Interesting day on PCR and F&W

[artrye]

Nice day on the ice today, Ice was around 16" by the boat launch.
3 nice burbots and about 8 walleye. In 23 FOW.

Someone called the F&W on our group saying we were cooking up walleye in our area. Sure enough when 2 F&W show up, they tore through all our belongings and through every inch of our vehicles. Apparently, the person who called in says we were stashing walleye in our vehicles and our backpacks. They also reported us cooking up a load of walleye. I kept all the burbot remains in a bag if we were to get checked, good thing I did. Cause it was the first thing F&W were looking for.
It is a good thing they are out checking, but this is ridiculous. Of the person actually witnessed us taking walleye why not confront us instead of making up false stories of stashing fish in our vehicles. Every part of the vehicle was checked even the engine bay, even my wife's purse was checked for walleye. My 8 year old daughter was asking "why are the police in my backpack, daddy?"
Geez a good relaxing day on the ice with te family turned into an embarrassing hunt for the falsely accused stashed walleye.
F&W apologized, for the intrusion, but I cannot blame them doing their job. As I have made frequent calls to them myself when I see or confront other poachers of their wrong doings.

I've fished for years and never encountered this... Funny thing is...
NOTHING we were doing were illegal nor one walleye was taken. All barbless hooks, eight licenses, one child fishing. Ok, maybe a warning on two cans of beer.

In the end all was good... Embarrassed but good.
On a side note though, no damn night Burbot was caught..

[CamoDerrick]

Its usually better to call the F&W then confront a bunch of guys. For safety reasons.

I don't see a benefit to the accuser of falsely calling in and reporting you. Can not blame the F&W though, they believed they had a strong tip off and needed to search everything.

Unfortunate for you though

[Pikecrazed]

What were you using :confused: as bait and rigs

[artrye]

Don't get me wrong, I do not blame F&W at all for doing what they did. I knew something was up when they rushed us. Lol, should have seen them enter the lake, let's just say I wouldn't drive like that with my daughter in the truck on the ice. We had nothing to hide.. Just discouraging is all. They did what they had to do, no harm was done. Just please get the facts straight and true, rather than make stories up to harass a few guys and my family enjoying the day.

[horsetrader]

Don't get me wrong, I do not blame F&W at all for doing what they did. I knew something was up when they rushed us. Lol, should have seen them enter the lake, let's just say I wouldn't drive like that with my daughter in the truck on the ice. We had nothing to hide.. Just discouraging is all. They did what they had to do, no harm was done.

Your a stand up guy for your attitude towards the F&W many would not be. Just feel bad for your daughter hope she was not shaken to bad.

[slivers86]

Your a stand up guy for your attitude towards the F&W many would not be. Just feel bad for your daughter hope she was not shaken to bad.

x2 - you had a burb fry - the average person going out for a quick day who didn't know a lot about fishing (myself at the start of last years open water) would never know there was anything but walleye in there :)

The fish guys just doing their job... I remember when someone said I was fishing with bait at carseland... lol the fish guy came down, asked for my license and stuff (this was a week after I got my license) and talked to me for a few... asked to look at my hook and laughed... He said some 'person' on the other side of the river saw me rig up bait! We had a good laugh, and talked about our similar appointments when it came to work. Never had a bad experience.

TR, friends, and I were out on lake x a couple weeks ago and had a CO come check out our rig. We got talking about the forum, the boy and girls meet, and caught a pike while he was there. He checked our sled for booze, checked 1 line, and watched us release a small pike. Stood around to BS for about 15 minutes before walking back across the ice. Good guys, doing a good job. Too bad there aren't more of them :)

[canadiantdi]

I was thinking that it was strange that they were allowed to search you just based on a tip from another angler. I would think that they would be able to make contact with you to investigate, but need some sort of probable cause to go ahead and conduct such an intrusive search. But then I looked at the alberta fisheries act and it looks like they can search you whenever they want! Yikes! He just has to believe, on reasonable grounds, that either fish or fishing equipment are contained there (ice fishing tent, vehicle etc)

Am I the only one who finds it unreasonable that they can conduct such an invasive search without gaining probable cause from an initial investigation?

I know in your case you were cooking and had fish remains, but checking your engine bay, wifes purse etc?


Search

27(1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may,

(a) on obtaining a warrant, or

(b) without a warrant if the officer or guardian believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is not practical to obtain a warrant because the necessary delay may result in the loss of evidence,

search for fish and fishing equipment in any vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft or railway car, or in any business premises, building, tent or structure unless it is used as a private dwelling, when, on reasonable grounds, the officer or guardian believes that fish or fishing equipment is contained there.
(2) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the operator or person in possession of a vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container to produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container contains or is carrying fish or fishing equipment.

(3) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the owner or occupant of any business premises, building, tent or other structure that is not used as a private dwelling to produce all fish and fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or structure for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or other structure is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the business premises, building, tent or other structure contains fish or fishing equipment.

(4) When a fishery officer or fishery guardian requires a person to produce fish or fishing equipment for inspection under this section, that person shall forthwith produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack, container, business premises, building, tent or other structure to the officer or guardian.

[BeeGuy]

It's pretty amazing that an anonymous tip can lead to the searching of people, their possessions and vehicles.

If it was me, I would have been pretty angry.

We have laws against unreasonable search and to me this would have qualified.

Whatever happened to proof?

As I recall there are a bunch of militant members here with rap on speed dial who will call over any perceived violation.

[BeeGuy]

Am I the only one who finds it unreasonable that they can conduct such an invasive search without gaining probable cause from an initial investigation?




No, I find it somewhat unreasonable.

That said, we can probably refuse a search to some degree with the option of arrest (?) I dont know.

Anything found in the search outside of fish and fishing equipment would likely not stand up in court.

Some evidence above and beyond a phone call should be required to conduct a search like that. I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

[horsetrader]

I was thinking that it was strange that they were allowed to search you just based on a tip from another angler. I would think that they would be able to make contact with you to investigate, but need some sort of probable cause to go ahead and conduct such an intrusive search. But then I looked at the alberta fisheries act and it looks like they can search you whenever they want! Yikes! He just has to believe, on reasonable grounds, that either fish or fishing equipment are contained there (ice fishing tent, vehicle etc)

Am I the only one who finds it unreasonable that they can conduct such an invasive search without gaining probable cause from an initial investigation?

I know in your case you were cooking and had fish remains, but checking your engine bay, wifes purse etc?


Search

27(1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may,

(a) on obtaining a warrant, or

(b) without a warrant if the officer or guardian believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is not practical to obtain a warrant because the necessary delay may result in the loss of evidence,

search for fish and fishing equipment in any vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft or railway car, or in any business premises, building, tent or structure unless it is used as a private dwelling, when, on reasonable grounds, the officer or guardian believes that fish or fishing equipment is contained there.
(2) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the operator or person in possession of a vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container to produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container contains or is carrying fish or fishing equipment.

(3) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the owner or occupant of any business premises, building, tent or other structure that is not used as a private dwelling to produce all fish and fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or structure for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or other structure is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the business premises, building, tent or other structure contains fish or fishing equipment.

(4) When a fishery officer or fishery guardian requires a person to produce fish or fishing equipment for inspection under this section, that person shall forthwith produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack, container, business premises, building, tent or other structure to the officer or guardian.

It's pretty amazing that an anonymous tip can lead to the searching of people, their possessions and vehicles.

If it was me, I would have been pretty angry.

We have laws against unreasonable search and to me this would have qualified.

Whatever happened to proof?

As I recall there are a bunch of militant members here with rap on speed dial who will call over any perceived violation.

This is not only in Alberta it is the same way in many provinces.
If they suspect you are poaching THAT IS PROBABLE CAUSE if you refuse it is your right they then can detain you until law-enforcement arrives. If you have nothing to hide why worry. You complain that SRD dose not do its job right and then when they do you complain about that too......Perhaps there's a trend here...

[horsetrader]

No, I find it somewhat unreasonable.

That said, we can probably refuse a search to some degree with the option of arrest (?) I dont know.

Anything found in the search outside of fish and fishing equipment would likely not stand up in court.

Some evidence above and beyond a phone call should be required to conduct a search like that. I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

I would suggest you go back to school before you try to give legal council.

[BeeGuy]

No, I find it somewhat unreasonable.

That said, we can probably refuse a search to some degree with the option of arrest (?) I dont know.

Anything found in the search outside of fish and fishing equipment would likely not stand up in court.

Some evidence above and beyond a phone call should be required to conduct a search like that. I'd be surprised if it wasn't.

It would just be easier if you knew the difference between opinion and a assumptions (I highlighted it for you), and legal counsel.

Troll on big guy

[canadiantdi]

This is not only in Alberta it is the same way in many provinces.
If they suspect you are poaching THAT IS PROBABLE CAUSE if you refuse it is your right they then can detain you until law-enforcement arrives. If you have nothing to hide why worry. You complain that SRD dose not do its job right and then when they do you complain about that too......Perhaps there's a trend here...

I personally disagree that a phone call from another angler should be enough probable cause to search my wifes purse.

As for worrying when i have nothing to hide, if you dont exercise your rights they are easily lost. I dont want the government to search me when there is no resonable reason to, based on the excuse that if i have nothing to hide then it shouldnt matter.

If your neighbour doesnt like you and decides to call the police and tell them you have a meth lab in your basement, should they be able to bust into your house to check based on that phone call alone?

[BeeGuy]

Well said.

If I have nothing to hide, I should be free from search and seizure.

[canadiantdi]

Anything found in the search outside of fish and fishing equipment would likely not stand up in court.

Peace officer 21(1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian, while administering this Act, is a person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a fishery guardian shall not exercise the powers of arrest given to a peace officer by section 495 of the Criminal Code (Canada).


It doesnt look like they can arrest if they find something else illegal ie drugs, but i would expect them to call the police.

[BeeGuy]

Search

27(1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may,

(a) on obtaining a warrant, or

(b) without a warrant if the officer or guardian believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is not practical to obtain a warrant because the necessary delay may result in the loss of evidence,

search for fish and fishing equipment in any vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft or railway car, or in any business premises, building, tent or structure unless it is used as a private dwelling, when, on reasonable grounds, the officer or guardian believes that fish or fishing equipment is contained there.
(2) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the operator or person in possession of a vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container to produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container contains or is carrying fish or fishing equipment.

