Andy,

It's been awhile since we had a good debate! It's good that people can openly discuss their different point of views without getting bent out of shape at each other when they don't quite agree.

With that being said, I will reinstate what I believe would be the final line if a person took this issue to court. I also believe this issue specifically applies to the RCW's that you have quoted and may not apply to other situations. The RCW's that have been quoted in this thread apply to our fishing rights. Specifically (and for good reason) they have chosen to use the word "inspect". If our legislators had intended otherwise, they would have used the appropriate word. That word would have been "search". That's why our legal system calls it a "search warrant" and not an "inspection warrant" It's a lot more then just an inspection!

The two words have some similar meaning, but also have specific meanings when used in defining law. I am not one of those people that wave my fourth rights every time an officer wants to check or "inspect" my possessions. I have never taken one illegal drug; don't smoke dope, or any other stuff. I do like my cocktails at home, at night (not in my car). I don't even mind it if an officer pulls me over and gives me a sobriety test.

But that's where I draw the line! If he or any other officer wants to start going through my stuff on their "Easter egg hunt", thinking that if he looks hard enough that he will eventually find something, he better damn well know that he will see me in court! I know that some of them take a lot of crap from people, but a lot of that comes from the way they approach people.

I personally think that if a game warden wants to "inspect" my "equipment" it's OK, but when the "inspections" stops and he starts advancing his "inspection" into what now would clearly become a "search mod" the new rules starts and it becomes an all new game (and game rules). My golden rule is a simple one. No reason, No search! The reason may not even have to be a "good one" that he gives. That means that the officers must first make it perfectly clear and plain why is going past the "inspection" stage into the next stage, which is clearly a "searching" stage.

I will be the first one to agree; don't try to physically resist his action. That will get you no where quick (well maybe in jail). That's what our courts are for! Like you and others have already stated, be polite, but be firm. Ask the officer what is his reason is for the "search". He must give you a reason, and he knows it! The reason, if not valid, will come back and bite him in the court home. Build your case by the facts, and those facts will prevail.

Remember, the only thing that we have agreed to do was to allow the Fish and Game "employee" to check our fish, game and equipment. We did not agree to any "searches". Don't you think that it was a little strange that they used the word "employee" instead of the word "officer"? Does that mean that any WDFW "employee" (fish counter, clerk, etc.) has the right to check your "equipment, car, truck etc?


Andy, it's kind of like what happened on the "Wallace Gravel Pit" issue. When the officer overstepped his bounties, I filed a complaint to his superiors and that officer will not make that same mistake a second time. I didn't argue with him at the time, I just got even through our legal system!


That's my opinion on this issue.

Cowlitzfisherman

Is the taste of the bait worth the sting of the hook????

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: cowlitzfisherman ]