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

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

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.

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

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.


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.

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...1_69_70pg5.htm

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

Chris Bryant

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

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!!