Conservation Officers: What is their authority to conduct searches?

[big-gun]

So I was out in the bush yesterday when I ran into a couple CO’s. They turned on their lights, jumped out of their truck to start talking to us. Before I knew it the second CO (that wasn’t talking to me) opened the back door of my truck and started rifling through my things. Can they do this?

[mike_b]

Had one in Kamloops do it to.me as well. He jumped right onto my pack and went straight for my rifle case. Was pretty pissed off, not with his aggressiveness, but he's lack of give-a-fks and treatment of my property. 10 minutes later, we were on our way again, but definitely left a sour taste

[IslandWanderer]

Do some CO’s actually dislike hunting and hunters?

[browningboy]

They cannot just look at your property without your permission, however if you say no and they have a suspicion then they call call RCMP in to conduct a search.

[Pemby_mess]

They're "peace officers", so they have all the authority and restrictions to that authority that any other peace officer has. Their standard is "reasonable cause". Only the officer in question will know if they actually had suspicion that you were committing a crime. You can deny them permission to search, but they don't have to listen, and they don't have to tell you what their reasons for searching you are. If they didn't have permission or a reason to be suspicious of you, and/or the contents of your vehicle, they can not use whatever they find, as evidence against you. However, as I've learned well in the past, doing anything to make their jobs more difficult, gives them lots of reasons to make your life more difficult. I probably would ask them nicely what they were looking for, and what their reasons for the search were, if only to just make a mental note of their answers or lack thereof.

[bcsteve]

They cannot just look at your property without your permission, however if you say no and they have a suspicion then they call call RCMP in to conduct a search.
Yes they can, no they don’t need the RCMP.

Search without warrant
93 A conservation officer or constable may, without a warrant,

(a)search a person whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds has in his or her possession any wildlife or fish killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or about to be illegally exported,

(b)stop and search a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft, boat or other conveyance, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is being carried by a person, and

(c)enter and search a shop, public market, storehouse, garage, restaurant, hotel, eating house or camp, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is located.

Seizure
94 (1) A conservation officer or constable may seize wildlife or fish or parts of either wildlife or fish, anything referred to in paragraph (b) and anything found in, on or about a place, building or premises, or in the possession of a person, that might afford evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act, if the conservation officer or constable

(a)finds in the possession of a person, or in, on or about a place or thing referred to in section 93, wildlife or fish that the conservation officer or constable believes on reasonable grounds was killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act, or is about to be illegally exported, or

(b)finds firearms, ammunition, decoys, traps, fishing rods or other devices or materials, implements or appliances for hunting or trapping wildlife or for catching fish, that the conservation officer or constable believes on reasonable grounds were held, kept or used for or in connection with a violation of this Act.

(2)A conservation officer may seize wildlife or fish, or parts of either wildlife or fish, in a person's possession if the conservation officer believes on reasonable grounds that the right of property in that wildlife is with the government or remains in the government.

(3)Sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96338_01) do not apply in respect of wildlife or fish, or parts of either wildlife or fish, seized under this Act.

Officers empowered to stop vehicles
95 (1) An officer may, for the purposes of this Act, stop a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft or boat or other vehicle to determine whether or not the occupants of the vehicle have been hunting, trapping or angling, and to obtain information about wildlife or game fish possessed by them.

(2)A person commits an offence under subsection (1) if the person

(a)fails to stop,

(b)fails to identify himself or herself when requested to do so by the officer,

(c)refuses to give information respecting hunting or fishing, or

(d)being the driver or operator of a motor vehicle, in or on which there is wildlife or game fish or an article or device that may be used for hunting, trapping or fishing, fails, refuses or neglects to stop his or her motor vehicle when signalled or requested to stop by an officer who is in his or her uniform of office or displays his or her official badge.

[ACE]

BC Wildlife Act ....

Part 1
Section 89 - 96

Have been stopped by a few creepy CO's ....

If you are stopped ..... always ask for their identification also.
You may have to ask a few times. Most carry a business card.

[Jack Russell]

Sounds like if you are driving down a gravel road, you will get searched. Or if you wear camo, you will get searched. Seems "reasonable" to me.....

[Jelvis]

That's what C.O.s do, part of the job, you have a license plate number, if a C.O. has been phoned by someone and reported a pick-up and something happened?
-- depends what it is, where it is, who it is and if a back up is required? now
-- safety for C.O.s is number 1 concern all the time
Jel -- pull over - stop - and listen - then go from there, be calm, be respectful, be polite -- your vehicle might look like the one they want?

[bcsteve]

And for those who think that CO’s have more powers than police officers in the bush; this is the definition of and Officer in the Wildlife Act:

"officer" means

(a)a constable, a conservation officer, the director, an assistant director or a regional manager,

(a.1)subject to subsection (3), a park ranger appointed under the Park Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96344_01), or

(b)an employee of the government designated by name or position as an officer, by regulation of the minister;


"constable" means an officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or either of the following as defined in the Police Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96367_01):

(a)a designated constable;

(b)a municipal constable;

[REMINGTON JIM]

Sounds like if you are driving down a gravel road, you will get searched. Or if you wear camo, you will get searched. Seems "reasonable" to me.....