(3) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the owner or occupant of any business premises, building, tent or other structure that is not used as a private dwelling to produce all fish and fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or structure for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or other structure is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the business premises, building, tent or other structure contains fish or fishing equipment.

(4) When a fishery officer or fishery guardian requires a person to produce fish or fishing equipment for inspection under this section, that person shall forthwith produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack, container, business premises, building, tent or other structure to the officer or guardian.

It seems in my opinion that these officers did not have reasonable or probable grounds to execute a search beyond what was on the ice.

Things to be aware of when dealing with these people is whether you fall into the 'leading questions' trap.

"Do you mind if we take a look in your car" This can be worded many ways and made to seem like you have no choice in the matter.

It is very easy and good practice to tell officers that you do not consent to a search. This way they will ensure they have reasonable and probable grounds.

[valve god]

Something does not seem right here. The first thing that popped into my head is that maybe F&W stopped somebody coming off the ice that had illegal fish and they convincied the F&W that somebody was doing something illegal.:thinking-006: If you have one empty beer can and F&W see this that is probable cause to search. A bloody fillet knife or fish guts again probable cause. You do have the right to ask what they are searching for when they want to check a vehicle. Just my thoughts:scared0018:

[horsetrader]

It would just be easier if you knew the difference between opinion and a assumptions (I highlighted it for you), and legal counsel.

Troll on big guy

it is funny how everytime some one disagrees with you their TROLLING
But i'm sure you will have a reason you can highlight for me it seems to be your specialty.

[horsetrader]

I personally disagree that a phone call from another angler should be enough probable cause to search my wifes purse.

As for worrying when i have nothing to hide, if you dont exercise your rights they are easily lost. I dont want the government to search me when there is no resonable reason to, based on the excuse that if i have nothing to hide then it shouldnt matter.

If your neighbour doesnt like you and decides to call the police and tell them you have a meth lab in your basement, should they be able to bust into your house to check based on that phone call alone?

Sorry but if you read what you wrote you would see they can not search your person or your residence so your point is moot.

[horsetrader]

Well said.

If I have nothing to hide, I should be free from search and seizure.

Most ridicules statement I ever read............ hahahahahaha

[horsetrader]

It seems in my opinion that these officers did not have reasonable or probable grounds to execute a search beyond what was on the ice.

Things to be aware of when dealing with these people is whether you fall into the 'leading questions' trap.

"Do you mind if we take a look in your car" This can be worded many ways and made to seem like you have no choice in the matter.

It is very easy and good practice to tell officers that you do not consent to a search. This way they will ensure they have reasonable and probable grounds.

Where in the OP posting did he say they searched anything that was not on the ice

And did he post that he was not asked if they could search his property even though they don't have to ask.

Oh thats right this is just your OPINION for what thats worth ...

[Lefty-Canuck]

Not sure if I am being lumped in with the militant with RAP on speed dial but last spring I confronted some poachers and gave them the what for....called RAP with license plate and description.....have pics of their undersized fish if you want to see them.

To the OP sorry someone "suspected" you...in my case I knew 100 percent what was up.

LC

[TROLLER]

I have been checked soo many times over all the years I guided bird hunters I have lost count.

One thing for sure, no way in hell would I ever allow any CO to put one hand on my wives purse or likewise my wallet.

It is one thing to be co-operative another to stand by and let them start going through things like a purse. That is crossing the line and I would be letting them know in real loud terms that if they wanna start that crap then they best get their boss and the RC' out real quick cause that is where I draw the line.

[BeeGuy]

it is funny how everytime some one disagrees with you their TROLLING
But i'm sure you will have a reason you can highlight for me it seems to be your specialty.

It's not every time. It's everytime you attack my posts without adding anything to the discussion what so ever, I point out that you are trolling.

[BeeGuy]

Nice day on the ice today, Ice was around 16" by the boat launch.
3 nice burbots and about 8 walleye. In 23 FOW.

Someone called the F&W on our group saying we were cooking up walleye in our area. Sure enough when 2 F&W show up, they tore through all our belongings and through every inch of our vehicles. Apparently, the person who called in says we were stashing walleye in our vehicles and our backpacks. They also reported us cooking up a load of walleye. I kept all the burbot remains in a bag if we were to get checked, good thing I did. Cause it was the first thing F&W were looking for.
It is a good thing they are out checking, but this is ridiculous. Of the person actually witnessed us taking walleye why not confront us instead of making up false stories of stashing fish in our vehicles. Every part of the vehicle was checked even the engine bay, even my wife's purse was checked for walleye. My 8 year old daughter was asking "why are the police in my backpack, daddy?"
Geez a good relaxing day on the ice with te family turned into an embarrassing hunt for the falsely accused stashed walleye.
F&W apologized, for the intrusion, but I cannot blame them doing their job. As I have made frequent calls to them myself when I see or confront other poachers of their wrong doings.

I've fished for years and never encountered this... Funny thing is...
NOTHING we were doing were illegal nor one walleye was taken. All barbless hooks, eight licenses, one child fishing. Ok, maybe a warning on two cans of beer.

In the end all was good... Embarrassed but good.
On a side note though, no damn night Burbot was caught..

Where in the OP posting did he say they searched anything that was not on the ice

And did he post that he was not asked if they could search his property even though they don't have to ask.

Oh thats right this is just your OPINION for what thats worth ...

more or less

[horsetrader]

It's not every time. It's everytime you attack my posts without adding anything to the discussion what so ever, I point out that you are trolling.

Again just your opinion I think there was something added to the discussion so no TROLLING by my opinion ...

[canadiantdi]

Sorry but if you read what you wrote you would see they can not search your person or your residence so your point is moot.

Good point, I read the part about the personal dwelling, but forgot when I posted my point. Change it to car then. What if someone got mad at you because you cut them off and they decided to call the police and say you had drugs in your car? Or worse a gun? Would you be ok with the police pulling you over and searching all your belongings? Going through your wifes purse? I can understand getting pulled over, but I think that the initial investigation would have to introduce some sort of reasonable suspicion beyond the complaint for the officer to be able to perform an intrusive search.

[fish farmer]

Peace officer 21(1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian, while administering this Act, is a person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a fishery guardian shall not exercise the powers of arrest given to a peace officer by section 495 of the Criminal Code (Canada).


It doesnt look like they can arrest if they find something else illegal ie drugs, but i would expect them to call the police.

Thats where youre wrong. It states fishery officers and fishery guardians. From what I know, guardians are not officers in anyway and have not received the training a fish and wildlife officer has and therefore cannot arrest anyone under the criminal code. Fish and Wildlife OFFICERS can charge you with any act and offence a police officer can. F&W officers can charge you with criminal code stuff, even murder. They actually have more power than a police officer. Police officers cannot charge anyone under the wildlife act, whereas F&W officers can charge people under the criminal code and the wildlife act. They also can give you tickets for any misdemeanors and whatnot, such as open liquor and various items like that.

[canadiantdi]

Most ridicules statement I ever read............ hahahahahaha

It is not ridicules at all. To allow the government to search you just because you have nothing to hide is a very slippery slope. Would you be ok with random car searches? Random house searches? Random ID checks when walking down the street? Random weapons searches when walking down the street??

I know that these are extreme, but I hope you can see my point. We want to be free from illegal search and seizure.

We should require some sort of proof beyond someones unreliable word, before we have our stuff searched.

[canadiantdi]

Thats where youre wrong. It states fishery officers and fishery guardians. From what I know, guardians are not officers in anyway and have not received the training a fish and wildlife officer has and therefore cannot arrest anyone under the criminal code. Fish and Wildlife OFFICERS can charge you with any act and offence a police officer can. F&W officers can charge you with criminal code stuff, even murder. They actually have more power than a police officer. Police officers cannot charge anyone under the wildlife act, whereas F&W officers can charge people under the criminal code and the wildlife act. They also can give you tickets for any misdemeanors and whatnot, such as open liquor and various items like that.

That is interesting. Can you post up some information to support that? I will try to find some..

[fish farmer]

That is interesting. Can you post up some information to support that? I will try to find some..

I will dig through my old school notes and criminal code and wildlife act stuff from when I was in college to become a F&W officer before I switched to other enviro stuff.

[walking buffalo]

Artrye,

Did the officers ask if they could search your vehicle?



The discussion is just conjecture without knowing if Artrye gave the CO's permission to search, or not.

[canadiantdi]

I found this in the criminal code;

“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts,

(d.1) an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,

So it looks like they are peace officers. Does this mean that they have full police powers?

[horsetrader]

Don't get me wrong, I do not blame F&W at all for doing what they did. I knew something was up when they rushed us. Lol, should have seen them enter the lake, let's just say I wouldn't drive like that with my ddaughter in the truck on the ice. We had nothing to hide.. Just discouraging is all. They did what they had to do, no harm was done. Just please get the facts straight and true, rather than make stories up to harass a few guys and my family enjoying the day.

more or less

Stellar answer Beegy

That would give me the idea that the OP drove on the lake so his truck would have been on the ice. Not that it maters any vehicle you can in is subject to search.

[horsetrader]

Good point, I read the part about the personal dwelling, but forgot when I posted my point. Change it to car then. What if someone got mad at you because you cut them off and they decided to call the police and say you had drugs in your car? Or worse a gun? Would you be ok with the police pulling you over and searching all your belongings? Going through your wifes purse? I can understand getting pulled over, but I think that the initial investigation would have to introduce some sort of reasonable suspicion beyond the complaint for the officer to be able to perform an intrusive search.

Actually have had my car searched stuff removed from the trunk because the car looked like one they were looking for did not bother me at all. If they smell alcohol in the car they have probable cause.

[horsetrader]

It is not ridicules at all. To allow the government to search you just because you have nothing to hide is a very slippery slope. Would you be ok with random car searches? Random house searches? Random ID checks when walking down the street? Random weapons searches when walking down the street??

I know that these are extreme, but I hope you can see my point. We want to be free from illegal search and seizure.

We should require some sort of proof beyond someones unreliable word, before we have our stuff searched.

It is called probable cause by eye witness.

[canadiantdi]

Actually have had my car searched stuff removed from the trunk because the car looked like one they were looking for did not bother me at all. If they smell alcohol in the car they have probable cause.

