when he has reason to believe that a provision of this Title, or any law supplementary thereto, or the State Fish and Game Code has been violated

Targeted roadblock stop implies that anyone who 'appeared' to have been fishing or hunting that day because they had equipment with them was the under suspicion to have violated F&G laws & therefore subject to search. That doesn't sound right, does it???

 

Are you being sarcastic Tom? To me it sounds like you're guilty until proven innocent, and NO it doesn't sound right...

 

Are you being sarcastic Tom? To me it sounds like you're guilty until proven innocent, and NO it doesn't sound right...

No D, not sarcastic at all. If they say they want to do a search, you should ask 'Do you have any reason to believe I have done something wrong?' If they say 'No sir, just a check', then you have the right to refuse and continue on your way without any implication.

 

That was my feeling from the onset, but I had to find the legal document to back up my supposition

250 posts later I found it.

 

sounds to me like profiling plain and simple, guilty until proven innocent

 

Road blocks/ stops are a tricky thing..from a DUI standpoint here in Delaware, and from federal guidelines based on supreme ct. cases..you (officers) have to stop every car, every other car, every 5th car, etc..in that type of "check"..now if the person turns around that's probable cause enough to go do a traffic stop on them for making an "illegal" U-turn as sometimes is the case..but just stopping people because they "appear" to have been fishing or hunting is tricky..espcially if they were the only ones to be stopped because they are being singled out just like only white males, or black females in trucks....I've never seen or heard of any type of CO stop like that in DE at all..now checks at the ramps and hunting areas, yes, but not on a major highway...

 

Road blocks/ stops are a tricky thing...now if the person turns around that's probable cause enough to go do a traffic stop on them for making an "illegal" U-turn as sometimes is the case..

There is a case out there, not sure if PA or US Supreme Court that says that even pulling a u turn (so long as legally made) before a road block does not give prob cause or reasonable suspicion to pull over.

 

"There is a case out there, not sure if PA or US Supreme Court that says that even pulling a u turn (so long as legally made) before a road block does not give prob cause or reasonable suspicion to pull over."

Has it been ruled on yet? I'd be interested to read it

 

Mako, the case is Commonwealth vs Scavello 703 A2d 36 (Pa Super 1996)
Legal U turn in advance of checkpoint does not justify a stop.


Commonwealth v. Scavello: A driver¹s avoidance of a roadblock does not give rise to reasonable suspicion. "There is no requirement that a driver go through a roadblock." Id. at 338. "[A] motorist¹s avoidance or attempt to avoid a police roadblock must be coupled with other articulable facts in order to give a police officer reasonable suspicion that the motorist is in violation of the Vehicle Code or that criminal activity is afoot."

However, "if police should observe a violation of the Motor Vehicle Code or have a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle which is avoiding the roadblock is involved in criminal conduct, such observation or suspicion, which can be articulated with particularity, would be the basis for a vehicle stop."

 

There is a case out there, not sure if PA or US Supreme Court that says that even pulling a u turn (so long as legally made) before a road block does not give prob cause or reasonable suspicion to pull over.

I believe this happened in NJ and the ruling was that it did not give probably cause to go after the vehicle

 

I dont believe it's enforcement, its a vehicle to make money. Cops sign up in the beginnining of the month to get xtra for seat belt searches, DUI etc. The town get money the state gives out. If they dont meet quotas they dont get money the next time. What other stops searches etc will come up next? Ok lets pull everyone over and check Driver Licenses, Insurance cards, what about pollution checks on emissions. Lets stop all cars crossing the Delaware Memorial bridge, maybe they bought too many inexpensive cigarettes there.Lets see if theres bootleg CD's in the car.
If we dont stop it we'll all be governed in a Police State. Hey 1 in 7 of all Americans is in Jail or on Parole. As for me never been.
Every time they do these stops, find violations its more fuel to justify it. If you say you wont let them search etc, then they hold you up because you did not permit them to search.

