Officer Cameron Wright | YouTube
In another flashpoint in the growing clash between private landowners and wildlife enforcement, a federal judge has dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by Michigan deer hunters Dennis and Daynelle Vanderlaan against Michigan DNR Conservation Officer Cameron Wright.
The case revolves around an interesting encounter that took place on the opening day of Michigan’s 2025 firearm deer season. The Vanderlaans were lawfully hunting from an enclosed blind on their own private, secluded property when Officer Wright entered the land without a warrant, approached their blind (reportedly circling behind it and appearing at the doorway with his hand on his firearm), and started firing off questions based on a neighbor’s complaint of hunter harassment.
The couple recorded the entire interaction, which they later posted online. In the video, they assert they had valid licenses, were in full compliance with hunting regulations, and were ultimately told by the officer that they were “doing everything right.” Despite this, Wright reportedly stated he would prepare a report for the prosecutor anyway.
Which is where this investigation gets uncomfortable.
While they were seemingly “doing everything right,” the Vanderlaans did not come into this with clean hands as court records show they previously pled guilty to a misdemeanor for interfering with a lawful hunt just one season prior. With a history of “neighborly” disputes about hunting, it become plain to see that Officer Wright wasn’t on some random expedition, fishing for excuses to bust the law-abiding duo, he was instead responding to a pattern.
“This is why I’m here. You guys have never hunted before. Last year, you harassed this exact person. I know about the neighbor issues going on. Suddenly, you’re sitting right here on the corner acting all…all smart and pissed off,” Wright said in the video footage. “We all know exactly what you’re doing right now. You guys are trying to find a way to still harass them and ruin their hunt and getting away with it.”
A quick search dating back to 2000 revealed that the couple had never previously purchased any form of a hunting license.
In a show of disagreement, the Vanderlaans, through attorney Philip L. Ellison of Outside Legal Counsel PLC, filed coordinated lawsuits that included a federal Section 1983 claim alleging violations of their Fourth Amendment rights (unlawful detention, unreasonable seizure) and a companion state claim in the Michigan Court of Claims. The state case mounts a broader constitutional challenge to the application of the federal “open fields doctrine” under Michigan’s own Constitution, arguing it provides stronger protections for private property and that DNR officers should need a warrant, consent, or clear exception to enter posted or secluded private hunting land.
Unfortunately for the Vanderlaans, this week U.S. District Judge Robert Jonker granted qualified immunity to Officer Wright on the federal claims, finding the video showed the officer acting in good faith to investigate a harassment complaint amid conflicting neighbor accounts.
“They simply believe the officer should have accepted their explanations instead. But an investigating officer, faced with conflicting stories, is not liable for pursuing one theory in good faith,” Jonker wrote. “That is what the recording clearly shows happened here, and Defendant Wright is accordingly entitled to qualified immunity on the constitutional claims.”
The Vanderlaans have since appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, as their attorney argues the case goes well beyond this single encounter. The appeal addresses what happened after the officer entered private property, while the parallel Michigan constitutional challenge asks a more fundamental question: whether the government should be permitted to enter that property in the first place without a warrant. For generations, he notes, the open-fields doctrine has treated vast areas of privately owned land as if they exist in a constitutional twilight zone. But private property is private property and the fact that a citizen is hunting, farming, or recreating on rural land does not mean the Constitution stops at the property line.
From where we sit, private property rights should be damn near absolute. Yet this case forces an uncomfortable question: when a neighbor files a legitimate harassment complaint backed by the Vanderlaans’ prior guilty plea for interfering with a lawful hunt, does that not give an officer enough reasonable suspicion to step onto the land and investigate?
The open fields doctrine has long been a judicial shortcut that feels increasingly outdated in the age of trail cameras, cell service, and body cams but at the same time, hunter harassment is real, illegal, and corrosive to the sport. Using your own land as cover to screw with neighbors who are simply trying to hunt legally turns property rights into a shield for petty bullshit. The unfortunate reality for Wright and other conservation officers is that they get stuck in these no-win referee roles during peak season, sorting good-faith hunters from those willing to poison the well for everyone.
This Michigan case sits squarely in that gray zone.
The appeal will be worth watching.
