Did you read the amendment? Where does it say a search can be accomplished without a warrant? PLEASE SHOW ME. Where was the game wardens warrant with the oath, or affirmation, the place to be searched, and the person or things to be seized?

This is pretty clear and the people claiming that we have an erosion of rights on this are wrong. Sorry but you are.

Look up the 4th amendment to the constitution. Look at the game laws.

If you are hunting the GW has the right to search you, your cooler your gun, etc. Very clear, cut and dry.

If your buddy had not broken the law this would be a non-issue.

If you are so set on this being wrong I think you should get a lawyer and challenge it. It will be thrown out at every level.

Your right about one thing, it would be thrown out, and I bet you don't even know why.

Also this statement right here shows to me you know NOTHING about the laws.

Why don't you explain to me how state law can supersede federal law? Again if you think that a game warden can search you without a warrant (I know they do it) than you either can't read the constitution or you don't give a crap about it. I know it happens, but that does not make it constitutional. You seem to be fine with the states or the federal government doing what they want even if it violates the constitution, just as long as every person obeys all the laws they put in place.

Pretty clear you can't read a few sentences and understand them. The 4th amendment is not complicated.





Yes state law says that, not arguing that. But what I am saying is that state law is violating the 4th amendment.



My buddy, don't even know the guy.

This is sort of on topic, back on the first of December I went deer hunting in San Angelo, on the third I was driving home almost to Abilene, this paticular area my GPS shows the speed limit of 70 but a DPS officer stopped me and told me that the speed limit was 60. He gave me a warning but what made me think of the situation is the fact while asking me all the usual questions I mentioned deer hunting and he wanted to see the tag on the body which in this case I kept the head. The meat was on ice in the chest, Im pretty sure if I didnt have that proof he would have called the GW and the warning would have been more that just that.

Everybody is getting caught up in the word "search". Game Wardens are not "searching" anything, they have a right to inspect. I know that seems like semantics, but in the eyes of the law it is huge. If you know anything about the law, you know wording is everything. For example, a lot of people on here throw the phrases "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" around, and dont really know the meaning of either of them. They have two different meanings and with that comes different actions LEO's are allowed to take when each circumstance is reached.
Also, game wardens are not randomly searching people, they are inspecting people partaking in hunting, fishing and water safety. Show me in the 4th amendment were it protects against inspections. I'm just saying that it may seem trivial to nit pick on the wording, but there is a reason each and every word of the constitution, the penal code, the code of criminal procedure, the parks and wildlife code etc., was choosen, and that was for its specific meaning. The terms "robable case" and "reasonable suspicion" don't apply to GW when they are inspecting a hunter and his/her containers that may hold a resource, because it is not deemed a "search". Now when a violation is founded based on the "inspection", these terms come into play because to cite or arrest somebody, probable cause has to be present.
And the line HAS been drawn; at game wardens dealing with hunters and fisherman. The legislature hasn't given any other activities this same inspection authority. Why? I couldn't tell you, but as long as the game wardens have that ability, they should use it, because the law says they can.
Again it's NOT the same as a state trooper just pulling people over on the highway and conducting an unreasonable search.

Totally agree with that statement, but it is a tough thing to decide. If you make a law protecting the citizen, then how would you ever catch poachers?

when you open something to look inside it is searching, and the law is supposed to know specifically what they are searching for.

I think that depends on if you think checking a cooler is reasonable or not.

Changing the wording does not make it legal. The founders did not use every term possible to make a statement. Anyone with a brain knows that if a person in authority makes you open something to look in side they are searching it. Call it inspected or whatever you want, you and I both know that is not the intent the founders put in the constitution.

So if what you are saying is okay, than I can shoot at a deer out of season to inspect it, just can't hunt it right?

That can be said about anything, everyone has a different point in what is reasonable and not.

This is not entirely true. This is my point. If a game warden checks a person hunting or fishing and opens their cooler, then it is an "inspection". There is a difference. The same way a "pat-down" of a person, a "frisk" of a vehicle, or a "protective sweep" of a house is NOT deemed a "search".
Opening a cooler CAN be considered a "search" in some instances, and therefore the 4th amendment applies. For instance, an LEO on a traffic stop on a public road where there is no reason to belive that the person in the vehicle was engaged in any activity governed by TPWD, opening the cooler in the bed of his pickup truck based on inspection authority would be wrong. The LEO would need p.c., consent, or a warrant to go into the cooler.

All the things you mention are for officer protection, pat downs and such, way different. When you look in something to find out if a crime was committed that is a search, nothing else.

They are different, but they are examples of how an intrusion into someone's property or personal belongings can be deemed NOT a "search" by the courts. Simply trying to show that what a GW does when he looks into you cooler is NOT a "search", it is an "inspection". When an officer performs a "pat-down" it is not a "search", it is a "pat-down" etc....

Not saying the courts have not leaned that way. My point is I can read, and understand things for myself. I know it is just a way for the government to wiggle around the constitution. Even though we both know exactly what they are doing when they open that cooler. To call it an inspection is just an insult to anyone that can actually think for themselves.

Do you really believe they are not SEARCHING for proof a crime was committed? If it is a inspection than no punishment should be allowed for what is found. That is the whole purpose of the 4th amendment. It is to stop law enforcement from digging through what they want looking for a crime.

I'm not sure with where I stand. But these are amendments to the constitution. They are a change from the original. So new laws are made, and the constitution is amended. I have a feeling if GWs were not allowed to search a cooler, no one would ever be caught, and there would be a lot of complaining. Are you concerned about this law, or the laws it could lead to? This particular law doesn't bother me at all. I'd be concerned if this led to a cop wanting to randomly search my house.

Well he would either be: sorely dissapointed or pleasantly surpised when he opens up my cooler and all he finds is Miller Lite!

Prob disappointed bc it's miller lite!

LOL ^^^^^

What is to stop that? They could just say they are inspecting your house. The act itself does not bother me, the part that bothers me is the fact that the government seems to break all the laws it wants, with nothing to stop them.

This is just like gun laws. Do you think it is within the bounds of the constitution for a city like Chicago to not allow guns to its residents? It has been that way for a while, I want to know if you think that is a violation of the constitution?

What about a vehicle inventory after an arrest??? It's not a search but lots of things have been found....

Not sure where I stand on that. I would say a warrant should still be required, should not be hard to get after an arrest.
And if it is truly just and inventory, IMO anything found should be treated just as if there was no warrant, and should not be allowed in court.

Guys no matter how much you argue on the THF no one is going to change their minds, the GW's will not change the way they work, and the Constitution will not be changed.