Dual Lawsuits Filed After Armed DNR Officer Invades Private Hunting Property Without Cause; Challenges 'Open Fields' Doctrine

Hemlock, Michigan-based law firm Outside Legal Counsel PLC has filed two coordinated lawsuits - one in federal court and one in the Michigan Court of Claims - on behalf of Dennis and Daynelle Vanderlaan after a Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) conservation officer entered their private hunting property, approached their enclosed hunting blind, questioned them despite observing no violations, and then stated he would “send a report to the prosecutor” even though he acknowledged they had done nothing wrong.

The lawsuits arise from a November 15, 2025 encounter on Opening Day of Michigan’s rifle deer season. The Vanderlaans were seated inside their blind on secluded portion of their privately owned property when Conservation Officer Cameron Wright approached from a neighboring parcel, circled behind the blind, and then appeared at the doorway with his hand on his firearm. According to the lawsuits, the officer made threatening and serious accusations without probable cause, despite the Vanderlaans having valid licenses and were full compliance with state hunting law. Nevertheless, the conservation officer stated he would be submitting a report to the local prosecutor to seek charges.

The federal case seeks damages against CO Wright for unlawful detention, unreasonable seizure, and malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The companion state lawsuit, however, mounts a far broader constitutional challenge - one that could reshape the limits of government authority on private rural land in Michigan. That case, filed in the Michigan Court of Claims, argues that Article I, Section 11 of the Michigan Constitution does not allow DNR officers to rely on the federal “open fields doctrine” as justification for entering private land without a warrant. The complaint asserts that this judge-made doctrine, created by the U.S. Supreme Court over a century ago, has no basis in Michigan’s constitutional text and is incompatible with the expectations of privacy held by modern landowners.

The Vanderlaans’ state filing directly challenges the long-standing practice of treating vast rural and recreational lands as though they fall outside constitutional protections. The legal challenge emphasizes that private property is expressly included within the term “possessions” in Article I, Section 11, and that Michigan courts have repeatedly recognized that the state constitution provides protections independent of - and often more protective than - the federal Fourth Amendment. 

“These dual cases stand together,” said Attorney Philip L. Ellison, founder of Outside Legal Counsel PLC. “One holds a state officer accountable for violating the Fourth Amendment. The other seeks to restore the constitutional boundary that protects private land from warrantless intrusion by a government agency. Michigan landowners deserve certainty that their posted, secluded, privately owned fields and forests are not treated as open hunting grounds for government officials. The law must reflect that truth.”

The open-fields doctrine originated in the 1924 U.S. Supreme Court decision Hester v. United States, which held that land beyond the immediate area surrounding a home did not receive Fourth Amendment protection. Sixty years later, in Oliver v. United States (1984), the Court reaffirmed the doctrine and broadened it to allow warrantless entry onto fenced and posted private land, even when officers crossed gates, ignored “no trespassing” signs, or ventured deep into wooded acreage. While created in an era before modern technology, the doctrine has increasingly been used by game wardens and conservation officers to justify warrantless intrusions onto large tracts of private land. In practice, this doctrine enables officers to cross property boundaries, approach structures such as hunting blinds, conduct surveillance, and initiate interrogations - without a warrant, without consent, and without judicial oversight.

Across the country, courts and scholars have questioned whether the doctrine remains viable in a world where rural land is actively used, posted, managed, and often monitored. Several states have already rejected or limited the doctrine under their own constitutions, concluding that it erodes core property rights and permits government actions that citizens would not reasonably expect or accept. 

The Vanderlaan case now presents that critical question for the first time under the Michigan Constitution.

Outside Legal Counsel PLC is a Michigan-based constitutional and property-rights law firm recognized for its principled, assertive representation of landowners confronted with unlawful government intrusion. The firm litigates cases involving warrantless searches, administrative inspections, takings, riparian rights, FOIA enforcement, and other forms of governmental overreach. OLC’s work spans both federal and state courts, including matters currently before the United States Supreme Court. Through litigation, public education, and transparency initiatives, the firm is committed to restoring and preserving the constitutional boundaries that protect private property throughout Michigan.