Mr. Otis would be a P'Nut fan.
Our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague and search-and-seizure expert Daniel Woislaw quickly responded to the cultural zeitgeist and looked into l'affaire P'nut le Squirrel with his keen legal eye.
That's the case in which an internet narc dropped dime on the owner of a pet squirrel, resulting in New York state game officials obtaining a warrant, searching his home, confiscating said squirrel and his little buddy Fred the Raccoon, and then through a series of unfortunate events, putting both P'Nut and Fred down. Sad!
Here's Daniel's thoughts.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Government kills pet squirrel P'Nut in Fourth Amendment horror story
Daniel Woislaw
In a small corner of New York State, a family’s quiet, peaceful home was shattered by an unthinkable intrusion. Environmental police stormed in, seized a rescued orphan squirrel named P’Nut, took him away, and put him down. All because his owner allegedly didn’t have the right license. That’s right: In New York you need a license to shelter injured wildlife and provide them a home.
The raid on P’Nut’s home has exposed the public to a government practice that has been festering unnoticed for too long. Increasingly, federal, state, and local authorities have been intruding on private property and employing unnecessary and exceptional force to regulate increasingly trivial aspects of Americans’ lives.
The way government does this is straightforward. First, it makes it illegal to do something commonplace without a license—which means agents can obtain a warrant for your property over the “crime” of being unlicensed. That’s what happened in P’Nut’s case: The New York Department of Environmental Conservation raided the home on a warrant after receiving tips about “the illegal keeping of wildlife as pets.”
But when the government does issue a license, it attaches strings. Sometimes the strings are large fees or time-consuming educational requirements, but increasingly, those strings include the power to enter homes, businesses, and other private properties at will, and without a warrant or probable cause.
In other words, while P’Nut’s owners were raided because they didn’t have the right government license, many other Americans must tolerate home invasions because they did get the right license. Such intrusions have become all too commonplace in “the land of the free.”
It’s not supposed to work like this. Our Constitution’s Fourth Amendment was specifically designed to prevent this kind of routine governmental overreach. At the time of the Founding, the American public knew firsthand the dangers of “general warrants”—vague permissions granted to authorities to search any home at any time. These general warrants were a major grievance leading up to the American Revolution, sparking outrage across the colonies. The concept of private property and freedom within one’s home was not just a matter of personal comfort, but a core element of the fight for independence.
Yet consider how commonplace government intrusions are today. California, for example, requires falconers as a condition of owning their birds to agree in writing that armed conservation police can enter their homes at will. No warrant, cause, or notice is required. Refusal is a criminal offense. And if falconers simply chose not to get a license, they’d risk the same type of raid that occurred at P’Nut’s home. Thankfully, in a case brought by Pacific Legal Foundation, the falconers are fighting the requirement in court.
In Billings, Montana, the local government did the same thing with massage therapists. Therapists who work from home and apply for a mandatory license must agree to submit to unannounced intrusions by government agents—ostensibly to make sure the therapists are not prostitutes. Continuing to practice without this license (in addition to the license, ethics, and education requirements that the state already imposes) is grounds for arrest.
And in San Bernardino County, state environmental regulators are going door-to-door executing over-broad general warrants to look for pests. In one case, a judge signed off on a warrant covering over 500 square miles and thousands of homes so that conservation officers can snoop in people’s yards and patios looking for fruit flies. These general warrants aren’t a far cry from those that allowed British customs officials to search anywhere, anytime, in pre-Revolutionary America. In a famous legal argument then, one prominent Boston lawyer argued that general searches of this nature threaten the fundamental freedoms that make this land free.
Even something as minor as keeping a ham radio in your bedroom can expose your home to unannounced government intrusions: To operate a ham radio, you’re required to obtain a federal license—and the licensure rules require you to allow federal inspections without a warrant.
With Pacific Legal Foundation’s help, Americans whose constitutional rights were violated over California’s falconry regulations, Billings’ anti-massage-therapy law, and the general searches in San Bernardino are fighting back in court.
The right to be secure in our homes, businesses, and other private properties against arbitrary and forceful intrusions by the government stretches back to the English common law maxim that “a man’s home is his castle.” For centuries, the Anglo-American legal tradition has recognized the home as a sanctuary, shielded against arbitrary government intrusion. The principle is simple but profound: A person’s home is an extension of their freedom, an intimate space where they can retreat from the eyes of the state. Allowing government agents to enter private homes at will, especially for minor or technical infractions, erodes this sacred boundary and undermines the liberty that our nation was founded to protect.
In the face of these historical lessons, the actions of New York State’s environmental police feel like a grave regression. By using force to raid a home over a small, compassionate act—caring for a tiny, orphaned squirrel—the government has sent a chilling message about its priorities. This was not a defense of public safety but an abuse of authority, carried out under the guise of “regulation.”
Ultimately, the raid on P’Nut’s family home is more than just an isolated case of overreach; it reflects a troubling trend. If we allow the government to use force to intrude into homes for minor violations, we risk losing one of our most fundamental freedoms—the right to privacy and security in our own homes. Americans must demand that this sacred boundary be respected.
By holding our government accountable and insisting on the original intent of the Fourth Amendment, PLF is working to protect Americans’ liberties. If you’re a victim of an unconstitutional government intrusion, PLF may be able to help.