Does a Police Checkpoint on a Bike-Trail Violate the Fourth Amendment?
BY Herschel Smith1 year, 5 months ago
He poses some interesting questions, and I’d like to see this issue studied a bit by him or someone equally familiar with both constitutional and case law.
My own view is that simply putting a sign up at an entrance to so-called government property (like a park) isn’t reason enough to justify a search. That’s not a so-called “administrative search.” I assume and believe that for public places, the rules of “Terry Stop” still apply, i.e., there must be articulable reason for the search such as suspicion in the commission of a crime.
I’ve given this some thought too concerning stops and searches of hunters on public lands. Almost every hunter is aware of his training, i.e., when you are approached by a DNR officer, put your weapon in a safe condition, be polite, and be prepared to have your privacy invaded. He may and probably will demand to see your hunting license and examine your harvest.
But why? What gives that DNR agent the right to do that? The fact that they’re on “public land?” Do the citizens not own the public land? What’s the difference between public hunting land and a downtown sidewalk? Do we allow cops to come up to us and frisk us, demand to identify us, and demand to search our belongings because we’re walking on a sidewalk “owned” by the state? No, most states do not have stop and identify statutes, and besides, those are unconstitutional even if they exist.
Why does a DNR officer have the right to assume I don’t have a hunting license just because I’m hunting (that’s the assumption behind demanding to see my hunting license, right, that I don’t have a license)? Why does the DNR officer have the right to force me to open the tailgate of my truck and examine my harvest? Does he have evidence of a crime to make such invasive demands? Without such evidence, or at least suspicion, does that search violate the fourth amendment?
I would claim that it does. England had rules regulating hunting under the notion of the royal forest. As of the 12th century, nearly a third of England’s land was designated “royal forest,” and only the king’s men and other nobility were allowed to hunt game there.
We don’t live in England. We live in America. We fought a war over things just like this.
I think this is pregnant ground to be tilled, and I’d like to see lawyers take this up with some offended hunter – perhaps all the way to the supreme court.