>>2323087Wrong. Wildlife officers do not have special permission to infringe on your constitutional rights.
Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This cannot be superseded by any state law. Here is an example of the reality of the law in my state, Florida.
Under certain circumstances, there are exceptions to warrant requirements. These may include, but are not limited to:
A. Searches incident to arrest (section 1.16).
B. Exigent circumstances (section 1.17).
C. Consent searches (section 1.18).
D. Vehicle searches (section 1.19).
E. Inventory searches (section 1.20).
F. Border Searches (section 1.21).
(source:
fws.gov/policy/445fw1.html#section15)
The extra-Constitutional authority meme comes from People v. Maikhio, a California Supreme Court Decision that SCOTUS denied cert (meaning the lower court's decision is not reviewed by the Court).
>At issue was whether a game warden, who reasonably believed that a person had recently been fishing or hunting, but lacked reasonable suspicion that the person had violated an applicable fish or game statute or regulation, could stop a vehicle in which the person was riding to demand that the person display all fish or game the person had caught or taken. The court held that when, as in this case, the vehicle stop was made reasonably close in time and location to the fishing or hunting activity, the encroachment upon an angler's or hunter's reasonable expectation of privacy resulting from a brief vehicle stop and demand was nonetheless rather modest, and no more intrusive than other actions by game wardens that have been upheld in past California cases.(
law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2011/s180289)
