Cowlitzfisherman,

You are pretty much right on the money except the officer does not need to read you your rights” to make the arrest valid. The only time Miranda (which is what I believe you are referring to) comes into play is when your are IN CUSTODY, even for an unrelated charge (i.e. handcuffed or in jail) and if the officer wants to ask incriminating questions to use against you in court.

I arrested a lot of people based on my own personal investigation that I did not advise of their Miranda rights. Drunk drivers are the best example that comes to mind, because when the time came for me to handcuff the drunk I already asked all the questions I needed answered (and the poor drunk had more than likely sunk himself) so there were no additional questions to ask. Which leads to implied consent that Dogfish has referred to.

The legislature knows that suspects loose quite a few rights after being ARRESTED and that government needs a tool to work against law breakers so the came up with the implied consent law and implied consent is nothing more than you have implied that you are willing to submit to a breath test after being arrested for drunk driving. And you make this implication simply by driving. The penalties for refusal of the breath test are nothing more than an administrative suspension. A person commits no crime if he/she refuses the breath test. Or any questions of the officer for that matter. But I felt it made the case easier to prove to a jury when I had a refusal rather than an outright failure (having more than 0.08% blood alcohol), but that is a different story for another time. More to the point, I know of no “implied consent” pertaining to angling or hunting laws, at least here in Oregon. Again, it is not a citizens responsibility to prove that he/she is legal. Instead it is the government’s responsibility to prove that he/she isn’t. Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

And Dogfish,

I hope you don’t get pi$$ed at me, but any officer needs to have not probable cause to detain/stop you against your will. There have been numerous court cases (on the state AND federal level) that have said such. Absence of anything else, simply being on the water with rod in hand or in the field with rifle in hand is not enough to effect a stop, because there is no indication that you have done anything wrong.

As for inspection versus search. There is such a thing as an administrative inspection. Boiled down all that is is the government making sure you had what you needed to conduct your business reasonably safe and legal. And the penalties for refusal or failure of the inspection is the government withholding a permit or license or a fine. No jail time or fines for an individual. The business could be fined for not being in compliance, but the individual cannot nor is there a possibility of jail for him/her. I think we all have a handle on what a search is so I won’t touch in it any further.

In closing, it is not my intention to give instruction on how to skirt the law, but I would like to let people know about their rights.