§
Subdivision 1.Storing wild animals.
(a) When an enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that wild animals possessed or stored in violation of the game and fish laws are present, the enforcement officer may enter and inspect any commercial cold storage warehouse, hotel, restaurant, ice house, locker plant, butcher shop, and other building used to store dressed meat, game, or fish, to determine whether wild animals are kept and stored in compliance with the game and fish laws.
(b) When an enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that wild animals taken or possessed in violation of the game and fish laws are present, the officer may:
(1) enter and inspect any place or vehicle; and
(2) open and inspect any package or container.
§
Subd. 2.Records.
An enforcement officer may inspect the relevant records of any person that the officer has probable cause to believe has violated the game and fish laws.
§
Subd. 3.Licensed activity.
An enforcement officer may, at reasonable times:
(1) enter and inspect the premises of an activity requiring a license under the game and fish laws; and
(2) stop and inspect a motor vehicle requiring a license under the game and fish laws.
§
Subd. 4.Electronic devices.
During an inspection under subdivision 3, if a person uses an electronic device to display a document to a conservation officer or peace officer:
(1) the officer is immune from liability for any damage to the device, unless the officer does not exercise due care in handling the device; and
(2) it does not constitute consent for the officer to access other contents on the device.
[See Note.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases, 2001–2003 · leading case:
State v. Colosimo, 669 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2003).
State v. Colosimo, 669 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. 2003).
· cites it 30× “" Minn.Stat. § 97A.215, subd. 1(3). This statute makes no mention of a requirement that the officer have probable cause in order to undertake the inspection.”
State v. Larsen, 650 N.W.2d 144 (Minn. 2002).
· cites it 13× “In the performance of his duties under Minn.Stat. § 97A.215 (2000), 1 Officer Fritz proceeded from fish house to fish house knocking on occupied shelters, identifying himself, and checking licenses.”
State v. Krenz, 634 N.W.2d 231 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “The state contends that this carefully defined excep *235 tion to the warrant requirement applies here because ice fishing is a pervasively regulated activity, and Hemker entered the fish house pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 97A.215, subd. 3(1) (1998), which is part of the state…”
State v. Colosimo, 648 N.W.2d 271 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 5× “Thus, unless a person is using a boat for a pervasively regulated business activity, the statute requires probable cause to enter and inspect a boat.”
State v. Larsen, 637 N.W.2d 315 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 6× “ISSUE Did the warrantless search of respondent’s fish house violate his reasonable expectation of privacy? ANALYSIS Respondent’s fish house was searched without a warrant pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 97A.215, subd. 3(1)(2000), which provides that a conservation officer may inspect…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.