Nope, not at all justifying the actions. Pointing out that the story is not quite what it seems. If the state allows it, as it was inferred in the article, they could put the game cameras on private property without permission (seems odd to me that they can do it) per the SCOTUS ruling. On a federal level, no warrant needed for open property. Some states have prohibited per the article.
As for having backup when you go a calling, I am sure law enforcement folks would want backup when they go out on certain calls.
It is showing how the government is able to use certain laws to get around others.
The situation was messed up to begin with. He admitted to wrong doing after the fact, but as for the response, I wasn't there for the back story. For all we know, it could have been that the neighbor complained, DNR could set up cameras due to the law allowing them, and cameras went missing. Where it went from there would be speculation on my part as to why they needed that many people to find missing cameras.
Q
Yup. Depending on the state's laws, he could be good or not.
The vast majority of states' laws though, if the property was unmarked, he would be in the clear on theft as it can be considered abandoned property.
If it WAS marked in a manner that would be somewhat obvious (IE he wouldn't need to completely disassemble the thing) and it said something like "US Gov't property" or "Department of Natural Resource Property", etc. Then he would have a duty to report to authorities he found their property.
It was based on STATE law, but Indiana I think it was, he a had case terribly different from this.
Placed a GPS tracker on a suspected meth dealers car. He discovered it and took the car and tracker to a shop, the shop told him what it was, he removed it and kept it. State tried to charge him with theft of government property. State supreme court threw it out as the tracker was not marked government property and he had every right to keep it or throw it away as abandoned property. Doesn't matter that the state actually got a warrant to place it (shockingly, they bothered going through the extremely low bar of getting a warrant).
IE a sensible ruling. Gov't can't charge you with theft if their stuff is on your property and they don't make it obvious it is the government's property. That GPS tracker could have been put there by a rival drug dealer. Or it could have been put there by an ex. Or by a neighbor. Or a rando stalker.
Just because it might be the government's doesn't mean that the property owner has a responsibility to see if it is the governments.
Now some states have abandoned property laws that require items above a certain value to be reported to police within a certain amount of time of discovering it. So you could run afoul of that, but I still doubt that the state could nail you on theft of GOVERNMENT property at that point, but a violation of abandoned property laws, which is likely WAY more minor crime.
Anyway, total power trip with this kind of stuff.
I'll withhold my thoughts on things like open field doctrine, but a person shouldn't be charged with a crime for something a reasonable person would not know is a crime. Also overzealous government official should be liable in such cases and the sovereign immunity doctrine needs completely changing.
I agree that in the NORMAL COURSE of a government employees job, they should not be able to be held liable. But the standards are way to high on overturning that immunity if asserted and it needs to be an affirmative defense on the part of the employee. Now the gov't absolutely needs to represent the employee in the matter at least until such time as their affirmative defense is ruled invalid.