OT MN DNR's finest.

oldtanker · Apr 13, 2016

You think they would learn having lost so many cases like this.

http://www.inforum.com/news/4008463...3-counts-poaching-high-profile-minnesota-case

Rick

farmerwithmutt · Apr 13, 2016

Maybe but the sad thing is that good
hunters that obey the rules also get hurt
this obviously says it's ok to follow your
own rules as long as you have a good
lawyer. It allows people to take deer that
if they followed the rules other hunters
would have a chance to harvest. I have
neighbors and cousin that work for the d n
r they are sometimes very frustrated at
trying to make people have a equal
opportunity.

dr sportster · Apr 13, 2016

It is not about a good lawyer it is about the fourth amendment. This amendment has all but been lost . Rights were violated in trying to arrest this guy and the judge called the prosecution on it.

dr sportster · Apr 13, 2016

And I will add this guy arrested was not a hunter he was a poacher who was lucky enough to have procedure violated so he could get of . But not a hunter.

farmerwithmutt · Apr 13, 2016

I was recently on a federal jury on something similar but you wonder what is the greater good protecting one person rights at someone's else expense obviously there is no winners in this case

oldtanker · Apr 13, 2016

Believe me I'm not happy about the guy getting off. I am happy the judge told the MN DNR where to head it in at though. At times they can act like the KGB. The stupid part is that the Carp Cops (DNR enforcement) have been caught in stuff like this before. They tried their darnedest to get the state to OK search without a warrant about 15 or so years ago claiming that in game enforcement they needed that power. They claimed that by buying a license you were consenting to search. Then there were several cases they lost right in my county that were clear violations of the 4th amendment. They also tried to argue in court that an accused interfered with them because he refused to answer questions and because it was a game violation that the 5th amendment didn't count. Maybe they need to hire a constitutional lawyer to tell them what they can and can't do.

Rick

1948CaseVAI · Apr 13, 2016

(quoted from post at 17:53:14 04/13/16) I was recently on a federal jury on something similar but you wonder what is the greater good protecting one person rights at someone's else expense obviously there is no winners in this case

If the one person was you then you would think it's a big deal. I have had it with the pro-government, hang-em-all types. This case simply lets the DNR know that they are not above the law and they will have to follow the rules in the future. Has nothing to do with who the poacher was or who the lawyer was - it is about the law that applies to all.

dzc3 · Apr 13, 2016

The County Attorney is deciding if there will be an appeal??? What! Charges were dismissed. Tried twice for the same crime??? Kind of an over-reach, but then they have a bottomless check book.....your tax dollar

Dune Country · Apr 13, 2016

A friend was out scouting a couple of days before hunting season in his really nice jeep.
Came around a corner and saw a big buck on the shoulder of the dirt road,lifted his $700 rifle to scope the deer (no shell's in the gun) BUSTED, was a stuffed deer, fish and game said he was hunting illegally. Confiscated jeep, rifle, side arm they got 24 people in 2 days.
Judge threw it out, entrapment.

jlewis457 · Apr 13, 2016

Here in Ohio the DNR act the same way I rember a guy walking out of the woods two minutes after season closed for the day unloaded his gun before he walked across the raod $ 250 fine hunting after hours then his dad was two minutes after him did the same and paid the same fine. I asked them if they were hunting the next day and they said they would never be back to hunt in Ohio. But if you hit a deer and ask them to cover the damages they do not own the deer they only manage them

pete 23 · Apr 13, 2016

I'm from Madison. The guy is from Dawson. They been laying for him for years as everyone who knows him know what he has been doing. Apparently our local attorney gave the DNR the wrong information as to what they needed to do . It has caused a lot of good honest people a lot of grief. Yes, DNR does get in over their head but I would have liked to see this guy get what he deserves.

brutus49DC · Apr 13, 2016

A wise decision for your friend would be to invest in a spotting scope or binoculars. In southern Mn you cannot carry a rifle so many days before or after the deer season.

Moonlite37 · Apr 13, 2016

I read that too. I thought only a defendant could file an appeal

TomH in PA · Apr 13, 2016

The defendant was never tried so the county attorney can file charges again. If you think about it, the judge made that possible by stopping the trial instead of letting it continue and finding the defendant not guilty.

dlbuck · Apr 13, 2016

You are correct, five day's before and two days after. Also you can't use a gun with a scope on it as a spotting scope.

