Senate debates conservation officer search and seizure bill amid DNR pushback

The Minnesota Senate's Committee on Environment, Climate, and Legacy convened on March 20, 2025, to discuss several significant legislative proposals, including Senate File 1535 and Senate File 956, which sparked considerable debate regarding the authority of conservation officers and the protection of constitutional rights.

The meeting began with a motion by Senator Anne Johnson Stewart to recommend Senate File 1535 for passage and re-referral to the Capital Investment Committee. The motion was approved unanimously, reflecting a collective acknowledgment of the need to address long-standing funding issues within the program since 2017.

Following this, the committee turned its attention to Senate File 956, introduced by Senator Green. This bill aims to clarify the search and seizure authority of conservation officers, aligning it more closely with constitutional protections under the Fourth Amendment. Senator Green emphasized that the bill seeks to ensure that conservation officers adhere to established legal procedures before conducting searches, particularly in private spaces like fish houses.

Testimony was provided by Steve Porter, a board member of Hunters for Hunters, who argued that the bill is necessary to restore credibility to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) in Northern Minnesota. He recounted instances where conservation officers allegedly violated individuals' rights by conducting searches without proper consent or warrants. Porter asserted that the bill does not impose new restrictions but reinforces existing constitutional protections.

Colonel Rodman Smith, representing the DNR, countered these claims, stating that the bill would create a double standard for conservation officers, hindering their ability to perform essential law enforcement duties. He argued that conservation officers already operate under the same legal standards as other law enforcement agencies and that the proposed changes would complicate their operations, particularly in emergency situations.

The discussion highlighted a divide among committee members, with some supporting the bill as a necessary measure to protect citizens' rights, while others viewed it as an unnecessary restriction on law enforcement capabilities. Senator Anton Stumpf raised concerns about the practical implications of the bill on routine checks, such as monitoring fish limits, to which Colonel Smith responded that existing practices would remain unchanged.

As the meeting progressed, various senators expressed their views, with some advocating for amendments to ensure that conservation officers are treated equally under the law. However, Senator Green maintained that the bill's intent is to uphold constitutional rights without diminishing the authority of conservation officers.

The committee concluded the session with a commitment to further review the implications of the proposed legislation, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that respects both individual rights and the responsibilities of law enforcement. The discussions will continue as the committee prepares for future hearings on the matter.