6 ms·

Landowner Sues After State Searches Property Without Warrant or Consent

74 points by storf45 2y ago

ddgflorida 2y ago
I hope the landowner wins his case. Wildlife officers need to follow the Constitution.
- 0xEF 2y ago
  I'm not getting the impression from the article that wildlife officers, a whole group of people, are running roughshod over the US Constitution.
  - ndileas 2y ago
    Yes, definitely. This case seems like it really hinges on the particular officer who should lose his commission and be individually held liable. In the general case however, I'm not sure they should have the powers that the statute implies without proportionate limits.
  - chasil 2y ago
    Did you read this section? “In open court, out loud, Officer Moon said he wasn’t bound by no-trespassing signs, and said he had a mandate to go anywhere. He is wrong because private property is sacred. The Fourth Amendment and its protection from search and seizure is the only thing standing between us and tyranny.” No Monetary Gain According to 12 words of Pennsylvania state code, PFBC officials have authority to “enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties.” The statue provides wide latitude for PFBC to enter onto any property without consent, probable cause, or warrant—with no limits on duration, frequency, or scope.
  - barryrandall 2y ago
    If the power isn't being widely abused, then updating the law to better respect private property rights shouldn't be a problem. The state may actually gain some small amount of goodwill from the electorate by agreeing with the plaintiff.
    - 0xEF 2y ago
      Sure. Now let's turn that same energy on cops that regularly violate US Constitutional rights of their victims.
gs17 2y ago
IJ has a few similar cases: https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/open-fields-doctrine/ https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/open-... The idea that state officials can trespass on your land and plant cameras (or steal yours) without even a suspicion of a crime is absurd, even if just for how much danger it puts the state employees in.
- Joker_vD 2y ago
  I imagine the state sees the land as their property, which private individuals don't, strictly speaking, own but merely hold infinite lease on (land tax = rent price, eminent domain = one-side lease termination with compensation, etc). This legal philosophy arguably makes some theoretical sense but has rather unpalatable practical consequences.
  - riskable 2y ago
    It's not a "legal philosophy" that's how states work (i.e. it is their land). The state always controls all the land within its borders. "Ownership" is a tradeoff: Individuals get to do what they want (for the most part) with the land and also get protection by the state against crimes/disasters (e.g. fire) that occur within that property while the state gets tax revenue. If you 100% truly owned your own land you'd be the monarch of your own state. In this legal case the state is policing their water/fish on behalf of all the other property owners in the area as well as anyone that would benefit from said water/fish (downstream impacts, as it were).
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > It's not a "legal philosophy" that's how states work (i.e. it is their land). The state always controls all the land within its borders. You're confusing ownership with control. Ownership grants but does not guarantee control [1]. Countries nominally control the territory within their borders. In this case, the state is also legally entitled to certain rights pertaining to the water. (Similar to how a homeowner is entitled to certain rights pertaining to their property.) Neither the U.S. nor Pennsylvania purport to own freeheld private property. That means they aren't entitled to it. And aren't entitled to exercise unlimited control over it. If the answer is well it's only pieces of paper that delineate that divide, then sure, but it's only pieces of paper that delineate a state's border. > If you 100% truly owned your own land you'd be the monarch of your own state Again, control. In many monarchies, the monarch controls a legal entity that owns the lands of the state. Or is the legal represenative of a deity who is the legal owner. [1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780333983898_3 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780333983898_3
ryandrake 2y ago
> Stephanie heard someone loudly knocking on the front door of the cottage. The individual then went around the side of the house, past no-trespassing signs, entered the back yard, walked onto the back porch, and began “pounding” on the back door. As someone who grew up in rural PA, this is a pretty straightforward way to get shot as a trespasser.
- 0xEF 2y ago
  Former Detroiter, here. That's a good way to get shot in an urban environment, too. Finally, something the two residential categories have in common!
crooked-v 2y ago
I'm badly split on Institute for Justice, the nonprofit backing this suit. On the one hand, they aggressively advocate for obvious constitutional rights cases like this one and have put a lot of effort into fighting legally-accepted-yet-fundamentally-nonsensical practices like civil forfeiture. On the other, they also aggressively support school vouchers, which are mostly a scheme to drain money from public schools into private ones that can use broad excuses to keep out students that would cost more or lower their grade averages.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  It’s almost like democracy involves coalition building and compromise, where absolute positions are anathema.
  - lazyeye 2y ago
    Yes the idea that the govt is the best at everything (let alone schooling...)
    - ckemere 2y ago
      I think that few (no?) people oppose vouchers on the theory that private schools provide an inferior education to public schools. They oppose them because most proposals would not (a) require private schools to accept the voucher as full tuition and fees and (b) require private schools to educate everyone regardless of disability, belief, etc. As currently posed, the voucher is a subsidy to already wealthy people who can afford to supplement the voucher with extra $$ to pay for their children’s education.
      - danaris 2y ago
        > I think that few (no?) people oppose vouchers on the theory that private schools provide an inferior education to public schools. Frankly, I don't actually buy that all private schools are necessarily superior to public schools. You're probably just thinking of elite private schools, of the type that rich people in NYC want to send their kids to, but there are plenty of other kinds of private schools out there. The degree to which they have to meet any standards at all vary by jurisdiction. Some are explicitly religious, and will not be teaching accurate history or biology because of that. Some are based on experimental (to put it kindly) pedagogical theories that are not well-grounded in research or evidence (but have some wealthy people willing to buy into them). Just because it costs more money to go to does not remotely guarantee that it will provide a better education.
