ATV Drivers' Fourth Amendment Rights

ATV drivers are citizens with fourth amendment rights too.

In a 4-3 decision today, the Maine
Law Court rejected the constitutional arguments of
an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) driver who was stopped by a game warden without
suspicion. The Maine Civil Liberties
Union Foundation, which was amicus curiae in the case, expressed disappointment
in the decision but found consolation in two places: the strongly-written
dissent of Justice Silver (joined by Justices Mead and Gorman) and the
newly-passed legislation that tightens the rules for game warden stops.

“The Fourth Amendment protects our right to be left alone,”
said Zachary Heiden, Legal Director of the
MCLU and author of the organization’s amicus curiae (friend of the court)
brief. “Today, a minority on the Law
Court recognized that this right continues as a
vital principle in defining the relationship between people and government.”

In the dissenting opinion, Justice Silver wrote:

“An individual does not relinquish his expectation of
privacy or his constitutional rights simply because he is behind the wheel of
an ATV rather than a car or truck. There
must be a state interest that sufficiently justifies the intrusion.”

The MCLU lauds Justice Silver's dissenting opinion. “We hope that, in time, the views expressed in today’s
dissenting opinion will gain the support of a majority of the Law
Court,” said Shenna Bellows, Executive Director of the MCLU.

This past Spring, the Governor signed into law an amendment
to the game-warden statute requiring that future stops be justified by
“reasonable and articulable suspicion”—the same standard that governs car stops
and the standard argued for in this case by the MCLU. The MCLU also advocated in the legislature
for passage of the new law, which was sponsored by Representative John Martin
(D-Eagle Lake) and which passed by a vote of 125 to 19 in the House and a
unanimous vote in the Senate. The new law is P.L. 2009, Ch. 389 §1. This change mean today’s ruling does not set
the standard for game warden authority.
Unfortunately, the ruling still stands as guidance on the broader
question of the right to privacy.