Originally Posted by Driveby
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?
I answered your question, but since it wasn’t directed at you per se I’ll do it again.

The courts ruled long ago that due to the nature of hunting being an activity in pursuit of a publicly held resource on lands(both public and private), officers have every legal authority to be on lands where hunting is taking place, regardless of probable cause or articulable reasonable belief. You cannot protect a publicly held resource without access to private lands, therefore courts ruled in favor of GWs using the open fields doctrine liberally. Honestly, I can’t believe this is even an issue. Do officers abuse it? Yes. Should they be held responsible? Yes.

Like has been stated, better be careful what you wish for if you care about the resources. Your dishonest neighbors can and will do atrocious things to wildlife in the absence of GWs having legal authority to be on private lands.