HB 4073 — Summary (Natural Resources: DNR warrant/entry requirements)
Status and origin
- Introduced March 7, 2025 (sponsor: Rep. Dave Prestin). Referred to committee (Natural Resources & Tourism initially; later referred to Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety per bill tracking).
- Amends MCL 324.1602 and adds a new section (proposed MCL 324.1507) to the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA).
- Reintroduces provisions similar to prior bills (HB 4315 of 2021–22 and HB 4385 of 2023–24).
Purpose / intent
- To limit the circumstances under which Department of Natural Resources (DNR) employees and department-appointed officers may enter private property while performing official duties, and to make certain warrant exceptions explicit.
Key provisions
- New Sec. 1507 (proposed MCL 324.1507): An employee of the DNR shall not enter private property unless one of the following applies:
- The owner or lessee authorizes entry; or
- The employee is a peace officer or a park-and-recreation officer commissioned under section 1606 and one or more of these conditions apply:
- The employee has a warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction authorizing entry;
- The employee reasonably believes that delaying to obtain a warrant would result in destruction/concealment of evidence or endanger an individual (exigent circumstances);
- The employee is in hot pursuit of a criminal suspect.
- Amended Sec. 1602 (MCL 324.1602): Preserves DNR authority to investigate, seize property, and prosecute violations of wildlife and related statutes, but makes searches/entries under §1602 subject to the new §1507 restrictions.
- Explicitly provides that the “open fields” doctrine does not apply to searches by officers appointed by the department (i.e., searches of land beyond curtilage of a home are not automatically exempt from warrant/consent rules for DNR officers).
- Clarifies the statutory definition/standard for “probable cause” for purposes of enforcement under this part.
Who or what is affected
- DNR employees and officers (including park & recreation officers and DNR-appointed enforcement officers).
- Private property owners and lessees in Michigan (limits warrantless entry onto private land by DNR personnel).
- Wildlife law enforcement and prosecution processes (may change how officers approach investigations of poaching, unlawful harvest, etc.).
- Related agency activity: a companion bill (HB 4421) would apply similar rules to EGLE agents.
Potential impacts and considerations
- Enforcement practice: Officers may need to obtain warrants more frequently before entering private property, except in exigent circumstances or hot pursuit. That could affect timeliness of some investigations (e.g., poaching) while increasing procedural safeguards for property owners.
- Legal scope: By disavowing the open‑fields doctrine for DNR officers, the bill narrows a traditional Fourth Amendment rationale used to justify warrantless entry beyond a home’s curtilage.
- Fiscal: House Fiscal Agency analyses concluded the bill is unlikely to materially affect DNR or EGLE budgets. DNR Law Enforcement Division appropriations cited in analyses: roughly $52–55 million gross (FY 2023–25 figures cited). Indeterminate fiscal effects could arise from changes in prosecutions, fines, or local incarceration costs if enforcement patterns change.
- Support/Opposition (from committee record): Support noted from some advocacy groups; DNR and environmental groups have registered opposition in earlier hearings.
Procedural notes
- The bill amends existing enforcement/search language in §1602 and inserts §1507 to create an explicit statutory limitation on entry to private property.
- Committee reports and substitute (H‑1) language govern the current form under consideration; prior and companion legislation address parallel limits for EGLE.
