SCRANTON, Pa.—Today, a federal judge denied a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a Susquehanna County man challenging the constitutionality of a Pennsylvania statute that Pennsylvania Waterways Conservation Officers twice relied on to warrantlessly search his property. Tim Thomas and his attorneys from the Institute for Justice (IJ) can now move forward with their Fourth Amendment case challenging the statute’s application to his property
“I’m delighted by this decision,” said Tim. “These invasions of privacy should never have happened, and my hope is that we can set some precedent that helps ensure they won’t happen to anybody else.”
Tim’s issues with Waterways Conservation Officer Ty Moon began in May 2023, when Moon came onto Tim’s lake cabin property and began banging on the door while Tim’s late wife, Stephanie, was home alone. Scared, Stephanie did not answer the door, so Moon proceeded to walk to the back of the property where he photographed their boat, cabin and vehicle all without a warrant. The next day, while Tim was pulled over on the side of the road picking flowers for Stephanie, Moon pulled up behind them and said he’d “been chasing” them and that he would “get to the bottom of things.” Four days later, Tim received a citation in the mail for evading the officer and fishing without a license, which wasn’t true. When Tim appealed, the charges were dismissed.
Three months later, Moon returned. This time, he walked directly onto the property, past multiple no trespassing sides, alongside the bathroom window while Stephanie was bathing, and began confiscating Tim’s fishing rods. When Tim confronted Moon, he cited him for fishing with too many rods. When the case went to court, Tim was found not guilty.
“If government officials want to invade your private property and start snooping around, they need to get a warrant based on probable cause that some violation is taking place,” said IJ Senior Attorney Joshua Windham. “The fact that these warrantless intrusions were authorized by a statute makes the problem worse, not better. We look forward to proving that the statute cannot constitutionally be applied to Tim’s private property.”
The Fourth Amendment protects “houses,” and also what courts call the “curtilage” of the home (basically private yards). In the opinion, Judge Joseph Saporito Jr. had “no difficulty” holding that, “Based on the allegations of the complaint, it is simply beyond cavil that WCO Moon entered onto the curtilage of the Thomases’ home, without a warrant or consent.”
While today’s decision allows Tim’s claim challenging the statute’s application to his own property to move forward, the court dismissed his challenge to the statute’s application in other contexts, reasoning that the statute could constitutionally be applied to other types of property—for example, “open fields” beyond the curtilage. IJ currently has several cases across the country asking state courts to reject the “open fields” doctrine under their own constitutions, including a case currently pending before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.