Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism (KDWPT) game wardens (courtesy ksn.com)

Last Sunday, Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, Tourism (KDWPT) game wardens and Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) troopers conducted joint “wildlife checkpoints” (a.k.a., police roadblocks) in central Kansas. The vehicular “stop and interrogate” effort coincided with the start of the state’s deer, dove and duck seasons. KHP troopers made the initial contact. “If a driver does not have a valid license, appropriate enforcement actions will be taken,” their presser promised. “Travelers should not expect major delays from this portion of the checkpoints.” And then . . .

Occupants of vehicles in the first check lane will be asked if they are hunters or are transporting wildlife. If they answer yes in either case, drivers will be directed to a nearby KDWPT check lane where Kansas game wardens will check for required licenses and permits, count the game and gather biological, harvest, and hunter success information. This portion of the checkpoints should also cause minimal delay.

Delay minimized to blunt the argument that the hunter-related checkpoints violate the Constitution’s prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure? As I recall, the Fourth Amendment gives Americans the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects. And does the fact that the dragnet was timed for the start of hunting season mean police have probable cause to stop everyone in the area?

In short, are you OK with this?

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

105 COMMENTS

  1. H e double hockey sticks no. Just because your stoppong every one doesnt make it legal. Where is ypur probable cause. This is just another excuse to harass citizens and get them used to constant policeing / police state

    • Exactly this. This is unconstitutional search and seizure plain and simple. Just like DUI checkpoints or dhs checkpoints.

      • “Occupants of vehicles in the first check lane will be asked if they are hunters or are transporting wildlife”

        Unless you are a Very good lawyer, never freely admit to being ANYTHING as-characterized by an official of a municipal body, or for that matter by anyone else either.

        Are you a “hunter”? No, I’m an adult homosapien male individual with the given name William. Same with being a “driver” or “operator” of a “vehicle” or “motor vehicle” etc etc etc.

        By admitting and/or volunteering that you are a .. “person” .. as-characterized by an authority of any system, you put yourself at-issue to the rules, and rulings, of that system. “Driver”/”Operator” etc are for-hire terminologies. By ‘admitting’ that you are one, it is then presumed that the purpose of the use of your conveyance is for-profit, and therefore corporate (rather than individual) and therefore surrenders most of your civil rights .. as while an individual has remarkable ability to freely wander the roads which they, themselves, own .. a corporate driver has no such rights at all .. their use of the roads is considered a privilege, governed by endless profit-bringing legalese. Seriously, go carefully read/parse your own state’s codes.

        Whether or not the individual officer at the scene understands any of that, that is why it is done, and why the statutes are so specifically and torturously written.

        If suddenly most people upon the roads were not automatically, and conveniently, considered corporate “traffic”, nor subject to all the regulatory statutes, and fines, thereof (essentially All ‘traffic’ laws), the amount of revenue coming in from the roads would plummet by some 88% or higher.

        I Strongly suspect the purpose of the question “are you a ‘hunter’?” has the same effect. To have you unwittingly surrender most of your rights (under the 4th and 5th amendments specifically here) vs the search. As a matter of sense, who could possibly manage to conduct the workings and control of their conveyance .. and yet still (at the same time) actively engage in the catching or killing of game animals. Almost no one does that. And certainly not during the day at a “traffic” stop.

        “Are you a ‘hunter’?”, Nope .. just a dude named Bill, .. why do you ask? ..

        (*Since I’ve written this much already: An individual maintaining a current “driver’s license” and “license plate” .. as a courtesy to the state .. should one ever -need- to operate as a corporate “driver” .. is not a de facto admission that any particular trip (particularly the current one) is, itself, a corporate, and therefore “traffic”, usage. The ingrained automatic demand for, and subsequent presentation by you of, your “driver’s license” is the act that gets their ball rolling. But -having- it .. doesn’t mean that you’re -doing- it. Find out more about your own state. And don’t just robotically agree that you’re whatever someone asserts you are.)

        • RCW 46.04.370
          Operator or driver.

          “Operator or driver” means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle.

          I guess your screed does not apply in WA state.

    • You folks are all missing the point. This is about the government agents finding and stealing items, otherwise known as policing for profit, or the PC term the cops use “evidence seizure” any money they find, they just pretend it is the result of illegal drug sales and keep it.

      How do I know this? The presence of the feds while they are doing it. The money gets funneled through the feds and then back to the local agency, less some “finders fee” that the feds charge. Good damn luck suing the feds to get your money back, the legal fees will equal out to more than you lost to the bad guys. Bad guys? Yep this is nothing more than a organized bunch criminals with badges. Until Congress puts a stop to it, it will continue on a national basis. The only thing the states can do is outlaw the practice and make it illegal for local agencies to accept money from federal agencies.

