Senate committee hears bill to limit wildlife officers’ on‑the‑spot searches, clarify rules on antler/skull possession

Carson City — At a hearing of the Nevada Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Sen. Ira Hansen, R‑District 14, introduced Senate Bill 235, which would narrow what wildlife officers may require hunters and fishers to produce during field encounters and would update rules on possession of skulls, horns and antlers (so‑called “deadheads”).

The bill would retain the requirement that a person engaged in regulated wildlife activity produce a license or permit on request, but would remove the criminal penalty for refusing to display anything beyond that license or permit and would explicitly allow electronic presentation of licenses. The bill also includes language to permit possession of dry skulls, horns or antlers that are the product of natural processes and proposes adjustments to juvenile tag transfer language.

Why it matters: Proponents say the current statute compels hunters and fishers to produce evidence that could be used to incriminate them, potentially running afoul of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Opponents — principally representatives of game wardens and law‑enforcement unions — warned the change could limit officers’ ability to check for over‑limits, improperly taken game or public‑safety risks in the field.

Most important provisions and sponsors - Sponsor: Sen. Ira Hansen (R., District 14). Hansen told the committee the bill has two parts: a judiciary‑focused section addressing constitutional protections and a second section addressing possession of animal remains. Hansen said the statute as written (dating from 1955) allows officers to demand a license and “any wildlife which the person may have in his or her possession or any weapon, ammunition, device, or apparatus,” and that, as interpreted, refusing to comply can lead to a citation for hindering and a loss of hunting privileges. - Co‑sponsor and frequent interlocutor: former Sen. Dallas Harris, who testified in support and framed the measure as balancing enforcement and constitutional rights.

Key details from testimony and debate - Constitutional concerns: Hansen argued the statute forces individuals to turn over potentially incriminating evidence and cited the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. He said the existing statute could require a hunter to hand over weapons, ammunition or game and, if the person declines, be cited for “hindering” and face loss of hunting, fishing and trapping privileges for up to several years.

- What the bill would change: Senate Bill 235 would remove the criminal penalty for refusing to display items other than a license or permit, and would explicitly allow licenses to be shown electronically. The bill also proposes language modeled after Arizona law to allow the possession of “dry bone resulting from natural processes” (deadheads) for noncommercial, lawful purposes, and would revise wording around junior tag transfers to avoid automatic fiscal triggers.

- Support: Paloma Guerra of the Clark County Public Defender’s Office said SB235 “will protect the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of permitted hunters and fishers.” Nick Shepack of the Fines and Fees Justice Center described current practice as “stop and frisk but in the woods,” arguing the statutory language allows self‑incrimination via on‑the‑spot searches. Angela Knott of the Washoe County Public Defender’s Office also said the offices support the bill.

- Opposition and reservations: James Mortimer of the Nevada Police Union, representing state game wardens, said the bill “strips game wardens of their police powers and administrative ability to check and ensure hunting public don’t have loaded rifles in their vehicle,” citing public‑safety concerns and a recent deadly incident in Elko County. Several sportsmen and conservation witnesses, including Larry Johnson of the Coalition for Nevada’s Wildlife, said they supported much of the bill (particularly the deadhead cleanup) but opposed removing officers’ administrative ability to inspect equipment or animals when needed to enforce limits and safety rules.

- Board and department views: Paul Young, speaking for the Board of Wildlife Commissioners, said the board supports cleaning up deadhead regulations and supports the junior‑tag regulatory fix, but raised a drafting concern: the use of the word “take” could be read to mean harvest; commissioners preferred “gather” when describing deadhead pickup and asked for a check‑in mechanism to prevent creating poaching loopholes. Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) staff testified in a neutral posture on some parts: Deputy Director Mike Scott and Chief Kristi Knight said NDOW already accepts electronic licenses in practice and supported the administrative fix for junior tag transfer but expressed technical and fiscal considerations.

Selected direct quotes (attributed) - Sen. Ira Hansen, sponsor: “When a law enforcement officer comes up to you in the field … you are required to turn over incriminating evidence potentially.”

- Former Sen. Dallas Harris (testifying in support): “SB 235 is exactly that, good policy.”

- Paloma Guerra, Clark County Public Defender’s Office: “By making the statutory changes, SB 235 will protect the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights of permitted hunters and fishers.”

Process, status and next steps No committee vote on SB235 was recorded at the hearing. Committee members asked technical and policy questions; the sponsor indicated willingness to work with NDOW and the Board of Wildlife Commissioners on drafting and on a recommended amendment to adopt “gather” rather than “take” for deadhead language. The bill remains before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources for further consideration and drafting work.

Background and context Committee members and witnesses framed the bill against a long statutory and regulatory history: the statutory language in question dates to mid‑20th century rules, while recent commission regulations (cited in testimony as “CGR 475” or similar) have at times created confusion about whether possession of antlers attached to skulls was unlawful. The sponsor said language in some on‑line resources no longer appears, creating two versions “floating around” that need legislative clarification.

Ending Supporters urged lawmakers to prioritize constitutional protections while preserving practical enforcement tools; opponents urged careful drafting to retain officers’ ability to address over‑limits and public‑safety risks in the field. Committee members signaled they expect further work with NDOW and the wildlife commission on precise regulatory and statutory language.