*1 agree cannot that the relators have a compensable established taking state, I respectfully dissent. C.J., foregoing opinion. concurs
Moyer, Bodor,
Frank R. for relators. General, Cordray,
Richard L. Attorney and Martin Cordero and Richard J.
Makowski, General, Attorneys respondent. Appellants. Ohio, Appellee, al., v.
The State
et
Coburn,
State
[Cite as
I. Introduction officer’s a state wildlife the extent of to determine us requires This case *2 hold that wildlife land. We authority private to enter the officer to R.C. 1531.13 pursuant land in the acting or if the officer violated a law is that believe pursuant and fish game enforcing laws of pursuit and lawful peaceful, entered properly wildlife officer find that the state Because we 1531.14. to R.C. under R.C. to his powers case pursuant at this land issue the appeals. of the court of judgment the we affirm Background
II. (“Coburn”) County. in Erie land owns Coburn Appellant William {¶ with his on his land mourning doves 1, 2006, hunting was September On An Erie friend, Parkison. Coburn, Todd appellant father, Marvin appellant a short time before hunting the appellants observed wildlife officer County whether to determine hunting check their them to approaching bag limits. applicable the with complying were about enсounter, wheat seed scattered the officer noticed During
{¶ 3} observation, suspected the officer on this Based ground. on the piles in violation of R.C. game birds baiting migratory were appellants 1501:31-7-02(A)(9). and returned land The offiсer left Coburn’s Adm.Code Ohio area; found investigate the agent another time later with a short later, the weeks location. Several near the wheat seed additional on or over birds hunting migratory game with charged each appellants area, a misdemeanor. fourth-degree baited them. against the complaints moved to dismiss appellants All three to enter was to have required that the officer
trial court found of good no evidence that because to R.C. 1531.13 and land Coburn’s the land. to enter record, permitted officer was not in the cause existed baiting charges to the that led not make the observations Because the officer did dismissed thе trial court property, until after he had entered Coburn’s appellants.1 all three complaints against to all respect with judgment trial court reversed the appeals The court of gave that holding procеedings, for further and remanded
appellants
erroneously
court,
argue
the trial court
amicus
the state and its
1.
In their
before this
briefs
sufficiency
challenge
motions
be used
granted
because such
the motions to dismiss
sufficienсy
document,
of evidence.
charging
address such issues as
not to
accept it
appeals,
not
and we did
challenge
trial court or the court
in the
state did not raise this
Dept.
rel. Porter v. Cleveland
Therefore,
challenge
See State ex
has been waived.
for review.
258, 259,
(1998),
the officer
to enter
land:
gave
to enter
his
[the officer]
duties, one of
v.
people
hunting lawfully.”
which is tо ensure
are
State
Coburn,
6}{¶
Coburn,
1461,
III. Sources of of baiting Because the evidence was visible to the plainly land, he entered aftеr Coburn’s the critical issue the motion to dismiss Thus, was whether the officer had the authority to enter the land. while review, appellants raise two of law for our propositions they pose legal only one question: Under what circumstances amay state wildlife officer land? *3 Two to statutes this issue: 1531.13 apply R.C. and 1531.14. When
{¶ 8}
statutes,
first
interpreting
we must
examine
plain language
the
and
the
apply
Lowe,
statute as written
meaning
unambiguous.
when its
is clear and
Statе v.
507,
{¶ 10} authority to “Any enter land: person regularly employed by the division * * * of wildlife in the of enforcement laws or rules or relating division to game * * * fish, normal, lawful, while in the peaceful аnd of pursuit such investigation, work, or enforcement may upon, over, cross be upon, upon and remain privately owned purposes lands for such and shall not be subject to for arrest trespass while so for such engaged or provision thereafter.” This similarly clear and it unambiguous; plainly permits upon wildlife officers to enter normal, lawful, while peaceful pursuit of laws enforcing to game and fish. case, In the officer stated that he entеred Coburn’s land to check
{¶ to hunting ensure that were complying with R.C. powers to do so. Under limits to his bag applicable to them wildlife licenses and exhibit carry hunting must 1533.14, hunters their Although so is citable offense. the failure to do request; officers upon land, see license, he was on his own to have because required was not licenses, and the required to have 1533.10, two were appellants the other R.C. Likewise, R.C. inspect to their licenses. approach them entitled was or package container authority “inspect any officers the gives wildlife of person charge and the or building within a owner any except at time when limits bag of wild “shall be objects.” inspection This building at the time of building not within a appellants Id. Because animals.” a bag- them to conduct encounter, authority approach the officer had the limit inspection. in the demonstrates, acting the officer was foregoing theAs approached he when
lawful, powers his law-enforcement peaceful enter Coburn’s land authority had the The officer therefore the appellants. language under R.C. 1531.14. plain pari materia a rеview the statutes appellants argue under a wildlife officer’s that R.C. 1531.13 limits
reveals bag-limit compliance land to check licenses and so that officers that a violated. law is have cause to believe when matеria, unnecessary when the which is pari even if we read statutes (1995), 72 ambiguous, Klopfleisch ex rel. Herman statutes are not see State 995, it is clear that R.C. 1531.13 Ohio St.3d authority. forms of provide independent powers or listed suggest do nоt to each other The statutes refer *4 certainly true that the on subsections. It is any
therein are conditional
other
For example,
in certain circumstances.
