FWC Drones

[FUTCHCAIRO]

I SAW ONE OF THESE DRONES ABOUT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, I HAD RUN OUT OF GAS ON THE TRACTOR AND WAS STANDING THERE TRYING TO TRANSFERE TO THE OTHER TANK WHEN I HEARD A DIFFERENT SOUND, I FINALLY SPOTTED THE DRONE, YA CAN HARDLY HEARD THEM THEY ARE SO QUITE. IT WAS ABOUT 1200 FT. UP, DIDN'T SEEM TO BE INTERESTED IN ME BUT JUST FLEW OVER WHERE I WAS. THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME I HAD SEEN ONE, HAVENT SEEN ANYMORE SINCE THEN, THEY ARE PROBABLY FLYING OVER TO CHECK AND SEE IF I WAS GROWING ANY POT.
PA
SEMPER FI

[guthooked]

Well, are growing any pot?

[DEMON]

Using dogs for searches is problematic for FWC too. As a recreational fisherman, law enforcement still needs probable cause or consent to conduct a warrantless search of a vessel and it's contents. The dog may circle the outside of the boat, but he can not rummage through the boat. Furthermore, the dog would have to be able to tell the difference between legal fish and illegal fish. (It is quite possible the dogs can distinguish between species)Always keep in mind that when an officer asks if he or she can look in your cooler or livewell, you can say no. There is a reason they are asking for permission. They have to have probable cause to believe you have harvested illegal fish. Once you provide them your fishing license and boat registration (something they have an absolute right to stop you and ask for), simply having fishing poles and a cooler on board is not enough. Furthermore, saying no is not sufficient grounds for probable cause either.

In no way am I advocating the harvesting of illegal fish, I just like privacy. If anyone wants to better understand their rights and what is required for an officer to conduct a search, do the research (start with Carroll v. United States and follow the trail) or simply look at Florida law

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/STATUTES/ind ... 9.334.html

Even when my cooler is empty, I still refuse to consent to a search. I am just confrontational that way. I am, however, always as polite as I can possibly be.

Not true. Boats are different from cars. Whether it is FWC, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, etc. they do not need a warrant to search. The Supreme Court has given them authority under safety checks or immigration checks to search your vessel (exception to cabin sleeping areas) and even then the CG can check the cabin area if you have toilet facilities. Just by having fishing gear on the boat FWC can search wherever they want to check for violations. You can say no, but they don't need your permission.

[Fishing_Ninja]

The places you can hide a person and can hide a fish are two very different places. Simply read the statute.

[DEMON]

The places you can hide a person and can hide a fish are two very different places. Simply read the statute.

The authority is not in the Statute. The authority has come down thru court rulings incl. the Supreme Court.

[Fishing_Ninja]

The places you can hide a person and can hide a fish are two very different places. Simply read the statute.

The authority is not in the Statute. The authority has come down thru court rulings incl. the Supreme Court.

Not trying to be a jerk, but can you provide me with a case that supports your conclusion. I have been scouring Westlaw looking for a case that says the mere presence of fishing gears provides probable cause. Havent found anything yet. I have been wrong before, so I could be wrong again. But so far, I haven't found a single case saying FWC can search for illegally harvested fish without a warrant solely because you have fishing equipment on board.

[DEMON]

No offense here. Just having a discussion. I'm not an attorney. This discussion has come up a hundred times over the years on different forums and discussions. I did a little research a while back and talked to an attorney friend of mine 'cause I don't think they have the right to search without cause myself. I've also discussed this subject with a very good friend of mine who is also an FWC supervisor. He is very much in the know about what they can & can't do & still make a case. All I can tell you is what I've garnered over the years and that is that case precedents have given them the authority to search without warrant. They do it everyday and make cases.

[onefishtwofish]

379.334 Search and seizure authorized and limited.—The Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and its conservation officers shall have authority when they have reasonable and probable cause to believe that the provisions of this chapter have been violated, to board any vessel, boat, or vehicle or to enter any fishhouse or warehouse or other building, exclusive of residence, in which game, hides, fur-bearing animals, fish, or fish nets are kept and to search for and seize any such game, hides, fur-bearing animals, fish, or fish nets had or held therein in violation of law. Provided, however, that no search without warrant shall be made under any of the provisions of this chapter, unless the officer making such search has such information from a reliable source as would lead a prudent and cautious person to believe that some provision of this chapter is being violated.

The Florida Statute. I am making no argument for what it means, just quickly found it on the web for discussion.

