SCH OUTDOORS

Is this one of our guys?

Ran into that video guys on youtube several months ago. Tough luck. It didn't look like he intentionally broke into a closed area (cut the lock or knew the code). I'd bet someone left the gate open and then forgot/lied to cover themselves. I feel like a warning would have been best.

That said, law enforcement gets lied to all day every day, even soccer moms speeding on their way to church so I am not surprised they didn't believe him. Today's practice seems to favor writing people up for just about everything and letting the courts work it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ilovesprig
Man learned the lard way not to trespass at Barrett. 100% a justifiable ticket. Between wardens and border patrol they have eyes on everyone that's stomping around out there. Should have kept his mouth shut and he probably would have gotten off with a warning.
 
Billy,

Thanks for sharing this...Lots of newbies on here and I hope they all learn something...Do NOT volunteer information, be polite, and if you think you were in the right, go to court............. :blush:

Lots of other questions...If the gate was in fact closed, how did he get his vehicle in there...Austin even asked if he had a key or the combo...This part of the kids explanation doesn't jive...Lots of small talk too...A sign that he knew he was in the wrong............:confused:

I also didn't know that it was illegal to be driving on city property, if the gate was open...What if he was just walking without a shotgun or riding that bike?............;)

ps...OnX clearly shows that road/area as City of San Diego property...It also shows that there are gates on that road..............:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 180ls1 and Designed2Hunt
The commenter referred to penal code, not Fish and Wildlife Regulations, in this case a mistake. F&W regulations have an exception to searches in that if you Are, Have Been, or Appear to Be hunting or fishing, F&W officers unlike typical law enforcement have a legal right to search you, your gear, vehicle... without a warrant. So the dude saying he did not consent to any searches or seizures was moot, and likely contributed to his citation instead of a warning.
 
Last edited:
bubblehide said:
The commenter referred ro penal code, never Fish and Wildlife Regulations, in this case a mistake. F&W regulations have an exception to searches in that if you Are, have been, or Appear to Be or Have Been hunting or fishing, F&W officers unlike typical law enforcement have a legal right to search you, your gear, vehicle... without a warrent. So the dude saying he did not consent to any searches or seizures was moot, and likely contributed to his citation instead of a warning.
Click to expand...
Ehhhhhh….

The defendant spoke to much and I’d argue having a gun doesn’t make you a hunter. Fish and game push the limits and side on the favor of grey areas quite a bit.
 
The hunter, admitted to hunting earlier in the day. Having a shotgun, or rifle, as opposed to a pistol, makes one appear to be a hunter; thus all that is needed to for F&W to complete a legal search. It would be exactly the same if he had a fishing pole.
 
bubblehide said:
The hunter, admitted to hunting earlier in the day. Having a shotgun, or rifle, as opposed to a pistol, makes one appear to be a hunter; thus all that is needed to for F&W to complete a legal search. It would be exactly the same if he had a fishing pole.
Click to expand...
Should never have admitted to hunting. He spoke to much.

Either way fish and game will try to smoke you every chance they get.
 
I've had hundreds of interactions with F&W, my only unpleasant unprofessional interactions (2) was with the same warden over 40 years ago. And, despite the threats of being cited, I was not cited, because no laws were violated.

Every single other interaction with F&W that I have had was professional and pleasant (100's).

I simply do not get that attitude that F&W "will try to smoke you every chance they get". But then, if you enter an interaction with law enforcement with that attitude, maybe it's because there is something you've already done that can result in a citation.

But then, I exhibit respect for them and the job they do. For example, upon seeing them, I unload my rifle, shotgun... and remove the bolt, creating what the officer perceives as a safe environment. It simply sets the tone of the interaction. Your suggested approach also sets the tone of the interaction, just in a very different way.
 
Last edited:
Additionally, if they ask me if they can search my vehicle, I simply respond with "you don't need my permission to search me, or my vehicle" (the law permits them the right to search), "you can search anything of mine you'd like to". This let's them know that I am aware of their search rights, and also sets a tone of cooperation. It results in a quick cursory look see. I handle the request to check my firearm the same way.