superkuh 2y ago
The public figure conservation officer with the implied vendetta can be viewed on page 47/52 of this pdf https://www.fishandboat.com/About-Us/Angler-and-Boater/Legacy-Issues/2020s/Documents/SeptOct2022.pdf https://www.fishandboat.com/About-Us/Angler-and-Boater/Legac... . It is a public document showing a public function where he received an award. The PDF is available on a government website and intentionally published for and accessible by the public.
- colechristensen 2y ago
  There is no reason any of us need to see this.
- loeg 2y ago
  To what end?
  - superkuh 2y ago
    Everyone else in the story has their photo shown. I was curious what he looked like and figured the omission fill would be appreciated by others.
    - loeg 2y ago
      Ok. I don't think it's particularly interesting.
  - casefields 2y ago
    I imagine curiosity like most things on HN.
    - loeg 2y ago
      There's nothing particularly interesting about the dude's appearance. I recommend saving yourself a click and moving on.
      - 2y ago
mistrial9 2y ago
both "illegal search on private lands" and "illegal control by private groups over public lands" are going on in the continental US West.. what is said in public does not always match what is done each day.
svieira 2y ago
> Beyond his main vocation as a chimney business owner, Thomas often drove for Lyft and Uber. After the criminal citation was filed, he automatically lost both driving jobs—banned by both companies due to the legal violation. For being found guilty (overturned on appeal) of fishing with more than 8 lines due to what is likely a vendetta on the part of the officer. A particularly succinct example of automated cruelty. But what can one do?
- ryandrake 2y ago
  Unfortunately, you can be denied employment for all sorts of unfair and ridiculous reasons--or for no reason at all. Not too much can be done without changing the law. I remember filling out a job application some time ago where one of the questions was "Have you ever been charged with a crime?" Not "convicted of". It wasn't a mistake, either. There was a footnote that said "You must answer YES to this question even if the charge was dismissed or you were found not guilty in court."
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - neilv 2y ago
    That's shameful to do in the US, given our principles of justice. Maybe it was negligent rather than intentional. For example, the company might've just been using some form they got from an outsourced service. Or a lawyer might've made the form for them, but using an obnoxius template (as templates tend to be, AFAICT). So, when people are in this situation, they can try asking the company about it (a recruiter, HR contact, or the hiring manager). The company's response could be strong signal about the actual corporate culture you'd find if you joined. (Personally, if I was a hiring manager, and didn't know that candidates had started seeing this form, I'd want to know, and I'd make sure the right people were looking at it. To see whether that was intended, is it legal, is it a message we want to send, etc.) You could also try contacting a labor regulatory authority or state AG's office, to see whether it's even legal. And/or, contact a state lawmaker, and suggest that it seems unconstitutional. It might even be an arguable EEOC violation where you are (e.g., if some protected group there is more likely to have adverse interactions even when innocent).
dmitrygr 2y ago
> According to 12 words of Pennsylvania state code, PFBC officials have authority to “enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties.” The statue provides wide latitude for PFBC to enter onto any property without consent, probable cause, or warrant—with no limits on duration, frequency, or scope. Say what? That is how you get shot in rural america, as you should...
- gs17 2y ago
  A similar case in VA had the state official sneak in wearing camouflage and steal the person's property: https://ij.org/case/virginia-open-fields/ https://ij.org/case/virginia-open-fields/ I really have to wonder how it would be ruled if he had ran out with a gun and shot at the thief.
  - dmitrygr 2y ago
    >I really have to wonder how it would be ruled if he had ran out with a gun and shot at the thief. Similar things have happened a few times (eg [1]) often no charges are filed [1] https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fort-worth-man-who-shot-state-trooper-faces-no-charges/2736210/ https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fort-worth-man-who-shot-st...
- Suppafly 2y ago
  Not to mention that states can't just agree to give their employees more rights than what the constitution allows.
riskable 2y ago
I'm torn on this one: Should law enforcement need a warrant to search your property? Certainly. Seems obvious, right? Except this is a "conservation officer" who has been granted certain rights (by the state of PA) to: Enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties. See: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=30&div=0&chpt=9 https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?... If they couldn't move between properties along shorelines they'd have a hell of a time doing their actual job. Any criminal could fish illegally on private property then flee when a they see a conservation officer approaching in a boat. They'd never catch anyone who fishes along a shore. This lawsuit seems like a nuclear weapon being thrown at an overly zealous individual who possibly has some sort of personal vendetta against the property owner.
- recursivedoubts 2y ago
  The fourth amendment is more important than catching people illegally fishing.
  - horsawlarway 2y ago
    The 4th explicitly doesn't cover "land". > right to be secure in their homes, papers, and effects It also explicitly lays out "unreasonable" as the qualifier. Personally... I don't think he has much of a case to challenge the state wording. So while I strongly support the 4th amendment, I don't really agree with the guy here. It sounds a lot like he's pissed off the officer by fishing illegally. My bigger takeaway is that Uber and Lyft are able to automatically dismiss him from a position without consequence for a completely unrelated offense. Even if I think he's completely guilty (and to be clear - I don't) I'm hard pressed to consider "wildlife & game license violation" worthy of impacting a job that involves driving other folks around.
    - recursivedoubts 2y ago
      "if it saves just one illegally caught fish..."
- 2y ago
ldehaan 2y ago
[dead]
johnea 2y ago
Well, that's sure some consequential news there. I'm sure we'll see more important fishing license violation, constitutional law articles, here on ycombinator in the near future... I guess this is all they have to worry about out in lake side Pennsylvania...

