Search by Conservation Officer?

[AngryRooster]

Ok, I'm lost. What's the deal with the ginseng? Why the attraction?

 

[miguel]

Ok, I'm lost. What's the deal with the ginseng? Why the attraction?

OK, I am still in a stupor over the ginseng thing.

1. Does it grow native here or is it being planted?

2. Is it legal to plant and grow your own ginseng? Or is it only "wild ginseng" hunters being pursued?

****ing ginseng! Learn something new every day!

 

[patience0830]

If you're going to frisk depends, wear gloves. I hear they are often moist.

OK, I am still in a stupor over the ginseng thing.

1. Does it grow native here or is it being planted?

2. Is it legal to plant and grow your own ginseng? Or is it only "wild ginseng" hunters being pursued?

****ing ginseng! Learn something new every day!

Native plant.

You can plant and grow yourself.

There used to be a season and size limit for harvesting on state ground as well as a requirement to plant the seeds where you found them, IIRC. MAY still be one. Haven't thought about hunting it in years.

 

[miguel]

Native plant.

You can plant and grow yourself.

There used to be a season and size limit for harvesting on state ground as well as a requirement to plant the seeds where you found them, IIRC. MAY still be one. Haven't thought about hunting it in years.

Rep for you!

This is nuts. Why don't people just grow their own if it is legal?

Crazy world.

 

[churchmouse]

Rep for you!

This is nuts. Why don't people just grow their own if it is legal?

Crazy world.

No place to do it. Never live anywhere long enough. To freaking lazy.

 

[1861navy]

Conservation officers are bound by the same laws as all LEOs.




There are some things that fall under an implied consent, though, just like driving comes with implied consent to take a certified BAC test when certain conditions are met. Unless it was repealed in the last session, fishing gives implied consent to provide your fishing license upon request, for example.

14-22-39-3 addresses some of these issues as well. I'm not well versed in fur/fish/game laws to comment much further, but poking around in the IC would probably net you the answers.

According to IAC 8-2-10 mushroom hunting is exempted from licensure in Indiana.

312 IAC 8-2-10 Preservation of habitat and natural and cultural resources
Authority: IC 14-10-2-4; IC 14-11-2-1
Affected: IC 14
Sec. 10. Except as authorized by a license, a person must not do any of the following within a DNR property:

(1) Molest an animal den or bird nest.
(2) Collect any wild animal, except as authorized by section 3 or 4 of this rule.
(3) Damage or collect a plant or pick flowers. Exempted from this subdivision are the following:
(A) Berries.
(B) Fruits.
(C) Nuts.
(D) Fallen cones.
(E) Mushrooms.
(F) Leaves.
(G) Greens.
(4) Pick berries, fruits, nuts, fallen cones, mushrooms, leaves, or greens on a nature preserve, or another property administered by the division of nature preserves, unless the property is located at any of the following:
(A) A state park.
(B) A reservoir property
(C) A fish and wildlife area.
(D) A state forest.

 

[1861navy]

Native plant.

You can plant and grow yourself.

There used to be a season and size limit for harvesting on state ground as well as a requirement to plant the seeds where you found them, IIRC. MAY still be one. Haven't thought about hunting it in years.

I believe with a license you still can. IC 14-31-3 covers ginseng.
Indiana Code - Chapter 3: GINSENG

 

[1861navy]

Ok, I'm lost. What's the deal with the ginseng? Why the attraction?

Money, money, money. These are last years prices from a quick search I did on ginseng prices out of curiosity. From: https://www.wildozark.com/ginseng-root-prices-2014/

prices range from 600.00 to 750.00 Lb dry wild Seng in Ohio (10/11/14)

• Iowa – fresh ginseng root $220/lb
• Kentucky – dried ginseng root $700/lb (roots legally procured in Arkansas, at least, should not already be dry…)
• Arkansas, Harrison – $550/lb on 9/25 – no longer buying at all 10/1 (market bottomed out) 10/25 – buying again $400-500/lb

 

[AngryRooster]

Looks like I'm going to have to check into that. The wife said it's all over the woods behind our field. She remembers her father bringing some back from there many years ago. He's been gone for 15 years now so we'll have to search around for a place to start.