Well I wouldn't be ok with the government ripping my car apart just because it looked like one they were looking for lol. A lot of cars look very similar thanks to the assembly line.

Not probable cause on it's own.

[horsetrader]

Artrye,

Did the officers ask if they could search your vehicle?



The discussion is just conjecture without knowing if Artrye gave the CO's permission to search, or not.

you are right if he gave permission they need no warrant.

But in a case of posable lose of evidence they still need no warrant.

from there on it is up to a judge what is admitted, if charges are filed

[horsetrader]

I found this in the criminal code;

“peace officer” includes

(a) a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer and justice of the peace,

(b) a member of the Correctional Service of Canada who is designated as a peace officer pursuant to Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard and any other officer or permanent employee of a prison other than a penitentiary as defined in Part I of the Corrections and Conditional Release Act,

(c) a police officer, police constable, bailiff, constable, or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace or for the service or execution of civil process,

(d) an officer within the meaning of the Customs Act, the Excise Act or the Excise Act, 2001, or a person having the powers of such an officer, when performing any duty in the administration of any of those Acts,

(d.1) an officer authorized under subsection 138(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act,

(e) a person designated as a fishery guardian under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act and a person designated as a fishery officer under the Fisheries Act when performing any duties or functions under that Act or the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act,

So it looks like they are peace officers. Does this mean that they have full police powers?

They actually have more power then the police they can charge you with things a cop can't....lol

[canadiantdi]

It is called probable cause by eye witness.

But an eye witness is so unreliable, (look at OP's story) that it is questionable as to whether or not that information can be used alone to conduct an intrusive search. Sure, further investigate by making contact, but if upon contact nothing else leads the officer to believe there has been an offense, the investigation should end there IMO.

[canadiantdi]

They actually have more power then the police they can charge you with things a cop can't....lol

Ya I am getting that now. Pretty confusing at first but now it's making sense. Still not sure about the searching part though.

[horsetrader]

Well I wouldn't be ok with the government ripping my car apart just because it looked like one they were looking for lol. A lot of cars look very similar thanks to the assembly line.

Not probable cause on it's own.

i'm afraid it is and even more so dealing with F&W they can do searches a cop can't.

[camshaft]

Its mind boggling and amusing to think of the time people have spent posting their "closet lawyer" opinions. Even more so, are the responses it gets from the other half of closet lawyer people who think "they" have all the answers.

Very rarely do u actually read a post where someone actually "knows" what the law is surrounding a certain hypothetical situation, yet everyone chimes in with 50 different answers :)

I dont call my plumber for advice on my prostate, yet people continue to think a hunting/fishing forum is a sound place for legal advice :confused:

[canadiantdi]

Its mind boggling and amusing to think of the time people have spent posting their "closet lawyer" opinions. Even more so, are the responses it gets from the other half of closet lawyer people who think "they" have all the answers.

Very rarely do u actually read a post where someone actually "knows" what the law is surrounding a certain hypothetical situation, yet everyone chimes in with 50 different answers :)

I dont call my plumber for advice on my prostate, yet people continue to think a hunting/fishing forum is a sound place for legal advice :confused:

It's a conversation. I find it interesting to talk about this and try to figure stuff out. Is it really that mind boggling?

[canadiantdi]

i'm afraid it is and even more so dealing with F&W they can do searches a cop can't.

Can you post some info supporting this? If the cops are looking for a white toyota camry, I highly doubt they can stop all white toyota camrys they see and search them.

[horsetrader]

But an eye witness is so unreliable, (look at OP's story) that it is questionable as to whether or not that information can be used alone to conduct an intrusive search. Sure, further investigate by making contact, but if upon contact nothing else leads the officer to believe there has been an offense, the investigation should end there IMO.

but there was an investigation and i'm sure by the attitude of the OP he probably granted the search because he knew he was ok. had he not it is posable things could have changed but the out come the same.

you are right an eye witness is not always right but it is what they have to go on. But in turn if the police or F&W feel the eyewitness did it out of malice then he can be charged.

[camshaft]

It's a conversation. I find it interesting to talk about this and try to figure stuff out. Is it really that mind boggling?

Not in its simplest form, but to act upon or make decisions based on information people who have no education or legal background have given you is hilarious IMO.

[canadiantdi]

Not in its simplest form, but to act upon or make decisions based on information people who have no education or legal background have given you is hilarious IMO.

We are taking information out of the criminal code and fisheries act to see what our legal rights are. Those documents are made public for us to read and adhere to.

Just how often do you call a lawyer?

[horsetrader]

Can you post some info supporting this? If the cops are looking for a white toyota camry, I highly doubt they can stop all white toyota camrys they see and search them.

actually they can I'm originally from ONT. don't know if you have heard of the Bernardo case him and his wife kills some young girls including her little sister.
the police were looking for a light coloured camaro they stop and searched every light coloured camaro of a certain year they could find.


not the best story to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo

[canadiantdi]

actually they can I'm originally from ONT. don't know if you have heard of the Bernardo case him and his wife kills some young girls including her little sister.
the police were looking for a light coloured camaro they stop and searched every light coloured camaro of a certain year they could find.


not the best story to read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Bernardo


A stop and question i can understand, see whos in the car. Thats not invasive, but a stop and search?

[horsetrader]

We are taking information out of the criminal code and fisheries act to see what our legal rights are. Those documents are made public for us to read and adhere to.

Just how often do you call a lawyer?

I would not be to concerned about camshaft if you read any of his posts you will see that his speciality is giving advice to people that they are not qualified to give advice......... Just can't figure out why he figures he's qualified to give that advice......:)

[walking buffalo]

They actually have more power then the police they can charge you with things a cop can't....lol


:lol:

Don't stop now Horsetrader, you're killing me, might as well finish me off.

:sHa_sarcasticlol:

[canadiantdi]

:lol:

Don't stop now Horsetrader, you're killing me, might as well finish me off.

:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Isnt it true though that they are peace officers and can enforce the criminal code?

[walking buffalo]

Isnt it true though that they are peace officers and can enforce the criminal code?

Yes.

But to infer ( as Horsetrader has done) that CO's have greater authority than Police is hilarious.

They are all limited in powers by the same provincial/federal legislations and by the Charter.

[canadiantdi]

Yes.

But to infer ( as Horsetrader has done) that CO's have greater authority than Police is hilarious.

They are all bound by the Charter.

I understood his comment to mean that CO's enforce the fisheries act AND the criminal code whereas police only enforce the criminal code. I have never heard of a police officer enforcing the fisheries act, but that doesn't mean they can't though.

[Donkey Oatey]

I understood his comment to mean that CO's enforce the fisheries act AND the criminal code whereas police only enforce the criminal code. I have never heard of a police officer enforcing the fisheries act, but that doesn't mean they can't though.

RCMP officers are ex officio Fisheries Officers. Basically if there is a law in Canada, RCMP officers can enforce it.

[canadiantdi]

RCMP officers are ex officio Fisheries Officers. Basically if there is a law in Canada, RCMP officers can enforce it.

Makes sense. And it's the same for CO's I assume?

[camshaft]

I understood his comment to mean that CO's enforce the fisheries act AND the criminal code whereas police only enforce the criminal code. I have never heard of a police officer enforcing the fisheries act, but that doesn't mean they can't though.

RCMP yes, local police no. That being said, they can if they have been "designated" by the Minister. And there are some actually.

I would not be to concerned about camshaft if you read any of his posts you will see that his speciality is giving advice to people that they are not qualified to give advice......... Just can't figure out why he figures he's qualified to give that advice......:)

ouch, that hurt my feelers :)

[Donkey Oatey]

Makes sense. And it's the same for CO's I assume?

Fish and Wildlife Officers are concidered Peace officers under the Criminal Code and can enforce it. Fisheries Guardians and Wildlife Guardians can not enforce Criminal Code matters and are not given the powers or protection of Peace Officers under the Criminal Code. They are given that protection through the legislation that they are appointed under while enforcing those acts only.

[canadiantdi]

RCMP yes, local police no. That being said, they can if they have been "designated" by the Minister. And there are some actually.

Did you call a lawyer and ask this?





I kid, I kid!!!!

[canadiantdi]

Fish and Wildlife Officers are concidered Peace officers under the Criminal Code and can enforce it. Fisheries Guardians and Wildlife Guardians can not enforce Criminal Code matters and are not given the powers or protection of Peace Officers under the Criminal Code. They are given that protection through the legislation that they are appointed under while enforcing those acts only.

So where are these guardians? I have only heard of officers before this.

[camshaft]

Haha I didnt have to, I know the officer :)

[Donkey Oatey]

So where are these guardians? I have only heard of officers before this.

Many of the biologists and seasonal employees are appointed as guardians. Can do most of the stuff under the act but are not peace officers.

Back in the day when I was a Park Ranger I was appointed as a Fisheries Guardian and as a Wildlife Guardian. Could enforce the acts but was not considered a Peace Officer and could not pull over vehicles for Wildlife Offenses. I could check and ticket fishermen and hunters but was not permitted to do vehicle stops for those checks.

[canadiantdi]

Many of the biologists and seasonal employees are appointed as guardians. Can do most of the stuff under the act but are not peace officers.

Back in the day when I was a Park Ranger I was appointed as a Fisheries Guardian and as a Wildlife Guardian. Could enforce the acts but was not considered a Peace Officer and could not pull over vehicles for Wildlife Offenses. I could check and ticket fishermen and hunters but was not permitted to do vehicle stops for those checks.

I see. Thanks

[gatorhunter]

He just has to believe, on reasonable grounds, that either fish or fishing equipment are contained there (ice fishing tent, vehicle etc)

There is no requirement for believing that an offense has been committed to allow a fisheries officer to inspect and/or search anything related to fishing activity, other than a dwelling/residence.

The requirements are reasonable grounds for belief that fishing activity was or had occurred. Obviously, fishing activity was occurring so that burden was met.

The officers could then search "anything" that could contain fish; including a purse or child's back pack. They could search that vehicle from one end to another too; again because the burden of reasonable grounds being met by witnessing fishing activity.

There are definitely "right" ways to conduct such compliance efforts to make sure that the incident ends in a positive experience for the innocent party.

Fish have been found under the hoods, under spare tires, interior compartments and under seats. My personal favourite is sauger fillets in a travel mug!

