It’s open season on the open fields doctrine, at least in terms of wildlife enforcement. Across the nation, law enforcement officers operate under strict constitutional restrictions. Many have watched as concealed contraband walked away because they lacked probable cause to search a car or house. That’s just part of the job when you work in a democratic republic that embraces civil rights.

Wildlife officers, though, have long enjoyed a special exception to that rule. In most of the country, they regularly enter private property without permission or a warrant to enforce laws on hunting, poaching and other wildlife management issues. This practice is largely based on the 1924 Supreme Court ruling of Hester v. United States, which established the open fields doctrine, stating that a “warrantless search of the area outside a property owner’s curtilage” doesn’t violate the Fourth Amendment.

“Wildlife officers aren’t trying to take away unfair liberties and freedoms from people. They’re just trying to protect wildlife — wildlife that belongs to the people.”

Retired Tennessee Game Warden Mike Bailey explained it to ABC News Channel 9 in historical terms: “… It’s not tyranny. Wildlife officers aren’t trying to take away unfair liberties and freedoms from people. They’re just trying to protect wildlife — wildlife that belongs to the people. They’re not the King’s animals anymore …” His comment refers to another concept often used to justify the state’s regulation of hunting on private property: that wildlife is a public resource, even when it’s on someone’s private land.

But the Tennessee courts have recently moved to restrict some of the powers that the state’s wildlife officers have traditionally held when policing private land. In May of this year, an appeals court ruled that officers of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) cannot enter private property without a warrant.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed in Benton County by landowners Terry Rainwaters and Hunter Hollingsworth, who claimed that TWRA officers had ignored “No Trespassing” signs and conducted multiple searches on their properties without warrants and even installed trail cameras on their land. Per Outdoor Life, TWRA attorneys defended officers’ actions, arguing that it would be impossible for them to protect the state’s wildlife resources if they couldn’t patrol private land. They went on to cite state law allowing TWRA officers “to go upon any property, outside of buildings, posted or otherwise” in order to enforce wildlife laws and the aforementioned federal open fields doctrine.

According to the decision by the Court of Appeals, while the state statue allowing for warrantless searches on private property is constitutional, it was unconstitutional as applied by the TWRA in this particular case. “The TWRA searches, which it claims are reasonable, bear a marked resemblance to the arbitrary discretionary entries of customs officials more than two centuries ago in colonial Boston,” the judges wrote in their decision. “The TWRA’s contention is a disturbing assertion of power on behalf of the government that stands contrary to the foundations of the search protections against arbitrary governmental intrusions in the American legal tradition, generally, and in Tennessee, specifically.”

Notably, the court’s opinion significantly expanded the meaning of possession. Historically, possession and curtilage referred to the house, equipment, etc., but the decision now includes anything actively possessed (e.g., if the farm is actively used, it’s possessed; if a field is fenced, it’s possessed, etc.).

There could be very practical consequences for wildlife enforcement in Tennessee (and any states that follow suit). Regardless of the legal, constitutional or moral implications of the traditional wildlife enforcement practices, it’s the main way that wildlife officers conduct their enforcement efforts. While most law enforcement officers patrol a beat on a public street, the vast majority of hunting activity takes place on private property. Absent the ability to patrol private property at will, wildlife officers would have to obtain probable cause of a crime being committed before they could access the property (or restrict their enforcement to public property).

Bailey, the retired game warden who commented to area news on the matter, did have a comment for the judges who rendered the ruling, but local news outlets reported that those words were inappropriate for public sharing.

Hollingsworth, one of the landowners who filed the suit, was predictably happier, stating that “nobody — not even a game warden — is above the Constitution, and (this) decision makes that crystal clear.”

As it stands, game wardens in all other 49 states can currently come onto someone’s property when they please. However, with this historic ruling in Tennessee, that could change in the future.