Private property law

[bill cooksey]

I discussed this at dinner with a friend who's an Air Force Court-Martial Attorney. The wildlife officer does have the right to verify the hunter is the owner. Once he has verified it, if the Officer observes a law violation, it would fall under the "plain view search", and the Officer can issue the citation even if the person committing the violation is the property owner. The Officer was lawfully on the property with the intent to confirm the hunter either has a license or is the property owner. The Wildlife Officers are very familiar with who the property owners are.

So your Air Force attorney is familiar with the legal interpretation by TWRA and the court of Tennessee's recent court ruling against "open fields?"

 

[bill cooksey]

I discussed this at dinner with a friend who's an Air Force Court-Martial Attorney. The wildlife officer does have the right to verify the hunter is the owner. Once he has verified it, if the Officer observes a law violation, it would fall under the "plain view search", and the Officer can issue the citation even if the person committing the violation is the property owner. The Officer was lawfully on the property with the intent to confirm the hunter either has a license or is the property owner. The Wildlife Officers are very familiar with who the property owners are.

Guess not.

 

[FoghornTN]

Fairly certain that "probable cause" comes in to play in our scenario. Why does he have reason to check to determine if landowner is hunting;
has this landowner filed complaints or does this property have a long history with unauthorized hunters?
If no, then why is the WO there?

 

[Holesinthesky]

I discussed this at dinner with a friend who's an Air Force Court-Martial Attorney. The wildlife officer does have the right to verify the hunter is the owner. Once he has verified it, if the Officer observes a law violation, it would fall under the "plain view search", and the Officer can issue the citation even if the person committing the violation is the property owner. The Officer was lawfully on the property with the intent to confirm the hunter either has a license or is the property owner. The Wildlife Officers are very familiar with who the property owners are.

Then I feel for any service member that ends up with this guy as defense attorney.

First off, just because someone is on the property with a gun, does not imply they are hunting.
which makes the search by the officer invalid.
Simply carrying a gun, on the property during hunting season, also does not imply hunting.

Basically, what you and your buddy are implying…… it is ok for them to go traipsing around with no probable cause, and do/check what they like, and IF they then find something, that is OK.
- WRONG!

What’s next?
- his wife bought some yeast
- he bought copper line to repair busted house water line.
Therefore they are moonshiners…..


Your buddy might need to attend remedial law classes.

 

[charlie8584]

Ole holesinhishead is at it again. Implying his opinion is law

 

[Holesinthesky]

^^^

you should change your screen name to fullofchit!

you are welcome to post up links citing state law disproving what I say.