{"id":5957,"date":"2011-12-17T13:11:55","date_gmt":"2011-08-29T00:20:57","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"-0001-11-30T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2011-08-28T14:56:57","slug":"en-US","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=5957","title":{"rendered":"CA7: Taxidermy a regulated industry in Illinois"},"content":{"rendered":"

Taxidermy qualifies for regulated industry inspections under New York v. Burger<\/a>. United Taxidermists Ass\u2019n v. Ill. Dep\u2019t of Natural Res.<\/a>, 436 Fed. Appx. 692 (7th Cir. 2011):<\/p>\n

On appeal the Association reasserts its narrow argument that inspections under the Code do not meet the first Burger prong because there is no substantial government interest in tagging animals. Although this circuit has not explored the Burger test extensively, our prior interpretations have construed the first step as asking whether a substantial interest drives the entire regulatory scheme, not a particular part of it. … Thus, the relevant inquiry here is whether a substantial government interest informs the taxidermy industry as a whole. Although there is not much circuit court precedent addressing that requirement, we conclude that the state\u2019s process is adequate and appropriate. Illinois owns and has title to all wild birds and mammals, and the state enacted the Code \u201cto protect and regulate the hunting and capture of certain species.\u201d 520 ILCS 5\/2.1; see People v. Taylor, 561 N.E.2d 667, 672 (Ill. 1990). Section 3.21 in particular \u201censure[s] that protected animals are taken in compliance with the other provisions of the Code.\u201d Taylor, 561 N.E.2d at 672. Accordingly, the need to protect wildlife demonstrates that Illinois has a substantial interest in regulating the taxidermy industry. …<\/p>\n

The Association does not dispute that the Code satisfies the second prong of Burger, whether the warrantless nature of the search is necessary to further the regulatory scheme. And any challenge to that prong would be meritless because abundant case law extols the necessity of surprise in these searches. Burger<\/a>, 482 U.S. at 710; …<\/p>\n

Regarding the third prong, the Association first asserts that the Code\u2019s scope is too broad because it does not define the \u201ctaxidermy records\u201d subject to inspection, and thus provides insufficient notice to taxidermists that the tags attached to animals are subject to search. The Association concedes that \u201ctaxidermy records\u201d include the written records kept by taxidermists, but contends that the term cannot possibly include the tags attached to the animals. The Association notes the Code\u2019s requirement that taxidermists keep \u201crecords\u201d for at least two years or however long the taxidermist possesses the animal or its parts, 520 ILCS 5\/3.21(d), and points out the absurdity of any obligation to keep a tagged specimen after a taxidermist no longer has the specimen in his shop.<\/p>\n

An examination of section 3.21(d) in the context of the entire Code, however, refutes the Association\u2019s narrow argument. … Moreover, removing the tagging requirement from the breadth of inspections also would frustrate the purpose of the Code: regulating the capture and possession of wildlife. See United States v. McDonald, 453 F.3d 958, 960 (7th Cir. 2006); In re Hardin, 932 N.E.2d 1016, 1020 (Ill. 2010). Allowing inspectors to search the tags enables them to verify the accuracy of a taxidermist\u2019s written records and ensure compliance with the Code.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"pingsdone","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5957","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5957","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5957"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5957\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5957"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5957"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5957"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}