Property rights bill draws support from landowners and ag industry, concern from Fish and Game

BOISE — A bill seeking to address warrantless searches drew testimony from private landowners, conservation groups and members of the agricultural sector who each shared differing and at times opposing viewpoints on changes that would significantly curtail the ability of government officials to search private land.

After passing through the Senate last week, the “Property Rights Protection Act” was brought before the House State Affairs Committee on Tuesday by cosponsors Rep. Joe Alfieri, R-Coeur d’Alene, and Rep. Judy Boyle, R-Midvale, who each said the legislation was meant to address a growing issue of state employees entering private lands without permission. 

The U.S. Constitution already outlines protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, with requirements for probable cause and warrants for most searches. But Alfieri said legislation to reinforce these protections was needed because government employees “mistakenly” believe they can enter private property without a warrant.

Under the bill, any employee or representative of the state of Idaho will be barred from entering private land without a valid search warrant or lawful consent of the owner or lessee. Exceptions in the bill to allow for warrantless search exist for “exigent circumstances.” These limited exceptions, defined in Fourth Amendment case law, include providing emergency aid, pursuing a fleeing suspect, and preventing the imminent destruction of evidence.

“If the owner or the occupant of that property tells them to leave and they don’t have a warrant, they have to leave,” Boyle said. "They have to knowingly and willingly violate this.”

Jacob Endecott, a private landowner in support of the legislation, said he had experience with a Fish and Game officer pulling into a pasture on his property seeking to conduct a bird survey and mentioned one occasion of a Forest Service Officer “wandering around our property” next to a no trespassing sign.

“If you ask permission, we’re happy to cooperate,” Endecott said.

Representatives with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game voiced opposition to the legislation, viewing it as a hindrance to the department’s ability to protect the state’s public lands and wildlife, which often intersect with private landholdings. 

Ellary Tucker Williams, legislative and community engagement coordinator at Idaho Fish and Game, said the department’s commissioners were concerned the legislation would limit the ability of conservation officers to conduct compliance checks, which determine whether a person has a license or tag for hunting or fishing activities, and enforce both fish and game trespass laws on private property. 

“Idaho's wildlife belongs to all its citizens held in trust by the department,” Williams said. “The ability of the state to enforce laws and regulations that manage and protect our public resources are critical to upholding that responsibility.”

Justin Williams, the enforcement bureau chief for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, said its compliance checks generally occur only on private property when an officer has observed hunting or fishing there. 

Williams underscored that the department’s officers operate under the same case law, court rulings and constitutional restrictions as any other law enforcement agency in Idaho, which allows for investigation if “reasonable, articulable suspicion” arises of wrongdoing. In the case of fish and game, this could arise through baiting of big game, which is illegal in Idaho when used for species other than black bears and wolves.

If the ability to act on this suspicion were to go away, they would no longer be able to check for this activity without landowner permission or a warrant, the latter of which can take several hours to several days to be issued. Williams said the concern is that individuals on the land, who may not be the landowners, could leave with any evidence before a warrant can be served. 

Citing a September 2025 study from the non-profit hunting and conservation organization Boone and Crockett Club, Williams highlighted that the biggest deterrent to poaching was simply the chance of being caught.

“There's some landowners that if they knew that they can engage in illegal activity — because there's no checks and balances there — they will,” Williams said.

Several who testified took issue with the bill’s inclusion of a liability provision that subjects any government agent who knowingly violates it to a civil penalty of $1,000 per violation. 

Michael Gibson, the Idaho policy advisor at Trout Unlimited, said the organization opposed the penalty because it targets individuals “trying to protect our public resource.” 

Nick Fasciano, who spoke on behalf of the Idaho Wildlife Association, took issue with the fine applying only to conservation officers, saying the organization sought to have the bill amended to subject all other civil officers in the state to the fine in the event of a violation.

Individuals representing the agriculture industry, on the other hand, expressed being in favor of the bill’s passage. Doug Barrie, vice president of the Idaho Farm Bureau, offered support for the legislation and cited stories heard of encroachment and trespassing issues shared at bureau meetings across the state.

Samantha Parrott, representing the Snake River Sugarbeet Growers Association, said the group was “strongly” in support of the legislation and, while “willing to work with state and federal partners,” didn’t want the government entering property without a warrant or permission. 

In the closing discussion on the matter, the committee’s Democratic members raised concerns that the bill could violate the long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent known as the open field doctrine. Under the 1924 case Hester v. United States, the court held the Fourth Amendment did not apply to open fields, allowing for police searches of “pastures, wooded areas, open water, and vacant lots” without warrants or probable cause, according to the Library of Congress. 

Rep. Monica Church, D-Boise, said she was concerned that the legislation would contradict this precedent and use a broad brush for a problem better understood as the result of bad actors rather than department-wide issues.

“Because the Supreme Court has been so clear that the Fourth Amendment does not protect open fields, even if they are privately owned, even if they have a no trespassing sign … we are going to put Idaho into a situation where we are going to be spending a lot of money defending a case up to the Supreme Court,” Church said.

After these concerns were raised, the committee voted 12-2 to send the bill to the House floor for a vote.