here to discuss legal matters with anyone, but since MickT brought it up, compliance in this instance is limited to checking license, creel, and tackle. I have already stated at least twice that I would readily produce my license, allow him to check my tackle or firearm, and produce my bag limit for inspection.

tcintn initiated this thread because he was unsure what his options were in this incident. He probably complied because he didn't think he had any other option, and he had nothing to hide anyway. Everyone here is going to act/react differently to requests by game wardens. I was there, but wasn't in his position, so I can't really say what I would have done. My point now, is the same as it was in my first response, know your rights and know the authority boundaries as well.

[aero320]

This was a great thread. About 35 years ago, a friend of mine and I were crappie fishing on Barkley Lake and got caught by the game warden with too many fish. Back then, the limit was 60 per person. The game warden issued us both citations. It just happened, that the guy I was fishing with was the brother-in-law of the judge in the next county. A phone call was made and the charges were dropped. Every time I saw that game warden at the lake he said something about that incident. On one occasion, my dad was with me when the game warden pulled up to chat. After the game warden left, my dad said "You should have just paid the ticket".

In this incident, I would have done what tcintn did although I might let the game warden know that technically he needed a warrant but as a courtesy (and since I had nothing to hide) he was welcome to look.

[Alphahawk]

I fish TWRA Lakes a lot....mostly VFW and Laurel Hill. It is not uncommon if you stay until dusk in the spring and early summer you may find a road block as you head out the gate. TWRA officers will be there and they will check your cooler and count the fish. No it does not happen everyday...but does happen a couple of times each year. But you are on TWRA property...or state property.....whatever the case may be so those rules I am sure are different if you are on the side of a public road. I have never refused a check and when I have been checked it is by TWRA officers I have personally fished with in their own boat....so they don't discriminate......LOL. I have never witnessed anyone refuse a check so I don't know what hoops are jumped through if you refuse a check...if any. Here is a link to an article that in some ways the state senator is addressing some of the issues being discussed about on this thread......but what I am dead set against is the TWRA being put under political control by the legislature. I would much rather the TWRA Commission decide how our license money be spent than the state legislature.



Regards


http://www.wate.com/story/23268272/state-senator-frank-niceley-calls-for-twra-overhaul

[Pookie]

I am dead set against is the TWRA being put under political control by the legislature. I would much rather the TWRA Commission decide how our license money be spent than the state legislature.

It's a tradeoff of sorts. If you will recall, it was Senator Jackson who caused the "right to hunt" law to be passed for Tennesseans, and it was Senator Jackson who repealed the minimum caliber for deer hunting. It was reduced from .24 to .22 centerfire. A law enforcement agency without checks and balances who polices itself, is in constant danger of becoming a rogue agency.

I'm not sure of the dangers in letting the state take over the TWRA. As is, they don't seem to answer to anyone but the commissioners, who don't actually wield any authority. Ed Carter is not elected, so he doesn't even answer to the voters.

As a licensed driver, our license fees go directly to the state Dept of Safety, who passes them along to the state general fund. All civil & criminal warrants have an officer's fee attached of 42.00, which is passed along to the city or county general fund...the agency doesn't get to keep it. My point is; what would be the harm of the state taking the TWRA over? You do realize that a great portion of their funding is derived from outside sources such as the Dept of Interior, Ducks Unlimited, Trout Unlimited, etc, don't you?

I'm the last person who would advocate growing government, but as long as it is already there, they should be accountable.

[TomD]

If his request is to look in your cooler which I think is well within his right and finds no violation mission accomplished.

Beyond that if he continues his search not having found a violation and fails to ask for your permission to expand his search he may have exceeded his authority.

If he counted the fish in the cooler and you have exceeded the limit I think he has every right to continue his search.

I do stay in Holiday Inns (when I have no options) On one occasion my wife and I stay in a Holiday Inn in Little Rock and we broke the bed when we asked for another room they said no but gave us enough telephone books to prop it up so I do believe there is justice but Lady Law has been known to be a little fickle.

