Buck Hollow Sporting Goods - click or touch to visit their website Midwest Habitat Company

HF 2193 Search warrants

Fishbonker

Fishbonker

Life Member
This bill defines when search warrants need to be obtained by Conservation Officers.

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=86&ba=hf2193

I'm missing something. On the face of this and all the other proposed bills in regards to DNR enforcement why now? What has changed? One at a time these bills make great sense but now that there are so many changes being proposed is there something going on behind the scenes that I'm not seeing?

My knee jerk reaction is that they are in response to the Franz case. I find it fascinating that one case can have such far reaching effects. The legacy of this case regardless of innocence or guilt will effect how deer are hunted and game laws are enforced forever.
 
I never understood why DNR offices around the nation could operate on private property without probable cause being articulated in an affidavit, and application for search warrant. They are simply proposing they be held to the common standard all leo's must comply with when searching and seizing under the 4th amendment. I know, I know the bad guys might move the stuff before the officers get the warrant, but that is a hurdle all officers and agents face every day while investigating alleged violations of law.
 
Last edited:
Jdubs said:
I never understood why DNR offices around the nation could operate on private property without probable cause being articulated in an affidavit, and application for search warrant. They are simply being held to the common standard all leo's must comply with when searching and seizing under the 4th amendment. I know, I know the bad guys might move the stuff before the officers get the warrant, but that is a hurdle all officers and agents face every day while investigating alleged violations of law.
Click to expand...

I was very surprised to learn a while ago that DNR officers were not similarly constrained by the same search and seizure rules that other LEO's were. While I want the DNR to be able to get the bad guys, I am also of the opinion that they should follow the same guidelines that other LEO's do too.

I don't know for sure Bonker, but I suspect you are right in that the flurry of bills this year is an offshoot of the Franz case.
 
If you read some court decisions it is easier to search a house without a warrant for an illegally taken deer than for a murdered human.
 
I'm not sure how I feel on this one I guess I didn't know they could go with out a warrant. It was just a few days ago a friend came to the shop and said several years ago he needed a bobcat tagged. Long story short the officer beat him home and walked into his house and went to the freezer and tagged it. The officer called him and said he had it tagged. When he got home sure enough it was tagged...... Kinda creepy IMO
 
Passed out of subcommittee and is eligible for full committee debate. I don't think this bill has changes.

I'm still struggling with this one. Should poachers have less protection, under the law, than any other criminal? I say yes keep things as they are but it is an indefensible position.
 
Last edited:
I'm not convinced either way where I stand on this one but leaning towards supporting this bill.

Regardless, thank you for all the updates. It's easier than navigating through them in the IBA emails I get.
 
DannyBoy said:
It's easier than navigating through them in the IBA emails I get.
Click to expand...

That is true, but it is the only system we (IBA) have.

There are so many bills I had to change the way I do things so I've made a few mistakes tonight but I'm correcting them. I hope.
 
The following amendment was passed :

H-8009

Amend House File 2193 as follows:
1. Page 1, by striking lines 1 through 14.
2. By striking page 1, line 35, through page 2, line 12.
3. By renumbering as necessary.

______________________________
COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY

BALTIMORE of Boone, Chairperson

To this bill:

HF 2193 (LSB 5726YH (5) 86)

HOUSE FILE 2193

BY HEARTSILL, R. TAYLOR, GASSMAN, HOLT, KLEIN, MOMMSEN, KAUFMANN, WATTS, T. MOORE, BAUDLER, BAXTER, SALMON, SHEETS, and BRANHAGEN

A BILL FOR​


An Act requiring search warrants for certain activities under the jurisdiction of the natural resource commission.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF IOWA:

Section 1. Section 481A.12, Code 2016, is amended to read as follows:
481A.12 Seizure of wildlife taken or handled illegally.
The director or any peace officer shall seize with or withoutpursuant to a search warrant and take possession of, or direct the disposal of, any fish, furs, birds, or animals, or mussels, clams, or frogs, which have been caught, taken, or killed at a time, in a manner, or for a purpose, or had in possession or under control, or offered for shipment, or illegally transported in the state or to a point beyond its borders, contrary to the Code. All fish, furs, birds, or animals, or mussels, clams, or frogs seized under this section mayshall be relinquished to a representative of the commission or disposed ofand kept as provided in section 481A.13.
Sec. 2. NEW SECTION. 481A.35A Enforcement —— search warrant required —— exception.
1. A peace officer shall not enter onto private property, without the permission of the owner or occupant of the property, for the purposes of investigating a violation of or enforcing a provision of this chapter or any other law under the authority of the natural resource commission without first making an application under oath or affirmation to the district court of the county in which the property is located for the issuance of a search warrant to search that property. However, a peace officer may enter onto private property without permission or a search warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that illegal activity is occurring or has occurred on the property based on the officer’s own first-hand observations that are made from a location at which the officer is legally authorized to be.
2. The court may issue a search warrant, after examination of the applicant and any witnesses, if the court is satisfied that there is probable cause to believe the existence of the allegations in the application.
Sec. 3. Section 483A.32, Code 2016, is amended to read as follows:
483A.32 Public nuisance.
Any device, contrivance, or material used to violate a rule adopted by the commission, or any other provision of this chapter or chapter 481A, 481B, 482, 484A, or 484B, is a public nuisance and may be condemned by the state. The director, the director’s officers, or any peace officer, shall seize the devices, contrivances, or materials used as a public nuisance, without warrant or processpursuant to a search warrant, and deliver them to a magistrate having jurisdiction. An automobile shall not be construed to be a public nuisance under this section.
EXPLANATION
The inclusion of this explanation does not constitute agreement with
the explanation’s substance by the members of the general assembly.​
This bill provides that when the director of the department of natural resources or the director’s officers or any peace officer seizes wildlife possessed or taken illegally, or seizes property used to violate a provision of the natural resources laws relating to wildlife, the director or officer must conduct that seizure pursuant to a search warrant. Currently, such seizure may be accomplished without obtaining a search warrant.
The bill also provides that a peace officer shall not enter onto private property, without the permission of the owner or occupant of the property, for the purposes of investigating a violation of or enforcing the wildlife laws arising under Code chapter 481A or any other law under the authority of the natural resource commission, without first making an application to the district court of the county where the property is located for the issuance of a search warrant to search that property. However, a peace officer may enter onto private property without permission or a search warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that illegal activity is occurring on that property based on the officer’s own first-hand observations that are made from a location at which the officer is legally authorized to be.

Or try this link where the amendment and bill are shown and it may be easier to scroll up and down.

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=86&ba=H8009

There is also a companion Senate bill:

https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ba=SF 2201&ga=86
 
Fishbonker said:
Passed out of subcommittee and is eligible for full committee debate. I don't think this bill has changes.

I'm still struggling with this one. Should poachers have less protection, under the law, than any other criminal? I say yes keep things as they are but it is an indefensible position.
Click to expand...

This bill has been explained to me in that CO's don't enjoy any more privileges for search than any other law enforcement agency. This bill would actually reduce the ability of COs to less than any other peace officer. As it was explained to me a under this bill a CO couldn't cross into private land to check a hunter for his license without a warrant or eyewitness to an infraction.

Even with the open fields doctrine, which is an interesting read, I think this bill would severely handicap the ability for the Conservation Officers to do their job.

Also germane to the discussion is "curtilage". This pertains to what isn't considered open fields and a search warrant is a must have unless the law enforcement agent is invited into the home or curtilage.

Take a look at lobbyist declarations. This bill is eligible for floor debate on the 24th.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom