The Oregon Court of Appeals recently ruled in a significant case involving fishing violations against Perry and Cassidy Bordeaux. The court reversed lower court decisions related to the use of tracking data from the defendants' fishing vessel, Das Bug, and the mental state required for the charges against them. This ruling could have broader implications for how fishing laws are enforced in the state.
The Bordeauxs, who operated a fishing business called Tiburon Fisheries, faced multiple charges for allegedly engaging in illicit fishing practices. The court's decision affects not only the Bordeauxs but also sets a precedent for how similar cases may be handled in the future.
Background
Perry and Cassidy Bordeaux were charged with 18 counts related to fishing violations, including selling fish without the required licenses and failing to complete necessary fish tickets. The investigation began in July 2019 when the Oregon State Police (OSP) suspected the Bordeauxs of illegal fishing activities. The allegations included falsifying business records and selling fish without proper documentation.
The case reached the Court of Appeals after the Bordeauxs entered conditional guilty pleas, reserving their right to appeal two key issues: the motion to suppress evidence obtained from a federally mandated tracking device and the denial of their demurrer, which argued that the charges did not adequately state an offense due to a lack of required mental state.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals, led by Judge Pagán, ruled on August 19, 2026, stating, "We conclude that defendants consented to the search of their vessel because they consented to the use of the tracking device data as laid out by federal law." This ruling affirmed the lower court's decision to deny the motion to suppress the tracking data, which was obtained through a federally mandated vessel monitoring system (VMS).
However, the court found that the trial court erred in denying the Bordeauxs' demurrer concerning several charges. The court noted that the charges failed to include the appropriate culpable mental state, which is necessary for a conviction. The ruling stated, "At least some of the charges failed to state an offense because they did not include the appropriate culpable mental state." As a result, the court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for the enforcement of fishing laws in Oregon. By affirming that the Bordeauxs consented to the use of the tracking data, the court clarified how federal regulations interact with state enforcement efforts. Additionally, the court's decision to reverse the lower court's ruling on the demurrer highlights the importance of clearly establishing the required mental state for each charge in criminal cases.
The outcome of this case may influence how law enforcement agencies approach similar cases in the future, particularly in terms of the evidence they can use and the standards they must meet when charging individuals with violations of fishing laws.
What's Next
The case is now remanded to the lower court, where the Bordeauxs will have the opportunity to withdraw their guilty pleas. It remains to be seen whether the state will pursue further charges or if any related cases will arise from this ruling.