The various Provincial Fishery Acts and Regulations give fisheries officers the authority to enter into such things as fishing shelters as they are not residences or dwellings. More than one illegal boozer has found that out the hard way.

People who try to prevent officers from searching items and/or places where fish could be found can be arrested and/or charged with obstructing a fishery officer.

As for how the officers are alleged to have been driving, that's what they do to give subjects less time to destroy evidence.

[BeeGuy]

There is no requirement for believing that an offense has been committed to allow a fisheries officer to inspect and/or search anything related to fishing activity, other than a dwelling/residence.

The requirements are reasonable grounds for belief that fishing activity was or had occurred. Obviously, fishing activity was occurring so that burden was met.

The officers could then search "anything" that could contain fish; including a purse or child's back pack. They could search that vehicle from one end to another too; again because the burden of reasonable grounds being met by witnessing fishing activity.

There are definitely "right" ways to conduct such compliance efforts to make sure that the incident ends in a positive experience for the innocent party.

Fish have been found under the hoods, under spare tires, interior compartments and under seats. My personal favourite is sauger fillets in a travel mug!

The various Provincial Fishery Acts and Regulations give fisheries officers the authority to enter into such things as fishing shelters as they are not residences or dwellings. More than one illegal boozer has found that out the hard way.

People who try to prevent officers from searching items and/or places where fish could be found can be arrested and/or charged with obstructing a fishery officer.

As for how the officers are alleged to have been driving, that's what they do to give subjects less time to destroy evidence.

Where does your information come from?

[horsetrader]

:lol:

Don't stop now Horsetrader, you're killing me, might as well finish me off.

:sHa_sarcasticlol:

Yes.

But to infer ( as Horsetrader has done) that CO's have greater authority than Police is hilarious.

They are all limited in powers by the same provincial/federal legislations and by the Charter.

in the situation we are talking about Yes they do have more authority then the police. if you want to come into a conversation halfway though and change the thread why not just start your own.........:thinking-006:

[horsetrader]

Many of the biologists and seasonal employees are appointed as guardians. Can do most of the stuff under the act but are not peace officers.

Back in the day when I was a Park Ranger I was appointed as a Fisheries Guardian and as a Wildlife Guardian. Could enforce the acts but was not considered a Peace Officer and could not pull over vehicles for Wildlife Offenses. I could check and ticket fishermen and hunters but was not permitted to do vehicle stops for those checks.

if your going to throw RCMP, F&W,Park Rangers, and Wildlife Guardian all in to this why not add the CPP to

[Donkey Oatey]

if your going to throw RCMP, F&W,Park Rangers, and Wildlife Guardian all in to this why not add the CPP to

WTH are you talking about? I was just answering the questions.

[horsetrader]

WTH are you talking about? I was just answering the questions.

the way everyone was adding different enforcement agencies i did not see why CPP should be left out they have as much power as some and more then others mentioned. perhaps I should have not added it to your quote specific I was just reading your when I thought about them. there was no intent against your post in general. It just seemed we started out with a simple F&W issue and soon had everyone but the armed forces involved......man theres another one there....:)

[walking buffalo]

in the situation we are talking about Yes they do have more authority then the police. if you want to come into a conversation halfway though and change the thread why not just start your own.........:thinking-006:

:sHa_sarcasticlol:

I read all the posts. My comments may not help support your position, but they are accurate.




Without consent from the OP, a warrantless search of the vehicle and the wife's purse would be on very shaky ground before the courts, just based on a phone call from a concerned citizen.

Most peole do not understand that you can just say no to an officer's request, and even when innocent of any wrongdoing, saying no can often be the right decision. Officers must learn to follow the law as well.



As has been posted.

FISHERIES (ALBERTA) ACT
http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=fishing+&language=en&searchTitle=Alberta&path=/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-f-16/latest/rsa-2000-c-f-16.html

Search

27(1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may,

(a) on obtaining a warrant, or

(b) without a warrant if the officer or guardian believes on reasonable and probable grounds that it is not practical to obtain a warrant because the necessary delay may result in the loss of evidence,

search for fish and fishing equipment in any vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft or railway car, or in any business premises, building, tent or structure unless it is used as a private dwelling, when, on reasonable grounds, the officer or guardian believes that fish or fishing equipment is contained there.

(2) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the operator or person in possession of a vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container to produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack or container contains or is carrying fish or fishing equipment.

(3) A fishery officer or fishery guardian may require the owner or occupant of any business premises, building, tent or other structure that is not used as a private dwelling to produce all fish and fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or structure for the purpose of inspection and to determine the number, species and size of the fish and to ascertain whether the fish are fit for human consumption, diseased or infested with parasites, if

(a) any fish or fishing equipment in the business premises, building, tent or other structure is in plain view of the officer or guardian, or

(b) the officer or guardian believes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that the business premises, building, tent or other structure contains fish or fishing equipment.

(4) When a fishery officer or fishery guardian requires a person to produce fish or fishing equipment for inspection under this section, that person shall forthwith produce all fish and fishing equipment in or on the vehicle, aircraft, boat or other watercraft, railway car, animal, pack, container, business premises, building, tent or other structure to the officer or guardian.







Now you should read this to understand what "reasonable and probable grounds" means.


Canadian Charter of Rights Decisions Digest

SECTION 8
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlight.do?text=police+act+search&language=en&searchTitle=Canada+%28Federal%29&path=/en/ca/charter_digest/s-8.html

[Donkey Oatey]

the way everyone was adding different enforcement agencies i did not see why CPP should be left out they have as much power as some and more then others mentioned. perhaps I should have not added it to your quote specific I was just reading your when I thought about them. there was no intent against your post in general. It just seemed we started out with a simple F&W issue and soon had everyone but the armed forces involved......man theres another one there....:)

Fishery officers by virtue of appointments to other offices

19.1 The following individuals are fishery officers by virtue of their appointments to the offices respectively referred to, namely individuals appointed as

(a) members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police,

(b) conservation officers, under section 1 of Schedule 3.1 to the Government Organization Act, and

(c) forest officers, under section 2 of the Forests Act.

2002 c30 s8

Fishery guardians

20(1) The Minister may appoint fishery guardians for the purpose of administering this Act.

(2) A fishery guardian has the powers and duties of a fishery guardian provided by this Act that the Minister directs.

1992 cF‑12.2 s20

Peace officer

21(1) A fishery officer or fishery guardian, while administering this Act, is a person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a fishery guardian shall not exercise the powers of arrest given to a peace officer by section 495 of the Criminal Code (Canada)


So, no CPP are not involved as ex officio Fisheries Officers(unless otherwise appointed)

[gatorhunter]

Where does your information come from?

Fisheries Act of Canada. The statute under which Provincial fishery regulations are made, fishery officers or fishery guardians receive their appointments and given the powers to inspect anything related to fish on reasonable grounds of belief that....follow the link.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/F-14/page-15.html#h-13

POWERS OF FISHERY OFFICERS AND FISHERY GUARDIANS
Inspection

49. (1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purpose of ensuring compliance with this Act and the regulations, a fishery officer or fishery guardian may enter and inspect any place, including any premises, vessel or vehicle, in which the officer or guardian believes on reasonable grounds there is any work or undertaking or any fish or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply and may

(a) open any container that the officer or guardian believes on reasonable grounds contains any fish or other thing in respect of which this Act or the regulations apply;

(b) examine any fish or other thing that the officer or guardian finds and take samples of it;

(c) conduct any tests or analyses and take any measurements; and

(d) require any person to produce for examination or copying any records, books of account or other documents that the officer or guardian believes on reasonable grounds contain information that is relevant to the administration of this Act or the regulations.

[BeeGuy]

Great, thanks.

[artrye]

Artrye,

Did the officers ask if they could search your vehicle?



The discussion is just conjecture without knowing if Artrye gave the CO's permission to search, or not.

No, we were not asked if they could search the vehicles. The officers said that unfortunately we have to look in the vehicles for walleye. The person or 'sport fisherman' who made the complaint, said that we were looking for a place in the vehicle to hide the walleye. They searched through all cracks and potential spots to hide fish. From under the dash to the engine bay. Like I said even in my wife's $1500 purse... When I commented on hiding a fish in an expensive purse, he replies 'you'd be surprised'. Any hole close to where we were fishing the officers were elbow deep in the hole looking for fish. The interesting thing is that the officer had the owner of the vehicles (myself and a buddy) open all compartments, doors, carpet they just held the flashlight. The only thing they did was leaned on the carpet to see up the dashboard.
Whether or not it was lawful or unlawful, I had nothing to hide. If the officers wanted to search, one way or another they will, with or without permission.

The way I look at it.... If they find nothing and all were lawful, All a person will get is sorry or an apology and a comment 'have a good evening' . Now if they do find a walleye? A lawful search or not, they found a walleye.

[walking buffalo]

Artrye,

I'm just going by what you wrote.


By having YOU open the compartments, you gave them access. They were just looking for what was in "View".

I get the impression that these CO's have experience in legal searches, and know how to influence a suspect into providing access.

The search may have been less invasive if you said No to opening the vehicle, compartments or purse.





"Now if they do find a walleye? A lawful search or not, they found a walleye."

Sure, if they find walter, they found walter. But if they found walter through an illegal search, the charges would never stick.

[Bush]

Artrye,


Sure, if they find walter, they found walter. But if they found walter through an illegal search, the charges would never stick.

False

A friend of mine got caught keeping too small of a pike. 1 week before the first court date while he was away from his house f&w went on his property without a warrent and found 5 walleye fillets in a freezer. The charges were never dropped he ended up guilty on both charges

[canadiantdi]

False

A friend of mine got caught keeping too small of a pike. 1 week before the first court date while he was away from his house f&w went on his property without a warrent and found 5 walleye fillets in a freezer. The charges were never dropped he ended up guilty on both charges

I think a better lawyer would have been useful in this circumstance. Or maybe he just plead guilty to lower the charges? I can't see the proceeds of a warrant-less search being used to find someone guilty.