may overlap
in these two sections
powers
that
hunters is illegally
if a
a
group
reliable information
wildlife
birds,
bag-
them
their licenses and
may
the officer
both to check
baiting
approach
good
the officer has
investigate
limit
under R.C.
and to
what
compliance
a
law under
1531.13.
there
is violation of the
R.C.
to believe
a
in
that wildlife officer
suggests
scheme
absolutely nothing
(or
laws,
are licensed
determining whether hunters
may
routine
e.g.,
enforce
limits
complying
bag
with
requirements)
from license
and
properly exempted
1531.13,
that such laws are
good
have
cause to believe
under
when
R.C.
plain
lan-
essentially eliminate
being
Appellants’ reading would
violated.
1531.14,
in
statutes. See State
construing
which must avoid
of R.C.
we
guage
argument that a law violated. has been to believe IY. Conclusion (¶ A state to may pursuant wildlife enter land R.C. 1531.13 16} violated, when officer has causе to a law is believe and pursuant land to R.C. 1531.14 without cause when acting in normal, peaceful, and lawful enforcement laws relating to and fish. game Because officer’s observations of unlawful baiting this case validly made after he entered land to Coburn’s check bag-limit under compliance R.C. the trial court erred dismissing the complaints, and court of appeals properly the judgment reversed and remanded the further case for proceedings.
Judgment affirmed. Lundberg Cupp, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, Stratton, O’Connor, Lanzinger, J., separately. concurs O’Donnell,
O’Donnell, J., concurring. concur, view, I do so In my but reluctantly. the statutes case do not cohere. requires R.C. 1531.13 that wildlifе officer have both a good cause to believe and an belief actual is being law violated before he is permitted to enter to R.C. 1531.13. time, At the same provides R.C. 1531.14 that any person employed
{¶ the division of wildlife who is “in the engaged enforcement laws or division rules or relating game to fish” lands “while lawful, and peaceful pursuit” of such enforcement. therefore an provides independent source of for a wildlife officer to enter private to lands enforce law any game Thus, or fish. R.C. 1531.14 appears to have rendered superfluous legislative nullified the requirement that wildlife officer have both good cause believe and an actual belief that a is being violated before I entering private land. While concur with the majority, I Assembly would the General urge clarify its intent with respect these statutes. Baxter,
Kevin J. Erie County Prosecuting Attorney, Mary Ann Barylski, Prosecuting Attorney, apрellee. *5 Climaco, Peca, Lefkowitz, Garofoli, L.P.A., Climaco, Wilcox & R. John Margaret M. for Metzinger, appellants. Cordray, Attorney General,
Richard Benjamin Mizer, General, Solicitor C. Kimberly Olson, Solicitor, A. Deputy James, Kennеth Solicitor, Robert Assistant General, affirmance for Perrin, urging Attorney Karla Gebel curiae, Attorney
amicus General.
Disciplinary
Counsel v. McAuliffe.
McAuliffe,
Disciplinary Counsel v.
[Cite as
315,
formerly Pickerington, in 1997. County Municipal of the Fairfield Court The judge 1972 and became found that McAuliffe Discipline Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Conduct Responsibility violated the Code of Professional and the Code Judicial committing an insurance company, down his house order to defraud by burning The board recommended McAuliffe’s process. several federal felоnies objects report and recommen- disbarment. McAuliffe to the board’s permanent objections permanently that McAuliffe be dations. We overrule the and order disbarred. Proceedings against McAuliffe Disciplinary Criminal for the In for the United States District Court Jury the Grand fraud, mail on two counts of one
Southern District of Ohio indicted McAuliffe fraud, conspiracy mail one count of to use fire count of use of fire to commit fraud, money laundering. McAuliffе was found commit mail and two counts of 13, 2004, and was sentenced on December guilty February of these offenses on 16, 2004. 24, 2005, practice license to we McAuliffe’s January suspended On V(5)(A)(4) (automatic felony suspension R. interim to Gov.Bar