Pennsylvania court rules against gun clubs in private property case

[Bon]

 

 

CHRIS BENNETT

For Farm Journal

 

 

 

How much power does the government claim on private land?

“Unfettered,” according to a Commonwealth Court decision in a case pitting the Pennsylvania Game Commission against two private gun clubs.

On Sept. 29, a court ruled against two hunting clubs in their lawsuit accusing the Game Commission of private property rights violations. The Institute for Justice represents both clubs and will appeal.

In its ruling, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania noted the government’s absolute power to “roam private land without consent, warrants or probable cause.”

“Private land isn’t public property,” says institute attorney Josh Windham. “That might seem obvious. But all too many officials, at every level of government, disagree. They think they have a blank check to invade private property. We’ll see what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has to say about that.”

On Dec. 16, 2021, Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney hunting clubs sued the Game Commission after game wardens consistently entered club lands without permission or warrant, and secretly monitored club members, including photo collection via installation of a hidden game camera. The wardens’ behavior, the lawsuit asserted, was a direct violation of Pennsylvania’s state constitution, which explicitly protects “persons, houses, papers, and possessions.”

Most Americans assume law enforcement must obtain a warrant to enter or surveil private land, but for roughly a century, the Open Fields doctrine has allowed government officials, at state and federal levels, unqualified access to private land.

In its judgment Sept. 29, the Commonwealth Court detailed the alarming powers and “unfettered discretion” assumed by government via Open Fields:

“The facts of this case are not in dispute. The Hunting Clubs are member-owned hunting clubs that own thousands of acres of private land in Clearfield County. Members use the properties to hunt, vacation, and enjoy nature. To ensure their members’ privacy, the Hunting Clubs have posted their properties with no trespassing signs and have installed gates at all entrances to exclude nonmembers and intruders. However, the Entry Statutes empower game wardens with unfettered discretion to enter upon and roam private land without consent, warrants, or probable cause.”

In ruling against the two hunting clubs, the Commonwealth Court was bound by precedent set in Pennsylvania v. Russo (2007), when the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said “possessions” do not include private land.

The Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney lawsuit now moves to appeal. The hunting clubs, represented by Institute for Justice, will seek to overturn the Russo decision, and ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to address a pressing question: Does the state constitution protect citizens from warrantless searches on private land?

“Russo was wrongly decided and we’re eager to show the Pennsylvania Supreme Court why,” Windham says. “The Open Fields doctrine destroys the point of having private land. It treats fences, gates, posted signs and everything else you might do to keep your land private, as irrelevant.

“And, in turn, it gives the government unfettered power to enter your land, roam around, spy on you, take photos, record videos, take soil samples, ride around in bikes, trucks even horses, all without a warrant. We’re supposed to think that’s constitutional?”

Presently, six states place state constitutional authority above the Open Fields doctrine: Mississippi, Montana, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Washington.

The Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney arguments before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should take place in 2024, with a decision likely in 2025. Institute for Justice is currently litigating similar Open Fields cases in Virginia and Tennessee about warrantless intrusions on private land.

In an Oct. 2 Institute release, Frank Stockdale, president of the Punxsutawney Hunting Club, summarized the private land ownership case: “The government has no right to spy on us on our own land without cause. This entire endeavor has been outrageous and needs to end now.”

Republished with the permission of Farm Journal.

First Published December 25, 2023, 5:30am

[des]

I feel if they were not hiding something they wouldn’t be fighting. Too much land being bought up and closed for private hunting. 

[Lizard]

The land being bought is all legal. If you want some go buy it!! There isn't anything stating the GC charged anyone with any crime, seems like they were being nosey. 

[Polo]

I agree with Lizard.    And unless they have a warrant and probable cause, they best stay off someone's property.  I think it is good to buy property to enjoy the outdoors.  I myself have done this.  Foreign countries have purchased large amounts of our land out west and elsewhere.  Best for Americans to buy as much of it up as we can to safe guard our freedoms.

[Petee]

Are these lands purchased or leased?

[momtothree]

8 hours ago, des said:

I feel if they were not hiding something they wouldn’t be fighting. Too much land being bought up and closed for private hunting. 

I disagree.  A good way to increase land for hunting and recreation is to buy in groups. Everyone has a right to do so. You have much more buying power than one person alone.  Nothing has to be shady about it. I understand and respect their reasons.  They may hunt there but they also take their families there to camp.  There is no reason for constant, intrusive surveillance, especially in the off season. 

We bought land for private use by our family for hunting and recreation.  We camp there 10 months a year and hunt 2 months. It is scary to think that they can come in and start videotaping us and our children without us knowing.   We follow all hunting laws, I have no concern about that.  I do however value my privacy on my own private property. 

Example: you buy a hot tub and put it in your back yard in the country.  You have no neighbors.  You like to enjoy the hot tub naked.  The game commission decides to start doing video surveillance without you knowing and the area includes your hot tub.  Is this right?   Should this be allowed?  

[Petee]

2 hours ago, momtothree said:

I disagree.  A good way to increase land for hunting and recreation is to buy in groups. Everyone has a right to do so. You have much more buying power than one person alone.  Nothing has to be shady about it. I understand and respect their reasons.  They may hunt there but they also take their families there to camp.  There is no reason for constant, intrusive surveillance, especially in the off season. 

