Public laws don’t allow property owners to commit crimes just because the act occurs on their own land. The Constitution does require law enforcement agencies to have some valid reason, known as probable cause, for entering that private property to investigate a suspected crime.





Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court carved out an exception to that recently in a local case. Although the immediate result serves the public interest, the long-term implications could be troubling.

By a 4-3 vote, the court found that game wardens may freely enter privately owned, posted land to investigate hunting violations.

As noted in the majority opinion by Justice Ronald D. Castille, the decision endorses the public’s interest in the uniform protection of wildlife. Indeed, the decision established that private land may not be used, simply because it is privately owned, to kill game outside the umbrella of state law. Good call.

The case stemmed from the opening day of the 2002 bear-hunting season. Game wardens matched DNA from a bear carcass they seized from the Pittston home of Joseph Russo Jr. with blood found near a pile of mashed apples on land that Mr. Russo owns in Wyoming County. They also matched the bear’s paws with bear tracks at the scene. Investigators charged that Mr. Russo illegally had baited the bear.

Mr. Russo later was found guilty of unlawful taking of game and using an illegal device to hunt. He appealed on grounds that the investigators violated the state constitutional prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure when they entered the Wyoming County property.

As the minority justices noted in a dissent written by Chief Justice Ralph Cappy, the ruling means that game officers may enter any posted property without any level of probable cause. Thus, they may be conducting evidentiary “fishing expeditions” rather than a search for specific evidence related to known crimes, as is the standard for most other aspects of the law.

Wildlife is an important resource for the entire commonwealth, and the state government should do all that it can to enforce hunting regulations. But the state government also must do all that it can to protect individual rights against undue intrusion by state agents.

The Legislature should require that hunting investigations meet the same standards for search and seizure that apply to any other criminal investigation.



©The Times-Tribune 2007
http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site...d=590572&rfi=8

Damage Control