CLASS RACER FORUM - View Single Post

Eddies66 · 07-19-2012, 01:06 PM

Here is a statement from the US Fish and Wildlife service regarding warrantless searches:

The exclusionary rule says that evidence Federal or State officers obtain by unreasonable (illegal) searches and seizures cannot be introduced in a criminal proceeding against the defendant.

A. Extent of Exclusions. Generally, all improperly obtained evidence is excluded. This includes all evidence obtained by exploiting improperly obtained evidence (i.e., “fruit of the poisonous tree”). The fruit is any information, object, or testimony that officers uncover or obtain, directly or indirectly, through the illegally seized evidence—items and information that officers would not have obtained if not for the initial illegally obtained evidence.

B. Standing. Because the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated are permitted to benefit from the rule’s protections. Courts have found that, “A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person’s premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed.” In order to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, “a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched and that his expectation is reasonable . . .”

(b) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department who observes a person engaged in an activity regulated by this code or under the jurisdiction of the commission or reasonably believes that a person is or has been engaged in an activity regulated by this code or under the jurisdiction of the commission may inspect: (1) any license, permit, tag, or other document issued by the department and required by this code of a person hunting or catching wildlife resources; (2) any device that may be used to hunt or catch a wildlife resource; (3) any wildlife resource in the person's possession; and (4) the contents of any container or receptacle that is commonly used to store or conceal a wildlife resource. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department may inspect any wildlife resource that has been taken by a person and is in plain view of the game warden or other peace officer. (d) Nothing in this section authorizes a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department to conduct a search otherwise authorized by this section: (1) in a person's residence or temporary residence; or (2) on a publicly maintained road or way that is: (A) improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic; (B) open to the public; and (C) distinguishable from a shoulder, berm, or other area not intended for vehicular traffic.

07-19-2012, 01:06 PM	#6
Eddies66 VIP Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Rancho Mirage, CA Posts: 1,308 Likes: 300 Liked 881 Times in 452 Posts	Re: If you like guns Here is a statement from the US Fish and Wildlife service regarding warrantless searches: The exclusionary rule says that evidence Federal or State officers obtain by unreasonable (illegal) searches and seizures cannot be introduced in a criminal proceeding against the defendant. A. Extent of Exclusions. Generally, all improperly obtained evidence is excluded. This includes all evidence obtained by exploiting improperly obtained evidence (i.e., “fruit of the poisonous tree”). The fruit is any information, object, or testimony that officers uncover or obtain, directly or indirectly, through the illegally seized evidence—items and information that officers would not have obtained if not for the initial illegally obtained evidence. B. Standing. Because the exclusionary rule is an attempt to effectuate the guarantees of the Fourth Amendment, only defendants whose Fourth Amendment rights have been violated are permitted to benefit from the rule’s protections. Courts have found that, “A person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through the introduction of damaging evidence secured by a search of a third person’s premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed.” In order to claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, “a defendant must demonstrate that he personally has an expectation of privacy in the place searched and that his expectation is reasonable . . .” (b) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department who observes a person engaged in an activity regulated by this code or under the jurisdiction of the commission or reasonably believes that a person is or has been engaged in an activity regulated by this code or under the jurisdiction of the commission may inspect: (1) any license, permit, tag, or other document issued by the department and required by this code of a person hunting or catching wildlife resources; (2) any device that may be used to hunt or catch a wildlife resource; (3) any wildlife resource in the person's possession; and (4) the contents of any container or receptacle that is commonly used to store or conceal a wildlife resource. (c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department may inspect any wildlife resource that has been taken by a person and is in plain view of the game warden or other peace officer. (d) Nothing in this section authorizes a game warden or other peace officer commissioned by the department to conduct a search otherwise authorized by this section: (1) in a person's residence or temporary residence; or (2) on a publicly maintained road or way that is: (A) improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular traffic; (B) open to the public; and (C) distinguishable from a shoulder, berm, or other area not intended for vehicular traffic.