HB 2285 Amends Title 34 (Game) authorizing law enforcement to search without warrant

[WhiteFeather]

How about this abridgement to your Constitution Rights

If you don’t know specifically which sections of both state and federal Constitution this bill violates, then you don’t have to wonder why a bill like this is introduced. Most people don’t know their rights.


HB 2285 By Cutler. Amends Title 34 (Game) authorizing law enforcement officers, to stop and search any vehicle; or search any clothing, bag or container; or search any camp, tent, cabin or trailer if probable cause exists.

- Mar 5, 2008 - Referred to House Game and Fisheries

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Check this:

Stop and inspect or search,[at any time] if
probable cause exists, any means of transportation within ...

Inspect and examine or search, [at any time or
place] if probable cause exists, any person or ...

Inspect and examine or search, [at any time] if
probable cause exists, any camp, tent, cabin, trailer or ...

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/CFDOCS/...r=2285&pn=3303

[Jackal]

Does Game refer to when involved in hunting or on gamelands?

Illegal search and seizure without a warrant?

[bogey1]

but if they find something illegal other than game related can you be charged?

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by jh664322

Illegal search and seizure without a warrant?

That's what it sounds like to me, and that would be unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment states (emphasis added by me):

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Jackal]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

That's what it sounds like to me, and that would be unconstitutional. The 4th Amendment states (emphasis added by me):

Indeed. No such thing as a little bit of illegality, illegal search for game related things is the same as coming into your home and hassling you.

[LittleRedToyota]

while i tend to think many searches that happen without a warrant are a violation of the 4th amendment, i don't see how this legislation is any more of an infringement than other warrantless searches law enforcement already does that are based on probable cause.

as it stands now, if, for example, an LEO pulls over your car and can articulate probable cause, he can search your car...and anything they find is admissable even if it is not related to the initial probable cause.

in fact, i must be missing something because, as i understand the current state of affairs, LEOs can already do what this legislation seems to be allowing them to do--namely, warrantless searches if they have probable cause.

how will anything be different if this legislation is passed?

[GunLawyer001]

This wouldn't surprise me, the PA legislators often introduce special rules at the request of "law enforcement", and the rube wanna-be's in the Game Commission seem to be the most clueless about the little people who aren't in uniform having civil rights. I would have thought that the PA budget included enough money for someone to read this stuff before it gets introduced, but that's obviously not the case.

Take the mirrored sunglasses and guns away from the fish cops, and you pretty much have the guys at the 20-year High School reunion that nobody wants to talk to. Actually, even with the guns and shades, that's who you've got there.

There was a case a few years back that struck down a provision of the Game Code that made it a criminal act for a citizen to decline to produce government-issued ID upon the demand of a GC officer. Commonwealth v. Ickes, from 2005. Obvious 4th Amendment violation, a 1st-year law student would have seen that, I guess they need to hire a few 1-L's in Harrisburg.

[SigForLife]

Hate to tell you but under US v. Ross and US v. Acevado, Police may stop and search a car (including glovebox, excluding trunk) with only probable cause (aka NO warrant). This isn't that big of a change.

[GunLawyer001]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

Hate to tell you but under US v. Ross and US v. Acevado, Police may stop and search a car (including glovebox, excluding trunk) with only probable cause (aka NO warrant). This isn't that big of a change.

I think that removing the probable cause & articulable facts requirement from warrantless searches is a big change, but the way the Court has been moving, you may be right.
The Coast Guard has been allowed to search vessels in US waters without any probable cause or warrant, so extending that rationale to automobiles (especially autos near the Canadian or Mexican borders that may be chock-full o' terrorists) might not be such a stretch. But the US Congress can get away with things that the PA House & Senate can't.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

I think that removing the probable cause & articulable facts requirement from warrantless searches is a big change,

i don't think it does, though.

unless i am really having reading issues, the proposed legislation still requires probable cause...which is why i don't really get the purpose or ramifications of this legislation.

LEOs (including game commission officers, unless i am mistaken) can already do warrantless searches if they have probably cause, so what is this legislation really changing?

in fact, upon re-reading it, i think this might be a step forward...

if i am interpreting the brackets and underlining correctly (i think the brackets indicate text that will be deleted and the underlining indicates text that will be added...somone please correct me if i am wrong)...this legislation is specifically adding the requirement for probable cause to the existing legislation.

i think it currently reads basically:

PGC officers can "...search at any time..."

but, if this legislation is pased, it will read:

PGC officers can (only) "...search if probable cause exists..."

i think this might actually be good legislation in that it is specifically stating that probable cause must exist before a seach can be done.

i think this might actually be legislation we should be calling our representatives to demand they strongly support.