 

[Restroyer]

Ginseng money is the locals favorite, untaxed, unattached and ungarnished beer and smoke money. I find the tracks and holes out in the woods along with the trail of trash. Sometimes I get a picture.

Yeah, on a particular trail of mine several acres deep in the woods I have a trail camera for deer mostly and then last week I got the backside of some nasty woman wearing daisy dukes and carrying a baby that only had on a diaper. Unfortunately it was on a slow camera that had a 1.5 second trigger so I didn't get her face. I assumed she was a ginseng hunter since she had to travel across a ravine and a swampy mosquito area and then up a steep hill to get on the trail several acres deep in the woods and past several no trespassing signs. She's not one of my neighbors and it was so weird seeing a woman carrying a baby so poorly dressed for the terrain on my trail camera. No one knows who she is and everyone assumes she's hunting ginseng. Weirdos.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Because you consented, we may never know.

Actually, the answer is that they probably don't need PC in this situation. First, it has been awhile, but by going into the park, you probably consented to those kinds of searches. Second, the officer isn't required to believe you. You admitted you were "hunting chants" and you had the tools to dig for ginseng, so he probably had a reasonable articulable suspicion for a brief detention and limited search.

My concern here is that by the same logic, most male INGO members could be detained for suspicion of rape by virtue of having, well, working plumbing.

 

[T.Lex]

My concern here is that by the same logic, most male INGO members could be detained for suspicion of rape by virtue of having, well, working plumbing.

Reductio ad absurdum - always a fun game.

To use your analogy, if a woman reports a rape in a certain area, a man with working plumbing is found in the area, and admits to looking for women in that area to rape - just not THAT woman - I'm confident a court would allow a search.

 

[chipbennett]

Reductio ad absurdum - always a fun game.

To use your analogy, if a woman reports a rape in a certain area, a man with working plumbing is found in the area, and admits to looking for women in that area to rape - just not THAT woman - I'm confident a court would allow a search.

Poor analogy. Where did the OP admit to looking for illegal activity to conduct?

 

[T.Lex]

Poor analogy. Where did the OP admit to looking for illegal activity to conduct?

Admittedly, as a lawyer, I'm not familiar with morels.

(C'mon, please, someone get that one.)

But, to satisfy your analogy complaint, working-plumbing dude can admit to looking for women to have sex with in the area, just not THAT woman. I still think it would be enough of admission to amount to PC.

 

[Fargo]

Admittedly, as a lawyer, I'm not familiar with morels.

(C'mon, please, someone get that one.)

But, to satisfy your analogy complaint, working-plumbing dude can admit to looking for women to have sex with in the area, just not THAT woman. I still think it would be enough of admission to amount to PC.

I think that analogies between malum in se and malum prohibitum actions are generally flawed on their face so I don't like the rape analogy from the start.

Looking for chants is a perfectly legal activity without malum in se implications. Looking for ginseng without following the rules is a malum prohibitum act.

I'm skeptical that an admission to looking for chants somehow constitute PC for illegal ginseng hunting without something more. Now if you were wandering around in a patch of freshly dug ginseng or something like that, I'm on board.

 

[Rookie]

Admittedly, as a lawyer, I'm not familiar with morels.

(C'mon, please, someone get that one.)

But, to satisfy your analogy complaint, working-plumbing dude can admit to looking for women to have sex with in the area, just not THAT woman. I still think it would be enough of admission to amount to PC.

I see what you did there.

 

[chipbennett]

Admittedly, as a lawyer, I'm not familiar with morels.

(C'mon, please, someone get that one.)

I see what you did there...

But, to satisfy your analogy complaint, working-plumbing dude can admit to looking for women to have sex with in the area, just not THAT woman. I still think it would be enough of admission to amount to PC.