      • I would offer that you might want to read up on this subject a bit more. In many states/locales, there is no need to wash money through the Fed. It’s called ‘asset forfeiture’ and it happens all across the country, every day.

        Many Departments get to keep whatever they confiscate. Very scary stuff, abused often, like much nonsense brought to you by the futile “war on drugs”.

    • And I’m supporting mil/le why? They’ll do what they’re told, and your dreams of them resisting are just that, dreams. When they come for you and/or your guns or your hunting trophies or whatever else is their desire, you’ll be paralyzed to act because of the overwhelming cognitive dissidence telling you the guy with the badge is the good guy. And you’ll stump for them all the way, and even tell them it’s not their fault that the politicians are making them do bad things. The pedestal you put them on will be your demise.

      • Except that at literally no point is he putting gubermint schlubs on a pedestal, nor could you ever point out where he did because it quite simply didn’t happen. The only one “dreaming” here is you, and you’re dreaming of things that people never actually said. No, most of those folks won’t do what they’re told if they’re ordered to act in such a manner, and resistance to those who do will be most effective and widespread.

  2. This is harassment. Plain and simple.

    And if I am a hunter and answer “no” to either question? What then?

    • Don’t lie. Just don’t answer any questions. You are not obligated to answer any questions posed to you by police.

      • try that at a CA fruit nazi station….. At any rate, there needs to be some legal pushback on this type of govt behavior, else, EVERYONE will get the loveliness of the CA fruit nazis.

  3. It’s B.S.
    I’m a hunter and I’d still answer “No”.
    Why don’t they just do online reporting.

    • If they find out you lied then you’re in big trouble.

      You have the right to remain silent and not answer any questions whatsoever. That would be the best approach, just say, respectfully (even though they certainly do NOT deserve any respect at all), “I respectfully wish to remain silent.”

      They’ll probably try to use that against you but it’s long been established in the courts that remaining silent cannot be used for probable cause or the lesser standard of reasonable suspicion.

      NEVER TALK (answer questions) TO THE POLICE (or anyone who has the authority to enforce any law).

      • I disagree with you when you say that they deserve no respect at all cause a lot of those guys are good people that happen to have a job that can have a bad reputation and because of that are automatically seen as ignorant and rude people but if you were meet them without seeing the, in uniform I’m sure you would have some respect for them. Everything else you said is right but it does bother me when someone says that the police deserve no respect.

        • “Just following orders” didn’t work for the nazis and it should work for the police. That’s when they no longer deserve respect.

        • I fail to see how someone who signs up for a profession that teaches them how to lie and manipulate people o get the answers they want, including implying that they are breaking laws which do not actually exist, and who are not allowed to speak up for you when they know information that shows your innocence, is deserving of much respect.

          Fox news got hell, rightly, for going to court to defend its “right” to lie to viewers. All cops should get hell even more so for holding to a profession that upholds lying and trains them in it.

        • I would argue the exact opposite.

          There’s something clearly wrong with a person who would willingly and knowingly make it their life’s work to ride around ruining peoples’ days and/or lives.

          I’d go so far as to say that 90-95% of everything any given police department does is solely for the purpose of providing an income stream to the municipality they operate in.

          They’re no heroes. They’re glorified bill collectors with the power of life and death over us.

      • I hear this alot. George Zimmerman is a free man because he ignored your advice. Your decision to talk to the police should be made on a case to case basis. You have some dead gangbanger in your uppur midfle class living room with a weapon feel free to answer the basic threat, evidence and witness questions

      • The exception is CPS. If you don’t cooperate with child protective services (in Texas anyway) your failure to cooperate can be used by the judge as evidence that you can’t be trusted with your children. Then your children are removed and you have one year to demonstrate that your parental rights shouldn’t be terminated. I highly recommend a lawyer to advise you on how to decide how much cooperation to lend to CPS without sinking your case. Of course, if you can afford a lawyer then CPS won’t bother you anyway.

  4. Yoh papahs pleeze!
    Drivers license, car registration, insurance card, carry permit (in some cases), now a hunting license.
    What next? Written permission slip from some g’ment agency stating your destination and business there??

    • What’s next, will be a “Potty” pass, so you can use the rest areas along the way. BUT, don’t forget, No guns in the restroom! Leave them in the car for someone to grab!

  6. No, I am not comfortable with this at all. This should be challenged for obvious infringement of rights, and hopefully it will be. Sadly, however, I would not be surprised if it were not.

  7. Clear violation of the 4th Amendment. Unlike the 2nd Amendment, they used to teach this one in law school. Clearly missing something called probable cause and a warrant signed by a magistrate.

    Are you “OK” is not even an appropriate question. It should be are you outraged?

