Good points, guys.

Here's some more, Wes...

Game warden sees, or hears of, you using eggs in a closed area. He'd probably ask, and assuming you'd say you weren't using eggs, then he'd likely search you, your gear, and your boat, looking anywhere you could hide eggs. Finding them would not be proof that you were fishing illegally (not illegal to have eggs, just incredibly stupid), but combined with his other evidence that you were using eggs, and that you lied about having them, you'd be popped.

Also, anything illegal found during this search would be admissible to prosecute you for that additional crime, i.e., searching a small plastic box for eggs and finding pot.

If the only infraction that he has any evidence about is keeping a fish, then he can only look where a fish could be. Opening the film canister would lead to an arrest and hassle if it had pot in it, but the pot itself would probably be rendered inadmissible and the prosecutor would either not charge you or would drop the charges when it became clear that the warden was searching a film canister for a fish.

The important aspect of how these types of laws get interpreted is that the final word on interpretation comes from the Supreme Court. The case gets there when someone who has been searched, and busted, appeals it up. The court will always try to find a way to protect us from unreasonable searches, while allowing the cops to do their job effectively. I think the above rule does so very well.

To accept otherwise would lead to having your entire car searched when you are pulled over for running a stop sign, or having your pockets turned out for jaywalking. There just has to be a reasonable connection between the search and the reason for the search. The standard is quite lax, with a fellow fisherman's statement that you were fishing bait being sufficient evidence to search you for it.

It's not really a matter of what interpretation we choose to accept, or whether we choose to accept this kind of search while fishing, but not this kind of search while driving, or whatever.
It's a matter of what the legal doctrine truly is.

In your post above you noted that the warden must have "reason to believe" that the search will turn up evidence of a crime. That reason to believe is the evidence he has about a specific infraction you may have committed. That is the reasonable connection between the search and the reason for it.

Also, none of this has any impact on what the warden may ask you permission to do, and if you say yes, then anything can be searched. If you're legal, then I'd encourage everyone to be as cooperative as possible.

I promise, Wes, that you haven't done anything to offend me in the least. These types of conversations is why we should be on these BB's.

Fish on...

Todd