Lawsuit accuses Pennsylvania officer of snooping on private property, seeks to limit Fish and Boat Commission powers

A federal lawsuit filed Monday against the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission seeks to strike down a state law that gives PFBC agents broad authority to search private property without a warrant. The lawsuit was filed by Pennsylvania resident Tim Thomas, who accuses a waterways protection officer of snooping around his lake house, harassing him and his wife, and issuing him boating violation tickets in 2023.

Thomas claims in the lawsuit that Conservation Officer Ty Moon conducted multiple unconstitutional searches of his lakeside cabin in Susquehanna that summer. He says Moon twice entered his property without his or his wife’s permission to search for evidence of possible violations of the fish and boating laws. Thomas also accuses Moon of harassing them and spying on them with binoculars from across the lake. In both cases, Moon gave Thomas a ticket, and each time, Thomas was acquitted and the tickets were dismissed.

“Tim is faced with a real and tangible threat that Defendants will enter and search the yard of his home in the future, solely because the cabin is adjacent to Butler Lake,” the lawsuit states. “Because Defendants entered and searched the yard of Tim’s home without his consent or a warrant, and they were authorized by [state law] to do this whenever they want, Tim feels unsafe on his own property, even though he follows the law.”

Thomas is represented in the lawsuit by Kirby Thomas West, an attorney with the Institute for JusticeThe public interest law firm is currently pursuing several other cases in multiple states as part of its 4th Amendment ProjectSome of these lawsuits specifically target state fisheries and game agencies and are based on allegations that game wardens and fisheries agents have sometimes violated the Fourth Amendment rights of hunters and anglers against unlawful searches and seizures.

Read more: Man convicted of wildlife crimes after trying to help undercover game wardens save deer with his drone

“What we’ve seen over the last few years is a disturbing erosion or disrespect for Fourth Amendment rights,” West said. Outdoor living“We bring cases to light to try to strengthen the position of citizens. [those] rights, and we felt so [case] fit almost exactly within that project.”

She explains that Thomas contacted IJ for representation after witnessing several other legal victories the firm had won under similar circumstances. One of those victories came in May, when Tennessee judges limited the powers of state game wardens by limiting their ability to enter private land to search for or investigate wildlife crimes without a warrant. That case was brought by two landowners also represented by IJ attorneys who claimed they were under the supervision of game wardens from the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.

West says their case in Tennessee – along with others filed by the IJ in Virginia, Louisiana and Pennsylvania – “Opens the field doctrine,” a federal precedent from the Prohibition era that allows law enforcement to patrol rural areas. Attorneys for TWRA argued in the case that because so much hunting occurs on private land in Tennessee, this exception to the constitutional protection against warrantless searches is necessary for the agency to protect the state’s wildlife.

“Essentially, the government is trying to argue that there is an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement for certain types of property. And we just think that is completely unconstitutional,” West said. “But in some ways, this case is [involving Tim Thomas] is really different because we are talking about an even more blatant disregard for Fourth Amendment rights.”

Read more: Should All Game Wardens Wear Body Cams? Washington State Thinks So

West points to a law from Pennsylvania which specifically pertains to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, and gives the state’s waterways protection officers the authority to “enter any land or water in the performance of their duties.” This differs, she explains, from a separate law that allows Pennsylvania game wardens to enter any land except “curtilage,” which is defined as the property immediately surrounding a person’s home (such as their yard).

West adds that there are a few states that have similar statutes, though she couldn’t specify which ones. She says that, as far as she knows, these states do not grant the same kind of “unrestricted authority” as Pennsylvania.

“When it comes to waterway managers, this statute is not [enforce] “The same restrictions that even state game wardens have, so it’s basically a blank check to go anywhere and anytime looking for some kind of misconduct,” West said. “But you don’t lose your constitutional rights just because you happen to live near water.”

West says they have not yet heard from the PFBC, which has 60 days to respond to the complaint.