This past Saturday a friend and I were on a CA state run hunt for dove, rabbit and pig on one of the ecological preserves in the central valley. It was a special hunt that you had to apply for and be drawn to participate. During the hunt we noticed a CA fish and game warden patrolling the grounds and actually making contact with hunters. During the time we were there he stopped to talk to us while we sat on the side of the road taking a water break and cooling off. Both of us had the appropriate licenses, tags etc and out shotguns were unloaded, in gun socks and on the floor board behind the drivers seat of the truck. As the warden drove up and got out of his vehicle he said he would like to check licenses, any game we had taken and wanted to check guns. We both showed the requested paperwork and pulled the few dove from the ice chest. He then proceeded to open the back door of the truck and start pulling guns from the vehicle. He looked at each gun starting with mine. It was unloaded and he placed shells in the magazine and then went to the next gun. After finishing his inspection he stated the first gun he checked, mine, was capable of holding 3 shells in the magazine. He even said he had to force the shell and had to do it twice in order for it to fit. The gun has a wooden dowel as a plug and he said I won't cite you because you are "attempting to do the right thing", but also said, " I could cite if I wanted." His attitude toward the whole thing was that of I am the warden and you are just another [beeep] wipe hunter who is breaking the law. My question is, does he have the authority to open a closed vehicle and start pulling weapons out, that were NOT visible from the outside, and inspecting them?

This is where the fur/fish cop and I would of had our first issue.

i have watched the show wild justice which is california fish and game people.

i have often wondered while watching that show if the constitution in california matters. it seems to me that they violate rights on a regular basis. starting with the fourth amendment.


opening a closed door to a truck would not be ok with me. i am not a lawyer or constitutional scholar, but sure seems to be an illegal search.

6724,
I have also seen a lot of questionable behavior on the show. You gotta remember it's a TV show and everybody's in on the production.
It took about one show for me to drop it to zero on my credibility scale.




Well,
It seems to me like it was a rude officer with absolutely no people skills, but it sounds like a legal search.

In my opinion, the answer is yes.
And here is the reason he did:



Your paperwork and doves were evidence you and your friend were hunting, so he had a legal right to check the guns used to take the doves.

In my opinion, he should have shown a little common courtesy and requested your consent first.

Agree with the above. Also the weapons were in plain sight if looking in the vehicle from outside, so it was not an illegal search by any stretch of the imagination. Pretty rude of him, but he was within his powers. You sure he wasn't one of the "Full of myself" agents on the TV show?

This is a state by state issue. That crap might fly in the communist republic of CA but not in MT. Checking licenses , animals, etc is fine but here atleast a Warden has no authority to check a vehicle without permission, a search warrant, or exigent circumstances that would have to be articulated well to constitute a lawful search.

i would have to agree, in colorado your vehicle is considered an extension of your home. just because i have a fresh elk head in front of the house or in the garage, does not mean that the warden can walk freely into my house to check guns. like i said before, i am no attorney, BUT, i think any information/ evidence found in the truck without a warrant or consent would be thrown out by any objective judge.

but, i have seen personally law enforcement violate rights, mine. i was checking a rifle in at the airport once and there were some county cops hanging out, they came over to "inspect" my case, they wrote down the serial numbers off my rifles. pretty sure they have NO business in checking serial numbers without probable cause or consent. this was back many years before 9-11.

most of the law enforcement people that i have dealt with, both good and bad, know very little about the law and hope their "victim" does not either. when called on their behavior many have backed down.

When you applied for permission take part in the said hunt, did you sign any paperwork as part of the application???

Since it was a State sponsored event on what sounds like a potential State controlled area, I'm betting there was some fine print, as well as a liability release, involved in the application forms that gave full authority for necessary inspections as deemed necessary by the agent...Maybe not worded exactly that way but similar...

A lot of applicants to similar events are so involved in the application being totally correct that they gloss over the fine print as to personal rights...

The officers had justification to inspect the firearms to make sure the birds they were shown were taken by lawful methods. In this case, the firearms in the vehicle could be searched for without a warrant. A motor vehicle is also mobile which creates an exigent circumstance to search without a warrant.

I believe the search was lawful, but the officers did a poor job in how they handled their hunter contact in the field.

In AZ for example, there is actually a state statute that enables wildlife officers to search without a warrant. This statute only applies to wildlife officers, not for all AZ state peace officers.

ARS 17-211(E3) states in part,
E. Game rangers and wildlife managers may, in addition to other duties:

1. Execute all warrants issued for a violation of this title.

2. Execute subpoenas issued in any matter arising under this title.

3. Search without warrant any aircraft, boat, vehicle, box, game bag or other package where there is sufficient cause to believe that wildlife or parts of wildlife are possessed in violation of law.

4. Inspect all wildlife taken or transported and seize all wildlife taken or possessed in violation of law, or showing evidence of illegal taking.

5. Seize as evidence devices used illegally in taking wildlife and hold them subject to the provisions of section 17-240.

6. Generally exercise the powers of peace officers with primary duties the enforcement of this title.

7. Seize devices that cannot be lawfully used for the taking of wildlife and are being so used and hold and dispose of them pursuant to section 17-240.

Well they get into force it in mode because there are those who run without a plug, then whittle one from the nearest green bush when the warden arrives. One of their favorite tricks is to fold up said green tree branch by forcing that last shell. Even our local warden has laughed about that one in conversation.

I guess my first question would be, is the plug in this shotgun original equipment? If not, you might want to find one that is. Because while this guy's attitude wasn't great, he did at least not cite you, when in fact he could have. And, whether you beat the case in court or not, it would have cost time off from work, attorney's fees, court costs... just generally more aggravation than it's worth. And, next time the gun might not be in the truck.

No, he probably shouldn't have. Can he legally??? I'd have to agree with Jeff and OT, there may have been fine print allowing consent, that you missed. Otherwise, by your statement above the warden asked to check licenses, game, and guns, and you had already consented to 2 out of 3 in offering your licenses and showing the game. Since all three were requested in the same stroke, it could be construed legally, that you consented to all of the above, in providing any one.

I'd write it off to experience and correct the issue with the plug in the shotgun.

Personally, I believe a plugged shotgun has nothing to do with protecting the resource. Bag and possession limits are what protects the resource, not how many rounds are in a gun. I would like to see the US Fish and Wildlife Service abolish this law and let the states decide if a round restriction for shotguns is really necessary for migratory birds. AZ does not require a plugged shotgun to take upland game birds, turkey, and small game. I don't see why migratory birds are treated differently.

The hunt took place on a private ranch. The ranch is owned by a group that allows hunting and it is located in a state ecological reserve. The state then has special hunts on the property twice a year to a limited number of hunters. There was not any paperwork for liability presented. For those from CA, the draw is available through the ALDS system, the new CA licensing system.

I feel like the warden should have asked for permission to see the guns instead of opening the truck himself. It would have been really interesting if my shepard was with us and in the truck. She would have taken his head off as soon as the door was opened.

I think that's one point that we all agree on.



Would it have made you feel better to see your dog attack the warden?
If your dog had been with you and had attacked the warden, what do you think his response would have been?
I think it would have been "really interesting".

Bob, I agree completely. I think the plug law is totally useless.
KY state law requires a plug in a shotgun for almost all hunting.