Originally Posted by Driveby
Here are the 4 questions:

1. 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. (there's not a question mark there because I simply copied and pasted your remark then replaced dove field with house. You didn't use a question mark so that one is on you. grin

2. 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.

3.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??? (multiple question marks)

4.Follow up to the previous question. If so, is the act of hunting itself enough to say a crime "may" be committed?

Three of these questions are yes or no questions so Terry v Ohio is not the correct answer.



Originally Posted by Driveby
Here's my beef with it. A warden can interrupt my hunt at any time just because I'm hunting and he wants to check my license, whether I'm on public or private property. A warden can pull up to my boat and ask to see if I have a fishing license, just because I'm fishing. I'm hunting or fishing so there's a chance that I don't have a license to do that. On the same note, an officer can not legally pull me over just to see if I have a driver's license just because I'm driving. I'm driving so there's the chance I don't have a driver's license and I'm using a publicly held resource (the road), yet there is a difference in how my constitutional rights are viewed. That's a discrepancy in how the law is being used that is glaringly obvious.

[Linked Image from i.imgur.com]

The true mark of a man is not how he conducts himself during times of prosperity, but how he conducts himself during times of adversity.