[canadiantdi]

No, we were not asked if they could search the vehicles. The officers said that unfortunately we have to look in the vehicles for walleye. The person or 'sport fisherman' who made the complaint, said that we were looking for a place in the vehicle to hide the walleye. They searched through all cracks and potential spots to hide fish. From under the dash to the engine bay. Like I said even in my wife's $1500 purse... When I commented on hiding a fish in an expensive purse, he replies 'you'd be surprised'. Any hole close to where we were fishing the officers were elbow deep in the hole looking for fish. The interesting thing is that the officer had the owner of the vehicles (myself and a buddy) open all compartments, doors, carpet they just held the flashlight. The only thing they did was leaned on the carpet to see up the dashboard.
Whether or not it was lawful or unlawful, I had nothing to hide. If the officers wanted to search, one way or another they will, with or without permission.

The way I look at it.... If they find nothing and all were lawful, All a person will get is sorry or an apology and a comment 'have a good evening' . Now if they do find a walleye? A lawful search or not, they found a walleye.

Kind of sounds like they tricked you into thinking that you had to provide them access. Next time, make sure that you say you do not want them to search but will allow it if you legally have to. (if you care about your rights being trampled, which I get the impression that you don't)

Although, thinking back to the fisheries act, it sounds like they are allowed to search any time they want if there is evidence of fish or fishing equipment, which there obviously was.

So, knowing that the Charter of Rights states; "everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure", does the fisheries act somehow supersede the Charter? Having my car ripped apart because I have a fishing rod in the backseat seems like an unreasonable search to me, but according to the fisheries act, that's all that's required.

[wildcat111]

i remeber a couple years back this guy was using bait on the bow river, i call it in and an officer came down, the guy seen him coming and conviently snag his line and broke off, of course when the officer arrives hes tying on a spoon, they b.s for a couple minutes and he goes to leave, i was so mad i call the officer over and told him to look in his friggin bag, holy look there worms in there. i think f&w have to do a search , like the one they did to the orginal poster, i'm sure the people that reported the incident were close by and chances are they were contacted by f&w after they were done investigating.everyone makes mistakes but if f&w has to do a proper investigation or there going to have to deal with the orginal complainer and management.

[canadiantdi]

i remeber a couple years back this guy was using bait on the bow river, i call it in and an officer came down, the guy seen him coming and conviently snag his line and broke off, of course when the officer arrives hes tying on a spoon, they b.s for a couple minutes and he goes to leave, i was so mad i call the officer over and told him to look in his friggin bag, holy look there worms in there. i think f&w have to do a search , like the one they did to the orginal poster, i'm sure the people that reported the incident were close by and chances are they were contacted by f&w after they were done investigating.everyone makes mistakes but if f&w has to do a proper investigation or there going to have to deal with the orginal complainer and management.

Do you remember if the guy let the officer look in the bag or did he say no but the officer still looked?

[Bigdad013]

I find it funny that people still think a purse is sacred territory..

F&W only doing there job, maybe could have approached it better with some good questions first, ask the kid questions, they don't lie, they will tell you everything, what they are catching how many etc...with great pride....

[BeeGuy]

It's always good practice to say it.

It is also you, exercising your freedoms.

"I do not consent to a search."

You'll also find that the video function on your cell phone is priceless. Your lawyer will love you for it.

Remember, authority figures are not your friends.

[BeeGuy]

i remeber a couple years back this guy was using bait on the bow river, i call it in and an officer came down, the guy seen him coming and conviently snag his line and broke off, of course when the officer arrives hes tying on a spoon, they b.s for a couple minutes and he goes to leave, i was so mad i call the officer over and told him to look in his friggin bag, holy look there worms in there. i think f&w have to do a search , like the one they did to the orginal poster, i'm sure the people that reported the incident were close by and chances are they were contacted by f&w after they were done investigating.everyone makes mistakes but if f&w has to do a proper investigation or there going to have to deal with the orginal complainer and management.

Our freedoms in this country are more important than busting a guy with worms on the Bow.

Still I agree with your sentiment. Who fishes the Bow with worms, knowingly????

At one of my favorite pools I found empty tubs of Eze-minnows. Some people need a good slap or public shaming.

Maybe they should start publishing convicted poachers names and crime in the AO magazine and local papers.

[chubbdarter]

Well im not sure who the Officer was but in any case whoever it is was He or She can search all they want. I have nothing to hide. I asked my wife if She minded, her response was " search away".

I dont mind the time they take as it would give me the chance to carry on a conversation with the Officer about general fisheries issues.

I have never been searched I admit but Ive had the pleasure of meeting many Officers and have never met one that I didnt like. I garantee if and when one does search my truck or house I will still respect Him or Her for the job they do.

[horsetrader]

I hope the some day certain people need the help of AUTHORITY FIGURES and I hope at that time the the AUTHORITY FIGURES just sit back and watch this person get his just rewards...... maybe a cane hooking his leg and a smack on the head....... I did not address this to anyone specific or quote anyones post as I do not want this to be considered TROLLING. Just my opinion.....

[BeeGuy]

Horsetarder, you are a class act.

[gl2]

Remember, authority figures are not your friends.

did you teach your kids that?....:snapoutofit:

[BeeGuy]

did you teach your kids that?....:snapoutofit:

Interestingly enough, that is a quote from the general discussion forum. It was posted by someone who's father was a retired officer and it was the fathers advise to the son.

I would not teach that to my children until they were about 14 and needed to start understanding how the world actually works and how to protect themselves legally.

You see, the authorities dont view us as sunshine rainbow happy citizens. They view us as potential perps.

We are job security, and they have a quota to fill.

That said, I am not against LEO's or CO's or any other similar occupations. I believe they are a necessity and I appreciate the work they do.

I also believe in my charter rights and freedoms and believe I have the right to the security of my person from unreasonable search and seizure.

I don't poach, and because of this it is my opinion that CO's will never have just cause to search me.

See where I'm coming from?

[SNAPFisher]

It's pretty amazing that an anonymous tip can lead to the searching of people, their possessions and vehicles.

If it was me, I would have been pretty angry.

We have laws against unreasonable search and to me this would have qualified.

Whatever happened to proof?

As I recall there are a bunch of militant members here with rap on speed dial who will call over any perceived violation.


Beeguy, very well said. That echoes my thoughts exactly.

Guilty until proven innocent is a poor practice. The little "squeal pigeons" that are quick on their speed dail are just cowards in my opinion, confrontation or not. As for quoting the law, great until this happens to you. As the original poster said, no harm done, but, I'm sure it didn't add to the days enjoyment for anyone.

[gl2]

Interestingly enough, that is a quote from the general discussion forum. It was posted by someone who's father was a retired officer and it was the fathers advise to the son.

I would not teach that to my children until they were about 14 and needed to start understanding how the world actually works and how to protect themselves legally.

You see, the authorities dont view us as sunshine rainbow happy citizens. They view us as potential perps.

We are job security, and they have a quota to fill.

That said, I am not against LEO's or CO's or any other similar occupations. I believe they are a necessity and I appreciate the work they do.

I also believe in my charter rights and freedoms and believe I have the right to the security of my person from unreasonable search and seizure.

I don't poach, and because of this it is my opinion that CO's will never have just cause to search me.

See where I'm coming from?


i probably wouldn't model my parenting skills off of the general section. I can tell you right now, that living in the society we have today a officer that didn't view you as a perp wouldn't last too long. they are paid to up hold the law not give you positive reinforcement for not breaking it. if you don't poach then you have nothing to hide, so why are you so worried? if you appreciate them why make life hard on them? talk with them, help them out and let them be on there way. i don't think co's need any more job security, i have a hunch they got there hands full. where do you get the info co's have a poaching quota? i would like to read that.....i have no idea where you are coming from.

[canadiantdi]

I find it funny that people still think a purse is sacred territory..

I personally believe that my personal property is sacred territory. Unless there is some reasonable suspicion that there is something illegal in there, I don't think anyone should have a right to dig through it.

Because I have nothing to hide is absolutely no reason to let anyone search me. Slippery slope..

[canadiantdi]

Well im not sure who the Officer was but in any case whoever it is was He or She can search all they want. I have nothing to hide. I asked my wife if She minded, her response was " search away".

I dont mind the time they take as it would give me the chance to carry on a conversation with the Officer about general fisheries issues.

I have never been searched I admit but Ive had the pleasure of meeting many Officers and have never met one that I didnt like. I garantee if and when one does search my truck or house I will still respect Him or Her for the job they do.

If and when someone searches your truck or house?? I am still failing to understand why people are ok with the government searching without a good reason!

Would you be ok with having to ID yourself whenever a police officer asks? How about random house searches?

[BeeGuy]

i probably wouldn't model my parenting skills off of the general section. I can tell you right now, that living in the society we have today a officer that didn't view you as a perp wouldn't last too long. they are paid to up hold the law not give you positive reinforcement for not breaking it. if you don't poach then you have nothing to hide, so why are you so worried? if you appreciate them why make life hard on them? talk with them, help them out and let them be on there way. i don't think co's need any more job security, i have a hunch they got there hands full. where do you get the info co's have a poaching quota? i would like to read that.....i have no idea where you are coming from.

ya, sorry wrt the quota, job security and the quote from the general forum, I meant police, not CO's. I've never given a CO a hard time and I am happy to see and talk to them and call them on occasion myself.

I'm not worried, but I am concerned that if we don't protect the freedoms we have, that they will be taken away. Look at the bill Toews is promoting right now. They want warrant-less access to my private communications.

[gl2]

If and when someone searches your truck or house?? I am still failing to understand why people are ok with the government searching without a good reason!

Would you be ok with having to ID yourself whenever a police officer asks? How about random house searches?


what if the next time you phoned rap and they told you to take a hike, they are not coming you aren't credible enough? then i bet we see another thread with you on the opposite side of the table......i would id my self if a police officer asked.

[gl2]

on a lighter note a guy at work had his truck impounded on the forestry trunk road for driving like a idiot by a co.......

[canadiantdi]

I hope the some day certain people need the help of AUTHORITY FIGURES and I hope at that time the the AUTHORITY FIGURES just sit back and watch this person get his just rewards...... maybe a cane hooking his leg and a smack on the head....... I did not address this to anyone specific or quote anyones post as I do not want this to be considered TROLLING. Just my opinion.....

Exercising your right to not be subjected to an unreasonable search shouldn't mean that you don't get the protections of the people sworn to uphold the law.

Police officers, F&W etc, view all people as potential criminals. It's no fault of their own, they are paid to uphold laws and realistically, anyone could be breaking those laws. It is there job to root those people out and hold them accountable. I believe that they should have to follow the law while doing their job, just as us citizens are expected to follow the law as we go about our business (fishing, driving etc).

