Bear

The (allegedly) offending Bear Number 119.

Check this out.

As reported in the Law360 story, “Does A Bear Film In The Woods? Couple’s Suit Says Yes,” a Connecticut property owner has filed this federal court complaint asserting that state game and fish officials tagged a wild bear and turned it into a state-sponsored, photo-taking, mobile-camera-platform to perform warrantless searches of the plaintiffs’ persons, houses, papers, or effects.

Here are the critical allegations in the 3-page complaint:

6. During all times mentioned in this complaint, the defendant knew that bears, including a bear the defendant had tagged as Number 119, frequented the said property.

7. On an unknown date prior to May 20, 2023, but subsequent to January 1, 2023, the defendant affixed a collar to Bear Number 119 which contained a camera. The defendant thereupon released the camera-carrying bear in the vicinity of plaintiffs’ property.

8. At approximately 9:30 a.m. on May 20, 2023, Bear Number 119 approached to within 200 yards of the plaintiffs’ residence, which is located near the center of their property. It was wearing the aforesaid camera at the time and, upon information and belief, that camera was activated and taking and transmitting pictures or video of the interior of the plaintiffs’ property to the defendant.

9. Upon information and belief, the defendant[*] did not have a search warrant authorizing or permitting photographic surveillance of the interior of the property of the plaintiffs.

And who said property law is dull?

[* We really wanted the complaint to allege the bear did not have a search warrant.]

In all seriousness, this case might be a good one to highlight the property-based vision of the Fourth Amendment.

If nothing else, this case should be a field day for headline and law journal title writers.

Complaint, Brault v. Connecticut Dep’t of Energy & Envtl. Prot., No. 3:23-cv-000696-OAW (D. Conn. May 20,