This is a very interesting article.

Government Cameras Hidden on Private Property? Welcome to Open Fields

WOW!
News to me - never heard of Open Fields before.

Any Texan with property other than house and yard must read this!

Apparently the Texas constitution does not protect your right to privacy on your ranch, farm, fishing lake, etc from government surveillance!

Not saying I like what the gubmint is doing here, but I gotta think that that somehow these folks showed up on the radar of the wildlife enforcement organizations. Baiting for migratory waterfowl/birds will do that and I'm sure there is more to the story. Gamewardens in my area are stretched pretty thin and I don't think they just decide to do this for giggles and grins. I remember when the debacle at Ruby Ridge was going on the gubmint diverted military level surveillance satelites to keep track of Randy Weaver's place.

Even at my age, I keep learning something new everyday.

Thanks Miss. Ann.

Unbelievable. Thanks and be well, Packy.

Small potatoes compared to spying on the U.S. President and no one is going down for that. Sorry to sound cynical but you are on your own.

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Norman:
Not saying I like what the gubmint is doing here, but I gotta think that that somehow these folks showed up on the radar of the wildlife enforcement organizations. Baiting for migratory waterfowl/birds will do that and I'm sure there is more to the story. Gamewardens in my area are stretched pretty thin and I don't think they just decide to do this for giggles and grins. I remember when the debacle at Ruby Ridge was going on the gubmint diverted military level surveillance satelites to keep track of Randy Weaver's place.

If you read the whole story, he was fined for baiting doves.

This has been the case for ever in Texas. A Game Warden can come on your property with just reasonable cause. A shot fired. He can not cut the fence or damage a gate but if he has a key he can unlock the lock! Most have thousands of keys! He can enter another person's property for surveillance of you property for reasonable cause. They bring a Game Warden along for drug raids because he has access to your property that other law enforcement does not. Never hear of Texas Parks and Wildlife using cameras but I would not put it past them for habitual offensives or offenders!

God Bless these folks for their pro bono publico.

My hat's off to Joshua, Robert, and the rest of the IJ crew!

quote:

Originally posted by Matt Norman:
Not saying I like what the gubmint is doing here, but I gotta think that that somehow these folks showed up on the radar of the wildlife enforcement organizations. Baiting for migratory waterfowl/birds will do that and I'm sure there is more to the story. Gamewardens in my area are stretched pretty thin and I don't think they just decide to do this for giggles and grins. I remember when the debacle at Ruby Ridge was going on the gubmint diverted military level surveillance satelites to keep track of Randy Weaver's place.

But, who is to say some government official did not like what you said about them or your politics or even that you hunt and has directed this to be done to find some type of dirt. I find this quite alarming.

There are several issues at play here:

1) Is there an expectation of privacy? That is the first and most basic issue related to a search warrant. While of course everyone immediately thinks - "yes, I have an expectation of privacy on my property."

Consider this analogy - You own a warehouse that is in a remote part of town but has a public road that runs along its borders. There is no fence but a locked gate at the driveway to prevent vehicle access. But each side of the gate is simply open ground and the sides of the property are 800 yards wide with the gate in the middle. Do you have an expectation of privacy 300 yards from the gate?

Just because the property is rural (in this case) and there may have been trees and bushes out on the perimeter may not impact the courts view.

2) The US Supreme Court has essentially refused to hear cases challenging warrant-less searches regarding Fish and Game enforcement.

The basic issue is that hunting and fishing is a highly regulated activity and it would be impossible to enforce those regulations if searches were only allowed upon probable cause of a violation. Several state courts (including their Supreme Courts) have ruled that warrant-less searches without probable cause of a crime are permissible. The most interesting was in CA which CA v. BOUHN MAIKHIO.

Here is a summary of the key points in the decision.

"the United States Supreme Court has held in a number of decisions that an administrative search or seizure may be conducted, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, in the absence of reasonable suspicion that a violation of a statute or administrative regulation has occurred.   Such administrative searches and seizures are permissible when (1) the governmental action serves a special and important state need and interest distinct from the state's ordinary interest in enforcing the criminal law, (2) the administrative rules or regulations that are required to achieve the state's interest are of such a nature that limiting inspection only to those persons reasonably suspected of committing a violation would seriously undermine the state's ability to meet its special need, and (3) the impingement upon the reasonable expectation of privacy of those subjected to the procedure is sufficiently limited such that the state's need to utilize the procedure outweighs the invasion which the search entails, thus rendering the procedure reasonable for purposes of the Fourth Amendment."


Not saying I agree or disagree but there are other often cited cases in different states that essentially hold your 4th Amendment protections related to searches by F&G offices are limited. Simple interpretation - if your are in area where hunting and fishing occurs and there is any information that supports you have been hunting or fishing, you are subject to a search. The search needs to start out as minimally intrusive and can only continue and become more intrusive as probable cause builds but the initial search is highly likely to be upheld even without probable cause of a violation.

Here are the other cases:


Minnesota v. Colosimo 2003
State (MT) v. Boyer 2002
People (CA) v. Perez 1996
State (SD) v. Halverson 1979


I did not read all the comments or other information or articles related to this incident but if the enforcement agency had any information related to hunting and fishing activities occurring on the property any information related to wrongdoing they had pretty good reason to start an investigation.

On the other side, I can see a very good argument that secretly placing a camera without a warrant could easily be viewed as "overly intrusive".