Not here it wouldnt, but wouldn't be surprised if it is in CA. In MT your vehicle is an extension of your home and is protected by a specific expectation of privacy clause on our state constitution

That's interesting.
I can't find it.




It looks pretty much identical to the US Constitution.



The CONSTITUTION of the STATE OF MONTANA

PREAMBLE

We the people of Montana grateful to God for the quiet beauty of our state, the grandeur of
our mountains, the vastness of our rolling plains, and desiring to improve the quality of
life, equality of opportunity and to secure the blessings of liberty for this and future
generations do ordain and establish this constitution.

Section 11. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall be secure in their
persons, papers, homes and effects from unreasonable searches and seizures. No warrant to search
any place, or seize any person or thing shall issue without describing the place to be searched
or the person or thing to be seized, or without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation
reduced to writing.

6724,
I can't find that anywhere in the Colorado Constitution either.
would you please post a link to that? I'd like to read it.

Article 2 section 10

Section 10. RIGHT OF PRIVACY. The right of individual privacy is essential to the well-being of a free society and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest.

Ok, I got it.
Now explain to me where it mentions searching a vehicle, and how does it prevent a search that would otherwise be legal under Article 11?

He did it.. The case is if he would have cited you for a plug issue, then you could have taken the issue to court as a violation of the 4th ammendment.

As the example of from AZ shows that Fish and Game has the right to search.. Well just cause it's the law doesn't make it legal.

If he asked.. I would show him, maybe, I am not affraid of saying no, and am prepared for the reaction because they don't like hearing no.
I am all about making it legal to record any and all interaction with law enforcement, and challenge these laws that take away your rights. The guns were in the vehicle and they should get permission, or a warrent based on p cause to search.

I have run into game wardens while driving, and they have asked me for a hunting lic. I wasn't hunting at that moment, so i told them i have a drivers lic and registration if they would like. He didn't like it, but moved on. I had no animals and AZ is an open carry and no concealed permitt required state, i don't need a hunting lic to be out and about and have a gun. I know it's being difficult, or a thorn, but the government should be a minor part of society, and if i don't have any animals or I am not activly hunting, i dont need a lic, depending on the land where i am at, and don't need an access permitt.

I didn't mean the constitution said that about vehicles, I was trying to make 2 points, #1 that vehicles are treated as an extension of your house here, and #2 that we have a right to privacy in our constitution.

And that search doesn't meet consent, search warrant, or probable cause that a crime has been committed to apply for a search warrant , so here they could not search your vehicle for that. Not to mention the only ammo capacity restriction we have is for waterfowl.

You sure about that?

Page 3 of the 2013 Montana Migratory Bird regs:

No persons shall take migratory game birds –
• With a trap, snare, net, rifle, pistol, swivel gun, shotgun larger than 10 gauge, punt gun, battery gun, machine gun, fish hook, poison, drug, explosive, or stupefying substance. • With a shotgun of any description capable of holding more than three shells, unless it is plugged with a one-piece filler, incapable of removal without disassembling the
gun, so its total capacity does not exceed three shells.

I can't find an exemption for doves.
Did I miss it somewhere?

Sorry, migratory birds is correct, when most people here say waterfowl regs etc that encompasses all migratory birds, but I should have said it correctly. Upland birds have no restriction, migratory and waterfowl limit is 3

Although I believe the Eurasian collared dove is an exception because they are an unprotected and unregulated invasive species in MT, but that is irrelevant to what we are talking about

....Search and Seizure court case rulings may have changed over the years, but all the training and Constitutional Law courses that I've taken have ruled that if an item is within a locked/secure article, where the owner has the explicit expectation of privacy, a warrant is needed before any search or seizure...However, if it is not in a "Secure" area, it may be seized if it is in Plain View, the vehicle is being towed to an impound facility and the officer needs to inventory the contents for documentation and safe keeping, or the owner (or person immediately having custody) gives permission...

I know that under the "Castle Doctrine" in some states, the vehicle specifically is considered an extension of your home or domicile for the purposes of self protection on the public roadways, but if you come under a the jurisdiction of a special and restricted function, the search and seizure would come under a judicial ruling...Could really be interesting to "make some case law"...

MT is unlike most if not all other states in that aspect in that we don't have an in plain sight exception "except" incident to an arrest the officer is in arms reach of a weapon that is in plain view and Obviously if there is a weapon within reach that would be an exigent circumstance and the officer can secure it.

Well, y'all can go ahead and beat on this one as long as you want to, but Rocky already summed up the entire situation.



Raspack made no mention of refusing the officer permission to check the guns.
The officer simply reached into the truck and only removed guns he had been given consent to inspect. If he made any further "search" of the vehicle it wasn't mentioned in the original post, and I think Raspack would certainly have mentioned it.
I'm not certain that the term "search" even applies to this situation. If it does, it it was definitely a consent search going by the info in the original post.

If Raspack feels that his feelings were hurt to the point that he needs some sort of restitution or apology, he should file a written complaint with the officer's supervisor.
In my old agency, written complaints were always investigated and a reply was always sent to the complainant.
I'm sure all agencies have similar policies.

I think you are probably right, depending on exactly what was said or asked etc, consent was probably implied when the Warden asked to check all of the above and Raspack not refusing the request or actually consenting by saying he can check the guns

I think once the game warden discovered (or you told him) you were hunting and checked your license, or saw game that give them plenty of authority...I think all they need is reasonable suspicion that your hunting/fishing to check your vehicle and stop and check your hunting license.

Most game wardens have more authority than state/local police.


I also believe they can check the vehicle for bullets too...so thats almost anywhere in the vehicle.