Sen. Dan Laughlin, R-Erie, is pictured helping stock trout in Girard earlier this month.

Changes could be coming to the way the state Game Commission accesses private land.

The state Supreme Court has heard a case from two private hunting clubs that are challenging the commission’s ability to enter private property without a warrant to enforce state gaming laws. While the clubs wait for a decision from the court, a state lawmaker from Erie is drafting legislation that would enshrine limits on game wardens in state law.

Under current law, Pennsylvania Game Commission personnel have authority to enter private property and conduct surveillance without a warrant or probable cause even if landowners have clearly posted notices against trespassing. Enforcement power, according to Sen.. Dan Laughlin, R-Erie, is more powerful for the Game Commission than for law enforcement agencies.

“A recent court case involving the PGC’s installation of motion-activated surveillance cameras on private hunting club properties without a warrant or probable cause highlights the need for reform,” Laughlin wrote in his co-sponsorship memorandum. “My legislation will limit the PGC’s unfettered statutory authority from entering private property without any independent probable cause that a crime has occurred, when a landowner has provided reasonable notice against trespass.”

The course case Laughlin refers to is Punxsutawney Hunting Club Inc. and Pitch Pine Hunting Club Inc. v. Pennsylvania Game Commission and Mark Gritzer, in his official capacity as an officer of the Pennsylvania Game Commission. An appellate court dismissed the hunting clubs’ lawsuit against the Game Commission in May 2023. The clubs appealed to the state Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments earlier this month but has not yet handed down a decision. The appeal didn’t take a stance on the issues raised by the two hunting clubs because the clubs were directly challenging a 2007 state Supreme Court decision in Russo v. Commonwealth in which the state Supreme Court held that the state Game Commission could enter open fields in order to enforce state hunting regulations even if the land is posted with no trespassing signs.

The open fields doctrine upheld in the Russo decision involves a rule dating back to 1924 that allows government officials to search private property, not homes, without a warrant. The Supreme Court in 1924 held that the open fields doctrine isn’t covered under the Fourth Amendment involving unreasonable searches. That is the rule the Game Commision uses when game wardens go onto private property to enforce game laws like bag limits, hunting out of season and improper use of baits aren’t being violated. It’s been upheld both at the state Supreme Court level and by the U.S. Supreme Court in related decisions.

“The hunting clubs filed the present action to challenge the constitutionality of the entry statutes as violative of Section 8, which forbids warrantless searches of ‘possessions,’ Judge Michael Wojcik wrote in the appellate court decision. “The hunting clubs argue that private land is a ‘possession’ within the purview of constitutional protection. However, the hunting clubs recognize that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court previously rejected similar constitutional claims in Russo. The hunting clubs further recognize that this Court is bound by, and may not overturn, this binding precedent.”