[tkwalker]

I fish TWRA Lakes a lot....mostly VFW and Laurel Hill. It is not uncommon if you stay until dusk in the spring and early summer you may find a road block as you head out the gate. TWRA officers will be there and they will check your cooler and count the fish. No it does not happen everyday...but does happen a couple of times each year. But you are on TWRA property...or state property.....whatever the case may be so those rules I am sure are different if you are on the side of a public road. I have never refused a check and when I have been checked it is by TWRA officers I have personally fished with in their own boat....so they don't discriminate......LOL. I have never witnessed anyone refuse a check so I don't know what hoops are jumped through if you refuse a check...if any. Here is a link to an article that in some ways the state senator is addressing some of the issues being discussed about on this thread......but what I am dead set against is the TWRA being put under political control by the legislature. I would much rather the TWRA Commission decide how our license money be spent than the state legislature.



Regards


http://www.wate.com/story/23268272/state-senator-frank-niceley-calls-for-twra-overhaul

My point for years ... Thank God TWRA is an Agency Self maintained . and a not a political bureaucracy ... <'TK>< :)

[tkwalker]

This provided via an attorney friend ... <'TK>< :)

"By the way, the law is that wildlife officers have the authority to search you without a warrant if you’re in the field. This is codified at Tenn. Code Ann. § 70-6-101(b)(1) and (2). There’s not really any gray area in this one. It’s been accepted law for 60 years. They can’t search a home or residence, but they have clear-cut authority to search a boat or car.



The law essentially says that participating in the taking and possession of wildlife is a privilege allowed by statute, and if you decide to engage in that privilege, you have a duty to allow inspections and searches. In fact, part (2) of the statute says if you refuse to agree to an inspection of your boat or vehicle, it is a Class C misdemeanor and you can be fined.



It’s similar to how the DUI breathalyzer law works. When you drive a car, you legally make an “implied consent” to a breathalyzer test. If an officer asks you to submit to a breathalyzer and you refuse, you’re subject to punishment including loss of your driver’s license.



The constitutionality of the law authorizing game warden searches was upheld all the way back in the 1950s, in a pair of cases – Monroe v. State and State v. Hall. Maybe I would have decided the cases the other way if I were the judge, but the Court has ruled on it and the precedent is what it is."

[Hammy]

TK, to bad you didn't have this info few days ago. It would have put a lot to bed.

Hammy

[MickT]

Thanks for looking that up TK. I was too lazy to try to find the TCA citation.

[agelesssone]

Very glad you posted this TK. Might've saved me some embarrassment, time, money.........

[tkwalker]

Very glad you posted this TK. Might've saved me some embarrassment, time, money.........

FishingTN.com tries to serve the Fishing, Boating and outdoor community ... And thanks to my friend and FTI member in the legal community ;)... <'TK><

[agelesssone]

And now, if you can just get SAMBOLIE to QUIT PICKIN ON ME!!!

[Pookie]

Not to argue with you, TK, but here is the statute:

70-6-101. Enforcement authority -- Inspection of game -- Penalty for refusing to allow inspection -- Regulations.

(a) The executive director or the officers of the wildlife resources agency, or officers of any other state or of the federal government who are full-time wildlife enforcement personnel designated by the executive director, shall enforce all laws now enacted or that may hereafter be enacted for the propagation and preservation of all wildlife in this state, and shall prosecute all persons, firms and corporations who violate any of such laws. The executive director or officers of the agency shall seize any and all wild animals, wild fowl, wild birds, fishes, frogs and other aquatic animal life, or parts of such wildlife, that have been killed, caught, or taken at a time, in a manner or for a purpose, or that are in possession, or that have been shipped, transported, carried or taken in this state or brought into this state from another state, contrary to the laws of this state.

(b) (1) It is the duty of every person participating in the privileges of taking or possessing such wildlife as permitted by this title to permit the executive director or officers of the agency to ascertain whether the requirements of this title are being faithfully complied with, including the possession of a proper license.

(2) Any person who refuses such inspection and count by any authorized officer of the state, or who interferes with such officer or obstructs such inspection or count commits a Class C misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than fifty dollars ($50.00).

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit search or inspection of a person's dwelling or place of business without a search warrant.

(d) The commission is authorized to provide by duly promulgated regulations a system for issuing warning citations under such conditions as may be deemed proper.



I'm sorry, but it doesn't say a word about vehicle search. Actually, it only reinforces what we have already found common ground on...inspecting license, tackle, creel. The statute specifically exempts personal residences and businesses.

