Opinion ID: 2692120
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Independent Sources of Authority

Text: {¶7} Because the evidence of baiting was plainly visible to the officer only after he entered Coburn’s private land, the critical issue in the motion to dismiss was whether the officer had the authority to enter the land. Thus, while appellants raise two propositions of law for our review, they pose only one legal question: Under what circumstances may a state wildlife officer enter private land? {¶8} Two statutes apply to this issue: R.C. 1531.13 and 1531.14. When interpreting statutes, we must first examine the plain language and apply the statute as written when its meaning is clear and unambiguous. State v. Lowe, 112 Ohio St.3d 507, 2007-Ohio-606, 861 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 9. {¶9} R.C. 1531.13 provides as follows: “Any regularly employed salaried wildlife officer may enter any private lands or waters if the wildlife officer has good cause to believe and does believe that a law is being violated.” The meaning of this provision is clear, unambiguous, and not disputed by the parties – when a wildlife officer has good cause to believe that a law is being violated, and does so believe, he or she may enter upon private lands to However, the state did not raise this challenge in the trial court or the court of appeals, and we did not accept it for review. Therefore, the challenge has been waived. See State ex rel. Porter v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety (1998), 84 Ohio St.3d 258, 259, 703 N.E.2d 308. 3 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO investigate the potential violation. Because there in no evidence in the record that the officer in this case had good cause to believe that appellants were violating the law at the beginning of the encounter, the officer did not have authority under R.C. 1531.13 to enter Coburn’s land. {¶10} However, R.C. 1531.14 gives wildlife officers an additional form of authority to enter private land: “Any person regularly employed by the division of wildlife    in the enforcement of laws or division rules relating to game or fish,    while in the normal, lawful, and peaceful pursuit of such investigation, work, or enforcement may enter upon, cross over, be upon, and remain upon privately owned lands for such purposes and shall not be subject to arrest for trespass while so engaged or for such cause thereafter.” This provision is similarly clear and unambiguous; it plainly permits wildlife officers to enter upon private land while in the normal, lawful, and peaceful pursuit of enforcing laws relating to game and fish. {¶11} In this case, the officer stated that he entered Coburn’s land to check appellants’ hunting licenses and to ensure that they were complying with the applicable bag limits pursuant to his statutory powers to do so. Under R.C. 1533.14, hunters must carry their hunting licenses and exhibit them to wildlife officers upon request; the failure to do so is a citable offense. Although Coburn was not required to have a license, because he was hunting on his own land, see R.C. 1533.10, the other two appellants were required to have licenses, and the officer was entitled to approach them to inspect their licenses. Likewise, R.C. 1531.13 gives wildlife officers the authority to “inspect any container or package at any time except when within a building and the owner or person in charge of the building objects.” This inspection “shall be only for bag limits of wild animals.” Id. Because the appellants were not within a building at the time of the encounter, the officer had the authority to approach them to conduct a bag-limit inspection. 4 January Term, 2009 {¶12} As the foregoing demonstrates, the officer was acting in the normal, lawful, and peaceful pursuit of his law-enforcement powers when he approached the appellants. The officer therefore had the authority to enter Coburn’s land under the plain language of R.C. 1531.14. {¶13} The appellants argue that a review of the statutes in pari materia reveals that R.C. 1531.13 limits a wildlife officer’s authority under R.C. 1531.14, so that officers may enter private land to check licenses and bag-limit compliance only when they have good cause to believe that a law is being violated. However, even if we read the statutes in pari materia, which is unnecessary when the statutes are not ambiguous, see State ex rel. Herman v. Klopfleisch (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 581, 585, 651 N.E.2d 995, it is clear that R.C. 1531.13 and 1531.14 provide independent forms of authority. {¶14} The statutes do not refer to each other or suggest that the powers listed therein are conditional on any other subsections. It is certainly true that the powers in these two sections may overlap in certain circumstances. For example, if a wildlife officer has reliable information that a group of hunters is illegally baiting birds, the officer may approach them both to check their licenses and baglimit compliance under R.C. 1531.14 and to investigate what the officer has good cause to believe is a violation of the law under R.C. 1531.13. However, there is absolutely nothing in the statutory scheme that suggests that a wildlife officer may enforce routine laws, e.g., determining whether hunters are licensed (or properly exempted from license requirements) and complying with bag limits under R.C. 1531.13, only when they have good cause to believe that such laws are being violated. Appellants’ reading would essentially eliminate the plain language of R.C. 1531.14, which we must avoid in construing statutes. See State v. Chandler, 109 Ohio St.3d 223, 2006-Ohio-2285, 846 N.E.2d 1234, ¶ 8. 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO {¶15} Given the independent nature of these powers, we reject the appellants’ argument that wildlife officers may enter private land only if they have good cause to believe that a law has been violated.