## Facts

- Louisiana wildlife enforcement officers operated a boat checkpoint on the Intracoastal Waterway near Bayou Boeuf during hunting season.
- The officers’ stated objective was detecting “duck tripping” and related game-law violations that are difficult to uncover without field checks.
- Officers stopped boatloads of hunters heading to a landing and generally checked each boat unless traffic became too heavy.
- Robert McHugh and other hunters traveling from a wildlife area were stopped as part of the checkpoint’s routine operation.
- Officers requested hunting licenses, asked whether the hunters had game, and requested to inspect any game in their possession.
- The hunters acknowledged having game and permitted inspection of a dressed, quartered buck deer stored in an ice chest.
- Officers found the deer portions were not tagged as required by law and cited the hunters for statutory violations.
- The hunters moved to suppress the deer and their statements, arguing the stop and inspection were unconstitutional without individualized suspicion.

## Issues

1. Whether wildlife officers may, without individualized suspicion, stop hunters leaving a wildlife habitat during hunting season to check hunting licenses, ask about game possession, and request inspection of game, consistent with the Fourth Amendment and La. Const. art. I, § 5.
2. Whether a neutral checkpoint procedure for game-law enforcement constitutes an unreasonable search, seizure, or invasion of privacy when limited in scope and systematically conducted.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal’s order suppressing the physical evidence and statements.
- The court held the suspicionless checkpoint stop and limited detention were reasonable under both the Fourth Amendment and La. Const. art. I, § 5.
- The court emphasized the stop’s limited purpose (license verification, brief inquiry, and request to inspect game) and its minimal intrusiveness.
- The court relied on hunting’s heavily regulated character and hunters’ reduced expectation of privacy regarding compliance with game laws while engaged in hunting activity.
- The court found the checkpoint’s generally systematic operation constrained officer discretion and reduced the risk of arbitrary enforcement.
- The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- A suspicionless checkpoint stop may be reasonable when conducted pursuant to neutral criteria, is brief, and is limited to regulatory objectives.
- Participants in heavily regulated activities may have a reduced expectation of privacy as to compliance inspections tied to that regulatory scheme.
- In evaluating reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment and La. Const. art. I, § 5, courts balance the government’s regulatory and conservation interests against the degree of intrusion.
- A game-law checkpoint aimed at license verification and limited inspection of possessed game can be constitutional when conducted in a non-arbitrary, routine manner tied to hunting activity.

## Conclusion

The Louisiana Supreme Court held that a neutral, minimally intrusive wildlife checkpoint conducted during hunting season to check licenses and inspect possessed game may be conducted without individualized suspicion and does not violate the Fourth Amendment or Louisiana’s search-and-seizure provision.


State v. McHugh, 630 So. 2d 1259 (La. 1994)