Trending
We're honestly a bit surprised that the state Supreme Court has overturned nearly 100 years of precedent by ruling Fourth Amendment protections apply to all private property no matter the distance away from a private home.
Previous case law had created what was known as the Open Fields Doctrine, which authorized searches of private property not immediately surrounding a private home. Game wardens used the rule, which was reaffirmed as recently as 2007 in Russo v. Commonwealth, a case in which the state Supreme Court held that the state Game Commission could enter open fields in order to enforce state hunting regulations like bag limits, hunting out of season and improper use of baits even if the land is posted with no trespassing signs.
State Supreme Court justices ruled unanimously in Punxsutawney Hunting Club v. Pennsylvania Game Commission that state government agents must obtain a warrant before entering privately owned land to enforce state regulations.
Game wardens do perform a valuable service. Enforcing hunting and fishing laws are one way the state manages the fish and wildlife population. If game wardens are limited in where they can go to enforce the law it will be up to hunters and anglers to self-police when on private property. We also hope the court's decision doesn't result in a patchwork of enforcement areas where state-owned land is heavily policed while private property has no enforcement whatsoever.
The court has ruled correctly, in our opinion, by affirming the rights of property owners. If a police officer needs to have a search warrant to enter a property to enforce criminal laws, it makes sense that a game warden would need a search warrant to enforce the state's hunting and fishing regulations that take place on private property.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the coming months as the Game Commission, hunters, anglers and property owners deal with a changing dynamic.