Yes they can....

There is no law that says law enforcement has to have a warrant to go on to property. Read up on the Open Field Doctrine.

I love how DCNR employees who do this for a living and attorneys who know the law are told they're wrong.

more expertise that just fits the subsmidgen intelligence level......

Thank you for setting all the armchair lawyers straight. Generally speaking police officers or deputies just don't go wandering around on property without a reason to be there, but they can do so legally if they took a notion. For example, we had an anonymous call one day that there was a Mary Jane patch in the big vacant lot off of Rodgers Street. An anonymous complaint does not give you probable cause in and of itself. But through the Open Field Doctrine, we went to the lot (maybe 15 acres) and sure enough right out in the center was about 30 of the prettiest green plants you've ever seen. No idea whose plants they were but we ruined their party plans.

How else are they going to find those Yeti coolers to sell?

Throw your corn out in front of your stand and keep believing that. make sure to ask him for his search warrant when The Man gets there.

This is a very interesting thread. I'll Google the open field doctrine and read up in it because I had never heard of it until now. Can someone explain the difference in when an LEO can search your vehicle or dwelling vs when a GW can search your vehicle or dwelling? I really don't k ow more than a smidge about all this

this is a sad sad world. there are people on the site that are GAME WARDENS, POLICE OFFICERS and even a LAWYER telling you they DO NOT have to have a search warrant to come on to your property and you still refuse to listen

They don't actually refuse to listen, they just prefer to continue to argue....

''Open Fields.'' In Hester v. United States, 265 U.S. 57 (1924), the Supreme Court held
that the Fourth Amendment did not protect ''open fields'' and that, therefore, police
searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, open water, and vacant lots need not
comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause. Invoking Hester's reliance
on the literal wording of the Fourth Amendment (open fields are not ''effects'', the Court
ruled that the open fields exception applies to fields that are fenced and posted., in Oliver
v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984). ''[A]n individual may not legitimately demand
privacy for activities conducted out of doors in fields, except in the area immediately
surrounding the home.'' Id. at 178.
An individual cannot demand privacy for activities conducted within outbuildings and
visible by trespassers peering into the buildings from just outside. United States v. Dunn,
480 U.S. 294 (1987) (space immediately outside a barn, accessible only after crossing a
series of ''ranch-style'' fences and situated one-half mile from the public road, constitutes
unprotected ''open field'').
Activities within the curtilage are nonetheless still entitled to some Fourth Amendment
protection. The Court has described four considerations for determining whether an area
falls within the curtilage: the proximity to the home, the presence of an enclosure also
surrounding the home, the nature of the uses to which the area is put, and the steps taken
by the resident to shield the area from view of passersby.

United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S.294 (1987) (barn 50 yards outside fence surrounding home,
used for processing chemicals, and separated from public access only by series of livestock fences, by
chained and locked driveway, and by one-half mile's distance, is not within curtilage).
Naked-eye inspection from helicopters flying overhead contravenes no reasonable
expectation of privacy. Florida v. Riley, 488 U.S. 445 (1989) (view through partially
open roof of greenhouse). And aerial photography of commercial facilities secured from
ground-level public view is permissible, the Court finding such spaces more analogous to
open fields than to the curtilage of a dwelling. Dow Chemical Co. v. United States, 476
U.S. 227 (1986).

The ones that know the law and survive it, day after day, are some tough SOB's.

§ 9-2-65. Powers and duties of game and fish wardens; powers and duties of director with respect to game and fish wardens.

(a) Game and fish wardens shall have power:

(1) To enforce all laws of this state relating to birds, animals and fish;

(2) To execute all warrants and search warrants for the violation of the game, fish and fur laws of the state;

(3) To serve subpoenas issued for examination, investigation and trial of all offenses against the law relating to game, fur bearers, birds and fish;

(4) To carry firearms as provided by law for enforcement officers when in the discharge of their official duties;

(5) To confiscate all game, birds, animals or fish or parts thereof which have been caught, taken, killed or held at a time in any manner or for any purpose or had in possession or under control or have been shipped, carried or transported contrary to the laws of this state, and game, fur bearers, birds, fish or parts thereof so confiscated shall be held as evidence in the court in which the defendant is held for trial; and, upon conviction of the defendant, said game, fur bearers, birds, fish or parts thereof shall be disposed of by written order of the court;

(6) To enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duty;

(7) To assist individual citizens, clubs, groups and organizations of sportsmen and conservation clubs by furnishing information and such other assistance as may be found necessary in the construction of fish ponds, the establishing of feeding grounds for migratory wild fowl, the planting of fish from the state and federal fish hatcheries, the reclaiming of stranded fish and the control of predators on useful forms of wildlife; and

(8) To perform such other additional duties as the Commissioner may direct.

Great read! That would be a good pocket reminder for any officer.
At least we got some comments that may clarify in future to prevent a good officer from losing their job! We need all the good ones we can get.

Could a GW show up at your house and look in your freezer to check your possesion limit without a warrant?

yes pretty sure all he needs is probable cause to come on in. but here in lies the issue. there is no law saying you can not have 35 wild turkeys in your freezer or 100 dove. there is no law stating how much food you can have at your house now in the field is a different story

In a nutshell everyone, no warrant is needed by any officer to conduct a search in a place that a person has no reasonable expectation of privacy. The courts will determine what is reasonable and that may not be the same definition that you have. It seems like this field of law is evolving every day as new technologies are developed and people are taking advantage of them.

NOT without your permission. A search warrant would be needed.

Whats in your freezer at home count toward your possesion limit? I've heard it both ways. If a person had a freezer full of crappie etc that were caught legally or even rabbits can he stock those in his freezer legally for future use?

They sure as heck do it in the keys during lobster season