Really ? SEARCHED for what ? under what Probable grounds ? RJ

[Jelvis]

-- As soon as you resist or start arguing, or playing tuff guy, with an authority figure as a C.O. when pulled over, you can be ordered to obey!
Jello Hello -- Outta the car long hair! --

[Steve W]

For the most part every piece of legislation a CO, or any officer enforces, will have a several sections on the officers authority or powers under that legislation. If you going out to do something that requires a license, permit or has laws/regulations governing it it's a good idea to know what you can/can't do and what officers can and can't do.

If you can post on Hunt BC, you have the skills to look up the legislation your self. Interpreting legislation can be challenging, not IKEA furniture instructions challenging, but it's not really complex once you spend some time at it and understand how legislation is written - it's all done pretty much the same way. The sections are often inter-linked so read more than just the narrow section on what you want to know.

Looking for a answer on the internet to a question like officer authority is a perilous way educate yourself. "My buddy told me I could" is not really a great defense.

Good Place to start is BC Laws: http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/content/complete/statreg/?xsl=/templates/browse.xsl

[Iron Glove]

They're "peace officers", so they have all the authority and restrictions to that authority that any other peace officer has. Their standard is "reasonable cause". Only the officer in question will know if they actually had suspicion that you were committing a crime. You can deny them permission to search, but they don't have to listen, and they don't have to tell you what their reasons for searching you are. If they didn't have permission or a reason to be suspicious of you, and/or the contents of your vehicle, they can not use whatever they find, as evidence against you. However, as I've learned well in the past, doing anything to make their jobs more difficult, gives them lots of reasons to make your life more difficult. I probably would ask them nicely what they were looking for, and what their reasons for the search were, if only to just make a mental note of their answers or lack thereof.

Reminds me of the bad old days when the August Long Weekend "Tulameen Days" were at their worst ( some would say finest ) and there were a lot of really badly behaving folks in Town.
A contingent of RCMP spent the weekend here but to supplement them there were other "Peace Officers" including CO's and Federal Fisheries Officers patrolling the streets. Was kinda funny watching a Fisheries Officer writing out a ticket to a drunk walking on the Street with an open beer in his hand.
Yes, all "Peace Officers" have broad authority.

[JKerr]

For the most part every piece of legislation a CO, or any officer enforces, will have a several sections on the officers authority or powers under that legislation. If you going out to do something that requires a license, permit or has laws/regulations governing it it's a good idea to know what you can/can't do and what officers can and can't do.


This is such good advice, especially in the Internet age where people like to preach opinion as fact.

I used to be fairly active on some car forums, and the same thing would constantly happen. Edmonton had one with resident officers that would post/answer questions. Without a doubt someone would ask something, eight people would chime in with their wrong opinion, then an officer would just quote the Motor Vehicle Act.

It's like the give a man a fish vs teach a man to fish proverb, if you learn to find your own information you're in such a better position, saying 'SuperHunter6969 online told me I could XYZ." Isn't going to do anyone any favors in court.

[Slinky Pickle]

93 (b) is pretty all encompassing. I usually find that if I play nice then they do too.

[browningboy]

Yes they can, no they don’t need the RCMP.

Search without warrant


93
A conservation officer or constable may, without a warrant,

(a)
search a person whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds has in his or her possession any wildlife or fish killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or about to be illegally exported,

(b)
stop and search a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft, boat or other conveyance, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is being carried by a person, and

(c)
enter and search a shop, public market, storehouse, garage, restaurant, hotel, eating house or camp, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is located.

Seizure


94 (1)
A conservation officer or constable may seize wildlife or fish or parts of either wildlife or fish, anything referred to in paragraph (b) and anything found in, on or about a place, building or premises, or in the possession of a person, that might afford evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act, if the conservation officer or constable

(a)
finds in the possession of a person, or in, on or about a place or thing referred to in section 93, wildlife or fish that the conservation officer or constable believes on reasonable grounds was killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act, or is about to be illegally exported, or

(b)
finds firearms, ammunition, decoys, traps, fishing rods or other devices or materials, implements or appliances for hunting or trapping wildlife or for catching fish, that the conservation officer or constable believes on reasonable grounds were held, kept or used for or in connection with a violation of this Act.

(2)
A conservation officer may seize wildlife or fish, or parts of either wildlife or fish, in a person's possession if the conservation officer believes on reasonable grounds that the right of property in that wildlife is with the government or remains in the government.

(3)
Sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96338_01) do not apply in respect of wildlife or fish, or parts of either wildlife or fish, seized under this Act.

Officers empowered to stop vehicles


95 (1)
An officer may, for the purposes of this Act, stop a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft or boat or other vehicle to determine whether or not the occupants of the vehicle have been hunting, trapping or angling, and to obtain information about wildlife or game fish possessed by them.

