Hunter Mark Luster is not a happy camper. He's bringing a lawsuit against a game warden for allegedly ruining his reputation and violating his constitutional rights.
The Iowa hunter had charges brought against him for allegedly using bait. However, the game warden didn't find any bait on the property during the hunting season. Although testing showed traces of salt in the soil, the case was dismissed months later. However, Luster claims the charges has ruined his reputation in the hunting community.
He's seeking damages as well for court costs from having to go to trial over the charges. He wants Officer Dan Henderson of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to foot the bill.
"No doubt, Luster is known to the DNR. Luster is a professional hunting consultant and a renowned hunter," the lawsuit reads via Outdoor Life. "Luster has been incredibly successful as a professional hunter, and he has 'bagged' some of the most prized trophy-worthy bucks. With this success, however, has come animosity from other hunters and the DNR, including its officers like Officer Henderson."
Luster claims Henderson violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure. The hunter claims the game warden illegally obtained a search warrant. All this stems from a deer that the hunter killed in October 2024. Hours after posting about the kill on Facebook, Henderson claims an informant turned Luster in for baiting.
Hunter Sues Game Warden
However, the informant's use of drone photos was from Luster's property outside of the window of hunting season. It's legal for bait to be there during this time. The game warden went through Facebook and found a photo of a buck on Luster's page. In the photo, he claimed that there were clear signs of bait (a bare spot in the soil). Testing showed "over 500 Mg of sodium at the bait site as well as DEET being a chemical used in the bait." However, the lawsuit alleges that the salt concentration was within normal range.
The game warden ended up charging the hunter with three misdemeanors. All three were dismissed.
"When he applied for the search warrants as described above, Officer Henderson intentionally and recklessly made material misstatements and omissions in his affidavits in support of those applications," the lawsuit reads. "Officer Henderson's intentional and reckless material misstatements were maliciously made by him with evil motive and intent."
The lawsuit also alleges it's illegal to fly a drone over private property, making the informant's photos illegal. Henderson ultimately chose not to disclose who this informant was.
"[This] failure to disclose the identity of a material witness leaves open the very real possibility that despite Officer Henderson's sworn testimony," the suit reads, "no confidential informant unassociated with law enforcement exists."
"As a result of the unlawful searches ... and Officer Henderson's pursuit of charges against Luster without lawful probable cause," the suit concludes, "Luster has suffered injury to his reputation, harm to his mental health, and economic losses.