Again, suggesting that authority figures should not come to the aid of people who are willing to exercise their rights is absurd.

[canadiantdi]

what if the next time you phoned rap and they told you to take a hike, they are not coming you aren't credible enough? then i bet we see another thread with you on the opposite side of the table......i would id my self if a police officer asked.

I would expect them to come and commence an initial investigation, but I wouldn't expect someones personal belongings to be ripped apart unless there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed. Obviously I am of the opinion that a simple eye witness shouldn't be enough. Take the OP's story as an example. Maybe another angler was angry cause he drilled his holes too close or something? I dunno what happened, but obviously they got it wrong and others can get it wrong too.

[canadiantdi]

Beeguy, very well said. That echoes my thoughts exactly.

Guilty until proven innocent is a poor practice. The little "squeal pigeons" that are quick on their speed dail are just cowards in my opinion, confrontation or not. As for quoting the law, great until this happens to you. As the original poster said, no harm done, but, I'm sure it didn't add to the days enjoyment for anyone.

Excellent point. Unfortunately the fisheries act seems to be written that way. Still don't know if chapter 8 of the Charter supersedes the fisheries act. I imagine it does.

[horsetrader]

Exercising your right to not be subjected to an unreasonable search shouldn't mean that you don't get the protections of the people sworn to uphold the law.

Police officers, F&W etc, view all people as potential criminals. It's no fault of their own, they are paid to uphold laws and realistically, anyone could be breaking those laws. It is there job to root those people out and hold them accountable. I believe that they should have to follow the law while doing their job, just as us citizens are expected to follow the law as we go about our business (fishing, driving etc).

Again, suggesting that authority figures should not come to the aid of people who are willing to exercise their rights is absurd.

So according to you if someone calls and says they seen a person poaching fish and putting them in their car. The F&W come see the guy on the ice with fishing gear they are to come up to him ask him if he poached fish he says no so investigation over and they drive away .......Good idea.

[BeeGuy]

Before you can exercise your rights, you need to know them first.

Strangely, I cannot recall ever having been taught them in school.

[horsetrader]

Before you can exercise your rights, you need to know them first.

Strangely, I cannot recall ever having been taught them in school.

Why should someone have to teach you YOUR rights you should be inclined to learn them on your own. You have to do some things for yourself

[canadiantdi]

So according to you if someone calls and says they seen a person poaching fish and putting them in their car. The F&W come see the guy on the ice with fishing gear they are to come up to him ask him if he poached fish he says no so investigation over and they drive away .......Good idea.

I believe that more proof should be required than some anonymous phone call. I don't think we should give up our protections from unreasonable search and seizure just to make it easier on F&W.

Hmmm, it's hard to tell if someone is poaching, so lets just search everyone to make sure.. Maybe the police should search every car on the yellowhead too. Hey, if you've got nothing to hide.

[BeeGuy]

So according to you if someone calls and says they seen a person poaching fish and putting them in their car. The F&W come see the guy on the ice with fishing gear they are to come up to him ask him if he poached fish he says no so investigation over and they drive away .......Good idea.

From everyones favorite source, wikipedia:

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

[horsetrader]

I believe that more proof should be required than some anonymous phone call. I don't think we should give up our protections from unreasonable search and seizure just to make it easier on F&W.

Hmmm, it's hard to tell if someone is poaching, so lets just search everyone to make sure.. Maybe the police should search every car on the yellowhead too. Hey, if you've got nothing to hide.

OK you tell me what is that F&W officer to do then...

[BeeGuy]

Why should someone have to teach you YOUR rights you should be inclined to learn them on your own. You have to do some things for yourself

Yes, I have done that thanks.

It is too bad that not all Canadians can see the value of the rights and freedoms that so many of our best have died fighting for.

It is more important to give these up in order to catch someone stealing a walleye, or in this case, doing nothing illegal whatsoever.

[horsetrader]

From everyones favorite source, wikipedia:

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience. When submitted as evidence, such statements are called hearsay evidence. As a legal term, "hearsay" can also have the narrower meaning of the use of such information as evidence to prove the truth of what is asserted. Such use of "hearsay evidence" in court is generally not allowed. This prohibition is called the hearsay rule.

Get your facts straight for once we are talking about an eyewitness not hearsay evidence .......Geeease man.

[canadiantdi]

OK you tell me what is that F&W officer to do then...

Unfortunately I don't have the perfect answer, all I am worried about are my rights, not the rights of the government.

[BeeGuy]

Get your facts straight for once we are talking about an eyewitness not hearsay evidence .......Geeease man.

So, was the F&W eye witnesses in this situation?

If they were they would not have had to search everything.

They were acting on hearsay evidence, aka the tip provided by some mistaken fisherman.

[horsetrader]

Unfortunately I don't have the perfect answer, all I am worried about are my rights, not the rights of the government.

Well in this case maybe it is better to be worried about your fishing rights being taken away in the poachers car you just let go..

[BeeGuy]

Well in this case maybe it is better to be worried about your fishing rights being taken away in the poachers car you just let go..

I love fishing, but I do not love my "fishing rights" as much as my "human rights".

That's just me though.

[horsetrader]

Yes, I have done that thanks.

It is too bad that not all Canadians can see the value of the rights and freedoms that so many of our best have died fighting for.

It is more important to give these up in order to catch someone stealing a walleye, or in this case, doing nothing illegal whatsoever.

DON't even go there

[canadiantdi]

Well in this case maybe it is better to be worried about your fishing rights being taken away in the poachers car you just let go..

I don't understand what you mean by this..

[horsetrader]

So, was the F&W eye witnesses in this situation?

If they were they would not have had to search everything.

They were acting on hearsay evidence, aka the tip provided by some mistaken fisherman.

And that fisherman was just sitting at home and described this person of cause he was there are you that ....whats the use you are

[BeeGuy]

And that fisherman was just sitting at home and described this person of cause he was there are you that ....whats the use you are

hahaha, sometimes you kill me HT

[gl2]

i am gonna take a guess and say a lot of people get caught poaching by phone calls made to the rap line. i have done so many times. if you took all the power away from co's to determine if the accusations are true then you have just became a poachers best friend. are some of you guys really that narrow minded to see that?.

[canadiantdi]

i am gonna take a guess and say a lot of people get caught poaching by phone calls made to the rap line. i have done so many times. if you took all the power away from co's to determine if the accusations are true then you have just became a poachers best friend. are some of you guys really that narrow minded to see that?.

No doubt that a lot of poachers are caught this way, but what about the law abiding citizens (definitely MOST fishermen) who are having their property searched? Why is that of no concern to you?

If I don't like you, should the police be able to pull you over and rip your car apart on the side of the road based on a phone call from me? Oops, sorry officer, I thought FOR SURE that I saw him put a bag of coke in his trunk!

[BeeGuy]

What we are suggesting is that there are some universal rights which cannot be over-ridden.

I am sure many of these suspects you are alluding to are caught more or less red handed, in which case, once it is established that yes, they are poaching in some manner, then there is grounds for a thorough search (and a warrant to conduct one legally).

Once a CO has checked our equipment on the ice, and our shack and seen that we are following the reg's, there is no need to search our vehicle.

If they want to search the vehicle, they can call the police/rcmp and obtain a warrant.

CO's and LEO's need to follow the rules just like we do.

[horsetrader]

I don't understand what you mean by this..

Some times we have to give a little to gain a lot. will I give the F&W the right to search my truck that is sitting where i'm fishing even though i've done nothing wrong YES .why is because the next truck they search may be full of poached fish. but thats just me

[horsetrader]

What we are suggesting is that there are some universal rights which cannot be over-ridden.

I am sure many of these suspects you are alluding to are caught more or less red handed, in which case, once it is established that yes, they are poaching in some manner, then there is grounds for a thorough search (and a warrant to conduct one legally).

Once a CO has checked our equipment on the ice, and our shack and seen that we are following the reg's, there is no need to search our vehicle.

If they want to search the vehicle, they can call the police/rcmp and obtain a warrant.

CO's and LEO's need to follow the rules just like we do.

THey are following the rules it says they can search with out warrant if the chance of evidence being lost.

[gl2]

No doubt that a lot of poachers are caught this way, but what about the law abiding citizens (definitely MOST fishermen) who are having their property searched? Why is that of no concern to you?

If I don't like you, should the police be able to pull you over and rip your car apart on the side of the road based on a phone call from me? Oops, sorry officer, I thought FOR SURE that I saw him put a bag of coke in his trunk!

law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about and nothing to hide. we open the doors to our trucks when asked and let them look.

lets go to the airport and i will tell customs you have a bag of crack shoved up your as* and i bet you were wishing he was searching your truck...lol. do you have a problem with how airport security is? cause i want to know when my plane takes off its gonna land at the airport.

[canadiantdi]

Some times we have to give a little to gain a lot. will I give the F&W the right to search my truck that is sitting where i'm fishing even though i've done nothing wrong YES .why is because the next truck they search may be full of poached fish. but thats just me

Then that would be the same as allowing the police to search your house because you have nothing to hide, and because when they search your neighbors house, they might find a truckload of dead hookers in the basement.

Bottom line is I don't want to be searched unless there is some reasonable suspicion that I have committed a crime. Some are willing to allow the government to search, just to prove they have nothing to hide, but that gives away a right that we have. I like my rights. I want to keep them.

[BeeGuy]

People have fought hard for centuries to get us the rights and freedoms we have.

There is no way in hell I am giving these up in order to catch a few extra poachers.

F&W can do their jobs fine within the confines of the law.

[canadiantdi]

law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about and nothing to hide. we open the doors to our trucks when asked and let them look.

lets go to the airport and i will tell customs you have a bag of crack shoved up your as* and i bet you were wishing he was searching your truck...lol. do you have a problem with how airport security is? cause i want to know when my plane takes off its gonna land at the airport.

Flying on a plane isn't a right, it's a service provided by a company and we have to abide by the rules or not use the service.

[BeeGuy]

law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about and nothing to hide. we open the doors to our trucks when asked and let them look.

lets go to the airport and i will tell customs you have a bag of crack shoved up your as* and i bet you were wishing he was searching your truck...lol. do you have a problem with how airport security is? cause i want to know when my plane takes off its gonna land at the airport.

