# Protecting collections from confiscation?



## heyduke (Sep 19, 2006)

A different thread got me thinking but I felt this was too off track and didn't want to hijack.

What can we do to protect our collection from say an over zealous Barney Fife local police dept from confiscating our collections because they suspect something illegal?

I know at some point you could get it back, but in what condition and at what costs?

Are there documents we should have in our possession to provide local law enforcement just in case? 

Would it be best to talk to the local police premptively or even fish and wildlife on the state level?

Thoughts, experiences, insights?


----------



## parkanz2 (Sep 25, 2008)

Purchase records seem like they would be important (at least to prove you didn't obtain them illegally.) Other than that, I don't know of anything. Other than...

*Wave hand*
"These aren't the frogs you're looking for."


----------



## Jeff R (Jul 1, 2005)

"No Trespassing" signs are a real hinderence for law enforcement, at least here in Oregon. If USFW went out to just "see what they can find" the no trespassing will send them packing. They would really have to have they're ducks in row before they came back. I'm assuming USFW wouldn't go out by themselves and would take LEA with them. This is also under the assumption government agencies will ever find the time and money to go after the private dart frog collection.


----------



## heyduke (Sep 19, 2006)

Jeff R said:


> "No Trespassing" signs are a real hinderence for law enforcement, at least here in Oregon. If USFW went out to just "see what they can find" the no trespassing will send them packing. They would really have to have they're ducks in row before they came back. I'm assuming USFW wouldn't go out by themselves and would take LEA with them. This is also under the assumption government agencies will ever find the time and money to go after the private dart frog collection.


I'm thinking more of the small town police dept who hears from someone that " This guy has poison frogs!!!" and decides to confiscate and put themselves on the local news without really knowing the leagal status or non-toxicity of the frogs.


----------



## zBrinks (Jul 16, 2006)

Keeping copies of local laws and such, with any laws that may be interpreted to apply to your collection highlighted, might be a good idea. Keeping a copy of some literature that states captive bred dart frogs are harmless would be a good idea, as well.


----------



## evolvstll (Feb 17, 2007)

I have yet to see any such incident posted here. I really doubt law enforcement would react in such a knee jerk way. Especially the negative publicity that would follow such an agency if they were incorrect. Not to mention the liability. 
As Zach said a small collection of literature could not hurt.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

I'm going to be Captain Obvious and say, don't keep illegal frogs.


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

heyduke said:


> I'm thinking more of the small town police dept who hears from someone that " This guy has poison frogs!!!" and decides to confiscate and put themselves on the local news without really knowing the leagal status or non-toxicity of the frogs.


It is very very unlikely that the local police are going to making that decision since they typically don't enforce the animal laws.. you are much more likely to have that decision being made by the local animal control department, state fish and game officers and iff they suspect interstate or international trafficing, USF&W officers. Based on my experience from when I worked at the zoo and was called out to these events, the local PD arrests the suspect and removes them from the house or work in conjuction with the relevent wildlife law enforcement officials or stands guard to make sure that the suspect(s) do not return while the inspection is ongoing for illegal animals. Typically legal animals are not taken unless the suspect is arrested and is going to jail. In that case they are taken to prevent death while the suspect is in jail and they have to pay the fee for thier care during that period. At one confiscation I attended, the guy's venomous collection was confiscated since it violated state laws, had been aquired by shipping the snakes through the US mail and involved snakes taken in violation of the state of origin's law... they left him his pac man frogs, his white's treefrogs, rubber and sand boas, because his wife and son would take care of the animals while he was in jail... 

Ed


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> I'm going to be Captain Obvious and say, don't keep illegal frogs.


Don't buy frogs from people who are likely using drugs near thier shipping supplies since I am aware of at least one bust that started because a random sweep of packages resulted in a drug dog hitting on the package and when it was opened it was found to contain animals that were shipped in violation of the Lacey Act (labeling), and other regs.. so it was a big investigation..... 

Ed


----------



## heyduke (Sep 19, 2006)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> I'm going to be Captain Obvious and say, don't keep illegal frogs.


Oh not a chance and Ed I don't know any drug dealers. It was mostly just a thought. Where I live the local pd is the animal control officers. On top of that they tend react on things without knowing laws and their jurisdiction always making them look ridiculous , careless, and shady. 
I could definitely see something like that happening here. I know of a person who's dogs were taken away because they thought they were wolves when in fact they were a Huskey Shepard mix. Yeah they got them back a week latter but with a lawyer bill. 
No one was taken to jail but the animals were removed and not returned until court ordered.
Just a food for thought kinda thing especially for those in small towns with an over zealous police force.


Sean


----------



## heyduke (Sep 19, 2006)

From another thread.



