Alabama Landowners Take On Game Wardens in Landmark Property Rights Lawsuit

In yet another a bold challenge to state authority, three Alabama residents filed a lawsuit against five employees of the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources just last month. 

The case, backed by the Institute for Justice, targets a controversial Alabama statute, Ala. Code 9-2-65(a)(6), which grants game wardens the power to enter and search private land without a warrant or landowner consent. The plaintiffs, Dalton Boley, Regina Williams, and Dale Liles, allege repeated unauthorized intrusions on their properties in Lauderdale County, raising critical questions about the balance between wildlife enforcement and constitutional protections of private property.

The incidents sparking the lawsuit paint a troubling picture that began in November of last year when Boley and Williams discovered game wardens had entered their 40-acre property in Killen, Alabama, despite prominent “no trespassing” signs and a locked gate. The wardens issued a warning for alleged deer baiting, a claim Boley vehemently denies, asserting no hunting was occurring on the land. 

Similarly, Liles, a landowner in Muscle Shoals, documented at least three unauthorized entries on his property, including a January 2025 incident captured by a trail camera showing a warden attempting to access his land. These intrusions, the plaintiffs argue, constitute trespassing and violate their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches.

“This is as fundamental as you can get,” Dale Liles says. “The government repeatedly has entered and monitored my private land with no warrant or warning. I want answers and I want it to stop. The public needs to know what is happening.”

The Alabama lawsuit is part of a growing national movement to curb warrantless searches by game wardens, with a parallel case unfolding in Pennsylvania. In Clearfield County, the Institute for Justice represents a pair of hunting clubs challenging similar practices, where game wardens have conducted covert searches on private land under the guise of wildlife management. The Pennsylvania case, which has reached the state’s Supreme Court, argues that such actions infringe on property rights and lack sufficient oversight. Both lawsuits highlight a tension between state conservation efforts and individual privacy, with landowners demanding clearer boundaries on government authority.

The Institute for Justice, a nonprofit law firm specializing in property rights, sees the Alabama case as a pivotal opportunity to reform outdated laws. 

“Game wardens are given a blank check to roam private property without permission or a warrant,” said Institute for Justice attorney Joshua Windham in a statement. “This lawsuit aims to protect Alabamians from such invasions and set a precedent for stronger property protections nationwide.” 

The Alabama statute in question, enacted decades ago, reflects a historical assumption that open lands were subject to state oversight for wildlife management. However, as private property rights have gained prominence, these laws have come under scrutiny. Similar challenges to what is known as the Open Fields Doctrine in states like Tennessee and Virginia suggest a growing pushback against unchecked enforcement powers. In Alabama, where hunting and land ownership are deeply ingrained in the culture, the lawsuit resonates as both a legal and personal stand against intrusion.

The outcome of the Alabama lawsuit could have far-reaching implications. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs might require game wardens to obtain warrants or explicit permission before entering private land, aligning Alabama’s practices with stricter constitutional standards. Such a change could complicate wildlife enforcement, particularly in rural areas where poaching and illegal hunting remain concerns. However, proponents argue that modern technology, such as trail cameras and GPS tracking, reduces the need for physical intrusions, making warrantless searches an outdated practice.

“This is about protecting our home and our rights,” Boley said. “No one should have to worry about strangers trespassing on their land just because they wear a badge.” 

As both of these cases unfold, they signal a broader reckoning over how states balance conservation with individual rights. The Institute for Justice’s track record, including successful challenges to similar laws in other states, bolsters the plaintiffs’ prospects. Yet, state DNRs and their supporters continue to argue that game wardens’ broad authority is essential for protecting wildlife and ensuring compliance with hunting regulations, a stance that will likely shape their defense.

For now, the Alabama landowners remain steadfast, their lawsuit a testament to the enduring value of property rights in an era of increasing government scrutiny. As the case moves forward, it promises to redefine the boundaries of state power and private land, with implications that could echo far beyond the fields of Lauderdale County.