A private-property rights lawsuit against sports law enforcement in Pennsylvania ended Tuesday in the state Supreme Court Government Warrantless searches of rural properties are unconstitutional.
As we reported when two Pennsylvania hunting clubs heard verbal arguments last spring filed a lawsuit against Pennsylvania Game Commission after game wardens repeatedly entered their posted private lands without a warrant or probable cause. This is a common practice in many states that allow open field theorywho holds it fourth amendment Protection against unlawful search and seizure does not extend to open fields and forests on rural properties.
“At a high level, I think (this decision) is a huge victory for property rights,” says senior attorney Joshua Windham. Institute of Justice who rTwo hunting clubs represented. “As far as the lawsuit goes, any private land in all of Pennsylvania – unless it’s basically right next to your house – had no protection under the Constitution from warrantless searches or any other type of unreasonable surveillance.”
Tuesday’s decision is final and cannot be appealed to the US Supreme Court because it is a matter of state law.
Windham says this decision brings law enforcement practices by PGC game wardens in line with the same standards that regular police officers are held to when posted on property. While the precedent in this case hinges around hunters, hunting and game law citations, the decision has implications for all public officials and all rural properties in Pennsylvania.
“Prior to this case, government officials could go undercover and walk around people’s fences and posted properties whenever and however they wanted to do so,” Windham says. “They didn’t need probable cause, they didn’t need reasonable suspicion, they didn’t even need a good reason. They could just do that, and the courts would say that’s totally fine. They could live as long as they wanted. They could put up cameras and spy on people, and there was no surveillance or limits on any of it.”
Two hunting clubs representing Windham reported that, between 2013 and 2021, Pennsylvania Game Commission officers routinely posted and ignored “no trespassing” signs. They also overcame closed doors to enter vast properties and monitor their hunters without warrants. According to Windham customers, this happened on at least 22 occasions.
Officers traveled around the property, tracking and chasing poachers, and also installed trail cameras to monitor them from a distance. Although some citations were issued to hunters, Windham told OL last year that none were more than a minor technical violation. For example, one hunter was confronted by a warden 100 yards from his truck and cited for leaving his hunting license in the vehicle rather than keeping it with him.
Jeff Fink, president of the Pitch Pine Hunting Club (one of two plaintiffs in the case), said, “I spent most of my career in law enforcement.” statement Tuesday “And one thing every good police officer knows is that there is no law higher or more important than the Constitution. For years, the Pennsylvania Game Commission has acted as if it is above the law, invading our land and spying on our members whenever it wants. We now know that the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits it, and thank God.”
poaching on private property
Proponents of the open range principle, including many state agencies and conservation law enforcement officials, argue that requiring warrants to enforce game law violations makes the already difficult job of apprehending poachers and serious game law violators even more difficult. Really, about 85 percent Is private property in Pennsylvania. This is the norm in much of the eastern US
“Although we are disappointed with the outcome of this case, the Pennsylvania Game Commission respects the court’s decision,” it reads. a brief statement Released by the agency on Tuesday. “The Commission has full confidence that our law enforcement officers will execute their mission of protecting Pennsylvania wildlife and enforcing hunting laws within these new constitutional standards.”
According to estimates, 95 percent of poaching violations across the country go undetected and unreported a years-long research project published by Boon and Crockett Club Last year. This costs Americans an estimated $302 million in lost revenue from unreported fines and approximately $1.13 billion in wildlife replacement costs.
Windham says he has seen no evidence that warrantless searches actually help protect wildlife resources.
“What we did in both Tennessee and Pennsylvania is we asked the government to identify any evidence that warrantless searches of private lands were necessary to ensure that they could achieve their conservation goals. And in both of those situations, they found no evidence in response.”
The PGC did not immediately respond to a request for additional comment on how it would practically change sports law enforcement in the state. However, several exceptions outlined in Tuesday’s decision provide some insight. For example, Pennsylvania game wardens are still able to legally enter and monitor rural unposted private property without consent or a warrant.
The decision states, “Truly open grounds – that is, private land that is unfenced and undisturbed – is fundamentally different than private land that is posted with ‘No Trespassing’ signs and purple paint and/or surrounded by fences, gates, and other structures.”
There are also some exceptions to the warrant requirement on posted and fenced property. This includes emergency situations, such as when there is reason to believe that evidence may be destroyed immediately.
open field theory across the united states
While the open field principle is considered the norm under federal law throughout the US, Windham says many states have explicitly rejected it over the years in favor of private property rights. This also includes mississippi, Montana, Vermont, new york, oregonAnd Washington State.
Recently, Tennessee confirmed that warrantless searches of private property are illegal in a similar case, where game wardens were monitoring hunters on private property. windham successfully debated that matterVery. He says the Institute for Justice is currently litigating similar cases against the open fields doctrine alabama, louisianaAnd Virginia.
Connected: Can game wardens place trail cameras on your private property?
“We are looking forward to more litigation on this issue,” says Windham.We are eager to help state courts See that their state constitution actually requires more protection for private lands than the US Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment mandates. And so I hope this Pennsylvania decision will have kind of a chilling effect on all of our other lawsuits. “And also to empower those landowners, who are not our customers, to go to court and protect their rights.”