(2)
A person commits an offence under subsection (1) if the person

(a)
fails to stop,

(b)
fails to identify himself or herself when requested to do so by the officer,

(c)
refuses to give information respecting hunting or fishing, or

(d)
being the driver or operator of a motor vehicle, in or on which there is wildlife or game fish or an article or device that may be used for hunting, trapping or fishing, fails, refuses or neglects to stop his or her motor vehicle when signalled or requested to stop by an officer who is in his or her uniform of office or displays his or her official badge.





Well I never knew that, thanks for the clarification!

[Jelvis]

No excuses now, bc stevie ray vonn folks -- every offence you can imagine clarified - bcsteve reeves --
Jelly - No excuses now -- how now brown cow?

[Gunner Staal]

Bc Steve posted the gospel. It’s pretty straight forward. If they believe you are hunting or that you have wildlife in your possession...anywhere other than a dwelling house (requires a warrant) you are subject to search. This applies to fishery act stuff as well. It’s actually more sweeping search powers then police are issued under the Criminal Code.

[Pemby_mess]

Bc Steve posted the gospel. It’s pretty straight forward. If they believe you are hunting or that you have wildlife in your possession...anywhere other than a dwelling house (requires a warrant) you are subject to search. This applies to fishery act stuff as well. It’s actually more sweeping search powers then police are issued under the Criminal Code.

Ive been stopped and casually searched while not hunting or fishing a couple times. Where does their power to search end, after their initial grounds for the search based on wildlife is satisfied? Like I assume they can't start looking for wildlife, but then broaden the scope to looking for anything and everything else? Or can they?

[bloodbath]

I have several trail cams I check on a regular basis. In my area, I have 3 cougars and a large sow bear with 3 cubs plus probably a 2 year old bear that I have pictures of. I would like to know what would happen if I carried my gun now for”protection “ if any of these animals charged me while checking these trail cams. Would C/O’s nail me for killing an animal out of season?
Thoughts?

[scoutlt1]

I have several trail cams I check on a regular basis. In my area, I have 3 cougars and a large sow bear with 3 cubs plus probably a 2 year old bear that I have pictures of. I would like to know what would happen if I carried my gun now for”protection “ if any of these animals charged me while checking these trail cams. Would C/O’s nail me for killing an animal out of season?
Thoughts?

Not really sure what your post has to do with this thread, but since you've asked the question...

If your highly unlikely scenario takes place, my thought is.....

"Don't tell the CO your HBC username". :)

[Edzzed]

When the lights came on the investigation started. That's my guess. Do you recall a few years ago just out of Prince George, A cop saw a vehicle come onto the highway from a logging road. He suspected the driver of poaching so pulled him over. He called for a CO who went up the road expecting to find a carcass. Well they found a body and it was a young girl he had murdered. The name escapes me but she was legally blind if I recall. had he not been stopped he might have gotten away with murder. just sayin....

[j270wsm]

It's not like a cop can walk up to your car and just open the door and start looking through it. They have to have permission or probable cause. I would have thought any peace officer would have the same basic guidelines.

[Gunner Staal]

It all depends on the officers ability to articulate where you could be storing wildlife or fish. Which when you think about it, can be just about anywhere in your vehicle, camp or in your personal gear ie: pack. All depends on the totality if the circumstances. Where you are....what season it is.....what kind of game in the area etc etc. If during the course of their search for say, a salmon.....they find drugs in your backpack, you will then be arrested for drugs and the search broadens. They’re not the gestapo, but if you give them reason to search they will. I’m my opinion they should. Doesn’t bother me if someone wants to rifle through my 10 day old sheep gaunch. I highly advise against it however!





Ive been stopped and casually searched while not hunting or fishing a couple times. Where does their power to search end, after their initial grounds for the search based on wildlife is satisfied? Like I assume they can't start looking for wildlife, but then broaden the scope to looking for anything and everything else? Or can they?

[Pemby_mess]

It all depends on the officers ability to articulate where you could be storing wildlife or fish. Which when you think about it, can be just about anywhere in your vehicle, camp or in your personal gear ie: pack. All depends on the totality if the circumstances. Where you are....what season it is.....what kind of game in the area etc etc. If during the course of their search for say, a salmon.....they find drugs in your backpack, you will then be arrested for drugs and the search broadens. They’re not the gestapo, but if you give them reason to search they will. I’m my opinion they should. Doesn’t bother me if someone wants to rifle through my 10 day old sheep gaunch. I highly advise against it however!

yeah, that makes sense I guess. All my interactions with CO's have been really proffesional and relatively painless. I wouldn't be overly concerned about a quick reasonably specific search.

[bcsteve]

It's not like a cop can walk up to your car and just open the door and start looking through it. They have to have permission or probable cause. I would have thought any peace officer would have the same basic guidelines.

Their authority doesn’t come from who they are, it comes from what Act they are enforcing. A cop can’t pull you over under the Controlled Drugs and Subtance Act but he sure can pull you over under the Motor Vehicle Act.

