LAUDERDALE COUNTY, Ala. (WHNT) — Three landowners in Lauderdale County have filed a lawsuit against five employees of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources on claims of warrantless searches of land.
Lauderdale County court records show that on May 20, Dalton Boley, Regina Williams and Dale Liles filed a lawsuit against five people listed as employed by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, saying their private properties were searched without a warrant or consent.
The five defendants are listed as:
- Chris Blankenship, Commissioner of DCNR
- Charles Sykes, Director of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries within DCNR
- Chad Howell, game warden within the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries division of DCNR
- Jarrod Poole, game warden within the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries division of DCNR
- Unknown officer, game warden within the Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries division of DCNR
The three teamed up with the Institute for Justice, a nonprofit, public interest law firm, to file the lawsuit in Lauderdale County.
The document says the case seeks to “vindicate” the three defendants to be free from unreasonable searches of their land. “Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) officers, relying on a statute, see Ala. Code § 9-2-65(a)(6), have repeatedly entered Plaintiffs’ land without consent or a warrant,” the lawsuit says.
According to the lawsuit, Williams owns roughly 10 acres of land immediately behind her house, which she has lived on her entire life, and she has granted Boley, her next-door neighbor, a license in 2021 to use it for recreational and family purposes. It says the surrounding properties are fenced and all entrances to Williams’ land have “no tresspassing” signs.
However, the document says on multiple occasions, DCNR officers went onto Williams’ land without her consent or a warrant and looked around for “potential wildlife violations.” During one of the unwarranted searches, the lawsuit says a DCNR officer tampered with a camera that Boley put on a tree by turning it around to avoid videoing the officer.
Liles has owned roughly 86 acres of rural land in Muscle Shoals since 2014, according to the lawsuit. It says he primarily uses it to hunt with his grandchildren and the document says it is “clearly not open to the public: There are only two entrances—one by the main road, and the other blocked by a locked gate accessible only through a neighbor’s private property—and both entrances are marked with ‘no trespassing’ signs.”
The lawsuit says the defendants believe their intrusions are justified under Ala. Code § 9-2-65(a)(6), which provides that “[g]ame and fish wardens shall have power . . . [t]o enter upon any land or water in the performance of their duty.”
However, the lawsuit says Article 1, Section 5 of the Alabama Constitution forbids “‘unreasonable… searches’ (warrantless and similar discretionary searches) of ‘possessions’ (including private land).”
The lawsuit says Blankenship, as Commissioner, “may exercise [a]ll functions and duties of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources” personally or through DCNR’s divisions or employees. Id. § 9-2-6. He has, through DCNR officers, executed DCNR’s policy of conducting warrantless entries and searches of Plaintiffs’ (and others’) private lands.”
Sykes’ role, as Director of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries, “serves directly under Defendant Blankenship and he supervises DCNR’s game wardens. Id. § 9-2-65(b). Through those game wardens, Sykes has executed DCNR’s policy of conducting warrantless entries onto and searches of Plaintiffs’ (and others’) private land,” the lawsuit says.
As a game warden, the document says Howell, Poole and the unknown officer are charged with “‘enforc[ing] all laws of this state relating to birds, animals and fish.” Ala. Code § 9-2-65(a)(1). He may “enter upon any land or water in the performance of [his] duty.” Id. § 9-2-65(a)(6).”
Below are points listed about the landowners’ use and ownership of their land in the lawsuit:
Williams
- Her land is composed of three contiguous parcels, all located within a residential subdivision in Killen.
- Williams’ family bought the land in 1959, she is currently the sole owner, and she has lived there her entire life.
- There is no way to enter Regina’s land that does not involve crossing a fence or a “no trespassing” sign.
- There are only two ways to enter Regina’s land that do not involve crossing a neighbor’s fenced property or largely impassable woods: (1) the main entrance, which consists of a private gravel path that meets a public road, and (2) a small, wooded creek that meets a public road.
- Williams does not hunt on her land, nor has she ever hunted there. She has never received any citation for violating wildlife laws.
