Open-fields doctrine: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 03:18, 1 June 2020

Revision as of 04:00, 14 January 2021

Line 288:

Dissenting justice [[Annette Ziegler]] wrote for herself and [[Michael Gableman]]. She primarily took issue with the majority opinion, primarily arguing that the wardens did have reasonable suspicion and legal authority to enter the property. She touched on the open-field doctrine only to note that the appeals court had held it applicable, and Stietz had not raised it on his appeal to the Supreme Court.<ref name="Stietz at 828">''Stietz'' at 828</ref>

Following the decision, [[Wisconsin State Assembly|Assemblyman]] [[Adam Jarchow]] and [[Wisconsin State Senate|State Senator]] [[Dave Craig]] introduced a bill that would require that DNR wardens have reasonable suspicion of a law being broken before entering private property without the owner's consent. "Preventing poaching is somehow so important we allow DNR incursions on private property for any reason under the sun or no reason at all", Jarchow complained. "[S]omething is seriously out of whack here."<ref name="AB 411 story">{{cite news|author=[[Associated Press]]|title=Bill would restrict Wisconsin wardens on private property|url=https://www.outdoornews.com/2017/07/21/bill-restrict-wisconsin-wardens-private-property/|newspaper=Wisconsin Outdoor News|date=July 21, 2017|accessdateaccess-date=October 1, 2019}}</ref> It was vigorously opposed by [[wildlife conservation]] organizations such as the [[League of Conservation Voters]] and the state [[Sierra Club]] chapter, who feared that it would severely hamper the wardens' ability to do their jobs,<ref name="MJS column">{{cite news|last=Smith|first=Paul A.|title=Smith: Strong opposition to bill that would curtail warden authority|url=https://www.jsonline.com/story/sports/columnists/paul-smith/2017/07/19/smith-strong-opposition-bill-would-curtail-warden-authority/490231001/|newspaper=[[Milwaukee Journal Sentinel]]|date=July 19, 2017|accessdateaccess-date=October 1, 2019}}</ref> and was never brought to a vote.<ref name="AB 411 history">{{cite web|title=Assembly Bill 411|url=https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2017/proposals/ab411|publisher=[[Wisconsin State Legislature]]|accessdateaccess-date=October 1, 2019}}</ref>

In his 2018 retrial, Stietz pleaded guilty to a single count of restricting or obstructing an officer and was sentenced to [[time served]]. He filed suit in 2019 against the two wardens alleging they violated his rights under the [[Second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Second]] and Fourth amendments; it is currently pending in [[United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin|federal court for the Western District of Wisconsin]].<ref name="Telegraph Herald story">{{cite news|last=Goldstein|first=Bennett|title=Gratiot man's lawsuit against Wisconsin DNR moves to federal court|url=https://www.telegraphherald.com/news/tri-state/article_ee1dbf04-fe72-5f1d-a0d0-66892aefa090.html|newspaper=[[Telegraph Herald]]|___location=[[Dubuque, Iowa]]|date=February 4, 2019|accessdateaccess-date=October 1, 2019}}</ref>

== See also ==