Pa. Supreme Court Hears Landmark Case on Game Wardens’ Access to Private Property

Hunting Clubs Say Warrantless Searches Violate Rights; State Defends 100-Year-Old Doctrine.

HARRISBURG, PA – The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is weighing a major challenge to the state’s long-standing practice of allowing game wardens to enter private land without a warrant—a case that has huge implications for property rights and how far government agencies can go to enforce wildlife laws.

Two hunting clubs in Clearfield County—Punxsutawney Hunting Club and Pitch Pine Hunting Club—are suing the Pennsylvania Game Commission, saying officers routinely trespassed on their posted, gated land to conduct surveillance and enforce hunting laws. According to their legal team, officers entered their land at least 22 times over eight years, often using hidden trail cameras and even camouflaging themselves in the woods to spy on club members.

“We feel like we’re invaded,” said club president Frank Stockdale. “We see game wardens on bicycles and in trucks on our private property, which is completely gated and has no trespassing signs. We feel harassed.”

The clubs argue that this kind of surveillance without a warrant violates Article 1, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, which protects citizens’ rights to be secure in their “persons, houses, papers, and possessions.”

Their attorney, Joshua Windham of the Institute for Justice, says that includes land—and he’s asking the state’s highest court to overturn a 2007 ruling that upheld warrantless searches under the so-called Open Fields Doctrine.

That doctrine, based on a 1924 U.S. Supreme Court case, claims the Fourth Amendment doesn’t protect open land the same way it protects homes. While the public still can’t trespass, game wardens have long operated under the idea that they can. Windham says that the doctrine is outdated and unconstitutional.

“People go to their hunting clubs to relax, to enjoy nature, and to be alone—not to be watched by government agents hiding in the bushes,” Windham told the court. “The Game Commission should have to follow the same rules as every other law enforcement agency: get a warrant.”

He also emphasized that many of the violations the clubs were cited for were minor or technical—like not carrying a hunting license on one’s person—even though officers had no probable cause to be on the land to begin with.

The state, represented by Deputy Attorney General Anthony Kovalchick, defended the Game Commission’s actions. He told the justices that the Open Fields Doctrine has been the law for over 100 years and is essential for protecting wildlife across Pennsylvania, where more than 80% of land is privately owned.

“They’re asking this court to jettison a century of precedent,” Kovalchick argued. “Wardens need access to enforce hunting regulations, like bag limits and illegal baiting, to protect wildlife.”

He also defended the use of trail cameras, saying they were necessary to investigate reports of illegal elk feeding, and didn’t require a warrant under current law.

However, several justices pushed back. Justice David Wecht questioned whether landowners truly have no expectation of privacy on their own land, citing other examples where the courts recognize such expectations—like in hotel rooms, rental cars, and even a friend’s house.

“If a person builds a walled swimming pool in the middle of 1,100 acres and goes skinny-dipping, are you saying the Game Commission could put up a camera without any legal challenge?” Wecht asked.

Kovalchick responded that activities normally done in private homes shouldn’t be expected to remain private in the woods.

Justice Kevin Brobson also challenged the idea that land isn’t covered by the word “possessions” in the state constitution, pointing out that other parts of the document clearly refer to land as something people can possess and enjoy.

The court has not issued a ruling, and there is no set deadline. If the justices side with the hunting clubs, it could dismantle a century-old legal foundation and require game wardens to start obtaining warrants—just like any other law enforcement agency—before stepping onto private land.

Windham and his team are optimistic, pointing to a recent Tennessee Supreme Court decision that ruled warrantless searches by game wardens unconstitutional in that state. That case, also led by Windham, involved similar tactics—hidden cameras, surveillance, and no warrants.

“If we win here,” Windham said, “it sends a message that private land is not a free-for-all zone for government intrusion.”

For pro-gun, property rights advocates, this case is bigger than hunting—it’s about drawing the line between government power and individual freedom.

Human Rights Group Sues PA Sheriff To Stop Warrantless Searches of Homes & Businesses

Pennsylvania Angler Fights Back Against Warrantless Property Searches by Fish & Boat Commission

c