As someone who grew up in rural PA, this is a pretty straightforward way to get shot as a trespasser.
For being found guilty (overturned on appeal) of fishing with more than 8 lines due to what is likely a vendetta on the part of the officer. A particularly succinct example of automated cruelty. But what can one do?
Maybe it was negligent rather than intentional. For example, the company might've just been using some form they got from an outsourced service. Or a lawyer might've made the form for them, but using an obnoxius template (as templates tend to be, AFAICT).
So, when people are in this situation, they can try asking the company about it (a recruiter, HR contact, or the hiring manager). The company's response could be strong signal about the actual corporate culture you'd find if you joined.
(Personally, if I was a hiring manager, and didn't know that candidates had started seeing this form, I'd want to know, and I'd make sure the right people were looking at it. To see whether that was intended, is it legal, is it a message we want to send, etc.)
You could also try contacting a labor regulatory authority or state AG's office, to see whether it's even legal. And/or, contact a state lawmaker, and suggest that it seems unconstitutional. It might even be an arguable EEOC violation where you are (e.g., if some protected group there is more likely to have adverse interactions even when innocent).
I'm not trying to be an ass, but the US' principles of justice are universally fucked.
No. The officer trespassed. Burglars aren't promulgating an alternate legal foundation of ownership, they're just jacking your shit.
If you 100% truly owned your own land you'd be the monarch of your own state.
In this legal case the state is policing their water/fish on behalf of all the other property owners in the area as well as anyone that would benefit from said water/fish (downstream impacts, as it were).
You're confusing ownership with control. Ownership grants but does not guarantee control [1].
Countries nominally control the territory within their borders. In this case, the state is also legally entitled to certain rights pertaining to the water. (Similar to how a homeowner is entitled to certain rights pertaining to their property.)
Neither the U.S. nor Pennsylvania purport to own freeheld private property. That means they aren't entitled to it. And aren't entitled to exercise unlimited control over it. If the answer is well it's only pieces of paper that delineate that divide, then sure, but it's only pieces of paper that delineate a state's border.
> If you 100% truly owned your own land you'd be the monarch of your own state
Again, control. In many monarchies, the monarch controls a legal entity that owns the lands of the state. Or is the legal represenative of a deity who is the legal owner.
[1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9780333983898_3
In the general case however, I'm not sure they should have the powers that the statute implies without proportionate limits.
“In open court, out loud, Officer Moon said he wasn’t bound by no-trespassing signs, and said he had a mandate to go anywhere. He is wrong because private property is sacred. The Fourth Amendment and its protection from search and seizure is the only thing standing between us and tyranny.”
No Monetary Gain
According to 12 words of Pennsylvania state code, PFBC officials have authority to “enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties.” The statue provides wide latitude for PFBC to enter onto any property without consent, probable cause, or warrant—with no limits on duration, frequency, or scope.
Say what? That is how you get shot in rural america, as you should...
Similar things have happened a few times (eg [1]) often no charges are filed
[1] https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/fort-worth-man-who-shot-st...
I'm sure we'll see more important fishing license violation, constitutional law articles, here on ycombinator in the near future...
I guess this is all they have to worry about out in lake side Pennsylvania...
On the one hand, they aggressively advocate for obvious constitutional rights cases like this one and have put a lot of effort into fighting legally-accepted-yet-fundamentally-nonsensical practices like civil forfeiture.
On the other, they also aggressively support school vouchers, which are mostly a scheme to drain money from public schools into private ones that can use broad excuses to keep out students that would cost more or lower their grade averages.
As currently posed, the voucher is a subsidy to already wealthy people who can afford to supplement the voucher with extra $$ to pay for their children’s education.
Maybe giving money so more kids can attend Catholic schools is a good thing
Gates-Davis also lives on the far south side, which has structural school quality problems that aren't reasonable to pin on CTU.
I don't like CTU. I'm generally not a fan of teachers unions in major metros (most major metro teachers are in fact surprisingly well compensated). But I'm a little tired of this dunk; it's not a good one.