[Bustercluck]

Just a thought. If you're pulled over and the officer has reasonable grounds to search your vehicle and finds nothing, what were his grounds? I know if anyone asks to search my vehicle it's a hard no. Experiences like that are worth a phone call to their office and maybe a complaint.

[butthead]

god like, they are

[Jelvis]

-- If your pulled over by the C.O.s or at a road check, pull over stop, turn truck off and roll window down, keep your hands in plain visible sight.
- If you are honest and have nothing to hide, act accordingly --

Jello Mello -- tone of voice? Keep it mello -- attitude ? of gratitude at all latitudes --> Carry on my wayward son -->

[bcsteve]

Just a thought. If you're pulled over and the officer has reasonable grounds to search your vehicle and finds nothing, what were his grounds? I know if anyone asks to search my vehicle it's a hard no. Experiences like that are worth a phone call to their office and maybe a complaint.
If he had reasonable ground to search and you were in compliance, that’s great, you both did your job! The standard is not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, that’s the standard for conviction.

[kootenaihunter]

I don't think there's a scenario where an officer asks you to search your vehicle, you say 'no', and they say 'ok' and let you go. Saying 'no' or questioning their grounds or authority is enough to cause suspicion, and thus, reasonable cause. If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to not comply.

[Linksman313]

Jello Mello -- tone of voice? Keep it mello -- attitude ? of gratitude at all latitudes --> Carry on my wayward son -->

Jelly, you have a beautiful way with words

[Jelvis]

Thanks Linksman313 I appreciate your comment, and I want to say we all should give bc steve a round of applause for his sharing such valuable information for HBC members to link up to.
Jel -- give a hand to bcsteve and hope he keeps up the factual info -- it clears the water -- gives Hope -- brings down the Barrieres --

[ryanb]

I don't think there's a scenario where an officer asks you to search your vehicle, you say 'no', and they say 'ok' and let you go. Saying 'no' or questioning their grounds or authority is enough to cause suspicion, and thus, reasonable cause. If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to not comply.

While COs have some pretty far reaching powers, this attitude makes me scratch my head. Do you want the police to just search you whenever and wherever they want? So what if you have nothing to hide, what about freedom and not living in a police state?

Know your rights and at least stand up for them. Freedom doesn't last if no one stands up for it.

[Pemby_mess]

I don't think there's a scenario where an officer asks you to search your vehicle, you say 'no', and they say 'ok' and let you go. Saying 'no' or questioning their grounds or authority is enough to cause suspicion, and thus, reasonable cause. If you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to not comply.

Asking nicely what gave them their reasonable grounds to initiate a search is fully reasonable on your part though. Take note of their answer and learn from it if you can. I don't think they have to give you any answer either, but that could be telling in it of itself. Society doesn't work very well if suspicion of its citizens heightens to the level where you can't do anything without being worried about unwarranted searches and scrutiny.

Ive often thought about this in the context of firearms. Just having a license, seems to give them reasonable cause to suspect you are carrying a weapon, and the authority to inspect it, or in other words search your house, vehicle, and person. Given there is no defined scope on things like random DUI check stops, I always feel like it puts me in a vulnerable position in regard to unreasonable search. Especially when they are in the habit of asking me all kinds of questions that have nothing to do with the scope of their check stop, and where my natural reaction is NYB. Though anecdotally I feel like the RCMP's behaviour has greatly improved over the last few years in relation to their general duties policing citizens.

There is something to be said about not interfering with police intuition as well. But strictly enforced protocols probably help with the formation of that intuition, more than they hinder it most of the time.

[Jelvis]

Too many scenario's to go thru to cover all stops and searches and why it happened and so forths.
-- that's why we have finger prints, otherwise a lot of innocent people being found guilty --
You and I have both made I'D. mistakes, thinking it was someone for sure! Then seeing it isn't.
Jel -- finger prints, breathalyzers -- etc -- people make mistakes -- sometimes people think there 100 % right and their dead wrong! Everyone does.

[Pemby_mess]

Thanks Linksman313 I appreciate your comment, and I want to say we all should give bc steve a round of applause for his sharing such valuable information for HBC members to link up to.
Jel -- give a hand to bcsteve and hope he keeps up the factual info -- it clears the water -- gives Hope -- brings down the Barrieres --


I agree - thanks to bc steve!

and I also often enjoy your poetry jelvis

[ACE]

Again, ask for their ID or business card. Know who you are dealing with.

[kootenaihunter]

While COs have some pretty far reaching powers, this attitude makes me scratch my head. Do you want the police to just search you whenever and wherever they want? So what if you have nothing to hide, what about freedom and not living in a police state?

Know your rights and at least stand up for them. Freedom doesn't last if no one stands up for it.

I've always asked the reason when I've been searched, well aware of that right to ask. I'm also well aware of the authority of RCMP, COs, and CBSA. I've never felt that complying with a search (while finding out the reason) is an attack on my freedom or the beginning of a police state.