I think I'm done on this one.

You guys can continue to debate why we should give up our rights and freedoms, but there isn't any example which will convince me to give up either of them.

[canadiantdi]

law abiding citizens have nothing to worry about and nothing to hide. we open the doors to our trucks when asked and let them look.

lets go to the airport and i will tell customs you have a bag of crack shoved up your as* and i bet you were wishing he was searching your truck...lol. do you have a problem with how airport security is? cause i want to know when my plane takes off its gonna land at the airport.

This is an assumption. Not all law abiding citizens allow uninhibited access to our personal property to the government, just to prove we are doing nothing wrong. I am innocent. Prove otherwise. Don't place the burden on me to prove that I am innocent.

[gl2]

This is an assumption. Not all law abiding citizens allow uninhibited access to our personal property to the government, just to prove we are doing nothing wrong. I am innocent. Prove otherwise. Don't place the burden on me to prove that I am innocent.

thats a shame you feel that the people that are entrusted to uphold the laws are such a burden to you. I hope that you never need this service. i will ask you one more question. i was driving through alberta and a amber alert was issued for a missing girl. i went through a check stop and they asked me to open the back of my truck. what would you have done? i let them in and i hope they caught the perp responsible. by the time they got your precious search warrant a girl could have died.

[canadiantdi]

thats a shame you feel that the people that are entrusted to uphold the laws are such a burden to you. I hope that you never need this service. i will ask you one more question. i was driving through alberta and a amber alert was issued for a missing girl. i went through a check stop and they asked me to open the back of my truck. what would you have done? i let them in and i hope they caught the perp responsible. by the time they got your precious search warrant a girl could have died.

In that situation, I honestly would have let them look in my trunk. Walleye vs human being.

The people entrusted to uphold laws aren't a burden to me, I just expect them to follow the law, the same as they expect from me.

[gl2]

In that situation, I honestly would have let them look in my trunk. Walleye vs human being.

The people entrusted to uphold laws aren't a burden to me, I just expect them to follow the law, the same as they expect from me.

so you will personally deem who's job is worth doing. thanks for clarifying. i am not saying that anybody needs to break laws to enforce them but why make a over worked co's job harder just because you feel superior and want to make your self feel better. let them look, be respectful and get on with your business. taking up their time and all of our resource cause you want to pump your chest is ignorant in my opinion.

[canadiantdi]

so you will personally deem who's job is worth doing. thanks for clarifying. i am not saying that anybody needs to break laws to enforce them but why make a over worked co's job harder just because you feel superior and want to make your self feel better. let them look, be respectful and get on with your business. taking up their time and all of our resource cause you want to pump your chest is ignorant in my opinion.

Because I don't want to be illegally searched, doesn't mean that I feel superior or want to make myself feel better. Exercise your rights or lose them.

This is all moot I believe because I am pretty sure that, like flying, fishing in Alberta is a privilege, not a right, and we have to adhere to the fisheries act. Just like we can't deny a search at the airport, I don't think we can deny a search while using a fishing license. Although I still don't think they should be allowed to search me because I have a fishing rod or someone calls F&W on me, which the fisheries act allows.

I still don't know for sure though if our Charter rights are superseded by the fisheries act when it comes to searches.

Is the government allowed to pick and choose who has a fishing license? Is it a right or a privilege for a citizen to fish in Alberta??

[gl2]

Because I don't want to be illegally searched, doesn't mean that I feel superior or want to make myself feel better. Exercise your rights or lose them.

This is all moot I believe because I am pretty sure that, like flying, fishing in Alberta is a privilege, not a right, and we have to adhere to the fisheries act. Just like we can't deny a search at the airport, I don't think we can deny a search while using a fishing license. Although I still don't think they should be allowed to search me because I have a fishing rod or someone calls F&W on me, which the fisheries act allows.

I still don't know for sure though if our Charter rights are superseded by the fisheries act when it comes to searches.

Is the government allowed to pick and choose who has a fishing license? Is it a right or a privilege for a citizen to fish in Alberta??

we will just have to agree to disagree then. we in alberta are privileged.

[chubbdarter]

LOL....whats really funny is Your baking and broiling a CO, yet at NO time did you hear his side of the story and you publically never will.

Talk about infringing on personal rights and someones right to be innocent until proven quilty.

You hear one side of a story and suddenly the other side is Guilty!!!!!!!!

I wont post anymore on this topic, Good luck with your witch hunt

[BeeGuy]

No witches were harmed in the filming of this thread.

[artrye]

I find it funny that people still think a purse is sacred territory..

F&W only doing there job, maybe could have approached it better with some good questions first, ask the kid questions, they don't lie, they will tell you everything, what they are catching how many etc...with great pride....

F&W is just doing their job... but any husband should know a wife's purse IS Sacred Territory. LOL without an expensive purse for the wife, I wouldn't have the expensive Fishing gear!

As a law abiding citizen and paying for licenses with WIN cards... No one really knows what our true rights are when it comes to situations like this. I know for a fact if CPS goes through your vehicle for whatever reason, they have to have a warrant to do so lawfully. I don't think these guys need one to do so.

[BeeGuy]

Is Quilty an art or a craft?

[BeeGuy]

F&W is just doing their job... but any husband should know a wife's purse IS Sacred Territory. LOL without an expensive purse for the wife, I wouldn't have the expensive Fishing gear!

As a law abiding citizen and paying for licenses with WIN cards... No one really knows what our true rights are when it comes to situations like this. I know for a fact if CPS goes through your vehicle for whatever reason, they have to have a warrant to do so lawfully. I don't think these guys need one to do so.

Yes, it is hard to say. Section 27 (searches), and section 48 (inspection) seem to be in somewhat of a conflict.

I will ask a CO next time I see one. Sadly, most will not be terribly familiar with the legalese.

[Bush]

I might not be 100 percent correct but from what I've read years ago....

You do have the right to deny access to any thing of yours and that is why they then have the right to seise any of your properties.

[canadiantdi]

LOL....whats really funny is Your baking and broiling a CO, yet at NO time did you hear his side of the story and you publically never will.

Talk about infringing on personal rights and someones right to be innocent until proven quilty.

You hear one side of a story and suddenly the other side is Guilty!!!!!!!!

I wont post anymore on this topic, Good luck with your witch hunt

Where you drunk when you posted this? A witch hunt?? We are just discussing our legal rights, not trying to get a CO in trouble or anything.

Don't be so dramatic.

[canadiantdi]

I might not be 100 percent correct but from what I've read years ago....

You do have the right to deny access to any thing of yours and that is why they then have the right to seise any of your properties.

I can't see us having the right against a search, only to have it seized.

[horsetrader]

Flying on a plane isn't a right, it's a service provided by a company and we have to abide by the rules or not use the service.

Fishing is not a right either it is a privilege and you have to abide by the rules also.....

[horsetrader]

I think I'm done on this one.

You guys can continue to debate why we should give up our rights and freedoms, but there isn't any example which will convince me to give up either of them.

If you figure you are giving up your rights by allowing a F&W officer to search your vehicle then you are in a sorry state. And i'm sure your not done you will post more unrelated post i'm sure.

[horsetrader]

Where you drunk when you posted this? A witch hunt?? We are just discussing our legal rights, not trying to get a CO in trouble or anything.

Don't be so dramatic.

Chubbs point is well taken we are arguing over wether the F&W officer had the right to search and we have no idea what evidence he had we do know that there was open beer which would give a right to search there but we know nothing else. And I think we all got a little dramatic on this one ..

[canadiantdi]

No one is on a witch hunt, his comments were just inflammatory.


Chubbs point is well taken we are arguing over wether the F&W officer had the right to search and we have no idea what evidence he had we do know that there was open beer which would give a right to search there but we know nothing else. And I think we all got a little dramatic on this one ..

Some, not all.

[canadiantdi]

Fishing is not a right either it is a privilege and you have to abide by the rules also.....

Ya, I pointed that out a few posts back.

[Sledder1]

Yes, it is hard to say. Section 27 (searches), and section 48 (inspection) seem to be in somewhat of a conflict.

I will ask a CO next time I see one. Sadly, most will not be terribly familiar with the legalese.

The two have different connotation. Here's a brief overview of the two. And its a case by case type of thing. Case law has really helped define them.

Search is when an officer has reasonable grounds to believe an offence has been committed. Therefore, an investigation is taking place. Search is also when an officer is searching/digging into things, for example; taking the bed liner out of your truck. Plain view is not search. But if an officer has to start using binoculars to look into your house from the road, that might be considered searching, because the officer is using an extra means to look (the binos), not just his eyes.

Inspection is when an officer is conducting routine checks on things that are regulated in the legislation, such as checking licences, fishing gear (barbed hooks) and measuring your fish. If it's plain view or you tell the officer about it, and part of a regulated activity, it can be inspected. Also, things that might reasonably have inspectable things in them can be opened, such as coolers. It's reasonable to expect anglers to have fish in a cooler when on the lake.

That's a very very very brief overview of the difference between the two.

[Dan Foss]

So, was the F&W eye witnesses in this situation?

If they were they would not have had to search everything.

They were acting on hearsay evidence, aka the tip provided by some mistaken fisherman.

So by that logic, If I phone into the poilice that I just saw (for example) Horsetrader get shot in the chest by kokanee9, that information is just no more than "heresay" unless a police officer is the one to witness it...... Come on man.....

[Dan Foss]

No doubt that a lot of poachers are caught this way, but what about the law abiding citizens (definitely MOST fishermen) who are having their property searched? Why is that of no concern to you?

If I don't like you, should the police be able to pull you over and rip your car apart on the side of the road based on a phone call from me? Oops, sorry officer, I thought FOR SURE that I saw him put a bag of coke in his trunk!

if you have nothing to hide then what do you care if you let someone else do their job. Unfortunately in this world, in order for the authorities to have the ability to catch illegal activities, law abiding citizens do have to surrender some of their rights as well. what else are can be done? pass a law that states, people obeying the law are not to be search and only those committing illegal activities are to be searched? How do you think they are to separate the two. Would you also argue that you should not have to walk through a metal detector and have your bag scanned at the airport, just because you haven't done anything wrong? Criminals do not walk around with tatoos on their heads that say "I break laws". There for everyone unfortunately has to surrender SOME of their rights in order for the laws to be enforced, and the "world be made a better place"

I swear, reading some of the opinions in this thread really scare me and make me concerned about the people I meet on a daily basis. I can't imagine what it must be like to live in such paranoid fear of the law and invasion of your "personal rights" when you know you have done nothing wrong.