74 points by storf45 2y ago

ddgflorida 2y ago

I hope the landowner wins his case. Wildlife officers need to follow the Constitution.

0xEF 2y ago
I'm not getting the impression from the article that wildlife officers, a whole group of people, are running roughshod over the US Constitution.
- ndileas 2y ago
  Yes, definitely. This case seems like it really hinges on the particular officer who should lose his commission and be individually held liable. In the general case however, I'm not sure they should have the powers that the statute implies without proportionate limits.
- chasil 2y ago
  Did you read this section? “In open court, out loud, Officer Moon said he wasn’t bound by no-trespassing signs, and said he had a mandate to go anywhere. He is wrong because private property is sacred. The Fourth Amendment and its protection from search and seizure is the only thing standing between us and tyranny.” No Monetary Gain According to 12 words of Pennsylvania state code, PFBC officials have authority to “enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties.” The statue provides wide latitude for PFBC to enter onto any property without consent, probable cause, or warrant—with no limits on duration, frequency, or scope.
- barryrandall 2y ago
  If the power isn't being widely abused, then updating the law to better respect private property rights shouldn't be a problem. The state may actually gain some small amount of goodwill from the electorate by agreeing with the plaintiff.
  - 0xEF 2y ago
    Sure. Now let's turn that same energy on cops that regularly violate US Constitutional rights of their victims.

gs17 2y ago

IJ has a few similar cases: https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/open-fields-doctrine/ https://ij.org/issues/ijs-project-on-the-4th-amendment/open-... The idea that state officials can trespass on your land and plant cameras (or steal yours) without even a suspicion of a crime is absurd, even if just for how much danger it puts the state employees in.

