Can Texas Rangers and Parks & Wildlife enter W/O a Warre

[Right2Carry]

§ 12.114. DRIVER'S LICENSE OR PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
CERTIFICATE REQUIRED. (a) A person who is 17 years of age or older
and who has a license or permit issued under this code or who is
engaging in an activity that requires a license or permit shall have
a driver's license or personal identification certificate in the
person's immediate possession.
(b) If the person is a resident as defined by Subdivision
(1) of Section 42.001 of this code, "driver's license" and
"personal identification certificate" have the meanings assigned
by Chapter 521, Transportation Code.
(c) If the person is a nonresident as defined by Section
42.001, "driver's license" and "personal identification
certificate" mean those documents that are similar to those defined
in Subsection (b) and that are issued by the agency in the state or
country of which the person is a resident that is authorized to
issue driver's licenses or personal identification certificates.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 267, art. 1, § 32, eff. Sept.
1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.232,
eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1256, § 10, eff.
Sept. 1, 1997.


§ 12.115. OFFENSE. (a) A person who is arrested for an
alleged violation of this code or a proclamation or regulation
adopted under this code commits an offense if the person:
(1) does not have in his immediate possession a
driver's license or personal identification certificate required
by Section 12.114 of this code; or
(2) fails or refuses to display the driver's license or
personal identification certificate required by Section 12.114 of
this code when requested to do so by any peace officer, game warden,
magistrate, or officer of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C Parks and
Wildlife Code misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 267, art. 1, § 32, eff. Sept.
1, 1985.

[Greybeard]

Quote: "Any thoughts or opinions on this?"

Yeah, it's more got more length and legal-speak than I can wade through, especially this time of day.

[srothstein]

http://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/1982/sg820050.txt

I found this but since I am not a lawyer I was wondering what the outcome was. It is very interesting reading but I have no knowledge of the legal speak. Any thoughts or opinions on this?

It is a very interesting drug case from 1982. The case summary is that two Texas game wardens saw a tractor trailer driving with no lights on on a ranch, and stopped it when it entered a public road (even though it turned its lights on as it entered the road. The driver was very nervous and could not answer their questions. They stated they were going to search the truck and trailer and the driver said to go ahead. During the search they found marijuana and lots of it. They then stopped a second truck (pickup this time) and found a gun and marijuana. As part of the trial, the defendants claimed the search was illegal since the Game Warden did not have authority to arrest for anything off the premises of a state park except game violations.

Charges were filed in federal court. The trial court said bull on the illegal arrest and search and convicted, the Fifth Circuit said they were correct, the prosecution appealed to SCOTUS. As far as I can tell, SCOTUS declined to hear the case.

The end result of this is case law for this area, but it is now an irrelevant case law. There was a state trial on the authority of Game Wardens which ended up at the Court of Criminal Appeals, with a final decision that they did have the authority to arrest for traffic state wide, but not other offenses. This is what the Fifth Circuit based its decision to suppress on. It is now irrelevant because the Parks and Wildlife Code has been amended to specifically state that Game Wardens have the exact same authority as any other peace officer within the confines of the state.

If I were the court, based on this summary, I would have suppressed for different reasons. First, the stop is now illegal. At the time, it might have been legal to stop for reasonable suspicion, but not any longer. The Kurtz decision in 2004 says that a traffic stop is an arrest. That means we now have to have probable cause to stop the vehicle. Of course, we might still be able to get away with reasonable suspicion IF it is well articulated that it was not part of the Transportation Code (in other words, the lights being off cannot be included since it is not required in the law and they specifically are described as complying with the law).

Other than that, it was an illegal search under all descriptions I know. The game warden suspected drugs, not game violations. This rules out the possibility of using the debatable clause in the PWC that I previously mentioned. Without that, you need probable cause or consent to search. Note that in this case, the record says the game warden stated he was going to search (as a statement of fact) and the suspect said to go ahead. This is not consent since the statement was made of intent instead of as a question requesting permission. But since the defense did not raise that issue, it cannot be considered by any ethical court. It did not matter in this case, but it might in the future.

And in any other sense, this case is no longer anythign to consider, since all of the laws have changed since then.

[Right2Carry]

Again I am not a lawyer so I just found the case and was wondering what the outcome was. Since it was related to game wardens I thought it was an interesting case.

[txinvestigator]

§ 12.114. DRIVER'S LICENSE OR PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
CERTIFICATE REQUIRED. (a) A person who is 17 years of age or older
and who has a license or permit issued under this code or who is
engaging in an activity that requires a license or permit shall have
a driver's license or personal identification certificate in the
person's immediate possession.
(b) If the person is a resident as defined by Subdivision
(1) of Section 42.001 of this code, "driver's license" and
"personal identification certificate" have the meanings assigned
by Chapter 521, Transportation Code.
(c) If the person is a nonresident as defined by Section
42.001, "driver's license" and "personal identification
certificate" mean those documents that are similar to those defined
in Subsection (b) and that are issued by the agency in the state or
country of which the person is a resident that is authorized to
issue driver's licenses or personal identification certificates.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 267, art. 1, § 32, eff. Sept.
1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.232,
eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1256, § 10, eff.
Sept. 1, 1997.


§ 12.115. OFFENSE. (a) A person who is arrested for an
alleged violation of this code or a proclamation or regulation
adopted under this code commits an offense if the person:
(1) does not have in his immediate possession a
driver's license or personal identification certificate required
by Section 12.114 of this code; or
(2) fails or refuses to display the driver's license or
personal identification certificate required by Section 12.114 of
this code when requested to do so by any peace officer, game warden,
magistrate, or officer of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C Parks and
Wildlife Code misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 267, art. 1, § 32, eff. Sept.
1, 1985.