    • The same goes or “sobriety” checkpoints. Clear violation of the 4th Amendment, yet the courts unconstitutionally support checkpoints. Public safety and all that.

      What to do, what to do…

      • Sobriety checkpoints have been extensively litigated in Missouri. The Mo Supreme Court finally said law enforcement must have a written, announced plan minimizing delay to traffic based on evidence of documented DWI occurrence at the specific location of the checkpoint. I still do not see how that negates the need for a search warrant.

  8. I’m no ‘OK’ with ANY kind of government check point under any circumstances. Hell even when it involves trying to control a crowd for their own safety.

    But perhaps more to the point is just how bad is ‘pouching’ getting? Is there a need to actually retrain people’s free movement just in-case they might have violated a REGULATION?

    Anyone want to bed if someone’s trying to justify their budget? Especially given they specifically mention that the Feds have a hand in these check point.

  9. Answering yes to “I’m a hunter” is probable cause of a crime allowing somebody to be stopped and questioned by authority?

    • You may not know this but when you are hunting a game warden can walk up to you and ask to see your tag. He can then check to see if you have legally hunted game. It says so right on the license. in every statev I’vr hunted in the game is owned by the people of the state. The license gives you to permission. to harvest it under certain conditions. State game wardens have all the powers of the state police. The Feds are weatherman with guns. They work for NOAA. So my guess is that so do State Police.

      So do the State Police have probable cause to search your vehicle. I would say that if you are duded up in RealTree, have a tag and look like you have been out in the field I would say that they have probable cause. Otherwise not so much.

  10. Drop dead.

    Make sure you have the proper government form filled out.

    Stopping everyone makes it WORSE in my opinion. Can we reach into everybody’s pocket? Provided it’s everybody’s?

  11. I’d tell them to perform an anatomically impossible act. But I’d do it in the most sophisticated, politically correct way.

    Okay, I’m kidding. I’d tell ’em to go fvck themselves.

    • Something tells me that the state will find some justification for “public safety” as well if anyone ever takes this to court.

      The state could claim something like, “Car-deer crashes are a serious public safety concern. And people driving around with firearms in their car under the guise of hunting is also a serious public safety concern. Therefore, we (the state) can stop all cars to make sure hunters have harvested enough deer to minimize car-deer crashes … and to ensure that people are not driving around with loaded firearms in their cars.”

      • Kansas is now a constitutional carry state. No permit is required. Therefore, if you have the right to possess firearms at all, you have the right to carry in your automobile.

        Kansas can make the argument that poaching is illegal, deprives the state of funds it can use for conservation, and potentially takes out an excessive number of birds or animals. The checkpoints discourage poaching. What they seem not to understand and clearly do not care about is that the checkpoints are a violation of the fourth amendment. They won’t stop unless someone sues and wins.

        Fireworks used to be illegal in my state. However, they were legal in an adjacent state. A few days before July 4, the state patrol used to run fireworks checkpoints on highways leading from the other state. Any fireworks found were confiscated.

        Late one night forty years ago, we were stopped by the police in a small suburb of my city. No charges, no demand for identification. They just asked who we were and where we were going. Maybe they were looking for suspects in a crime that had occurred minutes earlier. If so, they didn’t say. My opinion is that, in their minds, being on the road at 2 am qualified as suspicious behavior.

    • I believe the “reasoning” (in NYS at least, is that all wildlife is considered “protected” and falls under the eminent domain of the state (I.e. All wildlife is the state’s, technically) – that’s why the state implements hunting seasons. Hence, under that line of reasoning, they argue that they have the power to establish wildlife check points to ensure wildlife was taken according to law. In NYS, conservation officers ARE police officers as well, so you wouldn’t necessarily fine State Troopers along side of them, but the EnCon officers also have other police powers of arrest, so, they can fulfill both roles all at once. Same is true for the NYS Park Police. Statewide jurisdiction as a police officer, who can also enforce game laws.

      • Sorry for the typos…hit “post” inadvertently, but it wouldn’t allow me to go back to edit.

        • Under English Common Law all wildlife that was “ferae naturae” that is in a state of nature belonged the sovereign – the king. Remember Robin Hood and the young boy getting in trouble for hunting the King’s deer? The American states are now the local sovereign and they think they own all the wildlife. By comparison a hog, a cow or a chicken is domesticated, no longer in the state of nature and therefore can be owned by us peasants.