We bought land for private use by our family for hunting and recreation.  We camp there 10 months a year and hunt 2 months. It is scary to think that they can come in and start videotaping us and our children without us knowing.   We follow all hunting laws, I have no concern about that.  I do however value my privacy on my own private property. 

Example: you buy a hot tub and put it in your back yard in the country.  You have no neighbors.  You like to enjoy the hot tub naked.  The game commission decides to start doing video surveillance without you knowing and the area includes your hot tub.  Is this right?   Should this be allowed?  

On the other hand, the land could be being used for something illegal.  There has to be an agreeable way for both sides to deal with this.

[Polo]

15 hours ago, Petee said:

Are these lands purchased or leased?

The land the foreigners are buying up is purchased.  Lots of farmland, too.  China is involved.

[fedup]

11 hours ago, Petee said:

On the other hand, the land could be being used for something illegal.  There has to be an agreeable way for both sides to deal with this.

There is and it's already a legal part of law enforcement. 

[Ignatius]

Both clubs are privately owned, however, the issue is the game/animals are in public domain and not the club’s property.

[Bon]

30 minutes ago, Ignatius said:

Both clubs are privately owned, however, the issue is the game/animals are in public domain and not the club’s property.

So, am I understanding this right.. the PGC has to go through private property to get to the public property?? The hunting clubs do not want to grant permission to the PGC for some reason.

Not directed to you Ignatius 😉

i, personally, would not want to piss off the PGC to much. I’ve done enough of that by naming the bears & elk that have appeared in our yard. 😁 They have more power then the PSP do. My family has always let them go through their property to get them to where they are needed.

[WMJ77]

then why are/should st game lands access roads be gated and locked? they open them up for deer and bear season but why gate and lock them at all.....to keep people out?....kinda sounds like private property to me???

[Polo]

1 hour ago, WMJ77 said:

then why are/should st game lands access roads be gated and locked? they open them up for deer and bear season but why gate and lock them at all.....to keep people out?....kinda sounds like private property to me???

They probably don't want people riding through there in buggies and ATV's year round.  Just my guess.

[Ignatius]

6 hours ago, Bon said:

So, am I understanding this right.. the PGC has to go through private property to get to the public property?? The hunting clubs do not want to grant permission to the PGC for some reason.

Not directed to you Ignatius 😉

i, personally, would not want to piss off the PGC to much. I’ve done enough of that by naming the bears & elk that have appeared in our yard. 😁 They have more power then the PSP do. My family has always let them go through their property to get them to where they are needed.

The properties are bordered by McGeorge Road, Laurel Run Road and probably several other.  Both clubs are privately owned.  The game animals are not, and club members are subject to the same game laws as all others are.

If one were to hunt on state grounds that are adjacent to these clubs and wound an animal, club members would not permit you to try to retrieve said animal.  In the not-too-distant past, the larger club actually patrolled their borders on horseback.  

[momtothree]

8 hours ago, Bon said:

So, am I understanding this right.. the PGC has to go through private property to get to the public property?? The hunting clubs do not want to grant permission to the PGC for some reason.

Not directed to you Ignatius 😉

i, personally, would not want to piss off the PGC to much. I’ve done enough of that by naming the bears & elk that have appeared in our yard. 😁 They have more power then the PSP do. My family has always let them go through their property to get them to where they are needed.

I've been following this case and I really believe the issue is the video surveillance of the dwelling.  The camp used by members and their wives, children, grandchildren. . .  would you find this a violation of your family's privacy?  I certainly do.   Would you want the GC monitoring the weekend getaway you take with your spouse? I doubt it. 

You may not currently own land that this has an effect on, but someday you might so I would be careful in what you support. 

 

[WMJ77]

5 hours ago, Polo said:

They probably don't want people riding through there in buggies and ATV's year round.  Just my guess.

thats my point...isnt that what priv prop/ no trespassing signs are trying to do...but game comm can walk/ride bike or horse back your property for no reason

[buschpounder]

So while a Game Commission officer may, under the Open Fields Doctrine, go onto some private property, it does not give them carte blanch to go onto all of your private property. Where they can go without probable cause depends on how the court defines curtilage. Curtilage is generally considered to be your home and the area of land attached; however, what is or is not curtilage is often determined on a case by case basis. In the Russo case, a bait pile was found by the Game Commission officers approximately 90 feet from Russo’s cabin. The court found that the area where the bait pile was found was not considered curtilage in that case.

 

[DS58]

The Game Commission has to have its wings clipped and soon (reminds me of the brown shirts). Warrantless searches with no probable cause (unless there is something we don't know).  Just because someone buys up land, posts it and hunts on it doesn't make it a crime.  Kinda makes me think about someone else that buys up land and restricts its usage...oh that's right its the game commission

 

[Bon]

23 hours ago, Ignatius said:

The properties are bordered by McGeorge Road, Laurel Run Road and probably several other.  Both clubs are privately owned.  The game animals are not, and club members are subject to the same game laws as all others are.

I know where the 2 huntin clubs are. 😉 

I was by your place this past fall. I waved. I took our Pom out to Shaggers, she was scared of the Eagles & Osprey. 😂🤣😂