[bd-]

Pookie, that's why you have to read the cases that go along with the statute. The e-mail TK quoted above was from me. I just hadn't had a chance to follow up with the forum at the time he posted it.

The Court upheld the constitutionality of warrantless vehicle searches under the statute in question in Monroe v. State, 253 S.W.2d 734 (Tenn. 1952). I mentioned Monroe in my e-mail that TK quoted. The Hall case is an older case saying the same thing under a prior, similar statute, and there's another case from 1953, Hughes v. State, saying essentially the same thing. They are all pretty old cases but it's still good law.

[tkwalker]

Your probably like myself and dozens of others ... Really don't like it ... But as bd put's it ...It is like the DUI breathalyser test ... You don't have to do it ... But most likely you will pay in the end ...

With this said ... The attorney has stated the law ... And most likely knows who is going to win out in these cases ...

So, info 101 on TWRA Search of Vehicles and Boats has been quoted via by your friendly neighbourhood community service website ... www.Fishingtn.com ...

I think this thread has been thoroughly covered from all angles of right and wrongs ... So you be the judge if you are ever put in this situation ... I agree with Merv ... I think I will save time and money (As long as the Officer is professional ) If not I have other alternatives ...

... <'TK>< :)

[tkwalker]

:)OP did right. The way the law for wildlife works in TN is this- having fishing or hunting gear in plain sight is implied consent to determine if your are in compliance with the law. In some states, it is common practice for wildlife officers to conduct "roadblocks" to assess licenses, bag limits, proper tagging, etc. Someone probably saw his fellow fisherman pass off the fish and assumed they were doing that to be able to keep on fishing. Most WOs will not search to such lengths without a reason to be suspicious. Was it a case of a jealous fisherman? Who knows.

Think about it this way- if the OP had gotten on here complaining about some guy hauling stringers of trout to the car and returning to fishing, how many on here would chastise him for not calling TWRA on the guy?

Mick, you hit it on the nose !! <'TK><

[tkwalker]

And now, if you can just get SAMBOLIE to QUIT PICKIN ON ME!!!

May take Legal action, But !! ... I'll contact our Legal Authority! ... But Merv.... he may have Legal ground to stand on ??? :eek: <'TK>< LOL!! chuckle, chuckle .. I love it ... ;):):eek:

[SAMBOLIE]

And now, if you can just get SAMBOLIE to QUIT PICKIN ON ME!!!

May take Legal action, But !! ... I'll contact our Legal Authority! ... But Merv.... he may have Legal ground to stand on ??? :eek: <'TK>< LOL!! chuckle, chuckle .. I love it ... ;):):eek:

TK is right. You are guilty of the punishment.

Merv, we need to be thankful to TK for providing us a place to learn and have our fun. So many great people on here.
This thread is a prime example. We learned a lot and did not have to pay an attorney for legal advice. Thanks bd.
If I did not like you I would not pick on you. You can give as good as you take.

[Hammy]

Just a thought on the law.... if it doesnt exclude it ( the vehicle ) would it be considered included?

Hammy

[gboyce]

I normally do not wade into arguments on forums since it is usually not productive but I felt the need to post on this one. While being checked and search by TWRA can be a PITA and time comsuming what is the issue? If you go back and search thru the forum you will find many times someone asking for TWRA number to report:

Too many fish
Small Fish
The coke bottle fisherman on the tail waters.
Saw one about someone pointing a gun
Vandalizing property in state parks

And I could keep going on. My father was a Chicago policeman his whole life and always told me the only time cops are liked is when they are needed :)

Again while its a PITA and I sympathize with it, it should be a non issue with everyone on here as we constantly ask for them to do things also

[MNfisher]

I normally do not wade into arguments on forums since it is usually not productive but I felt the need to post on this one. While being checked and search by TWRA can be a PITA and time comsuming what is the issue? If you go back and search thru the forum you will find many times someone asking for TWRA number to report:

Too many fish
Small Fish
The coke bottle fisherman on the tail waters.
Saw one about someone pointing a gun
Vandalizing property in state parks

And I could keep going on. My father was a Chicago policeman his whole life and always told me the only time cops are liked is when they are needed :)

Again while its a PITA and I sympathize with it, it should be a non issue with everyone on here as we constantly ask for them to do things also

X2!!!! Well said!