 

Several court cases have stated they don't need probable cause. They see you with a cooler, they can open it.

 

The prosecuters, FWS and F&G must think there is some precident to allow this. The statute clearly states otherwise, so there must be some reason they think they can get away with it.

I think it's more of an issue of how the questions and any requests are worded. I think they are dont in such a way as before you know it, you have voluntarily allowed a search.

One key thin stated by Shadow was they he never confirmed nor denied that he had been fishing, or hunting when asked that direct question. Had he confirmed, the oucome of the issue may have been completly different.

I'm guessing now, because Bob's comment is more than likely true (he's not a story teller).

 

OK i have kept quite till now after reading all the post. as i was sitting in line for this after no bones i see a motorcyle bang a u turn. i thought about it myself.nah i said. then i remembered my plate holder broke while putting in that morning at the ramp. as i got to the officer pointing me into the parking lot i saw no police and no other person blocking the road. i just continued to drive through slowly and didnt stop.no plate on trailer for them to jot down. now there was no barracade across the road so i didnt run a baracade. was there something wrong with not stopping?

 

well, like I said, an "illegal" U turn.. but being in law enforcement it sounds like they could/should have made that easier..espcially if they were just targeting sportsmen/women? just stop traffic on hunting lanes and ramps?? but whada I know, I just work here.. Good luck and make sure you gripe to your local reps!

 

I'm guessing now, because Bob's comment is more than likely true (he's not a story teller).

There was a case not too long ago about them asking to open a cooler. They asked, the guy said no, claim illegal search and seizure. Went to the Supreme Court of one of the Mid West states.

F&G admitted they had no reason to suspect the guy did anything wrong when they asked to check his cooler. Courts ruled F&G would be unable to effectively enforce the laws if they couldn't ask people to inspect their coolers unless they had probable cause.

It's just not reasonable to expect them to be out on the water and see an illegal activity before they had a reason to inspect.

How could they ever enforce any tuna regs? Everyone could just say no when asked to inspect the cooler. They can't be out in the canyons following people around looking for an undersized fish.

Due to the nature of their work they have search powers regular cops do not.

 

There was a case not too long ago about them asking to open a cooler. They asked, the guy said no, claim illegal search and seizure. Went to the Supreme Court of one of the Mid West states.

F&G admitted they had no reason to suspect the guy did anything wrong when they asked to check his cooler. Courts ruled F&G would be unable to effectively enforce the laws if they couldn't ask people to inspect their coolers unless they had probable cause.

It's just not reasonable to expect them to be out on the water and see an illegal activity before they had a reason to inspect.

How could they ever enforce any tuna regs? Everyone could just say no when asked to inspect the cooler. They can't be out in the canyons following people around looking for an undersized fish.

Due to the nature of their work they have search powers regular cops do not.

I fully follow and agree with that logic Bob, but I don't think it extends to a roadblock 5 miles from the nearest marina, that's all.

On the water, I agree, despite the way the NJ statute reads, I AM fishing and should reasonably expect that I might be asked to show them my catch. Otherwise, the court is right, how he heck would they do heir jobs.

But once I leave the water I am no longer fishing. I am driving down the road with a cooler in my truck and a couple of fishing rods. Does that mean I was fishing? Maybe, or maybe I am just transporting some stuff, or maybe I fished yesterday and forgot to take the rods out, or maybe I'm doing 1000 other legal things that give them no reason to believe there should be fish in my cooler to inspect in the first place.

There has to be a cut off point, where they can no longer just invade your privacy at will. That would be the dock in the opinion of about 60% of our responders.

And as always it's what some court thinks anyway so if you're going to stand up and say NO you have to be ready for the potential consequences.

 

Again I have to say because fish/game laws can be "possesion" laws...if you admit you have fish or game...I think the courts have swung to the side that the CO can inspect anything/anywhere for the fish/game....cooperative or not. ...because you have established "probable cause"...sounds screwy but if not that...then why ever open a cooler and keep whatever you want. That's the answer I keep getting when asking other USCG guys and my research.