Joker_vD 2y ago
I imagine the state sees the land as their property, which private individuals don't, strictly speaking, own but merely hold infinite lease on (land tax = rent price, eminent domain = one-side lease termination with compensation, etc). This legal philosophy arguably makes some theoretical sense but has rather unpalatable practical consequences.
- riskable 2y ago
  It's not a "legal philosophy" that's how states work (i.e. it is their land). The state always controls all the land within its borders. "Ownership" is a tradeoff: Individuals get to do what they want (for the most part) with the land and also get protection by the state against crimes/disasters (e.g. fire) that occur within that property while the state gets tax revenue. If you 100% truly owned your own land you'd be the monarch of your own state. In this legal case the state is policing their water/fish on behalf of all the other property owners in the area as well as anyone that would benefit from said water/fish (downstream impacts, as it were).
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > It's not a "legal philosophy" that's how states work (i.e. it is their land). The state always controls all the land within its borders. You're confusing ownership with control. Ownership grants but does not guarantee control [1]. Countries nominally control the territory within their borders. In this case, the state is also legally entitled to certain rights pertaining to the water. (Similar to how a homeowner is entitled to certain rights pertaining to their property.) Neither the U.S. nor Pennsylvania purport to own freeheld private property. That means they aren't entitled to it. And aren't entitled to exercise unlimited control over it. If the answer is well it's only pieces of paper that delineate that divide, then sure, but it's only pieces of paper that delineate a state's border. > If you 100% truly owned your own land you'd be the monarch of your own state Again, control. In many monarchies, the monarch controls a legal entity that owns the lands of the state. Or is the legal represenative of a deity who is the legal owner. [1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780333983898_3 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780333983898_3

ryandrake 2y ago

> Stephanie heard someone loudly knocking on the front door of the cottage. The individual then went around the side of the house, past no-trespassing signs, entered the back yard, walked onto the back porch, and began “pounding” on the back door. As someone who grew up in rural PA, this is a pretty straightforward way to get shot as a trespasser.

0xEF 2y ago
Former Detroiter, here. That's a good way to get shot in an urban environment, too. Finally, something the two residential categories have in common!

crooked-v 2y ago

I'm badly split on Institute for Justice, the nonprofit backing this suit. On the one hand, they aggressively advocate for obvious constitutional rights cases like this one and have put a lot of effort into fighting legally-accepted-yet-fundamentally-nonsensical practices like civil forfeiture. On the other, they also aggressively support school vouchers, which are mostly a scheme to drain money from public schools into private ones that can use broad excuses to keep out students that would cost more or lower their grade averages.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
It’s almost like democracy involves coalition building and compromise, where absolute positions are anathema.
- lazyeye 2y ago
  Yes the idea that the govt is the best at everything (let alone schooling...)
  - ckemere 2y ago
    I think that few (no?) people oppose vouchers on the theory that private schools provide an inferior education to public schools. They oppose them because most proposals would not (a) require private schools to accept the voucher as full tuition and fees and (b) require private schools to educate everyone regardless of disability, belief, etc. As currently posed, the voucher is a subsidy to already wealthy people who can afford to supplement the voucher with extra $$ to pay for their children’s education.
    - danaris 2y ago
      > I think that few (no?) people oppose vouchers on the theory that private schools provide an inferior education to public schools. Frankly, I don't actually buy that all private schools are necessarily superior to public schools. You're probably just thinking of elite private schools, of the type that rich people in NYC want to send their kids to, but there are plenty of other kinds of private schools out there. The degree to which they have to meet any standards at all vary by jurisdiction. Some are explicitly religious, and will not be teaching accurate history or biology because of that. Some are based on experimental (to put it kindly) pedagogical theories that are not well-grounded in research or evidence (but have some wealthy people willing to buy into them). Just because it costs more money to go to does not remotely guarantee that it will provide a better education.

superkuh 2y ago

The public figure conservation officer with the implied vendetta can be viewed on page 47/52 of this pdf https://www.fishandboat.com/About-Us/Angler-and-Boater/Legacy-Issues/2020s/Documents/SeptOct2022.pdf https://www.fishandboat.com/About-Us/Angler-and-Boater/Legac... . It is a public document showing a public function where he received an award. The PDF is available on a government website and intentionally published for and accessible by the public.

colechristensen 2y ago
There is no reason any of us need to see this.
loeg 2y ago
To what end?
- superkuh 2y ago
  Everyone else in the story has their photo shown. I was curious what he looked like and figured the omission fill would be appreciated by others.
  - loeg 2y ago
    Ok. I don't think it's particularly interesting.
- casefields 2y ago
  I imagine curiosity like most things on HN.
  - loeg 2y ago
    There's nothing particularly interesting about the dude's appearance. I recommend saving yourself a click and moving on.
    - 2y ago

mistrial9 2y ago

both "illegal search on private lands" and "illegal control by private groups over public lands" are going on in the continental US West.. what is said in public does not always match what is done each day.

