Quote Originally Posted by frigginchi View Post
I think the reason USFWS is involved is that they provide the framework to which the state regulations are based of of and that the state claims it is only following the USFWS framework. Just a guess.
That’s right, but how will the court view it. I’m sure it’s obvious that usfws framework is responsible for the constitutional violation. But if they are not the ones enforcing the regulations, if the falconer was searched by state authorities then the state violated his constitutional rights. USFWS can’t be held responsible for this, but their framework incited it. This should have been done a few years back when there was, clear and substantial constitutional violation. Like when the regulations were wrote. But then again by excepting the terms of the regulations knowing it includes the provision of search of premises. I could be argued with success that you contracted away or waiver this constitutional protection. The same as one would waive their right to remain silent or to an attorney.
It’s sad, but if I was the judge I would have to say, the falconer knowing this provision existed prior to obtaining a falconry permit waived his right to a warranted search.
even though it conflicts with the 1st and 4th. By obtaining and signing on these rights are waived, at that point you have agreed to their terms.
If was was the judge I would rule this way, you signed on, you knew it could happen you waive your rights. Glad I’m not the judge.