A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit Thursday filed by a group of Maine lobster fishermen against the Maine Department of Marine Resources to stop the state from forcing lobster fishermen to install tracking devices on their boats.

According to court records, the plaintiffs sued in part alleging the tracking device requirement violated the fishermen’s Fourth Amendment rights against unlawful search and seizure.

In his decision, Judge John Woodcock Jr. wrote that he was technically compelled to dismiss the case “for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted,” but added, “this case raises significant Fourth Amendment issues, and the court encourages the lobstermen to appeal this decision.”

The case involved five fishermen – Frank Thompson, of Vinalhaven, Joel Strout, of Harrington, Jason Lord, or Pemaquid, Christopher Smith, of Jonesport and Jack Cunningham, of Bar Harbor – suing Maine Department of Marine Resources Commissioner Patrick Keliher. 

The case dates to Jan. 2, 2024, when all five plaintiffs first filed. In response, Keliher asked the court to throw the case out due to a “lack of subject matter jurisdiction” and “failure to state a claim.”

While related to federal laws and regulations designed to promote marine conservation, the court records indicate the requirement for lobster fishermen to have tracking devices on their vessels comes from the state level.

This is part of the reason why Keliher was moving to dismiss the case. He argued, according to court records, that a federal court has no jurisdiction over a matter of state law.

Keliher further argued that there are exceptions to the Fourth Amendment where warrantless searches have been allowed. He cited case law indicating, “[a]n expectation of privacy in commercial premises . . . is different from, and indeed less than, a similar expectation in an individual’s home [and] is particularly attenuated in commercial property employed in ‘closely regulated’ industries.” 

Keliher also argued that the plaintiffs’ allegations of constitutional violations are “vague” enough that the court could not take action.

Along with recommending the plaintiffs appeal his decision, Woodcock acknowledged in court papers that the required tracking devices could allow the government to monitor the vessels at any time, not just when they were fishing. 

“The lobstermen have legitimate privacy concerns about the degree of governmental intrusion from the MDMR rule,” he wrote.  “Lobstermen are not always fishing on their boats. They have their own lives. Even though they use their boats to fish for lobsters, they also use these vessels to perform personal errands, to visit family and friends, and even in some cases to live on.”

That said, Woodcock also acknowledged that the state had a legitimate need to collect data on fishing activity, and noted the plaintiffs did not describe an alternative to the tracking devices that would allow relevant data to be collected. 

“As the lobstermen work in a closely regulated industry, the court concludes that given the choice between the overaccumulation of data and the accumulation of inadequate data, the law favors preservation of the resource over the lobstermen’s rights of privacy,” Woodcock wrote.