285 N.W.2d 924 | Wis. Ct. App. | 1979
Kevin R. Nelson was found guilty of snagging fish in violation of Wis. Adm. Code, sec. NR 20.07(1) (d).
Where Nelson was fishing, the Mississippi River forms the boundary between Wisconsin and Minnesota. Fed
As principal support for his argument, Nelson cites a Wisconsin case.
The rationale in that case was confirmed in a subsequent United States Supreme Court decision.
The fact situation before us can be distinguished from these cases. Here, both Wisconsin and Minnesota prohibit snagging fish from the Mississippi River. Although there are several exceptions to this prohibition, none of them are applicable to this fact situation.
Wisconsin and Minnesota were granted concurrent jurisdiction by federal law.
Undoubtedly one purpose, perhaps the primary purpose, in the grant of concurrent jurisdiction, was to avoid any nice question as to whether a criminal act sought to be prosecuted was committed on one side or the other of the exact boundary in the channel, that boundary sometimes changing by reason of the shifting of the channel. Where an act is malum in. se, prohibited and punishable by the laws of both states, the one first acquiring jurisdiction of the person may prosecute the offense, and its judgment is a finality in both states, so that one convicted or acquitted in the courts of the one state cannot be prosecuted for the same offense in the courts of the other. But, ... it is not limited to this. It extends to civil as well as criminal matters, and is broadly a grant of jurisdiction to each of the states.
The present case is not one of the prosecution for an offense malum in se, but for one simply malum prohibitum. Doubtless the same rule would apply.. . . Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U.S. 315 (1909) [emphasis added].
The two states’ concurrent jurisdiction extends over the width of the river that forms the territorial boundary between the states. The Court has said that concurrent
Nelson, a Wisconsin resident, was convicted of snagging fish in the boundary waters between Wisconsin and Minnesota. The laws of both Wisconsin and Minnesota prohibit snagging fish. An agent of the State of Wisconsin apprehended him when he returned to Wisconsin. Wisconsin fishing regulations, in harmony with similar Minnesota fishing regulations, were applicable to Nelson by virtue of the states’ concurrent jurisdiction.
It is immaterial that Nelson was standing on a dam retaining wall on the Minnesota side of the river when snagging fish. Wisconsin is not seeking to assert jurisdiction over the dam, but over Nelson. He was taking fish from the boundary waters in a manner prohibited by both states. His arrest was valid under the states’ concurrent jurisdiction.
Venue for violations of fishing regulations is in the circuit court for the county where the offense occurred.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.
Wis. Adm. Code, §NR 20.07(1) (d) in pertinent part provides: “[I]t shall be unlawful for any person to take any fish by snagging or fouling in any manner unless otherwise specifically provided. Any such fish illegally taken other than in the mouth by snagging or fouling must be immediately returned to the water. Webster’s Third New Int’l Dictionary 2154 (1976) defines “snag”: “to hook (a fish) in the body rather than in the mouth.”
Wisconsin: Act of Aug. 6, 1846; 9 U. S. Stats. at Large, 67. Minnesota: Act of Feb. 26, 1857; 11 U. W. Stats. at Large, 166.
State v. Bowen, 149 Wis. 203, 135 N.W. 494 (1912) relying upon Roberts v. Fullerton, 117 Wis. 222, 93 N.W. 1111 (1903).
Roberts v. Fullerton, supra.
See also 35 Am. Jur. 2d Fish and Game §33 (1967).
Nielsen v. Oregon, 212 U. S. 315, (1909).
Roberts v. Fullerton, supra.
Nielsen v. Oregon, supra; 35 Am. Jur. 2d Fish and Game §33 (1967).
Section 801.50(2) (b), Stats.
State v. Cameron, 2 Pin. 490 (1850).