  15. I don’t have a problem with a law-enforcement officer stopping anyone and detaining him for a moment or two to state his business, whatever that may be. At the point where the person asks “am I free to go” the officer needs probable cause. A lack of probable-cause ought to introduce a jeopardy on the part of the LE-agency for false-arrest.
    If game wardens want to take a survey of the harvest and the hunter volunteers to contribute information; that’s fine. If the game wardens can observe probable cause to apprehend a violation (2 deer, no passenger of hunting age) then there may be a basis for an arrest.
    I don’t think I have a problem with checking licenses, tags and bag limits in the field. But how far can a game warden go and remain within the scope of “reasonable” without a warrant? I think that once you have loaded your harvest in your vehicle, it becomes an unwarranted search.
    Where else can one draw the line? When you return home? Take the harvest to the butcher? Store the cuts in your freezer? At the dinner table? The closer you get to the dinner table the more unreasonable it seems. The farther from home – closer to the field – the more reasonable it seems.

    • If your driving a sub compact like a Kia Reo, and you are asked if you have any game in your car, tell them you have a cape buffalo in the trunk.

    • @MarkPA – the line is drawn. It can be inspected until consumed.

      Kansas Administrative Regulation 115-18-8: Retrieval and possession of game animals, sport fish, and migratory game birds; requirements.
      (a) Each individual wounding or killing a game animal, sport fish, or a migratory game bird shall make a reasonable effort to retrieve the wounded or dead game animal, sport fish, or migratory game bird. The retrieved game animal, sport fish, or migratory
      game bird shall be retained in the individual’s bag, creel, or possession limit, unless prohibited by regulations of the secretary for the individual species taken. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit the catch and release of live sport fish.

      (b) Each game animal, sport fish, or migratory game bird retrieved shall be retained until any of the following occurs:
      (1) The animal, fish, or bird is processed for consumption.
      (2) The animal, fish, or bird is transported to the individual’s residence, to a place of commercial preservation, or to a place of commercial processing.
      (3) The animal, fish, or bird is given to another person in accordance with K.A.R. 115-3-1 and K.A.R. 115-4-2.
      (4) The animal, fish, or bird is consumed.

      (c) The provisions of this regulation shall not affect any requirement of state or federal law or regulation regarding any proof of species, age, or sex and the attachment of this proof to the carcass.

      (d) For the purpose of this regulation, “migratory game bird” shall mean any duck, goose, coot, merganser, rail, mourning dove, white-winged dove, snipe, woodcock, or sandhill crane for which a hunting season has been established in this state. (Authorized by K.S.A. 32-
      807; implementing K.S.A. 32-807 and K.S.A. 32-1002; effective June 8, 1992; amended Jan. 30,
      1995; amended Oct. 5, 2001; amended July 25, 2003.)

  16. Actually, I wonder how they intend to get the wildlife to stop at the checkpoint.

    [grin]

    But nobody mentioned (so far as I can see) that the real reason for these checkpoints is the same as for any other. Rationalization for human fishing expeditions… The real purpose is to search everyone they can and hope to find all kinds of other “violations.” Revenue enhancement, with JBT thrills as a bonus.

  18. Nope.
    Pretext search without a warrant.
    This is a direct use of “save the earth and all the creatures therein” to over ride the Constitution.
    Weather moonbats believe and teach that saving earth’s creatures overrides individual rights.

  19. Kansas authorities probably are operating under the assumption that their actions are legal because the SCOTUS previously ruled in a case involving DUI checkpoints that the “state’s interest in reducing drunk driving outweighs the “minor infringement” on a driver’s Constitutional rights.” Presently, only 12 states do not allow DUI checkpoints, and Kansas isn’t one of them.

    Read more about this at: http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/09/are-sobriety-checkpoints-really-unconstitutional/

    • In MSP vs Sitz, it was assumed that drunk drivers who drove so well that cops couldn’t notice them were a Major Public Safety Hazard. I wonder how even the Sitz justices would think about warrantless searches for untagged deer as a compelling state interest that overrides the Constitution.

      • Agent: We don’t need a warrant.

        Irv Manders: You do unless I woke up in Russia this morning!

        FedUp: I should have bought that ‘armored’ BMW (740 iL Protection) last spring. It’s looking more and more like I’ll have to get myself shot at for blowing a criminal’s roadblock in the lifetime of my next car.

    • I remember as a kid being terrified when my dad got stopped at a checkpoint — enough so that I still cringe when a maglight is waved in my direction, or especially when one is poked in my face.

      My dad was pissed enough at the behavior of the cops that he gathered some friends and they gathered signatures, and my dad was the one selected to drive down and talk to our state senator (a sometime fishing buddy). They contacted friends in other districts, and got the same ball rolling. I remember our state senator asking me if I’d be willing to tell the state legislature about the incident (I suspect he was counting on primary school kid to break down and let the terror show); I solemnly agreed (happily, my tears and screams weren’t called on).