Boley
- In December 2021, Williams granted Boley a license to use her land for family and recreational purposes—including, but not limited to, walking, biking, camping, hunting, playing, meditating, and enjoying privacy—in exchange for Boley maintaining a walking and biking trail on the land, maintaining “no trespassing” signs around the land, and excluding intruders.
- Consistent with his duties under the license, Dalton posted “no trespassing” signs along Regina’s property lines (in addition to signs that were already on the property) at all entrances where there is no fence, to ensure that nobody could come upon the property without seeing that it is a private place and that intruders are not welcome. Further, to monitor for intruders, Dalton put up five motion-sensor trail cameras that were active when the DCNR officer intrusions described below occurred.
- Boley has a valid hunting license.
- Boley has never received a citation for violating any wildlife law or regulation.
- Neither Boley’s residential property nor the land he leases from Williams is open to the public.
Below is a map listed in the lawsuit of Williams’ land & Boley’s property.
Liles
- Liles is the current president of his local chapter of Ducks Unlimited, an organization dedicated to promoting responsible hunting and conservation.
- In 2014, Liles acquired about 86 acres of contiguous hunting land (some of it owned, some of it leased) near his home in Muscle Shoals.
- The land is almost entirely surrounded by private residential or commercial properties that nobody could mistake for public land—they have visible homes and development.
- Due to thick brush and wetlands surrounding Dale’s land, there are only two ways to enter: (1) the main entrance, which consists of a private gravel path that meets a public road, and (2) a path through a neighbor’s property.
- “No Tresspassing” signs are visible on trees and wooden posts on the property line.
- There is “no way” to enter Dale’s property that does not involve (1) crossing private property through thick brush and wetlands, (2) driving onto a private path and passing “no trespassing” signs, or (3) crossing private residential property with a locked gate, then passing “no trespassing” signs.
Below is a map of Liles’ property, as listed in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit states that in Feb. 2024, Poole entered and searched Williams’ property (where Boley holds a license) without a warrant or without consent. During this listed offense, Poole reportedly tampered with Boley’s trail camera so nothing could be seen.
Again in Nov. 2024, the lawsuit says Williams was awoken by Poole and the unknown officer who “demanded” to know who was using the land behind her house. When she said Boley uses it with her permission, the officers then went to Boley’s door. When they arrived, the document says Boley accused Poole of tresspassing onto the land earlier that year and tampering with his camera.
“Neither Poole nor Unknown Officer denied Dalton’s accusations,” the lawsuit says.
Instead, the document says Poole and the unknown officer said they had been on the land “several times before,” justifying their actions by referencing the “open fields doctrine.” The officers then accused Boley of baiting a deer, according to the lawsuit.
“Poole’s and the Unknown Officer’s warrantless entries and searches have had further spillover effects: Dalton feels less secure in his own residential backyard and Regina feels less secure in her own home, knowing that armed government officials could be out roaming the land or spying on them at any time,” the document says.
For Liles, the lawsuit says that in August 2018, Howell entered and searched Liles’ property without consent or a warrant. On this day, the document says Liles was on the land at the time, but was never notified that anyone else was there.
The reason Liles knew someone was there was because he spotted Howell’s truck parked near the entrance. The lawsuit says that when Howell spotted Liles, he reportedly “quickly drove away, speeding out of the property along the private gravel trail that meets the public road.”
Following a warning not to return to the property by Liles, Howell returned to the property in Nov. 2024. Liles received a photo from a neighbor of Howell’s vehicle parked on the property line. Following this incident, the lawsuit says Liles installed motion-activated cameras at the entrances to his land.
“In January 2025, Dale’s camera recorded a video of a DCNR officer attempting to enter Dale’s land, and, once he approached the camera, he turned around so not to be caught further on camera,” the document says.
The landowners are seeking compensation in the amount of $1 from the game wardens to Boley, Williams and Liles for each trespass committed.
You can read the full lawsuit below.
“The Alabama Constitution makes it clear that if the government wants to come searching on your property, they need a warrant based on probable cause, and game wardens are not exempt from the Constitution,” IJ Attorney Suranjan Sen said.
The post 3 Alabama land owners file lawsuit challenging ‘warrantless’ searches by game wardens appeared first on WHNT.