I'm more referring to those that take an obstructionist view and question the authority or legality of a search.

[Bustercluck]

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Right out of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. This is a basic right for every Canadian and shouldn't be taken lightly. This isn't Afghanistan or some other sh$tty third world country. Denying a search doesn't give them reasonable grounds either.

[finngun]

owning a registered fire arm giv them reason to check how you gun is stored if they want to...but in case cops are checking that and gun[s] are in the safety,,do you have to open it for them??or just show gun safety for cops?:?:

[RyoTHC]

8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.

Right out of the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms. This is a basic right for every Canadian and shouldn't be taken lightly. This isn't Afghanistan or some other sh$tty third world country. Denying a search doesn't give them reasonable grounds either.


I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I have nothing to hide, I will still refuse entry into my house, and all my personal space every single time i'm asked. if there is no choice in the matter, then I'd be TOLD not ASKED. If I feel they conduct themselves unprofessionally I will take their information and be in touch with whatever regulating body I need to be.

The same as I refuse to answer questions at those stupid DUI roadblocks, I roll down the window and hand them my license/insurance and look forward, not once have I ever been made to answer any of their questions, even if I'd been drinking and especially not "where are you heading"... that's a big FK off in my book.

[digger dogger]

If you said you were/are hunting, he can search.
If you say you haven't been hunting, he cannot search.

But don't lie, #1 charge for C.O's, is lying!

[Bustercluck]

If you said you were/are hunting, he can search.
If you say you haven't been hunting, he cannot search.

But don't lie, #1 charge for C.O's, is lying!
Hunting isn't an illegal activity. Neither is having a legally obtained and stored/transported firearm in your possession.

[Jelvis]

C.O. might think your drinking or impaired, or have a loaded rifle in your vee hic cal! High on Mary Jane? Eyes are red, and spacey looking whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
---- thinks your hiding something? Acting shifty going side to side on thee ol dirt road whaa?
Jel -- any reason he or she thinks is good enuff for a turn on - red blue flashing lights -- Para Noya sets in, like lookin in your mirror and seein a poh leeece kah!
------------------> Almost cut my hair -- crosby stills nash and young -- gittin kinda long, I cooo dah said it got in my Vaaay butt I dint - and I wonder why?
---- I'm letting my freak flag fly! I feel like I owe it - to some onnnnnnnnne -- whoa -- Donny Brooks

[igojuone]

Really ? SEARCHED for what ? under what Probable grounds ? RJ

Exactly, what reasonable grounds were there? And being dressed in camo or on a gravel road is not reasonable grounds for a search.

[igojuone]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this way.

I have nothing to hide, I will still refuse entry into my house, and all my personal space every single time i'm asked. if there is no choice in the matter, then I'd be TOLD not ASKED. If I feel they conduct themselves unprofessionally I will take their information and be in touch with whatever regulating body I need to be.

The same as I refuse to answer questions at those stupid DUI roadblocks, I roll down the window and hand them my license/insurance and look forward, not once have I ever been made to answer any of their questions, even if I'd been drinking and especially not "where are you heading"... that's a big FK off in my book.


And the changes coming up in the fall of this year are BS. Even the refusal to give a breath sample without probable grounds is going to find you on the shit end of the stick.

Mandatory alcohol screeningThe proposed mandatory alcohol screening provisions would authorize law enforcement officers who have an “approved screening device” at hand to demand breath samples of any drivers they lawfully stop, without first requiring that they have a suspicion that the driver has alcohol in their body.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2017/04/backgrounder_changestoimpaireddrivinglaws.html

[Jelvis]

Lookin for people who are getting away from it all, Hahaha their bedder half Hahahaha, their job etc, by getting out in zee country.
Jelly Tree -- but maybe doing something foolish ? -- while doing that? -- that's why we have law enforcement -- they FORCE it on you --

[Rupert Retired]

No you can't be searched if you are randomly driving down the gravel road, as long as you haven't been or are not going to be hunting or fishing. However, if the CO sees any evidence of hunting or fishing, such as a fishing rod or rifle etc, then he has reasonable grounds to inspect your licences and question you further, and he can search your vehicle if he had grounds to believe an offense has been committed. But inspection and search are two different things. For instance, if you have a rifle and say to him that you have it along because you are going to sight it in, he can inspect the rifle and your licence, ask where you intend to do it, etc. but he would not have any grounds to go and look under your back seat, for instance, that is a search. And in addition, if you have a camper or other area that is your living quarters, then he will need a search warrant unless he has grounds to believe that you have something in there that is illegal. Basically, they have broad latitude when it comes to vehicles that you are using for hunting or fishing, but living space is off-limits unless you allow him in (he might ask to inspect your camper, if you say yes that that will be allowed of course). If he wants to look inside your camper (or tent etc), just say, you would prefer he didn't. He can't unless you let him, he has a warrant, or he has reasonable and probably grounds to do so. Judges hold this concept in high regard, if he goes ahead and searches anyway, he could get slapped down pretty hard.

