Trending
The state Supreme Court in a divided ruling last week concluded that property owners who take steps to protect their privacy should be afforded greater protection against warrantless searches by game wardens.
The ruling came after a years-long dispute between game wardens and two hunting clubs in Indiana County and largely centers on whether Pennsylvania law differs from federal "open fields doctrine" indicating that outside areas do not have the same right to privacy as the interior of buildings.
Justice Kevin Brobson, who authored the opinion, noted that over the years, wardens have repeatedly entered the hunting clubs' property, and at one point, a game warden installed a trail camera on the property to try to establish probable cause to file charges alleging the club was illegally feeding elk. The trail camera was in place for more than two months, according to Brobson's opinion.
In finding in favor of the hunting clubs, the justices determined game wardens must obtain a warrant to search land if the owners put up fencing, no-trespassing signs and take other steps to demonstrate their interest in protecting their privacy.
The finding curtails search powers given to game wardens following a 2007 case in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of game wardens who cited a Wyoming County man after entering his property to investigate a tip that he had illegally used bait to attract a bear he killed on the first day of bear season.
In that decision, the court found that game wardens had the right to enter the hunter's property. In the 2007 case, the justices noted that a lower court had determined that "to rule otherwise would emasculate the enforcement of the Game Code on any privately owned realty, as one would only have to post 'no trespassing' signs to keep out the game wardens."
In the latest ruling though, the justices made a distinction between "truly open fields" and outside areas that the owners have taken steps to shield from public scrutiny.
"Truly open fields -- i.e., private land that is unposted and unbounded -- is fundamentally different in kind than private land conspicuously posted with 'no trespassing' signs and purple paint and/or bounded by fences, gates, and other structures," Brobson wrote. Under Pennsylvania law, land owners can use purple paint on fences and trees in the same way that "no trespassing" signs are employed.
"Government officials, therefore, must obtain a warrant based upon probable cause or satisfy one of the recognized exceptions to the warrant requirement before entering the private land of any landowner that has taken such steps," Brobson wrote.
Prior to last week's ruling, 90 percent of private property in Pennsylvania could have been considered "open fields" that could be subjected to warrantless searches, according to an analysis cited by the conservative think tank, The Commonwealth Foundation.
The Sportsman's Alliance, a national hunting group, said the Pennsylvania court decision mirrors rulings in other states as courts move to bolster privacy rights against warrantless searches.
In Tennessee, an appellate court restricted the use of warrantless searches by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, and in 2018, the Vermont Supreme Court issued a similar finding.