      That memory, and my dad’s determined efforts, gave me a massive hatred for check points and a huge inclination to despise any cop who would be so low as to participate in one.*

      *caveat: in an escaped, “armed and dangerous” prisoner situation once they put up check points and I had no problem with that — in fact I admired the cops’ focus in that instance, because they were studiously ignoring things cops would now arrest people for, aiming only at finding the escapees

  20. Am I being detained or am I free to go?
    Am I being detained or am I free to go?
    Am I being detained or am I free to go?
    Am I being detained or am I free to go?
    Am I being detained or am I free to go?
    Am I being detained or am I free to go?
    Am I being detained or am I free to go?

    • “Looks like we’ve got us another ‘Civil Rights Freak’. Go pull over in the ‘special attention’ line for another couple hours of civil rights violations.”

    • Yes, you’re being detained. Because now it looks like you’re trying to hide something. Tell me, son: why are you so worried about being stopped?

      You can’t win.

  21. this pushes a major button for me.
    when ol’ girl had an eight month old in the oven and my boy was three in the stroller, we followed the herd across the bridge to bluesfest. only we never made it.
    white shirt: “what’s in that diaper bag?”
    cmeat: “diapers.”
    w.s.: “let me take a look.”
    c.: (turning family around) “no. we’re walking away.”
    w.s.: (to lackey) “search that bag.” inside there were baby shaped kimbies and wipes. the bourbon was in the sippy cup by the stroller handle. free tip for mr. new dad.

    needless to say i didn’t hear any slide guitar that night, just the ringing in my ears from losing that struggle, and a tooth coaxed through my lip “ala baton.” pretty wild ride in the pie wagon too. sarge gave wifey three bucks to ride the el train home. nice guy.

    ultimately i was charged with blowing cigar smoke in the big guy’s face. at court the judge and prosecutor were sniggering at the charges.
    judge: (to rookie leo) “young man, you can create a breach of the peace but you cannot create a ‘breach of the police officer.’ case dismissed.”
    then to me, “this is your lucky day. you are not bill clinton” (humorous cigar reference there).

    don’t get me started. i hate motorcycle checkpoints too.

    • “the bourbon was in the sippy cup by the stroller handle.”

      YES! A man after my own heart. When I used to go to hockey games, the booze was in the binoculars case, and the binocs were around my neck, rarin’ to go.

      It never failed, not in hundreds of games.

      But your solution is sublimely clever.

      • I failed with the binoculars dodge at an open air concert 25 years ago.
        “you can’t take that cooler in here, no food or drink allowed”
        “We’ll drink a couple of Pepsis, then you go find us seats while I take the cooler back to the car”.
        A few minutes later, he goes through again with his binocular case while I take the empty cooler back to the car while wearing his binocs. He meets me at the car, says they searched his binocular case. We were so mad we made it a point not to buy a single thing for the next four hours.

  22. We see these in CA in the areas where hunting is allowed. I’ve also been approached while on the hunt by wardens. I’ve been checked for license, proper ammo and mag limits on my shotguns.

    It’s the price we pay for hunting in CA.

  23. I am definitely NOT okay with roadblocks, except, perhaps, in the case of child napping, and I ‘m pretty sure they don’t do that.

    It seems to me this will encourage out of season hunting, and policing THAT will end up costing states a lot more money.

    It’s the law of unintended consequences all over again.

      • Yes, because people with badges are more valuable, are worth more. Somehow. I think. Yeah, because it just feels right.

      • Ummm, sometimes it’s hard to tell but I certainly hope this is sarcasm. ‘Not for child abductions or child killings’ seems like you’re trying to do some trolling – which is what I hope. If not, you are a real piece of work.

        I don’t know if there are seriously high rates of poaching or hunting without licenses in KS, but I’m guessing that’s the rationale for justifying the road blocks. I do know that KS is in a world of hurt financially (those tax cuts to the very wealthy and corporations will start to trickle down any day) and this could be their way of trying to ensure they get every nickel from licensing they can. I’m guessing the next thing is lots of fisherman asking to show their license as well.

        One more thing…the guys that are doing this job are your neighbors and in a lot of cases you friends. They are just doing a job to support themselves and their families. There is no reason to swear at them, call them names, insult them, etc…they are just trying to do a job. Just be polite and move on…c’mon.

        • The real pieces of work are the public officials who allow cops to suspend everybody’s civil rights when, and only when, somebody tries to kill a cop. The only on-duty death of one of my county’s deputies in my lifetime was a guy who got run over deploying a spike strip at a roadblock, on a night a cop was killed at a convenience store robbery. The roadblock wasn’t even in the same county as the robbery.

          And need I say what happened in Los Angeles County when a pissed off ex-cop named Dorner killed a command officer? The whole county went bat-shit homicidal crazy. None of the other 50 LA murders that month mattered, but for Dorner they pulled out all the stops, even ventilated a pickup truck full of LA Times delivery ladies.