Let's make the analogy more realistic. Take it to a night club or bar, and pose the question to a guy looking for some woman to take home - as many people at bars are there to do, both male and female.

Admission of a perfectly legal act (consensual, if short-lived, sex) in no way constitutes probable cause of an illegal act (rape). I don't think you could even claim RAS, absent more (e.g. admitting to trying to get women drunk in order to get consent, etc.)

 

[foszoe]

I think that analogies between malum in se and malum prohibitum actions are generally flawed on their face so I don't like the rape analogy from the start.

Looking for chants is a perfectly legal activity without malum in se implications. Looking for ginseng without following the rules is a malum prohibitum act.

I'm skeptical that an admission to looking for chants somehow constitute PC for illegal ginseng hunting without something more. Now if you were wandering around in a patch of freshly dug ginseng or something like that, I'm on board.

It's all amicus curiae until the habeas corpus allows continuation of the via appia.

 

[T.Lex]

I'm skeptical that an admission to looking for chants somehow constitute PC for illegal ginseng hunting.

Presence in area of prohibited activity (collecting ginseng) + admission to looking for similar stuff (chants) + tool (for collecting ginseng) + evidence of recent use of tool = at least RAS, and IMHO is probably right at PC.

And c'mon - nothing about the "familiar with morels" thing? Man, tough crowd....

ETA: Whew - at least a couple of you are paying attention.

ETA 2:
I actually agree that the whole hunting chants/rape analogy is bad. The good news is, it isn't my analogy. Blame IndyDave!

 

[chipbennett]

Presence in area of prohibited activity (collecting ginseng) + admission to looking for similar stuff (chants) + tool (for collecting ginseng) + evidence of recent use of tool = at least RAS, and IMHO is probably right at PC.

Let's compare that to RKBA: Presence in an area of prohibited activity (shooting people without justification) + admission to doing something similar (carrying for self-defense) + tool (firearm) + evidence of recent use of tool (it's being carried on person, dirty grips, whatever - although I don't think "evidence of recent use of tool" even applies in the OP's circumstance).

There is zero evidence of any illegal activity here. Lawful activity does not constitute RAS of unlawful activity (see, e.g. US v Black):

We next consider whether Black’s seizure was reasonable.To be lawful, a Terry stop "must be supported at least by areasonable and articulable suspicion that the person seized isengaged in criminal activity." The level of suspicion must be a "particularizedand objective basis for suspecting the particular personstopped of criminal activity." As such, "the officer must beable to point to specific and articulable facts which, takentogether with rational inferences from those facts, reasonablywarrant that intrusion." There is noreasonable suspicion merely by association. We believe the collective-knowledge doctrine issue raised in this caseis fully addressed by our decision in United States v. Massenburg, and see no need to further address it.

Here, the totality of the factors outlined by the districtcourt—an individual’s presence at a gas station; prior arresthistory of another individual; lawful possession and display ofa firearm by another; Black’s submission of his ID showingan out-of-district address to Officer Zastrow, all of whichoccurred in a high crime area at night—fails to support theconclusion that Officer Zastrow had reasonable suspicion todetain Black.

...

Third, it is undisputed that under the laws of North Carolina,which permit its residents to openly carry firearms, Troupe’s gun was legally possessed and displayed. The Governmentcontends that because other laws prevent convictedfelons from possessing guns, the officers could not knowwhether Troupe was lawfully in possession of the gun until they performed a records check. Additionally, the Governmentavers it would be "foolhardy" for the officers to "goabout their business while allowing a stranger in their midstto possess a firearm." We are not persuaded.Being a felon in possession of a firearm is not the defaultstatus. More importantly, where a state permits individuals toopenly carry firearms, the exercise of this right, without more,cannot justify an investigatory detention. Permitting such ajustification would eviscerate Fourth Amendment protectionsfor lawfully armed individuals in those states.

The principles here are analogous, and the constitutional authority to conduct an investigatory detention (and search) directly applies to the OP.