[DEMON]

I think this is the one they use: FS 370.021 8 a&b http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/ind ... eYear=1999

(8) POWERS OF OFFICERS.--
(a) Law enforcement officers of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission are constituted law enforcement officers of this state with full power to investigate and arrest for any violation of the laws of this state and the rules and regulations of the commission under their jurisdiction. The general laws applicable to arrests by peace officers of this state shall also be applicable to law enforcement officers of the commission. Such law enforcement officers may enter upon any land or waters of the state for performance of their lawful duties and may take with them any necessary equipment, and such entry will not constitute a trespass. It is lawful for any boat, motor vehicle, or aircraft owned or chartered by the commission or its agents or employees to land on and depart from any of the beaches or waters of the state. Such law enforcement officers have the authority, without warrant, to board, inspect, and search any boat, fishing appliance, storage or processing plant, fishhouse, spongehouse, oysterhouse, or other warehouse, building, or vehicle engaged in transporting or storing any fish or fishery products. Such authority to search and inspect without a search warrant is limited to those cases in which such law enforcement officers have reason to believe that fish or any saltwater products are taken or kept for sale, barter, transportation, or other purposes in violation of laws or rules promulgated under this law. Any such law enforcement officer may at any time seize or take possession of any saltwater products or contraband which have been unlawfully caught, taken, or processed or which are unlawfully possessed or transported in violation of any of the laws of this state or any rule or regulation of the commission. Such law enforcement officers may arrest any person in the act of violating any of the provisions of this law, the rules or regulations of the commission, or any of the laws of this state. It is hereby declared unlawful for any person to resist such arrest or in any manner interfere, either by abetting or assisting such resistance or otherwise interfering, with any such law enforcement officer while engaged in the performance of the duties imposed upon him or her by law or regulation of the commission.
(b) The Legislature finds that the checking and inspection of saltwater products aboard vessels is critical to good fishery management and conservation and that, because almost all saltwater products are either iced or cooled in closed areas or containers, the enforcement of seasons, size limits, and bag limits can only be effective when inspection of saltwater products so stored is immediate and routine. Therefore, in addition to the authority granted in paragraph (a), a law enforcement officer of the commission who has probable cause to believe that the vessel has been used for fishing prior to the inspection shall have full authority to open and inspect all containers or areas where saltwater products are normally kept aboard vessels while such vessels are on the water, such as refrigerated or iced locations, coolers, fish boxes, and bait wells, but specifically excluding such containers that are located in sleeping or living areas of the vessel.

It's section (b) where they get you for the search if you have any gear on the boat at all. And that could be anything that could possibly be used to fish with and that could be the smallest thing such as a discarded hook, piece of a jig, etc. You get the picture. It's up to the officer to decide if there is something on your vessel that was used for fishing.

[Fishing_Ninja]

I appreciate you finding the above language. I agree that the legislature has granted law enforcement the ability to search coolers. I have my doubts whether that statute is truly constitutional (that is a long and unnecessary conversation), but I agree that it appears to be the law of the land. When I have some more spare time, I will dig into a bit more. I am still not sure why FWC would bother with drones or dogs if probable cause is not needed. They could simply sit at launch sites and passes and thoroughly inspect every boat before it is taken out of the water. Anyways, glad I learned something new today.

[DEMON]

I agree, I think it is unconstitutional as well but I also see that it would be impossible for FWC to enforce fishing regs if they had to get a warrant every time they stopped a boat. I don't have a problem with the dogs but I do have a problem with the drones. We just shouldn't be subjected to constant survelliance by our own Govt.

[Atticus]

Maybe I'm missing something here...

Session law: 2013-33
Bill no.: CSSB 92
Summary: Outlawing the use of drones by
law enforcement, except (1) "to counter a high risk of
terrorist attack;" (2) upon the issuance of a warrant;
or (3) the police have reasonable suspicion that swift
action is needed to prevent imminent danger to life
or property.
Effective date: 7/1/2013

[captkeyser]

I came across a USAF drone about 65miles off of St. Vincent last Summer. While headed in after a wonderful day of fishing I noticed what appeared to be the tail fin of a plane off in the distance. My first thought was it was a downed Cessna and that people may still be in the cabin (dead or alive). As we approached it became very clear what it was. We successfully managed to pull two decent Triple Tail from underneath it as we were approaching. We took down the coordinates (we were out of cell range and couldn't get a signal on the radio) and wrote down the telephone number on the side of the drone.

We spoke with the Airforce and they were at a loss. Everything was very secretive and they asked me if I would be willing to hop on a vessel with them the following morning to see if I could assist in a search. I explained that I wouldn't be much help as I had already given the coordinates.

Not sure if they ended up finding it.

I sent Bman some pics if he is kind enough to post. It was a pretty surreal scene.

This was not an FWC drone, but thought folks would like to check it out. Bman, use your judgment with the pics. I don't need to go missing.

[milto]

Here you go brother!!


keyser drone 2 by sugarfoot095, on Flickr


keyser drone by sugarfoot095, on Flickr

[mjsigns]

WOW... If it been me, I would have tried to tie a rope around in and pull it behind the boat