        • The only reason these “friendly neighbors” want to question you and search you is because they think they can put you in jail and steal your property. I don’t call that neighborly at all.

  25. STASI checkpoints are fine, as long as you’re fine with the idea of living in the Deutsch Democratic Republic, or East Germany.

    Otherwise, a ‘minimal intrusion on the 4A’, as described by SCOTUS in Michigan STASI State Police vs Sitz, is UNACCEPTABLE in a free country with constitutional prohibitions on warrantless and unwarranted intrusion in the daily lives of citizens. (After SCOTUS ruled that DUI checkpoints were a tolerable violation of 4A as long as they complied with state laws, Michigan legislators fixed the problem by banning checkpoints. However, the entire state falls within the SCOTUS defined ‘border zone’ and CBP is immune to state laws)

    I don’t care if you’re looking for untaxed deer hunters, drivers who had a little alcohol but not enough to be visible in their driving, or “Border” Patrol acting as if the whole ****ing country is the border. Either respect my rights or there’s going to be trouble.

    • or “Border” Patrol acting as if the whole ****ing country is the border.

      Interesting that you mentioned this. A few years ago I was driving north to Boulder City, NV from Kingman, AZ on Route 93(?) when all cars were diverted to a border patrol area in what looked like a highway rest stop or something like that. We didn’t have to stop or answer questions; we just had to drive slowly while some uniformed doods in Smokey the Bear hats peeked into our cars.

      And we were a long, looooong way from the Mexican border.

  26. LEO’s of all flavors have become nothing more than revenue generators for the city, county, state and federal government.

    • In other words, they are cowards. They choose not to go after violent criminals, instead, they choose to go after pot smokers and people trying to get to work on time. Much safer that way.

      Maybe this is why so many murders and violent crimes go unsolved.

  27. I am most certainly NOT okay with this. It is a violation of our Fourth Amendment right to protect us from unreasonable searches.

    Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court says that highway checkpoints are A-okay as long as they are “fast”.

    This is yet another example which illustrates that our United States Supreme Court is corrupt.

  29. Agent: We don’t need a warrant.

    Irv Manders: You do unless I woke up in Russia this morning!

    FedUp: I should have bought that ‘armored’ BMW (740 iL Protection) last spring. It’s looking more and more like I’ll have to get myself shot at for blowing a criminal’s roadblock in the lifetime of my next car.

  30. I had 2 auxiliary game wardens walk up behind my wife and I at a state shooting range. No identifying clothing, hats, nothing. We had five handguns laid out on the bench. Her 2 kimbers, my 3 glocks. We were to to step away from our guns and keep our hands in plain sight. After asking what was going on and being to i should just comply, I informed the “officer” that if he tried to touch ANY of the handguns I would draw my concealed Glock to stop him. Again, neither of these two assholes had anything on them saying PA game commission. The second officer said maybe we should just clean up and leave. The first one was demanding I’d. Fortunately the second officer prevailed. That was my last use of a PA state range. I had no intention of letting my firearms be touched or showing I’d. I was told in parting, after my comment “you could have a caused a fatality today asshole” that PA law now REQUIRES you to show drivers license, hunting license, and firearms inspection on request at any state range.

  33. I’m not ok with this. This is bullshit. If they can stop you to interrogate you for hunting they can stop everyone and randomly interrogate them for drugs, vehicle insurance, stolen anythings, illegal immigrants, pirated software CD/DVDs, legal firearm transportation methods, vehicle inspection and check engine lights, smokes that were stolen from a nearby convenient store, etc.

    They need probable cause to pull someone over. Stopping everyone driving on the road is not probable cause.

  34. Well, I read through through everything above, and my conclusion is that every single comment is an unfounded opinion based on emotion or personal belief — and they are all incorrect. We are talking about Kansas law here (as enabled by the federal and state constitutions, and the people of Kansas). So the first thing you have to understand is what THE PEOPLE OF KANSAS HAVE ENABLED IN STATUTE, to wit:

    http://www.kscoplaw.com/outlines/ssoutline.htm

    In Kansas you have to accept the fact that, in terms of auto seach, the U.S fourth amendment (as in all other states to a greater or lesser extent) has been modified due to the mobility of such conveyance.

    Have fun, folks – but don’t go to Kansas and then do something that will get you in trouble.

    • I’m a resident of Kansas. SCOTUS has already ruled checkpoints for the purposes of general law enforcement are illegal in Indianpolis v. Edmond. The Kansas legislature can pass all the laws they wish on wildlife checkpoints, but on it’s face this type of checkpoint violates the 4th amendment and does not appear to fall under the exceptions carved out in Michigan v. Sitz or United States v. Martinez-Fuerte. I have asked the Kansas AG if they have provided any opinions to the Kansas Highway Patrol or KDWPT regarding these checkpoints. The opinions and sensibilities of most of these posters is correct in that checkpoints violate the 4th amendment, it’s just SCOTUS has ruled there are limited exceptions.

  35. Why don’t the Kansas Deer Volpos set up their checkpoints adjacent to Wildlife Crossing signs, where it would be much easier to check the deer. If the area proves inconvenient (say, for example, it’s too far from the local donut shoppe), they could simply move the Wildlife Crossing signs elsewhere so the deer would cross there instead.

    Genius!

  36. In the hunting ‘MECA’ of the midwest, Southern Illinois, poaching is a crime. We work closely with the wardens to insure proper numbers of all taken legal game are recorded. Land owners are exempt from some regulation.

    I know of ZERO poachers that belong to the NRA or any legitimate hunting organisation.

    I welcome scrutiny by the ‘authorities.’ They are LEO, Conservationists and hunters themselves. We work together to insure game and habitat is available into the future!

  37. It’s over the top and oppressive. These checks are normally expected as you walk out of the brush or to your vehicle at a typical hunting parking area. Same happens with fishing, like say salmon season. But this a sweep and I’m fairly sure if challenged, illegal.

  38. When i turned 16 police, because of the demands of M.A.D.D began conducting DUI checkpoints. i can remember complaining to anyone who would listen, Parents, Teachers, etc. i was to;d it was for public safety and that it was a good thing.I made the usual Constitutional argument to no avail. We let this cat out of the bag years ago.

  39. This is good advice…kinda like not wearing an NRA or Glock sweatshirt when carrying.
    After hunting, make your vehicle appear semi-normal. No stickers, camo, etc.
    Clean the game at or near the hunting site. (I know this violates some rules, but we’re playing a game.) Or take deer to a deer-processing plant. (You might be from South Carolina is you know the location of more than three deer-processing plants.)

    It is perfectly legal for LEOs to lie to us. Why can’t we come up with creative answers?
    “Are you a hunter?” “No.” (Not right this very second. And if you can’t work the computer and figure it out before you asked, there are openings at Wal-Mart.)

    It’s LEOs’ job to enforce the law. They have no obligation to obey the law.

    I don’t have (much) of an issue with LEOs. It’s their bosses who need some tar and feathers.

  41. Nope-but I’ve never been in a wildlife checkpoint. I agree that looking for drunks(or pot filled cars) is BS. Not a hunter but I sympathize.

  42. The fact of the matter is, the courts have approved this stuff. For example, California does a check for fruits and other agriculture when you enter the state. It’s a quick 2 questions. Is it intrusive? Mildly. Is it effective? Who knows?

  43. Too many cops doing too many BS operations. God forbid if they were sent out to round up criminals with warrants, or expired visas. Much easier to stand at a checkpoint and hassle motorists. If they found a car load of illegal aliens would they arrest them? Or would they pass them thru because its “too much paperwork” and tear some valid citizens truck apart for having an untagged quail?

    This is what a police state looks like.

  44. Stopping everyone is completely wrong. That being said, I believe some state codes require active (active) hunters to stop at check stations. I have seen this in Montana. As a bird hunter I did not have to stop at the big game check station. But when I blew past the bird station I got to meet a very nice Officer from the State of Montana. He was courteous, respectful and could have ruined my day and year as our party was out of compliance for transport and storage. Turns out we f’d up big time.

    He wrote us a reasonable ticket, didn’t harass us and gave us passage for the rest of the trip.

    But the way Kansas is doing it, no I am not okay with it.

  46. Let me state clearly that my thoughts on the actions described above, and government in general,can only be adequately expressed with words that this site will not print. I do however thank you for the opportunity.

  47. Is this particular “stop and ask” OK?

    No, and yes, and this is why politics, unfortunately, matters. The immediate move is to challenge the administrative policy, via the appropriate agency, *in front of the legislators.* “Seriously, dude, this is how you implement the moderate, calibrated, and limited mandate we gave you? You gotta do it in a way that stirs up the proles?” <- This is what you are going for.

    Elaborating in reverse order, "yes" first…

    If hunting is a licensed "privilege" then, like driving large trucks or similar, the licensing authority can put monitoring, regulation, and check-in requirements into the process. So, if they chose to legislate it that way, it's the price of doing hunting there. Hunting. Passenger cars are not required to divert to truck weigh stations, because that law isn't about passenger cars.

    Which moves to the "no."

