Court Opinion

ID: 9802201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 08:59:23.655689+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:59:29.741031
License: Public Domain

O’Donnell, J.,
concurring.
{¶ 17} I concur, but do so reluctantly. In my view, the statutes in this case do not cohere. R.C. 1531.13 requires that a wildlife officer have both a good cause to believe and an actual belief that the law is being violated before he is permitted to enter private land pursuant to R.C. 1531.13.
{¶ 18} At the same time, R.C. 1531.14 provides that any person employed by the division of wildlife who is engaged “in the enforcement of laws or division rules relating to game or fish” may enter private lands “while in the normal, lawful, and peaceful pursuit” of such enforcement. R.C. 1531.14 therefore provides an independent source of authority for a wildlife officer to enter private lands to enforce any law relating to game or fish. Thus, R.C. 1531.14 appears to have rendered R.C. 1531.13 superfluous and nullified the legislative requirement that a wildlife officer have both good cause to believe and an actual belief that a law is being violated before entering private land. While I concur with the majority, I would urge the General Assembly to clarify its intent with respect to these statutes.