NCWayne · Apr 13, 2016

Sucks to see a poacher getting off pretty much scott free, but it warms the heart to see a Government agency getting slapped down for overstepping their bounds, and violating someone's Constitutional rights.

Just talked to a customer yesterday who is getting ready to go up against NC DNR, and various other local agencies, for allowing bootleg quarries around him to do business, without the proper permits. They do nothing about the other places, and even allow local governmental agencies to use those places, which is against the law in itself.

They will then jump all over him for things that he can't possibly do, like releasing silt into the water uphill from his place, causing the ground water level to rise, and drop at the same time, etc. You name it, and they have tried to pull it on him because the area around him has begun to turn urban, and abundant, and want him gone. Thing is his operation has been in the same place for more than 50 year, and it's kind of hard to move a quarry operation.

oldtanker · Apr 14, 2016

(quoted from post at 18:01:55 04/13/16) The defendant was never tried so the county attorney can file charges again. If you think about it, the judge made that possible by stopping the trial instead of letting it continue and finding the defendant not guilty.

I doubt it will go anyplace unless they appeal the ruling on the tracking device. But you are right. If they can get that overturned then because the trial was stopped they can try him. I kinda doubt with the SCOTUS ruling that they will win that though or even try.

The 2 cases in my county both involved illegal search because DNR thought that game enforcement didn't fall subject to the 4th amendment. One was for over the limit on fish and the other was a pot bust in an ice fishing house. The one on the fish without probable cause the made a guy open his live well. The judge ruled it was like your car, that without cause or a warrant they had to have permission to search. The other was under old rules that said that you couldn't be in your ice house with the door locked and that Carp Cops could just walk in. In that case the judge ruled that 1. you could lock your door and 2. like the regular cops they had to knock and announce. In both cases the judge stopped the trials and they "were going to review the judge's decision" and they wound up dropping the matter. The following year (both happened in the same year) DNR tried to get the legislature to pass laws that would allow them to continue doing that but it never passed.

For many years MN DNR told people that if they knocked on your door and wanted to look in your freezer that they could charge you if you refused.

Rick

2x4 · Apr 14, 2016

West Virginia DNR tried the same thing. Decided they could go anywhere they wanted & look for something that you might be doing wrong. ACLU put a quick stop to that.

oldtanker · Apr 14, 2016

(quoted from post at 23:51:05 04/13/16) West Virginia DNR tried the same thing. Decided they could go anywhere they wanted & look for something that you might be doing wrong. ACLU put a quick stop to that.

The problem with MN DNR is that they don't learn anything when a judge smacks em down.

Rick

dr sportster · Apr 14, 2016

I guess that depends on how much of a constitutionalist one is.

Hay hay hay · Apr 14, 2016

The DNR is welcome to come on my farm any day or night to help stop the trespassing, the thieves that
try to pass theselves off as honest, law abiding, I'm just lost, I'm following the law, true sportsmen.....
rather than the criminals that they really are.

Give them all the help you can, defend their rights!!!!!....defend these low lifes....you are the next target!!!!!

oldtanker · Apr 14, 2016

(quoted from post at 18:22:10 04/14/16) The DNR is welcome to come on my farm any day or night to help stop the trespassing, the thieves that
try to pass theselves off as honest, law abiding, I'm just lost, I'm following the law, true sportsmen.....
rather than the criminals that they really are.

Give them all the help you can, defend their rights!!!!!....defend these low lifes....you are the next target!!!!!

I don't think any of us are against them when they make a legal bust. It's when they think they are above the constitution that bothers me. They are a type of law enforcement and this is the USA. We don't want any type of law enforcement trying to be above the law.

Rick

Bret4207 · Apr 15, 2016

I was a cop for over 20 years. I agree completely with the judges ruling. We don't live in TV land where it's legal to track a specific vehicle with what amount to a bug without a warrant. I want this scum sucking low life poacher in jail where he belongs, but we're supposed to be the guys in the white hats, not some TV show make believe cops where anything goes as long as you get the arrest.

OT MN DNR's finest.

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member

Well-known Member