https://komonews.com/news/nation-world/tennessees-wildlife-agency-wont-appeal-historic-ruling-on-warrantless-searches-twra-tennessee-wildlife-resources-agency-law-enforcement-open-field-doctrine-tennessee-supreme-court-institute-of-justice-fourth-amendmentI guess the TWRA realizes they've gotten away with their unconstitutional intrusions, and the courts are no longer going to tolerate it. Hopefully the unconstitutional searches of live wells etc will end as well.
I've been shook down several times when I was doing nothing wrong and there was no cause for it. Bullied IMO, and there wasn't anything I could do about it but empty my pockets and comply.
This has taken far to long but it appears our civil rights will now be restored. Dove fields, established and checked for years by TWRA officers, have been ruled legal one year and ruled baited the next. No more inconsistency. Year after year, more and more game laws have been added going from a tri-fold card in the 1960's to a 78 page guide now. IMO, TWRA's arrogance over the years has brought this about.
CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (WTVC) — It's a decision that will affect wildlife law enforcement in Tennessee forever.
The Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) has decided it will not appeal its most recent court loss regarding searches conducted under "the Open Field Doctrine" to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
The decision, first announced by the Institute for Justice, means that Tennessee wildlife officers will no longer be allowed to access private lands unless they have explicit permission of the landowner, or have obtained a court-ordered search warrant.
TWRA officers will continue to be able freely access public land, or property where landowners give them explicit permission. Otherwise they will have to go to court an obtain search warrants before they can go on private land.
"It directly and dramatically affects their ability to protect the wildlife of Tennessee."
In 2018 Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth found hidden cameras on their West Tennessee property. They subsequently sued TWRA for violating their rights under the state constitution. Up until then, TWRA wildlife law enforcement officers had operated under the "Open Fields Doctrine" - the legal basis used by wildlife law enforcers in numerous states and by federal wildlife law enforcers. In 1924, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not protect any land beyond the home and its immediate surrounding area. The Court reaffirmed the doctrine in 1984 when it held that property owners have no “reasonable expectation of privacy” on any land the Court deems to be an “open field.”
However, Institute for Justice attorneys, arguing on behalf of Rainwaters and Hollingsworth, said that doctrine violates the Tennessee Constitution. They won their court battles, including the most recent decision from the Tennessee Court of Appeals. TWRA's next course of action would have been to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, however the Agency has decided it will not appeal.
Following the ruling, Rainwaters and Hollingsworth's attorney told us...
"I think the best way to describe how my clients feel is safe. They can go and find some solitude, and that was destroyed by not only finding government cameras on their land, spying on them, but by government officials coming on and roaming around."
In its news release about the case, the Institute for Justice said, "With the state declining to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court, (this) victory over warrantless searches is cemented."
In a written statement from TWRA, Executive Director Jason Maxedon said,
We respect the Attorney General’s decision not to appeal the case. When TWRA was founded 75 years ago, nearly all big game species had been hunted to the brink of survival. It was hunters who came together to self-regulate and allow inspection of private property to prevent bad actors from stealing wildlife from their neighbors and the state.
TWRA spokesperson Emily Buck said in an e-mail,
TWRA is currently working with the Attorney General’s office for further clarity on TWRA’s right to inspect hunters. The Agency will have new policy and procedures in place by the opening of Dove season in September. TWRA already has a landowner consent process implemented for game wardens to enter private property, and all wardens have received additional search warrant training.
WILDLIFE OFFICERS REACT
Wayne Rich, a retired Tennessee wildlife officer with 37 years’ experience protecting Tennessee's wildlife resources said,
I'm disappointed, but of course I've been disappointed in the (TWRA) administration since before I retired. I know the officers have to abide by the directives they're given, but this is going to be detrimental to the wildlife. It will keep officers from working illegal baiting, deer spotlighting and other wildlife cases. Of course, I've given (my local wildlife officer) permission to access my own land anytime he wants to.
Russell Vandergriff, prior to his retirement as a TWRA wildlife officer, overlooking one of the many scenic views in Marion County. The Institute for Justice said that by their calculation, at least 92 percent of the land in Tennessee was accessible under the "Open Fields Doctrine." Retired Marion County wildlife officer Russell Vandergriff said,
You couldn't print what I'd really like to say. But what I worry about the most is the wildlife suffering because of (this decision). This is going to make folks who are 'behind the gate' more illegal. The main tool we had was the element of surprise and that's gone away. Now it will require even more help from the public.
WINNERS REACTIONS
“In 1926, two years after the U.S. Supreme Court announced the open-fields doctrine, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that private land deserves more protection,” said Josh Windham, Co-Director of the Institute for Justice’s Project on the Fourth Amendment. “But for the last century, state game wardens have been ignoring that important decision, roaming Tennesseans’ private land at will. No longer.”
In May, Court of Appeals Judge Jeffrey Usman wrote that, “TWRA’s contention is a disturbing assertion of power on behalf of the government that stands contrary to the foundations of the search protections against arbitrary governmental intrusions in the American legal tradition”
“This final victory has been a long time coming,” said Terry Rainwaters, via the Institute for Justice news release. “For too long, TWRA officers have treated my private land like public property. But in Tennessee, our land just means more. It’s part of who we are. And to hear the court say that our land deserves protection from TWRA’s warrantless intrusions makes me proud to be a Tennessean.”
“Finding out you were under illegal surveillance on your private property for months is a hard pill to swallow,” continued Hunter Hollingsworth. “Thanks to the countless hours of work from Jack Leonard, Josh Windham, and the Institute for Justice, Tennesseans don't have to swallow that pill anymore! Lots of sacrifices were made by all involved but Bear Bryant said it best: ‘The price of victory is high, but so are the rewards."
IMPACT IN OTHER STATES
This was the first such win for the Institute for Justice, but it says it is now litigating similar cases against open fields doctrines in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Louisiana.
Vandergriff said, "I know officers across the country are watching this. I've talked to Alabama officers who have been watching our case closely."
Vandergriff suspects that TWRA might reduce its number of wildlife officers.
"Marion County has always been a 'two-officer county.' But now we only have one officer who just started his field training July 4th. I don't think that they will put two back in here. And I don't really think they need as many officers as they used to have."
Vandergriff said before he retired, he was keeping a list of the landowners who had given specific permission for officers to enter their property, however he said such lists have to be updated every year because "things change or land gets sold to someone else."
Rich said one major illegal bear hunting case he and his fellow officers worked took two full years of investigation before they finally made the case.
"I don't think we could have ever gotten a search warrant that would have allowed us to continue an investigation that long," he said. He also questioned whether the decision might affect other aspects of wildlife law enforcement or even other agencies.
Will officers be allowed to look in a fisherman's livewell if he doesn't give them permission," Rich wondered. "Or what about agencies that fly over private land looking for marijuana crops? How widespread can this decision go?
PROJECT ON THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
The Institute for Justice said the case is another major victory for IJ’s Project on the Fourth Amendment, which strives to protect one of our foundational property rights: the right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Later this year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will hear argument in a similar case from two hunting clubs which were subjected to similar searches and hidden cameras.
“Property isn’t private if the government can watch you whenever it wants,” said IJ President and General Counsel Scott Bullock. “We are confident that this victory is just the first in what will become a series of wins reinvigorating protections against warrantless searches.”
Comment bubble
WTVC