Ed said:


> I've been to seizures where I was one of the experts identifying the animals involved and local regulations can be more of an issue than federal regulations (for example see The 'Real' Snakes Of Rnc Set Free - Philly.com). I had to correct the identification of several of the animals that was made during that seizure. The reason there were heat issues with the animals is because the local police department shut off the AC the guy had before taking the animals to the zoo. The local PD wasn't happen when I told them that virtually everything on the bus was legal.
> 
> Ed


Yeah ........ kind of like this.


Sean


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

This is a little more of the exception than the rule... The action was taken based on a tip and the PD pulled the bus over to check on the driver (due to the use of a red bus on the west coast) and when they saw all of the animals, they thought that they were going to be released at the RNC, so the driver was arrested and the animals confiscated temporarily. The PD had him shut off the bus which shut off the AC in the middle of the summer. Note that the PD didn't directly confiscate the animals, he was arrested so the animals were taken into custody since there wasn't anyone to take care of him. After the fact he had some issues with the city and state regulations for possession of animals without the proper permits (furbearer for the skunks..). He donated some animals to the Zoo as a thanks for the care given to the animals and bypassed PA every since that time.... 

Ed


----------



## Jeff R (Jul 1, 2005)

heyduke said:


> I'm thinking more of the small town police dept who hears from someone that " This guy has poison frogs!!!" and decides to confiscate and put themselves on the local news without really knowing the leagal status or non-toxicity of the frogs.


That's where your "No Trespassing" sign will do wonders. LEA can't go passed them with out probable cause and no judge is going to sign a warrant to go confiscate frogs.


----------



## heyduke (Sep 19, 2006)

Yeah I understand the exception and not the rule. I was just curious if anyone else had ever had problems or what kind of documentation they kept on hand as a just in case. 
So far there have been some pretty good suggestions. Thanks everyone.


Sean


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Jeff R said:


> That's where your "No Trespassing" sign will do wonders. LEA can't go passed them with out probable cause and no judge is going to sign a warrant to go confiscate frogs.


 
You'd actually be surprised... 

Ed


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Jeff R said:


> That's where your "No Trespassing" sign will do wonders. LEA can't go passed them with out probable cause and no judge is going to sign a warrant to go confiscate frogs.


What makes you say that? Are you a lawyer? I'm not trying to be offensive, and apologise if that's how it comes off, but the majority of people don't have a clue when it comes to the law. There are many misconceptions out there. 

Jake


----------



## Jeff R (Jul 1, 2005)

jacobi said:


> What makes you say that? Are you a lawyer? I'm not trying to be offensive, and apologise if that's how it comes off, but the majority of people don't have a clue when it comes to the law. There are many misconceptions out there.
> 
> Jake


In my profession we have to take law enforcement with us when we first go out to a home. They wont go past a "no trespassing" sign. I've experienced it first hand several times. It's always the same thing at that point, we have to call the family to see if we can get permission, which blows the element of surprise. Law enforcement, at least in Oregon, needs probable cause, a warrant or owner permission to go past a no trespassing sign.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on tv. However I think "probable cause" is a very ambiguous and and nebulous term. If law enforcement shows up at your house to investigate the possibility that you have illegal animals, that's already probable cause. It works in much the same way as someone who gets pulled over for speeding. A police officer has automatic probable cause to search your trunk whether you give him permission or not.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

I'm not sure about the law in Oregon, but in NY and I many other states the sign has nothing to do with it. It is the 'home' that counts. I'll have to pull out my law book for the exact definition. And Rusty, you are correct except that automobiles and homes have different legalities involved, particularly when dealing with probable cause. And an officer can not legally require you to open your trunk if pulled over for speeding. Visible areas yes. There are also some exceptional occasions where probable cause can be bypassed...

By the way, I am not a lawyer, but have studied law for my own interests when I decided not to go to law school. So take everything I say with a grain of salt  wow that expression is weird.

Jake


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Jeff R said:


> In my profession we have to take law enforcement with us when we first go out to a home. They wont go past a "no trespassing" sign. I've experienced it first hand several times. It's always the same thing at that point, we have to call the family to see if we can get permission, which blows the element of surprise. Law enforcement, at least in Oregon, needs probable cause, a warrant or owner permission to go past a no trespassing sign.


If you are referring to police officers, they are sometimes extremely cautious because they are not lawyers and familiar with legal intricacies. Many a case has been thrown out because an officer did something under the impression it was legal. 