svieira 2y ago

> Beyond his main vocation as a chimney business owner, Thomas often drove for Lyft and Uber. After the criminal citation was filed, he automatically lost both driving jobs—banned by both companies due to the legal violation. For being found guilty (overturned on appeal) of fishing with more than 8 lines due to what is likely a vendetta on the part of the officer. A particularly succinct example of automated cruelty. But what can one do?

ryandrake 2y ago
Unfortunately, you can be denied employment for all sorts of unfair and ridiculous reasons--or for no reason at all. Not too much can be done without changing the law. I remember filling out a job application some time ago where one of the questions was "Have you ever been charged with a crime?" Not "convicted of". It wasn't a mistake, either. There was a footnote that said "You must answer YES to this question even if the charge was dismissed or you were found not guilty in court."
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- neilv 2y ago
  That's shameful to do in the US, given our principles of justice. Maybe it was negligent rather than intentional. For example, the company might've just been using some form they got from an outsourced service. Or a lawyer might've made the form for them, but using an obnoxius template (as templates tend to be, AFAICT). So, when people are in this situation, they can try asking the company about it (a recruiter, HR contact, or the hiring manager). The company's response could be strong signal about the actual corporate culture you'd find if you joined. (Personally, if I was a hiring manager, and didn't know that candidates had started seeing this form, I'd want to know, and I'd make sure the right people were looking at it. To see whether that was intended, is it legal, is it a message we want to send, etc.) You could also try contacting a labor regulatory authority or state AG's office, to see whether it's even legal. And/or, contact a state lawmaker, and suggest that it seems unconstitutional. It might even be an arguable EEOC violation where you are (e.g., if some protected group there is more likely to have adverse interactions even when innocent).

dmitrygr 2y ago

> According to 12 words of Pennsylvania state code, PFBC officials have authority to “enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties.” The statue provides wide latitude for PFBC to enter onto any property without consent, probable cause, or warrant—with no limits on duration, frequency, or scope. Say what? That is how you get shot in rural america, as you should...

gs17 2y ago
A similar case in VA had the state official sneak in wearing camouflage and steal the person's property: https://ij.org/case/virginia-open-fields/ https://ij.org/case/virginia-open-fields/ I really have to wonder how it would be ruled if he had ran out with a gun and shot at the thief.
- dmitrygr 2y ago
  >I really have to wonder how it would be ruled if he had ran out with a gun and shot at the thief. Similar things have happened a few times (eg [1]) often no charges are filed [1] https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fort-worth-man-who-shot-state-trooper-faces-no-charges/2736210/ https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fort-worth-man-who-shot-st...
Suppafly 2y ago
Not to mention that states can't just agree to give their employees more rights than what the constitution allows.

riskable 2y ago

I'm torn on this one: Should law enforcement need a warrant to search your property? Certainly. Seems obvious, right? Except this is a "conservation officer" who has been granted certain rights (by the state of PA) to: Enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties. See: https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=30&div=0&chpt=9 https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?... If they couldn't move between properties along shorelines they'd have a hell of a time doing their actual job. Any criminal could fish illegally on private property then flee when a they see a conservation officer approaching in a boat. They'd never catch anyone who fishes along a shore. This lawsuit seems like a nuclear weapon being thrown at an overly zealous individual who possibly has some sort of personal vendetta against the property owner.

recursivedoubts 2y ago
The fourth amendment is more important than catching people illegally fishing.
- horsawlarway 2y ago
  The 4th explicitly doesn't cover "land". > right to be secure in their homes, papers, and effects It also explicitly lays out "unreasonable" as the qualifier. Personally... I don't think he has much of a case to challenge the state wording. So while I strongly support the 4th amendment, I don't really agree with the guy here. It sounds a lot like he's pissed off the officer by fishing illegally. My bigger takeaway is that Uber and Lyft are able to automatically dismiss him from a position without consequence for a completely unrelated offense. Even if I think he's completely guilty (and to be clear - I don't) I'm hard pressed to consider "wildlife & game license violation" worthy of impacting a job that involves driving other folks around.
  - recursivedoubts 2y ago
    "if it saves just one illegally caught fish..."
2y ago

ldehaan 2y ago

[dead]

johnea 2y ago

Well, that's sure some consequential news there. I'm sure we'll see more important fishing license violation, constitutional law articles, here on ycombinator in the near future... I guess this is all they have to worry about out in lake side Pennsylvania...