Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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
|
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.