End rant


EDIT: I wanted to address the second part of your post and got caught up in my rant. So regarding people calling in because they dont like you..... That is against the law. Our rights to look after ourselves in society include the right to contact the authorities regarding suspected crimes. We are entrusted as civilians to use our own proper judgment when filing a complaint or concerns about illegal activities. This is key in order to reduce the number of "innocent bystanders" being searched. So the long of the short of it is, it is your civic duty, and the law is entrusting you only to report information that is as accurate AS POSSIBLE. sometimes people are wrong. They are human. But there is a difference between calling the cops because you witnessed someone catch and retain an illegal fish and someone just catching a fish. it is upto the civilian to determine if they have accurate enough information to call RAP.

[TJG]

Fish have been found under the hoods, under spare tires, interior compartments and under seats. My personal favourite is sauger fillets in a travel mug!
I must be the only one in this discussion that found this funny!!!

A buddy of mine was confronted by fish cops at the confluence below Dickson dam. They were in the honey hole catchin walleye like no ones buisness, when two fish officers asked for their lics and win cards. The officers said they got a call that my buddy and his son were stashing walleye in his backpack, where the lunch was and in his truck, where the cooler was. His son identified himself as an RCMP officer from Sask, but that made no differance to the fishcops. After finding nothing, they followed them to his home and asked to look in his frezzer, saying that if he refused, he would be admitting guilt! Thats not right.

[Bush]

Dan foss. You just put truck loads of water on a wood fire
The end to an awesome thread

[Gust]

I thought the surrender of rights happens when you're incarcerated and even then you still have rights. We know such little of the true law that we do allow authority to run racksack much of the time. Not sure why general law and labour law aren't taught in school from Grade 5 up.

To the O.P,,, there should have been a bit of tact exercised and I hope it didn't put you off fishing,,, with your family.

[BeeGuy]

So by that logic, If I phone into the poilice that I just saw (for example) Horsetrader get shot in the chest by kokanee9, that information is just no more than "heresay" unless a police officer is the one to witness it...... Come on man.....

We are not talking about murder here.

Look up some case law regarding the reliability and credibility of 'eye witness testimony'.

We've put many innocent men in jail on the word of an unreliable witness.

[Sledder1]

After finding nothing, they followed them to his home and asked to look in his frezzer, saying that if he refused, he would be admitting guilt! Thats not right.

lol, that is not even close to being believable.

[canadiantdi]

if you have nothing to hide then what do you care if you let someone else do their job.
I shouldn't have to give up my rights to prove I am innocent. I want to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. That doesn't make me a criminal.
Unfortunately in this world, in order for the authorities to have the ability to catch illegal activities, law abiding citizens do have to surrender some of their rights as well.
Benjamin Franklin had this to say about surrendering freedoms for security; "Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither." Where does it end? Random home searches? Why not?? You've got nothing to hide right? Maybe just install a government camera on every fishing boat so they can check up on you easier? <- sarcasm
what else are can be done? pass a law that states, people obeying the law are not to be search and only those committing illegal activities are to be searched?
If a proper, legal investigation doesn't turn anything up, they shouldn't then resort to searching your personal belongings. That is unreasonable. You are more than welcome to allow it to happen to you and your family, but those of us who want to exercise our rights should not be vilified for it.
How do you think they are to separate the two. Would you also argue that you should not have to walk through a metal detector and have your bag scanned at the airport, just because you haven't done anything wrong? Criminals do not walk around with tatoos on their heads that say "I break laws". There for everyone unfortunately has to surrender SOME of their rights in order for the laws to be enforced, and the "world be made a better place"

The argument can ALWAYS be made that if we give up a little more freedom, we will be a little safer. Canada is quite a safe place right now with our current laws forbidding unreasonable search and seizure. Do we really want to give the government more and more ability to monitor and search us? I don't want to live in a police state.

I swear, reading some of the opinions in this thread really scare me and make me concerned about the people I meet on a daily basis. I can't imagine what it must be like to live in such paranoid fear of the law and invasion of your "personal rights" when you know you have done nothing wrong.

If reading about people discussing their rights when it comes to government searches scares you, then you might be the paranoid one. I don't live in paranoid fear, I just want to know my rights and be protected by them. I don't think it's a good idea to believe that the government always has our best interests in mind. It would be much easier for them to have full control of us, it's up to citizens to ensure that we keep our freedoms.

End rant


EDIT: I wanted to address the second part of your post and got caught up in my rant. So regarding people calling in because they dont like you..... That is against the law. Our rights to look after ourselves in society include the right to contact the authorities regarding suspected crimes. We are entrusted as civilians to use our own proper judgment when filing a complaint or concerns about illegal activities. This is key in order to reduce the number of "innocent bystanders" being searched. So the long of the short of it is, it is your civic duty, and the law is entrusting you only to report information that is as accurate AS POSSIBLE. sometimes people are wrong. They are human. But there is a difference between calling the cops because you witnessed someone catch and retain an illegal fish and someone just catching a fish. it is upto the civilian to determine if they have accurate enough information to call RAP.

I have no problem with people calling in poachers, all I am saying is that chapter 8 of the charter protects us from unreasonable search and seizure. It seems unreasonable to me to be searched based upon an anonymous phone call. That being said, I am still confused as to whether it is legal or not to be searched without reasonable suspicion. It seems that the fisheries act is written to give F&W the ability to search anytime there is fishing equipment present. Seems excessive. As someone else mentioned before, case law would be nice to see how a real life situation plays out.

!

[canadiantdi]

Fish have been found under the hoods, under spare tires, interior compartments and under seats. My personal favourite is sauger fillets in a travel mug!
I must be the only one in this discussion that found this funny!!!

A buddy of mine was confronted by fish cops at the confluence below Dickson dam. They were in the honey hole catchin walleye like no ones buisness, when two fish officers asked for their lics and win cards. The officers said they got a call that my buddy and his son were stashing walleye in his backpack, where the lunch was and in his truck, where the cooler was. His son identified himself as an RCMP officer from Sask, but that made no differance to the fishcops. After finding nothing, they followed them to his home and asked to look in his frezzer, saying that if he refused, he would be admitting guilt! Thats not right.

It's not hard to see why people don't trust authority. They will stomp your freedom as much as you will allow, and sometimes more. If honest citizens don't stand up to it, it will only get worse.

[Bush]

Canadiantdi- think about this thread as if you cared about our fisheries and place yourself in the boots of the authorities

[canadiantdi]

Canadiantdi- think about this thread as if you cared about our fisheries and place yourself in the boots of the authorities

I fully understand what you are saying, but I am absolutely not willing to give up my charter rights to help F&W do their job.

[Bush]

I fully understand what you are saying, but I am absolutely not willing to give up my charter rights to help F&W do their job.

You not giving up your rights to help anyone do there job but I'm pretty sure as long as your not hiding something you would alow it to happen because that's the ONLY way they can catch a smart poacher elsewhere on the lake

[canadiantdi]

You not giving up your rights to help anyone do there job but I'm pretty sure as long as your not hiding something you would alow it to happen because that's the ONLY way they can catch a smart poacher elsewhere on the lake

If I have a right to not be searched, but I allow it anyways, what have I done then if I haven't given up the right?

Again, it's not my responsibility to give up my charter rights to make life easier on F&W. This is quite simple.

A smart poacher? What about smart murderers? They exist too. Should we allow the police to search us whenever they want for this reason? That is absurd!

[Bush]

I don't know the answer that well work for you I'm just trying to stick up for the fish

[canadiantdi]

I don't know the answer that well work for you I'm just trying to stick up for the fish

I hear ya. Conserving Canadas natural resources are definitely important, and it is important to have a good balance between our rights and the fishies rights.

[dragon]

I wonder what the phone call to the CO was?

hey I see a guy hiding fish. or were they extremely detailed. that's kinda the question....

I am assuming it was more than a "uhhh i think i saw a poacher" conversation but who knows

[dragon]

I find it funny that people still think a purse is sacred territory..

F&W only doing there job, maybe could have approached it better with some good questions first, ask the kid questions, they don't lie, they will tell you everything, what they are catching how many etc...with great pride....

do you have kids? asking my kids questions as part of an investigation runs me the wrong way.

I would also question the legality of conducting a search or making arrests on information provided by a child? I don't know for sure.

[Sneeze]

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety

Mr. Ben Franklin was a smart guy.

[Bigdad013]

I think there has to be more responsibility put on the reporter, with consequences to their claims. I would think if you are reporting someone with nothing to back it up, that reporter should be charged with leading officials into a false investigation and having someone innocent to become under arrest. Having a tip line where you can do it without giving your name or anything, gives them free access to put someone in a bad situation when not needed. If someone got ****ed at you at a boat launch, or maybe came to close to them fishing etc, `I'll get him, RAP speed dial'. Just to easy for jerks or misinformed people to do this.

Don't get me wrong, if you are breaking the law, poaching, whatever, you have made that choice, and you should be caught.

[Bigdad013]

do you have kids? asking my kids questions as part of an investigation runs me the wrong way.

I would also question the legality of conducting a search or making arrests on information provided by a child? I don't know for sure.

I do have kids and have been stopped while fishing. He asked how the fishing was, and my son(7) couldn't wait to brag about the fish he caught. Now if I was poaching, that would have been game over. Just a simple question by the CO, and got lots of info.
I think it to is a good learning experience for the kids as well and how to deal with officers and not to lie etc...

[horsetrader]

So by that logic, If I phone into the poilice that I just saw (for example) Horsetrader get shot in the chest by kokanee9, that information is just no more than "heresay" unless a police officer is the one to witness it...... Come on man.....

Man how come i'm always the one getting killed. ........lol

[huntsfurfish]

Ah, you still got six or seven lives left anyways.lol

[horsetrader]

Ah, you still got six or seven lives left anyways.lol

Think i'm down to 5.lol ..........Hey dose that mean your calling me a *****?



Oh that word don't work......... _ussy...

[huntsfurfish]

Would you believe a cool cat:scared::)lol

[horsetrader]

Would you believe a cool cat:scared::)lol

Fair enough LOLOLOLOL..