[Bchunt]

Officers are using their broad powers of inspection for searches that may result in criminal proceedings. This is where they get away with it, and we as citizens, allow them to.

Courts have found that if you chose to participate in a regulated activity (ie hunting, fishing, trapping), you are allowed to be inspected while carrying out those activities. Not all charter rights apply if you choose to participate. A good example of how powers of inspectors that we are all familiar with is a health inspector at a restaurant. The restaurant cannot say no to the inspection because by choosing to participate in a regulated activity (serving food for money), they must accept government bodies inspecting their actions. That being said, a health inspector does not have the powers and authority of a peace officer. They can't arrest, and can't lay criminal charges.

Co officers on the other hand have the authority to inspect those who chose to participate in regulated activities (hunting fishing trapping), but then use the information gathered by the inspection for criminal law enforcement. This is the big no no that they aren't allowed to do (without some in between steps). Unfortunately, we let it happen all the time. DFO knows this is an issue, and has lost a significant court case in Saskatchewan over it, and it is why they have generally directed their officers not to participate in highwany road checks. DFO has viewed highway road checks as basically arbitrary detentions/unlawful searches. Courts have found that road checks on highways are allowed for two reasons only. To check for safe vehicle condition and operator impairment. All other purposes are considered arbitrary detention/unlawful searches. But that is a story for another day.

Lets run a scenario and see if I can make better sense that way. To keep the public highway aspect from mixing things up, let's keep this to logging roads and areas where fish and wildlife are normally found. Also, let's focus only on his powers under the federal fisheries act, provincial wildlife act and provincial firearms act. Lets not muddy the waters further with motor vehicle act/forestry and range act stuff

you are driving out of a logging road with a bare truck (empty). You have a canopy and back seat, but it's just you when you come to a co road check. Using his powers of inspection vested under the various acts, the co is allowed to ask you a version of this "are you transporting any fish, wildlife or firearms, or have you been doing any fishing or hunting today". Guess what, if you have chosen to participate in one of those regulated activities, you must answer truthfully. Fail to answer is obstruction of an officer.

if you have not done any of those things, and answer no, you should be free to leave. Now an overzealous officer might find some reason he wants to search further, and without some "reasonable suspicion" that you have been participating in a regulated activity, he is not allowed.

the crux of inspecting further is the reasonable suspicion that you have been participating in a regulated activity. How does that burden get achieved. It is all in what is visible, where you are, and how it is articulated. Some things are easy - fishing rod visible? Prepare to get inspected. Moose hair and blood on tailgate with a tarped object, you are going to be inspected. Does a cooler in the back make reasonable suspicion - I would argue no, coolers carry a lot of things and just having a cooler does not mean I have participated in a regulated activity. In fact, that is what the DFO case in Saskatchewan focused on - a cooler. Does a camper on the truck mean I am subject to further inspection. Again, I would argue no. And this is where we as citizens allow our rights to be eroded. Co can't stop and search every vehicle coming down a logging road. Yet they seem to, and we let them. Why? Probably because their is no recourse on the side of a logging road, and resisting or saying no may set you up for further troubles. Our only resolution is a civil claim in terms of charter infringement or formal complaint against the officer which does not resolve things at all at the time.


So say you have been particpating in a regulated activity, and you answer yes to the initial question. Now the officer has a wide open door to inspect you for compliance with legislation. This means checking your licence to ensure it is valid and in your name, inspecting your firearm and ammunition to ensure it is unloaded and legal, and inspection any fish or wildlife to ensure it is the appropriate numbers, species and size. These are all under the guise of inspection.

Now what happens if during his inspection, he finds something wrong? This is when he now has to where a peace officer hat and do everything right by the courts. If he finds something wrong, the inspection is over, and it is now an investigation. Anything he does further has to comply with the charter of rights. He cannot continue inspecting as that falls into a "search" once he knows there has been a violation. The appropriate way to do things is to place you under arrest or detention for the violation he found, and continue the search as incidental to lawful arrest. In reality, this is rarely done as that means everything stops until you get your lawyer call. They don't want the headache of this so continue as if using their inspection powers. At this point though, anything further found will get tossed in court as "fruit from the poison tree" if they did not do all the appropriate steps for arrest and detention. They could also chose to end the inspection at the time they find the violation, issue you a ticket and send you on your way. No arrest needed as they are not continuing to search and basic ticket issuance time is not viewed as arbitrary detention (thinking of speeding tickets).

so what can an officer look in when he is inspecting? Again, it has got to be reasonable for the issues at hand. You are coming back from moose hunting with a moose in the back and you have given him your licence. He can't go search your glovebox as it would be an arbitrary search that's has nothing to do with the inspection at hand.


