In a landmark decision, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled that government officials generally must obtain a warrant before entering certain posted private property, siding with two local hunting clubs in a constitutional challenge against the Pennsylvania Game Commission.
In a unanimous 7-0 decision issued Tuesday, the court ruled in favor of the Punxsutawney Hunting Club and Pitch Pine Hunting Club, both in Clearfield County, concluding that Pennsylvania’s Constitution provides greater privacy protections than the U.S. Constitution for landowners who have taken steps to keep others off their property.
The case centered on the long-standing “open fields doctrine,” a legal principle that allowed game wardens and other government officials to enter private land outside the immediate area surrounding a home without a warrant.
The Supreme Court overturned its 2007 decision in Commonwealth v. Russo and ruled that provisions of the Pennsylvania Game and Wildlife Code allowing warrantless entry onto posted private property violate Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. The court held that landowners who clearly mark or secure their property have a reasonable expectation of privacy that is protected under the state constitution.
“This is a victory for all landowners in Pennsylvania,” said Frank Stockdale, president of the Punxsutawney Hunting Club, in a statement released by the Institute for Justice. “Generations of members have come to this club to relax, to bond, to laugh, and to find peace. It’s a private place—that’s what makes it so special. Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court honored that privacy.”
Jeff Fink, president of Pitch Pine Hunting Club, also praised the ruling.
“I spent most of my career in law enforcement,” Fink said. “One thing that every good police officer knows is that there is no law higher or more important than the Constitution.”
According to court records, game wardens entered the clubs’ properties multiple times over several years without warrants, consent or probable cause while investigating possible wildlife violations. The clubs argued the searches violated their constitutional rights because they had posted “No Trespassing” signs, marked property lines with purple paint, installed gates and otherwise restricted access to their land.
The Supreme Court agreed, finding that those actions demonstrated a reasonable expectation of privacy deserving of constitutional protection. However, the court emphasized that its ruling applies to private land where owners have taken sufficient steps to exclude intruders and does not automatically extend to all undeveloped property.
The ruling also strikes down portions of the Game and Wildlife Code authorizing warrantless entry onto posted private property, though the court declined to invalidate a separate provision governing administrative inspections.
Because the decision came from Pennsylvania’s highest court, there are no further appeals available in the state court system.