[riskable]

I'm torn on this one: Should law enforcement need a warrant to search your property? Certainly. Seems obvious, right? Except this is a "conservation officer" who has been granted certain rights (by the state of PA) to:

    Enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties.

See: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?...

If they couldn't move between properties along shorelines they'd have a hell of a time doing their actual job. Any criminal could fish illegally on private property then flee when a they see a conservation officer approaching in a boat. They'd never catch anyone who fishes along a shore.

This lawsuit seems like a nuclear weapon being thrown at an overly zealous individual who possibly has some sort of personal vendetta against the property owner.

[gs17]

> (by the state of PA)

The Fourth Amendment is a level above that, fortunately.

[recursivedoubts]

The fourth amendment is more important than catching people illegally fishing.

[horsawlarway]

The 4th explicitly doesn't cover "land".

> right to be secure in their homes, papers, and effects

It also explicitly lays out "unreasonable" as the qualifier. Personally... I don't think he has much of a case to challenge the state wording.

So while I strongly support the 4th amendment, I don't really agree with the guy here. It sounds a lot like he's pissed off the officer by fishing illegally.

My bigger takeaway is that Uber and Lyft are able to automatically dismiss him from a position without consequence for a completely unrelated offense. Even if I think he's completely guilty (and to be clear - I don't) I'm hard pressed to consider "wildlife & game license violation" worthy of impacting a job that involves driving other folks around.

[recursivedoubts]

"if it saves just one illegally caught fish..."

[Suppafly]

Moving along a shoreline is different from trespassing on the curtilage of someone's home.

[riskable]

The exterior of a property (i.e. the land it sits on) is distinctly different from the interior. The 4th Amendment requires warrants to search the following:

    persons, houses, papers, and effects,

The land a house sits on is not, "persons, houses, papers, and effects". If it were that would not only prevent conservation officers from doing their jobs but also U.S. Customs and Border Protection would not be able to patrol the border since people and companies own pretty much every square inch at the edges of our country.

    > In Hester v. United States,1 the Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect “open fields” and that, therefore, police searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, *open water*, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause.

See: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-4/o...

I also want to point out something very important regarding this case in particular: Curtilage is generally known to be the area between a front door and the street however if your property backs up to open water--and you have a back door--that area between the water and the back door also counts as curtilage.

[horsawlarway]

Except he never actually entered the home... He knocked and then left.

Also - despite the repeated attempts at implying it in the article, I really don't suspect the guy is there to creep on an elderly cancer patient in her bathroom.

It sounds a lot like he's on land, which is not protected by the 4th, and he's there well within his scope of authority as granted by the state.

No trespassing signs only apply to someone there without permission. He explicitly has permission from the state. And trespassing is very clearly not "search".

Harassment? Possibly. Abuse of authority? Possibly. Illegal search? ehhh... probably not.

[Suppafly]

>He explicitly has permission from the state.

The state can't give you permission to something that the federal government explicitly doesn't give you access to.

[horsawlarway]

So show me where the federal government restricts access to land? Hint - it's not the 4th amendment...

[devmor]

You are torn on whether or not a state agent should be able to supercede constitutionally-granted inalienable rights because it may impede their duty?

[garyfirestorm]

4th amendment rights ok whatever… but what about my ability to perform the duties written in my employee handbook?

[stronglikedan]

Every employee handbook states that what is asked of you must be lawful.

[gjsman-1000]

What an objection. My state, until recently, gave officers the on-paper ability to arrest and charge anyone guilty of adultery with a misdemeanor. I doubt you would have appreciated the investigation or enforcement of that statute - or many others still on the books.