    Even if this is the implementation for hunting, what's the rationale for detaining and interrogating non-hunters going about their non-hunting business? "Somebody here might be doing something we regulate, which gives us the right to interrogate everybody." Seriously? You wanna make that argument out loud in a court, or in front of the legislators who have to deal with the irate voters who can vote them out?

    I'm not a fan of collective inquisitions, any more than collective punishments. Of course, when you can get wrapped around any level of procedural axle at any time, regardless of how "between the lines" you are, simply being noticed comes with its own risk. A simple inquiry is far from nothing, when "the process is the punishment."

    So, no, it ain't right, and no, it ain't free. Politically, make them as want to inspect everybody make the opposing case.

    Which gets to the "politics" part.

    The people who get imposed upon unfortunately have to participate in the political process or the burden put on them gets ignored. Sure, it's "just" a delay and a question, but if you are living a little close to the bone – read "poor" – that's a way different imposition than if you're fat, dumb, and comfortable. Of course, put the checkpoints the right place, and it's only "those people" who will be burdened, you know, the people we don't care about.

    For example, politically I might make a case for equal distribution of such checkpoints in rural areas, suburbs, and even city centers. Equal by population. Because otherwise, you're picking on one bunch of people, not others.

    Yeah, yeah, no hunters in the burbs. BUT if this isn't selectively aimed at a particular *behavior* – hunters – then it should be everywhere. Selectively aimed and there's a ton of interesting law to invoke. *Not* selectively aimed and there's another ton of interesting law. In the event the point is to get a record, as fodder for the civil rights lawsuit – about five of them off the top of my head. Remember, it doesn't matter if you win, although that's nice. The fact of the suit has its own political consequences. If you establish "standing" you get hooks for press releases for months, every time something "newsworthy" happens in the proceeding.

    Also, politically, and depending on a bunch of stuff, sometimes legally, *intended result* of the policy is not the *burden* of the policy, which is the point. Every time you place a *burden* on some people in aid of a good, for *other people* or a common good for *all* people, there's a kajillion extra hurdles to making that case. Also, politically, people in the US find that pretty distasteful – the US population finds scapegoating by means of government authority more distasteful than many other populations do.

    Call out this argument: "Hey, it's only inconveniencing hunters, who are wrong to begin with, and those dumb-ass hillbillies who live out in the woods anyway. They don't count."

    "Well, good to have flushed you out there, comrade(***). Thank you for playing."

    If they won't say it, put the words in their mouth(s) and make them prove that it ain't so. Of course, if we can burden some people because they don't count, so much for universal human rights, or universal advocacy thereof.

    Sadly, even if you'd rather live in the woods and be left alone – as I would – you have to access the political process to call "shenanigans" on dumb laws, and dumber implementations of same, or else we end up with some animals are more equal than others.(*)

    (*) I am bitterly disappointed that I didn't see this joke in the earlier comments, or the article, even. Disparate rights and enforcement, inspecting *animals*. Come on, people. It's right there.(**)

    (**) For marketing, "rights", "enforcement", "what the heck are they up to" and so on is the payload. You gotta hijack the right-thinking folks seeing this going on as either the heroic, trusted "good guys" doing janitorial duty, keeping the boot on the neck of the wrong-thinking who might be getting out of hand, or both. This is how it reads to those in favor. The game is to reframe it. *Animals* are cute, and cuddly, and obviously right there in the story, so use that as a hook to the ponderous big idea, or small "sod off" objections.

    Part of the brilliance of Orwell's Animal Farm is in casting his allegory in terms of animals. Other stuff he gets for free by placement of the story is the farm metaphor (exploiter / exploited, creation of value from effort, and more), and the read-in of the *nature of the actors* vs. attribution to some conditioning or system. Aesop's fables do something similar. Among others.

    (***) There are at least 50 more on point things than "comrade" to use here. BUT most people won't get the better ones. Because the game is *playing to who's listening* the reference has to be one they'll get. You can maybe slip in something more on point later.

  49. I hate these things. I asked my usually like minded dad and he said he doesn’t mind if you are all treated the same.

    It just irks me that there is no probable cause. You are literally dragged aside and interrogated for nothing. This is part of the problem with police relations in our country. When you treat us all like criminals we’re going to see you as the enemy. This hurts us all.

    Still. It’s kind of a no harm no foul thing. It hampers our rights in theory, but in practice I doubt anyone is getting shot over these or any checkpoints. :p

  50. El Surety bond (bono de garantía) es un acuerdo tripartito, es decir que involucra a tres actores de manera legal: a un principal, que es el que necesita el bono, un acreedor, que requiere el bono y una compañía de garantía que es la que vende el bono. El bono garantiza que el principal actuará de acuerdo con ciertas leyes. Si el principal no cumple, la fianza cubrirá los daños o pérdidas resultantes.

Comments are closed.