top of page

Tennessee Court Curbs Game Wardens' Unchecked Authority on Private Lands

Tennessee Court Curbs Game Wardens' Unchecked Authority on Private Lands

In a landmark decision, the Tennessee Court of Appeals has sided with protecting individual liberties. It has curbed the unchecked powers of state game wardens to conduct warrantless searches on private property, reinforcing the constitutional rights of property owners. This ruling now mandates that wildlife officers must obtain a warrant before entering private lands for surveillance or investigations related to wildlife crimes, according to OutdoorLife.

Game wardens in Tennessee and several other states have enjoyed a vast scope of authority for years. This power has often elevated them above the very laws designed to protect citizens from government overreach, echoing the arbitrary powers wielded by British customs officials in pre-revolutionary America.

During the colonial period, British customs officials were granted extensive powers under various acts, most notoriously under the "Writs of Assistance." These writs were essentially blank search warrants that allowed officials to enter any premises without prior notice, probable cause, or specificity in what they were searching for. British authorities could disrupt daily life by conducting searches at any time, targeting anyone under the broad guise of enforcing trade laws and collecting taxes.

The colonists saw these practices as severe violations of their rights and personal liberties, mainly because they were subject to arbitrary searches and seizures.

Their resentment toward such invasive measures significantly contributed to the rising discontent against British rule, eventually culminating in the American Revolution. Key figures like James Otis and John Adams vehemently opposed the Writs of Assistance, arguing that they were an affront to basic legal principles of security and privacy.

This court's decision addresses a concerning trend in which game wardens have trespassed on private lands, disregarded "No Trespassing" signs, and installed surveillance devices without the knowledge or permission of landowners. Such actions violate privacy and property rights, setting a concerning precedent for government intrusion.

The catalyst for this judicial pushback was a lawsuit filed by Tennessee landowners Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth, targeted by these invasive practices carried out by the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA). With legal aid from the Institute for Justice, the plaintiffs argued that TWRA's conduct violated their rights under Article 1, Section 7 of the Tennessee Constitution, which states:

"That the people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from unreasonable searches and seizures; and that general warrants, whereby an officer may be commanded to search suspected places, without evidence of the fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, whose offenses are not particularly described and supported by evidence, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be granted."

The court's unanimous decision emphasized that the practice of warrantless searches on private property by TWRA is unconstitutional, highlighting a broader issue of governmental overreach into citizens' lives. Legal advocates and property owners have long criticized the extensive and often unchecked authority granted to game wardens, which has gone without significant challenge until now.

The ruling is a critical advancement in reasserting foundational American principles that protect individuals from unreasonable government intrusions — principles that must be upheld regardless of the government's intentions or operational needs.

Despite the TWRA's defense, which argued that their ability to manage wildlife effectively would be hindered without such powers, the court maintained that constitutional protections must not be compromised. The reliance on the "Open Fields Doctrine," a federal precedent that permits law enforcement to survey rural lands without a warrant, was deemed too expansive and misapplied, undermining the essence of personal privacy and security.

This landmark decision is not only a win for the people of Tennessee but also sets a vital precedent for other regions where similar authoritarian practices by game wardens are standard. As this case potentially progresses to the Tennessee Supreme Court, it stands as a beacon for advocates of limited government and staunch defenders of property rights.

It is essential to remain vigilant and proactive to curb governmental overreach. This ruling serves as a reminder of the importance of standing up against state powers that infringe upon our constitutional rights to hunt, gather, and manage our properties without undue government interference. It underscores the necessity for ongoing vigilance and activism to ensure our liberties are acknowledged and protected.

Doni Anthony (Doni The Misfit) 

Introducing Doni Anthony (Doni The Misfit), Founder of Liberty Or Else and a passionate advocate for individual liberties and natural human rights. 

Join her engaging podcast, subscribe to her blog, and catch her inspiring speeches at public events. Support her work on Cash App or Venmo. Follow Doni on Facebook and Twitter for valuable insights and updates. #LibertyOrElse

If you believe in Liberty Or Else's mission and would like to help us continue our fight for liberty and spread our message, please consider making a voluntary monthly contribution.

Thank you.


bottom of page