Jake


----------



## skanderson (Aug 25, 2011)

my advice would be to vote, and make sure you are voting for a person who has a strong respect for your individual rights. for example anyone who would extend an order that allows the executive branch to seize control of essentially all aspects of american life, like money,land, food, water, and labor, cannot be trusted. i will allow you all to do the legwork to see who i am talking about. just remember if you are happy that they are passing laws to regulate someone elses behavior someone will be happy that they are regulating what you consider important. sorry if i have come off as a crazed libetarian.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

jacobi said:


> I'm not sure about the law in Oregon, but in NY and I many other states the sign has nothing to do with it. It is the 'home' that counts. I'll have to pull out my law book for the exact definition. And Rusty, you are correct except that automobiles and homes have different legalities involved, particularly when dealing with probable cause. And an officer can not legally require you to open your trunk if pulled over for speeding. Visible areas yes. There are also some exceptional occasions where probable cause can be bypassed...
> 
> By the way, I am not a lawyer, but have studied law for my own interests when I decided not to go to law school. So take everything I say with a grain of salt  wow that expression is weird.
> 
> Jake


Ah-ha, that's where probable cause comes in. If you get pulled over for speeding, and the officer think you might be hiding something in the trunk, that's probable cause, and he can look through your trunk with or without your permission. It might vary from state to state, but I believe that's the law here in Illinois.


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> Ah-ha, that's where probable cause comes in. If you get pulled over for speeding, and the officer think you might be hiding something in the trunk, that's probable cause, and he can look through your trunk with or without your permission. It might vary from state to state, but I believe that's the law here in Illinois.


Read this.... FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Jake


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

Thanks for that post Jake, it was interesting reading. I think what that boils down to is without the dog, they had no probable cause to look in the trunk. Now say the officer that originally pulled the guy over smelled marijuana in the car, he would then have probable cause to search the trunk, with or without the drivers permission. The key in this case was the dog. What the IL supreme court was saying is without the dog, there was no probable cause, and there was no reason to bring the dog there in the first place. Yet just another example of how the fascist Nazi cops overstep the law and try and get away with it. Why? Cause their cops and they think they are above the law.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

You could always befriend someone on the force. I'm sure they'll find darts pretty cool.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

I prefer bacon sitting on a plate next to some eggs.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

NathanB said:


> You could always befriend someone on the force. I'm sure they'll find darts pretty cool.


That actually would have been one of my suggestions. If you explained how there was no risk to keeping them, and explained a bit about them, I think law enforcement would be pretty open and interested to something they likely do not see.

That is much easier than trying to explain to a potentially hostile police force that the poison dart frogs are harmless in captivity.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

I see your point J.P. I've had a similar experience when I took some frogs to the vet to get fecals done. The vet I saw was an experience herp/exotic vet. I researched which vet I wanted to go to and found out the Dr. I was going to see actually kept reptiles, that put my mind at ease a lot. The Senior Dr. who originally opened the practice asked if he could show my frogs around to the rest of the office as they had never seen any dart frogs in person. It was a pretty cool moment for me. 

Back to the issue at hand. Why would you invite trouble over to your house? Unless you are doing something illegal, keeping illegal frogs. The police have no business knowing what you are keeping in your house. I would never flag down law enforcement and say "hey just wanted to let you guys know I have a hundred poison dart frogs at my house but they aren't really poisonous" That's asking for trouble IMO. Now if I met a cool cop at a show or something like that, different story altogether.


----------



## MonarchzMan (Oct 23, 2006)

I certainly wouldn't go into a police station and ask to see a police officer so that I could show him frogs, but if my neighborhood had a cop that regularly patrols, if it came up in conversation that I had frogs (what do I do, etc..), I'd invite him/her in to show them.


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

Doesn't seem like there is such a thing as a "beat cop" anymore. I don't think it's like the old days when a cop worked a certain area and got to know the families and kids as they grew up. Maybe it still happens in some of the big cities, I don't know.

To everyone that posted on this thread:
THANKS!!! Great discussion!!


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> To everyone that posted on this thread:
> THANKS!!! Great discussion!!


Lol. Is it over?


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

jacobi said:


> Lol. Is it over?


It's not over till we decide it is!! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

Rusty_Shackleford said:


> It's not over till we decide it is!! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?


Rusty? The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour.... LOL 

Jake


----------



## Rusty_Shackleford (Sep 2, 2010)

C'mon that's a line from Animal House


----------



## jacobi (Dec 15, 2010)

I figured it was something like that... but I wasn't sure 

Jake


----------



## C172Flyer (Nov 3, 2011)

No officer these arent illegal frogs I always carry them under my shirt.


----------



## varanoid (Jan 21, 2011)

evolvstll said:


> I have yet to see any such incident posted here. I really doubt law enforcement would react in such a knee jerk way. Especially the negative publicity that would follow such an agency if they were incorrect. Not to mention the liability.
> As Zach said a small collection of literature could not hurt.


Cant be to careful. People often have strange irrational reactions to things they don't fully understand.



zBrinks said:


> Keeping copies of local laws and such, with any laws that may be interpreted to apply to your collection highlighted, might be a good idea. Keeping a copy of some literature that states captive bred dart frogs are harmless would be a good idea, as well.


Very good idea.


My advice....

Buy a gun and make em pry them from your cold dead hands. Also, booby traps (you know stuff like land mines. Also see the movie Home Alone for additional inspiration) may deter a prowler who ignores your No Tresspassing sign.


----------

