By: Chris Bennett
A federal judge struck down government’s forced intrusions onto private property in Kansas.
Open the gate for government officials or get shut down? A choice no more.
Warrantless searches of homesteads by government reps are illegal, according to a landmark court decision. On June 11, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Vratil ruled in favor of rural property owners Scott Johnson and Harlene Hoyt, who run a hunting dog training business in southcentral Kansas.
In a blistering ruling against Kansas Department of Agriculture, Vratil struck down the practice of compelled, warrantless, and unannounced entry onto private homesteads as a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
“There are major implications for privacy rights far beyond this case,” says attorney Sam MacRoberts. “Government officials can’t just come on to your property; they must follow the Constitution. This intrusion is still happening in other places.”
Consent or Else
Outside Wichita, in southcentral Kansas, Scott Johnson and Harlene Hoyt train prize-winning bird dogs at Covey Find Kennel, consistently ranked among the finest facilities in the nation. Surrounded by wheat fields and pasture in Cowley County, their property consists of house, shop, and kennels—all in one location.
Despite a tip-top reputation, Johnson’s private property had no Fourth Amendment protections from search and seizure, according to Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA). Why? Bird dog training is considered a pervasively regulated industry in Kansas, potentially as precarious as firearms dealing, liquor sales, and mining.
Therefore, to obtain a KDA-issued dog training license, every applicant must surrender Fourth Amendment rights and allow state officials on-site without notice. Licensees must agree to warrantless, unannounced inspections and must allow entry within 30 minutes of an inspector’s arrival.
Per KDA: Give up privacy or face denial of license. In a nutshell, consent or else.
Johnson and Hoyt chose the else. They refused to waive Fourth Amendment rights and sued KDA in 2023, backed by Sam MacRoberts, general counsel and litigation director of Kansas Justice Institute (KJI).
“I’ve long asked the question of why the bureaucracy considers bird dog training as a pervasively regulated industry,” Johnson told Farm Journal in 2023. “We can’t get a license without the government taking our rights? Now we’re forced to let them search our home property? We face financial penalties and shutdowns if we don’t comply? We can’t travel together 30 minutes beyond our property without risking whether the inspector shows up? The public can’t believe what we’re dealing with.”
Swallow the Rule
Following a federal trial in late May at the US District Court for the District of Kansas, Judge Kathryn Vratil ruled that KDA’s actions—without warrant, notice, or consent—violated the Constitution.
“Scott and Harlene had the strength to stand up and tell government that enough is enough. The judge agreed that a person cannot be forced to give up Fourth Amendment rights in exchange for a license,” MacRoberts summarizes. “It’s such an important ruling for the future.”
If bird dog training was considered a pervasively regulated industry by KDA, could state officials view any segment of livestock production in the same category, and by extension, open to warrantless inspection?
Absolutely, MacRoberts contends. “Consider that if training a hunting dog on how to point on command can be considered a pervasively regulated industry, then virtually any business involving animals would be the same and that’s not how the exception is supposed to work. The government has taken this limited exception and run with it with to almost on end. Scott and Harlene’s case shows that government does not have the ability to conduct warrantless searches just because it feels like it.”
Vratil agreed, slamming KDA’s argument that warrantless inspections of Johnson’s homestead and business were justified, warning that such logic “could essentially turn any industry into a closely regulated one and swallow the rule.”
Inspection Regimes
KDA declined Farm Journal interview requests regarding Vratil’s decision, but issued a statement: “We respect the decision of the court, and we are abiding by terms of the injunction to ensure we continue to operate in compliance with the judge’s ruling.”
Johnson and Hoyt’s victory could have a significant ripple effect, MacRoberts concludes. “This was a very strong opinion. There are major implications for private property rights, and based on this ruling, I hope and expect a course correction from government officials. Right now, there still are many warrantless inspection regimes in Kansas and beyond, both in state and federal law. This case will impact every one of those.”
For more from Chris Bennett (@ChrisBennettMS or cbennett@farmjournal.com or 662-592-1106)