by Mark Chesnut - Tuesday, May 13, 2025
While lawful hunters understand that game wardens are an extremely important cog in the wildlife conservation wheel, the fact that they are allowed to enter private property without a warrant or probable cause is controversial and grates on the nerves of some more liberty-minded individuals. Of course, if game wardens were not able to do so, it would make their job of stopping poachers, who are not hunters, and other lawbreakers more difficult and could lead to less effective enforcement efforts, which are, incidentally, funded by hunters’ dollars. As you can see, good points can be made on both sides of the argument.
The ability of game wardens and other members of law enforcement to enter private lands without a warrant is based on a legal principle known as the open fields doctrine. It was first introduced in 1924 in the U.S. Supreme Court case Hester v. United States, a case involving a warrantless entry onto private land by federal agents to search for illicit whiskey. The doctrine states that the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures does not extend to open fields or apply to all private property.
The ruling, written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, stated: “The special protection accorded by the Fourth Amendment to the people in their ‘persons, houses, papers and effects,’ is not extended to the open fields.” Fast-forward a century, and the doctrine is being challenged in a case currently being considered by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The case disputes a 2007 lower court ruling upholding warrantless entry by law enforcement officers onto private land.
Specifically, two private hunting clubs are asking the state Supreme Court to nullify the open fields doctrine in Pennsylvania. An attorney representing both the Punxsutawney Hunting Club and Pitch Pine Hunting Club presented oral arguments before the court in April.
Joshua Windham, an Institute for Justice attorney who is representing the clubs, said employees of the Pennsylvania Game Commission entered the clubs’ posted property at least 22 times over an eight-year period and even used a trail camera to check for game law violations.
“They don’t want intruders on their properties, and they’ve taken every measure you can think of to keep intruders out,” Windham said, in a news conference prior to the hearing. He said those measures included posting no trespassing signs, marking trees with purple paint and having locked gates at the entrances.
Appearing alongside Windham was Frank Stockdale, president of the Punxsutawney Hunting Club’s board of directors, who said, “We feel like we’re invaded. We see game wardens on bicycles, in their trucks on our private property, which is completely gated and has no trespassing signs around the property. We feel like we’ve been harassed.”
Representing the state, Deputy Attorney General Anthony Kovalchick defended the 101-year-old U.S. Supreme Court ruling, telling the court that game wardens have every right to enter private property without a warrant. “The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently adhered to the open fields doctrine since 1924,” he said. “They are asking the court to jettison over 100 years of precedent.”
The state Supreme Court is still considering the arguments and has not yet issued a ruling. While a win for the plaintiffs could spawn a movement that might eventually lead to an end to the open fields doctrine, a decision in favor of the state would uphold the status quo, leaving many hunters and landowners concerned over the ability to protect their privacy and to prevent the potential for harassment or abuse.
As mentioned earlier, the open fields doctrine is a controversial and complicated issue with many subtleties to consider. It has its purpose, but abuses—though rare—have happened. We’ll keep you posted as we await the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision.
About the Author
Freelance writer and editor Mark Chesnut is the owner/editorial director at Red Setter Communications LLC in Jenks, Okla. An avid hunter, shooter and field-trialer, he has been covering Second Amendment issues and politics on a near-daily basis for over 25 years.