Michigan bill would require DNR conservation officers to obtain a warrant before entering private land

Representative Preston reintroduced House Bill 4073, which would require Department of Natural Resources conservation officers to obtain a warrant before entering private property, with exceptions for owner consent, hot pursuit, exigent circumstances or actions to prevent destruction or concealment of evidence.

The bill’s sponsor said the measure aims to balance privacy and enforcement. “The bill would require DNR conservation officers to obtain a warrant before entering private property,” Representative Preston told the committee. He said the open‑fields doctrine is “controversial” and that curtilage can be unclear, leading to disagreements about where officers may lawfully enter.

Why it matters: supporters say the change would protect private‑property rights and reduce the risk of abuse, while opponents — including DNR leadership — warned it could impede enforcement of natural‑resource laws on privately owned land and create operational burdens.

DNR Chief Jason Haines urged caution. “The open fields doctrine was established in Hester versus United States in 1924,” Haines said, and the doctrine was reaffirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Dunn (1987). He told the committee the bill “goes far beyond the open fields doctrine” and, under a strict reading, could prevent officers from approaching a residence’s front door to make contact absent consent or a warrant. He said the department trains officers to document and articulate reasonable suspicion or probable cause before entering private property and to “go directly to that site where they have probable cause … and leave in a direct pathway.”

Haines warned of practical consequences if the bill were enacted as written. He described scenarios in which officers who see an illegal bait pile from an adjacent parcel would need hours to obtain a warrant, consult a prosecutor, return with additional personnel and serve the warrant — work that he said would reduce the division’s ability to respond to other complaints or undertake proactive patrols. He argued the bill would create a “double standard” between DNR officers and other police agencies working under the open‑fields doctrine and could hamper joint enforcement.

Private‑property owners and others testified with specific complaints about perceived DNR overreach. Mark LaBeauf, who identified himself as a private landowner in Ishpeming, described an encounter in which two officers entered his garage and yard after he had field‑dressed a deer. “The two men never identified themselves and kept walking towards me,” LaBeauf told the committee. He said the officers later told him they would “sneak in” on future visits, and he said that experience left his household unsettled. Dan Harrington described DNR officers entering his property repeatedly, placing roadblocks and disturbing hunts; he said the officers wrote a ticket after the encounter.

Committee members asked about evidence or statistics. Vice Chair McFaul and Representative Myers Phillips said they had heard anecdotal reports but asked for data on how often warrantless entries occur and whether prosecutors decline cases because a warrant was not obtained. Chief Haines said he was not aware of instances in his career where prosecutors refused to take a case solely because a warrant was not obtained and emphasized that officers are trained and accountable but that humans sometimes err.

Several lawmakers raised legal and practical questions. Representative Myers Phillips noted the long history of the open‑fields doctrine and said the bill’s effect could slow timely enforcement; Representative Vanderwall and others asked how aerial surveillance (planes or drones) or observations from adjoining property would affect probable cause. Representative Hovley asked whether the bill would allow pursuit of a suspect who crosses from public land to private land; Preston replied that carved‑out exceptions preserve that authority.

Senator Ed McBroom, appearing by video, said private‑property owners statewide report feeling that the DNR “is the most powerful law enforcement agency in this state” and urged adopting the bill’s protections. Haines and department staff said conservation officers are Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement (MCOLES) certified, perform broad law‑enforcement duties and have long received training on the open‑fields doctrine and curtilage analysis.

The committee did not take a final vote on House Bill 4073 during this hearing. Members recorded procedural actions during the meeting, including approval of committee minutes by unanimous consent and a motion to excuse absent members adopted by unanimous consent.

What’s next: sponsors and DNR staff said they will continue discussions. Representative Preston and several committee members requested more precise data and clarifications about curtilage, use of aerial surveillance and prosecutorial practice. The hearing record includes multiple personal testimonies and DNR policy explanations that lawmakers said they will consider when drafting or amending language.

Ending: the committee concluded the hearing on House Bill 4073 and moved to the next agenda item; no formal committee vote on the bill was recorded at the session’s close.