In what code did you find that? Texas has many "codes".

EDIT: OK it is from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. Yeah, you have to carry a TDL or TID if you are engaging in a licensed activity like hunting or fishing. Thats so it can be confirmed that the hunting or fishing license actually belongs to the person displaying it.

[KBCraig]

Other than that, it was an illegal search under all descriptions I know. The game warden suspected drugs, not game violations.

And they were apparently there specifically to watch for drug trafficking, not game violations.

The back-and-forth on subsequent rulings and changes to relevant law is all rather head-spinning.

[Right2Carry]

§ 12.114. DRIVER'S LICENSE OR PERSONAL IDENTIFICATION
CERTIFICATE REQUIRED. (a) A person who is 17 years of age or older
and who has a license or permit issued under this code or who is
engaging in an activity that requires a license or permit shall have
a driver's license or personal identification certificate in the
person's immediate possession.
(b) If the person is a resident as defined by Subdivision
(1) of Section 42.001 of this code, "driver's license" and
"personal identification certificate" have the meanings assigned
by Chapter 521, Transportation Code.
(c) If the person is a nonresident as defined by Section
42.001, "driver's license" and "personal identification
certificate" mean those documents that are similar to those defined
in Subsection (b) and that are issued by the agency in the state or
country of which the person is a resident that is authorized to
issue driver's licenses or personal identification certificates.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 267, art. 1, § 32, eff. Sept.
1, 1985. Amended by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.232,
eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 1256, § 10, eff.
Sept. 1, 1997.


§ 12.115. OFFENSE. (a) A person who is arrested for an
alleged violation of this code or a proclamation or regulation
adopted under this code commits an offense if the person:
(1) does not have in his immediate possession a
driver's license or personal identification certificate required
by Section 12.114 of this code; or
(2) fails or refuses to display the driver's license or
personal identification certificate required by Section 12.114 of
this code when requested to do so by any peace officer, game warden,
magistrate, or officer of a court of competent jurisdiction.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class C Parks and
Wildlife Code misdemeanor.

Added by Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 267, art. 1, § 32, eff. Sept.
1, 1985.

In what code did you find that? Texas has many "codes".

EDIT: OK it is from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code. Yeah, you have to carry a TDL or TID if you are engaging in a licensed activity like hunting or fishing. Thats so it can be confirmed that the hunting or fishing license actually belongs to the person displaying it.

Sorry I just assumed since we were talking about game wardens that it would be asssumed it was from the TPWD Code. I know I should have posted a link. My apoligies.

[Right2Carry]

Other than that, it was an illegal search under all descriptions I know. The game warden suspected drugs, not game violations.

And they were apparently there specifically to watch for drug trafficking, not game violations.

The back-and-forth on subsequent rulings and changes to relevant law is all rather head-spinning.

I just thought that Immediate possesion was very relevant. I am guessing if you tell him your DL is back in your truck or at the campsite that you would be in a world of hurt.

[JohnTheHead]

A review of search and seizure laws applicable to this state still fresh in my mind, I would like to point out a few places helpful in answering the original question.

Firstly, "law enforcement officers commissioned by the Parks and
Wildlife Commission" and "rangers and officers commissioned by the Public Safety Commission and the Director of the Department of Public Safety" are both included under Article 2.12 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, which is titled "Who are peace officers".

That having been said, a peace officer may arrest (which includes issuing a citation) without warrant for any offense committed in their presence or within their view.

To simply scratch the surface, this is somewhat limiting on the powers of all peace officers, Game Wardens included. Various other sections of the code further dictate that probable cause is required to obtain a search warrant, et cetera, exigent circumstances notwithstanding.

While the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code contains within it "criminal" statutes, it is important to note that crimes are essentially tried under the CCP.

Given my knowlege of the CCP no peace officer, including game wardens, has the inherant privelege to tresspass in the conduct of a search. The TPWC seems to relax this a bit in the case of game violations, but it is important to note the things at work here. Because of this relaxing of liberties, our liberties in a way have been further codified. In a previous post it was mentioned that a game warden could not divulge what he sees in said search that does not relate to the TPWC. Violations of the penal code, health and safety code, et cetera must be overlooked by these officers when their justification for their search is merely the enforcement of the TWPC.

If said officers were to divulge to another agency the things he has seen, that information would fall under the "Fruit of the Poisenous Tree" doctrine. Any information further obtained as a result of the game warden transmitting it to another peace officer would be inadmissable in court.

To get a little closer to the original question, it is arguable that a homeowner would have the justification to use deadly force to prevent imminant harm to the homeowner caused by a peace officer, Chapter 9 of the Penal Code dictates that, in essence, unless a peace officer, before an individual provides any resistance, uses unlawful excessive force on said individual, the individual does not have justification to use force on the peace officer.

If a peace officer kicks in my door right now, having identified himself as a peace officer, I do not quite have the right to use deadly force against him until I can clearly articulate that he is committing some actual offense that would justify deadly force.

This can be a fine line with the home-invasion burglaries being committed by individuals posing as peace officers. It is important to be sure of who you are dealing with.

I am not saying that you should roll over every time a crooked/stupid cop comes around. On the contrary. I am simply trying to point out that discretion is the better part of valor...

I am often asked questions during the use of force portion of my classes about whether or not "I can shoot someone for stealing my lawnmower in the middle of the night". Certainly, you can, but the most important question that begs an answer is always, "SHOULD I shoot someone?"

The law is written in black and white, but it is practiced in shades of gray. Also, the law is a basic guide for the morals of society. It provides penalties for forbidden conduct. The law in and of itself cannot be the sole guide, the only litmus, for what is right and just.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

Cheers!
-Head