Aldeer.com Forums Alabama Deer Talk Aldeer General Forum Pennsylvania Possum Cops, Smackdown!

Pennsylvania supreme court just reined in their possum cops. That's six states now. Alabama needs to do the same.

Possum Cop Smackdown

Self inflicted because of their abuses.

Thats good! Hope that extends here.

From that article ... At the bull’s-eye of the case is the doctrine of Open Fields, allowing government officials to enter, surveil, and remain on private land without restraint. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s hammer blow against Open Fields could echo at both the federal and state levels.

Currently, Open Fields litigation is moving in Alabama, Louisiana, and Virginia. The scope of power claimed by government officials at both the state and federal levels, by way of Open Fields, is remarkably absolute.

Let's hoping we dump Oliver Wendall Holmes little tyranny baby here in Alabama too!

My opinion is that Probable Cause is too high of a standard for this. Articulable Reasonable Belief is a much better standard for enforcing laws that we all on this site should want enforced. Meth makers and illegal pot growers appreciate it though.

OP is correct though. A few abusing this are the reason for the ruling. These things are like a pendulum and swing back and forth all the time. This time it just went all the way to the left. I don't know how long it will take but eventually it will swing back the other direction and hopefully stop in the happy medium.

For those of us that don't know what the legal definition of each of those mean, what is the difference? They sound like about the same thing to me. Well, yeah, different, but it seems like the 2 definitions could easily be clouded by an officer with a grudge or an agenda. It also seems like an attorney could cloud them up as well.

Thee key difference is between the words "may" vs "probably". With reasonable suspicion an officer must be able to articulate why he believes that a crime MAY be being committed, has been committed or is about to be committed. For Probable Cause an officer must be able to state why he believes a crime has PROBABLY been committed. In other words, the standard is lower on Reasonable Suspicion. A judge is not supposed to issue a search warrant on Reasonable Suspicion but is supposed to require Probable Cause to issue a warrant. The same standard applies for arrests and searches on street stops (Read Terry v Ohio for more on this). The standard on both is what a reasonable (there's that word again) person would believe if presented with the facts. So this would exclude the opinions of LE zealots on one end and ACLU types on the other.

While it may sound confusing to those that haven't studied or lived it, the standards are pretty well set in stone. What the PA case will do is now involve a GW having to have a Search Warrant every time they want to check out a Dove Shoot. That is really just not practical. The judges that get called away from their Penn State football game to approve the warrant aren't going to be happy either after a while.

So what you are saying is, with Articulable Reasonable Belief, the officer would not need a warrant, only the belief that a crime "may" be getting committed???
If so, is the act of hunting itself enough to say a crime "may" be committed?

So the solution is to allow Fourth Amendement violations because it's easier and more simple for the GW and the judges will be unhappy?


It's simple, or should be. Be like other law enforcement and get a warrant. Or stay off private property, especially if anyone is hanging cameras for surveillance (like in Tennessee).

Did you read what I wrote? The answer is to hold to the standard that is outlined in Terry v. Ohio. How can a GW get Probable Cause to ever check a Dove Field unless they are allowed on it. You are supposing that every GW is evil and only wants to ruin hunts. In my experiences nothing could be further from the truth so I'm not celebrating making their job practically impossible. I do however, celebrate legal hunting.

The best way to avoid problems is for the GW to obtain a proper warrant before going on private property. That way if he does not find any kind of wrongdoing then he wont have to deal with potential legal problems from angry hunters. If he does find evidence of wrongdoing then he is justified for getting a warrant.

If a GW wants to check a dove field he can first ask for permission from the landowner. If permission is granted there would be no need to obtain a warrant.

If permission is not granted, go ask a judge.

Um, no. I DO NOT think every GW is 'evil' and want them to do their jobs, and do them well because I hate poachers and violators.

But I also want them to not be able to slip and slink around willy-nilly or put up cameras for unlawful surveillance. Get a warrant.

No means no for everyone including the government.

Nope. You want on my property, you come and ask or show up with a warrant. Until then, your rights end at my property line.

Let's change one word in this question and see how it works...................
How can a GW get Probable Cause to ever check a House unless they are allowed in it.
Now, can an officer enter a house to get probable cause and in turn obtain a warrant to search it? If the answer is no, then the same should apply to a privately owned field. Private property is private property.

I'm still interested in the answer to this,

And what would be the Probable Cause to get a warrant from a judge? You can't say "I want to" or "They won't let me". That is not Probable Cause. This will be a field day for illegal hunters in PA.

Yep. Let them have their free for all on public land not private. Plenty of poachers to catch on public land. If someone has a poaching issue on their private land they can always give limited permission if they desire to investigate a specific issue. Desantis tied their hands on private property in FL as it should be. They’re subject to same standards as every other FDLE certified officer has to comply with. It just means having to get creative with investigative methods. Plenty of ways to do long range surveillance or other creative investigative techniques. At least in FL trespassing with a firearm is a felony. If you’re trespassing on my property carrying a firearm without a search warrant you’re committing a felony. No probable cause stay off. I’m sure Jawbone that back in your LEO days you probably had to think of creative ways to investigate and get to a point where you had probable cause. Should be same for GW. One reason I don’t bother with hunting clubs or leases in AL anymore, outside of cost, is the GW would come in and target the FL members. Flipping selective enforcement. I would pay a bunch of money to hunt private land just for these dip 💩 to come bother the folks with FL tags. Go catch some flipping poachers on public land instead of wasting time checking licenses on private land. As a former LEO I appreciate that GW has a dangerous job due to every encounter likely involving a firearm. But don’t be a dip 💩.

Yep, that is the standard set in Terry v Ohio. Read it, it is a very seminal case for LE in the US. Maybe the second most important SCOTUS decision in Criminal Justice just short of the 4th Amendment.

What are you saying yep to? There's like 4 questions there.

I see 4 question marks but not 4 questions, but I'll answer it 4 times. Terry v Ohio. Terry v Ohio. Terry v Ohio. Terry v Ohio. That is the standard that I think should apply since none of us like Open Fields Doctrine.

Keep in mind also, this is in PA and does not apply to AL. The Supreme Court in AL or if they choose to go Federal, someone in our Federal Courts out of Atlanta will have to either make the same ruling or adopt this ruling to make it applicable to AL so someone will have to take it to them on a ticket they received. So for now at least, nothing changes in AL.