Now if you say no to the question...that's where it gets sticky about probable cause.....but if the CO convinces the court that he had probable cause and finds illegal game/fish...then like I said in the other thread...the bag limit violation will seem small....

 

Darin -

I believe that our individual lines of thinking on this issue are remarkably similar. I don't have all that much of a problem with searches taking place at the boat dock although you could make an argument that, while at the dock, you technically are not fishing, you are just a boater. As far as those fishing poles in the boat?? Oh, they are in the boat all the time. Could you deny a search based upon this? Maybe/probably. I was told by the Field Chief from the State of MD that YES YOU COULD REFUSE A SEARCH. It was her opinion that the "act of fishing" ended once you had pulled the anchor and began motoring back to port. Again, by her opinion, the act of fishing was exclusive to the site where fish were caught. And if the CO failed to observe you fishing, he/she had no probable cause to assume anything illegal had taken place. In short, she told me that your 4th Amendment Rights were restored once you pulled the anchor and turned on the motor. Would I refuse a dockside search based upon this information? Probably not but if the CO's attitude was pretty crapping, then YES, I may feel a need to protect my own privacy.

What about offshore fishing -- Again a hard one as it is difficult for CO's to spend a great deal of time going 60 nm offshore. Should offshore big-game fisherman be held to a different standard as compared to the standard applicable to bass or flounder fisherman as described by the Field Chief from the State of MD? I honestly can't decide on this one Darin. That's a hard one. I could argue either way on this one but my opinion probably favors "NO, the CO need to check fisherman while on the fishing grounds". I believe that the State of DE just signed an MOU with NMF allowing the State to patrol and enforce regulations for the highly migratory species (tuna, billfish) beyond the State statutory limits. It's my understanding that the State recently purchased a 30+ ft inflatable for this very purpose. So apparently the State feels that they need to patrol these waters to a better extent.

Bob - You are correct, several years ago there was a Supreme Ct case where a NJ lawyer who was fishing in Michigan, Minnesota (?) was stopped by a CO while he was portaging his canoe from one lake to another. The fellow's namer is on the tip of my tongue by I forget it right now. I do believe that the SC ruled in the State's favor on this -- ie the State CO had the right to look in the cooler because portaging the canoe from one site to another was still part of the act of fishing.

Everyone - The best way to ensure continual maintenance of your Constitution Rights while hunting or fishing is to have the State legislature pass a bill stating that the acts of hunting and fishing are NOT privileges but rather a right. A few States have done this - mostly (exclusively?) Western States.

 

Welcome to the Peoples Republic of New Jersey folks.
People get the government they deserve ...especailly in this state.
Where else could a scumbag like Bob Menendez win in a landslide?
I'm sure he's really concerned about our fishing rights because he would ban firearms and in turn hunting in a minute if he could. All you Jersey residents that voted for him........have a great day!

 

Just a reminder. Discuss the issues all you would like. But disparaging remarks aimed at individuals, or the residents of the whole state , should not be typed. Thanks.

 

Hypotheticaly...

So, say I'm a very, very poor fillet'er (so to speak, and I've seen them) and I've got my fish in my ziploc on ice in my cooler in the bed of my truck and I'm on the way home with the tips of my rods hanging out by 3 or 4"s, I'm going to be subject to search b/c it looks like I went fishing?
If this is what we're getting at, I'm buying a torneau cover!!!
B-

 

With all due respect to Ron and this site and all of our members,
are the decals on our vehicles going to be ok???
Profiling??? Thank God for digital cameras b/c it looks like they may be mandatory for sizing and reporting. Check stations????
B-

 

So if your carrying a fishing rod on your truck they can pull you over!!
What a job!

 

If you have nothing to hide,just let them search!

Whats wrong with profiling anyway??
I think the world would be better off anyway if we were ALLOWED to profile!!Just my opinion!!