At the end of the day, if you have not been particpating in regulated activities, then they have no ability to inspect and thereby search. Many are probably aware of officers who have pushed this boundary just because you were out for a drive on a logging road. Additionally, there may be some instances when you are particpating in regulated activities, where the powers of inspection have been taken too far and stray into the realm of arbitrary search.




so that is roughly how things go. My learnings out of this - don't let the government regulate anything else (ie licence for mushroom picking), keep everything clean and out of site, and don't speak unless I am required. When asked if I have been doing any hunting, fishing or transporting wildlife/firearms, I will listen carefully to what is asked and consider my response appropriately.

[Bchunt]

Damn - I wrote that all up and Rupert Retired wrote a brief one and published it a minute or so before mine. Well done.

One note one on the campers and tents that Rupert Retired speaks to. Courts have found that those items use din regulated activities are given broad abilities to be inspected. It has been found a number of times that campers, tents etc are transitory and not generally considered "residences" in need of a warrant. They generally don't have an address, they generally are not a location where a person pays taxes and because they are located on crown land, they have a lesser expectation of privacy. Again, it comes down to choosing to participate in a regulated activity and the powers of inspection. Just because you sleep somewhere does not automatically make it a residence.

All that being said, each instance should be weighed on its own merits and it is tough to make a carte blanche statement saying all campers require warrants.

Thats enough ramblings from this keyboard warrior.

[smeegle]

At the end end of the day they are just trying to do their job as a public servant. Be respectful when asking them for their reasons for inspecting, searching, ID etc for the powers and authorities of the legislation they are working under and they will usually return the favor. It does you no good if you start playing silly bugger with enforcement professionals and giving them attitude and a hard time.

[Jelvis]

smeegle comes thru folks see above -- the beagle -- a public servant in the fields -- number 1
-- show respect what the heck, when you ask the C.O. why she's wants to inspect?
-- and search? don't lurch, stay calm --
-- for I.D. like a busy ness card? Your starting whaaaaa? Trying to turn the tables?
You basically want to know who? Iz above looking down? Your starting to play silly? Your questioning her authority ? You want her bosses name? Ahhhhh.
Jel - Playing Silly Billy Bugger with a C.O. in the field is not recommended if you want to enjoy the rest of your day ok? - keep it mello, soft and tender like jello not steak
----- Your playing Stoopid and your winning big time Hahahahahahaha Outta the car long hair! -- and so on and on ---> Go from a generality to a Felony!
---------------------------------------------------------- Keep your hands visible, at all times --------------------------------------------------------------- >

[ACE]

They carry business cards. They hand them out if asked. Ask.
If you have their business card, you're able to phone them specifically to report those shots fired at night, that elk carcass with the head/cape missing, etc.
Jelvis, your assumption that asking for ID/business card is a pissing match is wrong. Your above post is again, silly.
You may just be the extra eyes in the bush that that CO needs to make a case.

[Jelvis]

ACE I dig yer post, no problem with a business card ok? Haha, good way to know who.
ACE of Base yah hah -- it matters when and how you ask for the card, not the action of asking Haha
Jel -- Whose playing silly? -- Wisconsin -- Yer not Bronson?

[Avalanche123]

CO's must be training in Terrace right now. I've never seen so many of them in town..sorry for the thread drift..

[hoochie]

I have never, not ever once.. seen them while I was hunting.

[hparrott]

Yes they can, no they don’t need the RCMP.

Search without warrant


93
A conservation officer or constable may, without a warrant,

(a)
search a person whom he or she believes on reasonable grounds has in his or her possession any wildlife or fish killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act or the regulations, or about to be illegally exported,

(b)
stop and search a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft, boat or other conveyance, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is being carried by a person, and

(c)
enter and search a shop, public market, storehouse, garage, restaurant, hotel, eating house or camp, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is located.

Seizure


94 (1)
A conservation officer or constable may seize wildlife or fish or parts of either wildlife or fish, anything referred to in paragraph (b) and anything found in, on or about a place, building or premises, or in the possession of a person, that might afford evidence of the commission of an offence under this Act, if the conservation officer or constable

(a)
finds in the possession of a person, or in, on or about a place or thing referred to in section 93, wildlife or fish that the conservation officer or constable believes on reasonable grounds was killed, taken or possessed in violation of this Act, or is about to be illegally exported, or

(b)
finds firearms, ammunition, decoys, traps, fishing rods or other devices or materials, implements or appliances for hunting or trapping wildlife or for catching fish, that the conservation officer or constable believes on reasonable grounds were held, kept or used for or in connection with a violation of this Act.

(2)
A conservation officer may seize wildlife or fish, or parts of either wildlife or fish, in a person's possession if the conservation officer believes on reasonable grounds that the right of property in that wildlife is with the government or remains in the government.

(3)
Sections 23 to 24.2 of the Offence Act (http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/96338_01) do not apply in respect of wildlife or fish, or parts of either wildlife or fish, seized under this Act.

Officers empowered to stop vehicles


95 (1)
An officer may, for the purposes of this Act, stop a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft or boat or other vehicle to determine whether or not the occupants of the vehicle have been hunting, trapping or angling, and to obtain information about wildlife or game fish possessed by them.