The reality is that, those requests (they don't need your permission) are a part of their job. I simply allow them to do their job, without any attempt to stop, slow, or interfere.

In just over the past 40 years, I have not run into a warden with attitude. Every single interaction in the last 40 something years has been pleasant. But hey, you set the tone of the interaction you want, I'll continue to do the same.
 
Last edited:
Never ever volunteer information. Answer only the questions you are asked with a direct short answer, the guy volunteered way too much information about things he was never asked about. Any lawyer will tell you shut the Fock up. Always Be Calm and respectful, which he was.
 
Ahh police state, 4th amendment violation
F&W does not have a right to search your vehicle with out consent, if you don't give it ut will be thrown out of court.
He has tight to his day in court
 
GUNDOGLOVER49 said:
Never ever volunteer information. Answer only the questions you are asked with a direct short answer, the guy volunteered way too much information about things he was never asked about. Any lawyer will tell you shut the Fock up. Always Be Calm and respectful, which he was.
Click to expand...
Do you understand that F&W regulations/laws are Prima Facia laws? They are not penal code/laws. The premise of Prima Facia laws are what does it/the situation look like on its face. The premise of Penal Code is you are innocent until proven guilty. They are 2 very very different premise.

With penal code, yes, you can dig yourself a hole. With Prima Facia, you are already in the hole based on what the situation appears to be. So talking can get you out of the hole. Obviously if you've broken the law, talking can keep you in the hole, and or make the hole deeper, if the warden doesn't realize the full situation/involvement of your illegal activities.

With Prima Facia laws, you are going to get a ticket if you stay quiet. Sure you can go to court, and yes, there needs to be evidence of your guilt, but if on its face, you appear to be guilty, you'll very likely be convicted, if you remain quiet in court, as the bar for Prima Facia violations are lower.

Have you ever dealt with the IRS (Prima Facia Laws), the IRS, requires you to exhibit you did not violate the law, otherwise you're paying up. If you go to court for a tax law violation, and can exhibit you were in compliance with the law, but chose to remain silent, the court will rule based on what the IRS presents, and on its face, you Will appear guilty, and be convicted.

Sometimes remaining silent is Not the smart thing to do.

But hey, if you're out there violating our F&W laws, tax laws or any other Prima Facia laws, sure, go ahead and remain silent, continuing to appear guilty and see what it gets you. Now in the case of penal code, I get remaining silent. But the two (penal code and Prima facia) are two very very different things, and knowing the difference can make a huge difference in how your day ends.
 
Last edited:
Bowman said:
Ahh police state, 4th amendment violation
F&W does not have a right to search your vehicle with out consent, if you don't give it ut will be thrown out of court.
He has tight to his day in court
Click to expand...
Wrong, your head is in penal code, where your assumption would be correct. F&W would be enforcing F&W laws, not penal code.
 
Couldn't imagine having 100,s of interactions with f&g....guess I don't hunt enough...carry on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: skeet
HATCHET1 said:
Couldn't imagine having 100,s of interactions with f&g....guess I don't hunt enough...carry on.
Click to expand...
No, you don't, obviously. Or maybe you're not involved enough. But considering you went with the low road and chose to attack my number of interactions, obviously you've got nothing else.
 
bubblehide said:
No, you don't, obviously. Or maybe you're not involved enough. But considering you went with the low road and chose to attack my number of interactions, obviously you've got nothing else.
Click to expand...
Unconstitional laws, that's why it's a police state. Nothing trumps the constitution. And quit trying to convince people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About us

SCHoutdoors was created in January of 2011 by a few people who love the outdoors. The main goal is still the same – bring people together who enjoy the outdoors and share their knowledge and experience. Outdoors in the West, Hunting gear reviews, Big Game, Small Game, Upland Game, Waterfowl, Varmint, Bow Hunting, long Range Rifles, Reloading, Taxidermy, Salt WaterFishing, Freshwater Fishing, Buy-Sell-Trade on Classifieds and Cooking/Recipes All things outdoors…come join us, learn, contribute and become part of the SCHoutdoors community.
| Style and add-ons by ThemeHouse | Media embeds via s9e/MediaSites
Top Bottom
Back