No; the very very obvious "good thing" here would be to fix the Chicago public school system, whatever that entails. (And yes, I know that's guaranteed to be politically and logistically more difficult than just diverting more taxpayer money to private schools, but it's still the right thing to do.)
You could argue that the 1st Amendment only applies to laws written by Congress and not the whims of state governments but the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that it does extend downwards like that.
Then again, the Supreme Court also ruled that if a state does decide to subsidize private education it can't discriminate based on religion VS non-religion (Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue).
The bigger argument: By allowing a state to fund religious institutions (educational or not) you're basically granting the state great power over religious institutions (as well as taking non-sectarian money and giving it to sectarian causes). A governor or powerful congressman/regulator could demand all sorts of concessions from religious institutions or their funding could be withheld or reduced. In other words, it gives the government direct (and/or indirect) influence over the religion itself.
School should be the same way. Education should not be lowest-common-denominator. My kids should not have less opportunity because other kids have greater challenges.
Operating that way is ethical and humane.
Or are you saying that should only be a privilege of the rich?
Having gone to both public and private schools, while I had horrible experiences with both, at least there was teaching going on in my private schools.
My public school experience was horrific, even in NYC's so-called "gifted" schools. My brother's kid only went to NYC public schools and her experiences were so much worse. My public school tried to have me put on psychiatric medication without a diagnosis from a qualified professional and my niece's public school spent two years trying to gaslight her that she was not gay but trans (as well as a whole bunch targeted harassment from her teachers for being vocally politically conservative).
Neither of those things have anything to do with what the schools' mandate should be: education.
Grew up with plenty of other poor kids going to those schools too.
No: I don't think anyone should have the option of private schools.
Yes, I think public education should be mandatory in the US. That way, when there are problems with the public school system in a given area, rather than just pulling their own children—and money—out, the rich people would be personally incentivized to find ways to make it better for everyone.
As a kid my option was to be forcibly medicated by some random tyrant bureaucrat or not be allowed to attend school. I had no disorder or diagnosis that required this. Luckily I was able to escape to private school.
More importantly, children are not one-size-fits-all in terms of learning requirements or ability, but public schools only provide one-size-fits-all opportunity.
If public schools are less desirable, we should celebrate that the money is going elsewhere.
Enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duties.
If they couldn't move between properties along shorelines they'd have a hell of a time doing their actual job. Any criminal could fish illegally on private property then flee when a they see a conservation officer approaching in a boat. They'd never catch anyone who fishes along a shore.
This lawsuit seems like a nuclear weapon being thrown at an overly zealous individual who possibly has some sort of personal vendetta against the property owner.
The Fourth Amendment is a level above that, fortunately.
> right to be secure in their homes, papers, and effects
It also explicitly lays out "unreasonable" as the qualifier. Personally... I don't think he has much of a case to challenge the state wording.
So while I strongly support the 4th amendment, I don't really agree with the guy here. It sounds a lot like he's pissed off the officer by fishing illegally.
My bigger takeaway is that Uber and Lyft are able to automatically dismiss him from a position without consequence for a completely unrelated offense. Even if I think he's completely guilty (and to be clear - I don't) I'm hard pressed to consider "wildlife & game license violation" worthy of impacting a job that involves driving other folks around.
persons, houses, papers, and effects,
> In Hester v. United States,1 the Court held that the Fourth Amendment did not protect “open fields” and that, therefore, police searches in such areas as pastures, wooded areas, *open water*, and vacant lots need not comply with the requirements of warrants and probable cause.
I also want to point out something very important regarding this case in particular: Curtilage is generally known to be the area between a front door and the street however if your property backs up to open water--and you have a back door--that area between the water and the back door also counts as curtilage.
Also - despite the repeated attempts at implying it in the article, I really don't suspect the guy is there to creep on an elderly cancer patient in her bathroom.
It sounds a lot like he's on land, which is not protected by the 4th, and he's there well within his scope of authority as granted by the state.
No trespassing signs only apply to someone there without permission. He explicitly has permission from the state. And trespassing is very clearly not "search".
Harassment? Possibly. Abuse of authority? Possibly. Illegal search? ehhh... probably not.
The state can't give you permission to something that the federal government explicitly doesn't give you access to.