(2)
A person commits an offence under subsection (1) if the person

(a)
fails to stop,

(b)
fails to identify himself or herself when requested to do so by the officer,

(c)
refuses to give information respecting hunting or fishing, or

(d)
being the driver or operator of a motor vehicle, in or on which there is wildlife or game fish or an article or device that may be used for hunting, trapping or fishing, fails, refuses or neglects to stop his or her motor vehicle when signalled or requested to stop by an officer who is in his or her uniform of office or displays his or her official badge.



After stopping you though, the officer still requires "reason to believe" that an offence has occurred prior to conducting a search

[Jelvis]

A reason, -----reasonable -- what reason did he or she pull you over for?
Like above with hparrot, still after pulling you over, requires a reason to believe that an offence ( Has occurred ) prior to conducting a search.
- This makes it clear to understand and explains the situation in a clear manner -- I can see clearly now the rain iz gone
Jel -- This is a very good explanation folks by the bird --- Clears the Water -- Blues the River -- Bridals the Falls --

[bcsteve]

After stopping you though, the officer still requires "reason to believe" that an offence has occurred prior to conducting a search

No. Only reasonable ground to believe that you were successful when you were hunting or fishing.

stop and search a motor vehicle, private or chartered aircraft, boat or other conveyance, in or on which he or she believes on reasonable grounds that wildlife or fish is being carried by a person, and

[boxhitch]

What were you doing?
Fishing
catch anything?
No
Can I look?
No. I'm a private kinda guy
Have a nice day

What reasonable grounds?

[bcsteve]

What would the average reasonable person would think. You’re driving in the bush from the general direction from a lake and you tell the CO you were out fishing. Is it reasonable for an average person to think you might have caught some fish?

[David]

What were you doing?
Fishing
catch anything?
No
Can I look?
No. I'm a private kinda guy
Have a nice day

What reasonable grounds?

I don't know how to multi-quote, but this is in reply to your message and a couple previously...

CO's have the authority to both inspect AND search - each has different criteria. They can ask to inspect your fishing gear, if based on that inspection they have reasonable grounds to believe you did catch a fish they can search your cooler.

Inspection and search are based on probabilities. e.g. You get stopped by a CO and they ask to see your gun to confirm that you are not travelling with a loaded firearm.
You say "I don't have any firearms".
The CO notices that: you're dressed in camo, driving a truck on a dead end logging road, with binoculars in the front seat, during hunting season, your vehicle is the same one they saw parked at the side of the road a few hours ago, etc. etc. Do they reasonably believe you actually have a firearm and are trying to avoid inspection? Can they then search your vehicle for the firearm? Nothing is definitive - but most probably, yes.

[Jelvis]

A Judge in court will go with a C.O. b4 the person charged -- the Judge seen these C O s b4. --
---
Jel -- Judges know what's going on with these issues -- Judge says, " My court is always fair, Now, march the guilty bugger in! "

[AgSilver]

"Reasonable grounds" is a phrase that is litigated frequently.

The so-called "reasonable man" is another good one.

There's a good chance that there's jurisprudence on what would be considered reasonable grounds for a CO in BC...or another similar jurisdiction. I haven't looked, but I would be surprised if it's never been looked at.

[Jelvis]

Depends on the C.O, also, who they are, how much experience, type of personality, some a bit shy some a bit bold.
Just don't piss the wrong one off! Good thought.

-- some are dog handlers and specialize in certain enforcement --
Jel -- Kamloops has the top shelf Conservation Officers, and the most reasonable folks around, so that helps a shit load.

[howa1500]

The CO can search with reasonable grounds, that is a fact, however, your story lacks an important point. Did the CO initially provide you a reason for your detention aka "stop". If they failed to provide you a valid reason, then the search was totally illegal. Now, if they stopped you and said something along the lines of "Sir, you've been stopped because we suspect you have been poaching ring tailed loon out of season, and we are searching your vehicle under the authority of the Migratory Bird Act, Wildlife Act.. blah blah blah".. Or Then that search would most likely be considered legal. Unless, the second CO observed something of imminent threat such as a loaded firearm on the rear seat, then they could rip open door.. Though in that scenario they still might lose the charge.

See as a Canadian the Charter rights protects you from arbitrary search and seizure by the state. To keep it simple, you have to be provided a reason / your jeopardy in the situation if the CO wants charges to stick. However, that unfortunately doesn't stop a fella from doing some forest road extortion / and or searches against the charter in the middle of the bush.. It is a "piece of paper" after all.

Its the fine points of a story, where sometimes the most important details lay.

[Jelvis]

The C. O. dint pull you over and come to the window and say nothing, he or she said something. If you asked why your stopped?
1. They dint say cuz we needed someone to talk to
2. cuz we had nothing better to do so we figured we'd pull you over
3. cuz we got so bored playing video games we decided to do our job for a change

Jel -- so what did they say exactly, when you asked, " Why you pull me over? " -- like said above post, it makes some of difference how they responded.