[Doc Marshall]

Speaking as an attorney here...

When you fish, you're fishing under a license. A license is very different from a right (such as voting). At common law, a license is freely revocable. It can be taken away for just about any reason. For instance, everyone who possesses a driver's license has given their implied consent to a breathalyzer test on TN roadways. Failure to comply can result in immediate revocation of the license to drive.

A fishing or hunting license is also freely revocable, and all holders are subject to the extra conditions that come with said license (including car/cooler searches).

FYI, a ticket to any movie or event is also a license (and freely revocable). If you had front row seats to Dwight Yoakam at the Ryman and Hayden Panettiere decided she wanted your seat, the Ryman could revoke your ticket (give you your money back), and give the ticket to her.

Are these search provisions "good law"? At the risk of pouring gasoline on a political discussion, I'm personally horrified at the militarization of our police and the constant intrusion of government into my life. That said, most TWRA officers I've encountered are super nice, professional, and simply working to protect the fisheries I love.

[tkwalker]

:)Speaking as an attorney here...

When you fish, you're fishing under a license. A license is very different from a right (such as voting). At common law, a license is freely revocable. It can be taken away for just about any reason. For instance, everyone who possesses a driver's license has given their implied consent to a breathalyzer test on TN roadways. Failure to comply can result in immediate revocation of the license to drive.

A fishing or hunting license is also freely revocable, and all holders are subject to the extra conditions that come with said license (including car/cooler searches).

FYI, a ticket to any movie or event is also a license (and freely revocable). If you had front row seats to Dwight Yoakam at the Ryman and Hayden Panettiere decided she wanted your seat, the Ryman could revoke your ticket (give you your money back), and give the ticket to her.

Are these search provisions "good law"? At the risk of pouring gasoline on a political discussion, I'm personally horrified at the militarization of our police and the constant intrusion of government into my life. That said, most TWRA officers I've encountered are super nice, professional, and simply working to protect the fisheries I love.

Well Stated Doc ..... <'TK><

[Pookie]

Speaking as an attorney here...

When you fish, you're fishing under a license. A license is very different from a right (such as voting).

Speaking as a layperson here...

I'm not sure where you fish or hunt, but as a Tennessean, fishing and hunting in Tennessee, I am doing so by right.


Article XI, Section 13 of the Constitution of the State of Tennessee
The General Assembly shall have power to enact laws for the protection and preservation of Game and Fish, within the State, and such laws may be enacted for and applied and enforced in particular Counties or geographical districts, designated by the General Assembly. The citizens of this state shall have the personal right to hunt and fish, subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law. The recognition of this right does not abrogate any private or public property rights, nor does it limit the state's power to regulate commercial activity. Traditional manners and means may be used to take non-threatened species.



Link to State Constitution: http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/

[bd-]

The catch is the "subject to reasonable regulations and restrictions prescribed by law." One of which is the license requirement.

[bd-]

Are these search provisions "good law"? At the risk of pouring gasoline on a political discussion, I'm personally horrified at the militarization of our police and the constant intrusion of government into my life.

Not sure if you're responding to my statement about "good law" or not. By "good law" I mean it's on solid footing as precedent (notwithstanding the fact that the relevant opinions are very old). In other words, if a game warden asks to search your car after you've been fishing and you refuse, you're going to lose.

That's a different thing than saying it's "good policy." I would have preferred for the Court to hold that the 4th Amendment commands a warrant. I worry that any time a citizen has a fishing rod in plain view in his car, some creative officer might decide to use it as an pretext for a search. In my opinion, that is very, very bad, and it invites abuse. There's a 2005 decision from the Court of Criminal Appeals, State v. Lezotte, where the District Attorney noted a fishing rod in the back of a truck as a possible justification for a search in a DUI case, though the case was resolved on other grounds.

That said, the only ways to change that are to (a) have the legislature change the statute; or (b) get convicted for refusing a search and challenge it on appeal.

The first isn't going to happen, because we have a very conservative legislature in Tennessee, and nobody's going to sponsor a bill that limits law enforcement authority because they're afraid of being called "soft on crime." As far as the second, if someone here has a lot of money and wants to be the guinea pig, I'll take it all the way to the Tennessee Supreme Court for you, but be forewarned, it ain't gonna be cheap. :)