Friday, August 31, 2007

Will the DNR Hang its COs Out to Dry?

Let me start out by saying that we are collecting information about instances where the DNR has incurred on private property without permission and without a warrant. Send the details to Tomdahlberg5000@aol.com.

The US Supreme Court is more conservative than ever after the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor and the installation of Chief Justice John Roberts. A delightful sign of where things are going includes the recent reversal of key aspects of the McCain-Feingold act because of its direct attack on our First Amendment rights.

The MN DNR no doubt assures its conservation officers that legal precedent and law in Minnesota protects them when they search your property without a warrant. But it seems clear that the new US Supreme Court would probably take a very dim view of this. If one of these cases was pushed all the way to THE court, MN might be surprised and taken aback again as it was in the Greg Wersal case. (Google "Greg Wersal".) I bring this case up simply because it's one of those instances where the supreme confidence and the patronizing attitude of the MN Supreme Court and its agencies were proven completely naive, blind, and self-serving. The elite will not allow themselves to believe that the people are smarter and wiser. It frightens them too much.

Under federal law (42 U.S.C. 1983), the CO, personally, can be sued if he violates someone's civil rights. Unlawful search or seizure would be an example of this.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html

The 4th Amendment to the US Constitution reads:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Prima facie, both the searching of our private property without a warrant and the data privacy laws protecting the anonymity of disgruntled neighbors violate the 4th Amendment. (Citizens are obligated to report real crimes and then face the accused. It's a duty of citizenship. The "Data Privacy" laws encourage unaccountable, anonymous harassment. Citizens should take responsibility for their accusations, otherwise we encourage big brother surveillance -- everybody spying on everybody for the state.)

In a recent phone conversation with the DNR, an assistant commissioner seemed to make a point of the idea that enforcement decisions are really in the hands of the CO in the field. It's up to the CO, on a case by case basis, to decide what to do he told me -- to decide what the law means in a given situation. The regulations are so unspecified that the CO becomes the law. See the other articles on this blog about that problem.

COs are adults of course, and have to decide what's right and what's wrong, and which side they are on in the long run. No one will be allowed to just sit on the fence in the long run. And this is exactly the message that COs should be sending to the head office. Is it conceivable that the guys in the head office will just hang their enforcement officers out to dry by insisting that they are the ones who really make the decisions and have therefore decided on their own to violate someone's civil rights?

If I was a CO in MN today, or any state, I would start refusing to search anyone's private property without a warrant no matter what sanctions the head office might impose upon me. With the Supreme Court we have today, the wisdom of getting a warrant every time, is perfectly obvious.

No comments: