Institute for Justice
For legal hunters and outdoorsmen, the right to enjoy private land without unwarranted government intrusion has long been a non-negotiable principle. A little over a year ago, a high-stakes fight levied by two Clearfield County hunting clubs against the Pennsylvania Game Commission made headline news regarding the commission’s use of the Open Fields Doctrine.
Earlier this week, that fight ended in a decisive win.
In a unanimous 7-0 decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that key provisions of the state’s Game and Wildlife Code allowing game wardens to enter private land without a warrant are unconstitutional under the Pennsylvania Constitution. The ruling overturns the court’s own 2007 decision in Commonwealth v. Russo and delivers a major victory for property rights across the Commonwealth.
The case was brought by the Punxsutawney Hunting Club and the neighboring Pitch Pine Hunting Club, both of whom were represented by the Institute for Justice. Between them, the clubs own more than 5,500 acres of posted private land in the Allegheny Mountains. Over the years, members documented repeated warrantless entries by game wardens, including surveillance, trail cameras, and confrontations, despite locked gates and “No Trespassing” signs.
“This is a victory for all landowners in Pennsylvania,” said Frank Stockdale, president of the Punxsutawney Hunting Club. “Generations of members have come to this club to relax, to bond, to laugh, and to find peace. It’s a private place … that’s what makes it so special. Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court honored that privacy.”
Institute for Justice
In the lead opinion, Justice Kevin Brobson wrote that Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides greater protection than the U.S. Fourth Amendment when it comes to open fields on land where owners have taken steps to exclude intruders. The court rejected the idea that “possessions” in the state constitution is limited to personal property, finding instead that it has historically included land itself.
“Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed that private land is not public property. It’s yours, and that means you get to decide who enters it,” said Joshua Windham, senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. “If government officials want to invade your posted land without your consent and spy on you, they need to get a warrant.”
It’s worth noting that in no way, shape or form does this decision strip the Game Commission of its authority to enforce wildlife laws. It simply requires officers to obtain a warrant based on probable cause (or satisfy a recognized exception) before entering private property where a reasonable expectation of privacy has been established through posting, gates, or other exclusionary measures.
For outdoorsmen who invest countless hours and resources into their private properties by following the rules, this ruling affirms the basic principle that legal sportsmen are not suspects by default. For many, the constant threat of unannounced entry and surveillance was doing nothing but working to erode the very purpose of owning or belonging to a private hunting property. The better path has always been one of mutual respect between law-abiding hunters and the men and women charged with enforcing the laws that protect our wildlife and our lands.
“The Commission is fully confident our law enforcement officers will execute their mission of protecting Pennsylvania wildlife and enforcing hunting laws within these new constitutional standards,” an agency spokesperson said in a statement. “Laws protecting wildlife remain in place, and the residents of Pennsylvania can expect the PGC to remain committed to safeguarding the wildlife resource and serving the people of the Commonwealth.”
The Open Fields Doctrine, rooted in a 1924 U.S. Supreme Court decision still governs under the federal Constitution, but Pennsylvania has now joined a growing list of states that have limited or rejected its application under their own constitutions. The court’s decision makes clear that state constitutions can, and sometimes should, offer stronger safeguards for property owners.
For the members of Punxsutawney and Pitch Pine, and for every hunter who has ever closed a gate behind him, the court’s message remains an unmistakable reminder that, at least for the time being, there is no higher law than the Constitution.
