A Hunting Personality Is Suing a Game Warden, Claiming Bogus Bait Charges Ruined His Reputation

Yahoo

23-05-2025

A self-described 'renowned hunter' in Iowa is suing a state game warden, claiming the warden violated his constitutional rights and pinned him with bogus bait charges. No bait was found on the property during hunting season, though soil tests showed some salt had been present on the property at one time, and the charges were dismissed months ago. Still, the hunter Mark Luster claims in his lawsuit that the officer's allegations, along with the court case and resulting publicity, have stained his reputation and harmed his business.
Luster is now seeking compensation for the money he spent defending himself in court, along with punitive damages for the defendant, Officer Dan Henderson of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources. The DNR did not respond to a request for comment as of press time.
Filed May 16 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, the hunter's lawsuit accuses Henderson, who has 15 years with the DNR, of violating the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. It alleges that Henderson deliberately and illegally obtained a search warrant to pin Luster with charges of hunting over bait, all in an effort to punish him for his success.
'No doubt, Luster is known to the DNR. Luster is a professional hunting consultant and a renowned hunter,' reads a copy of the lawsuit obtained by 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.'
Read Next: Game Wardens Can Surveil Private Land with Trail Cams. But That's Now Being Challenged in Pennsylvania's Supreme Court
To support the claims of Luster's 'expertise,' the lawsuit mentions the 209-inch Iowa buck, nicknamed 'Zeus,' that Luster tagged in 2020 and was featured in Bowhunter magazine. But there is another whitetail buck at the root of Luster's lawsuit — one he killed the past season.
On Oct. 14, 2024, Luster arrowed a big whitetail buck with a bow, according to the suit. He was on a hunting property in Henry County that he and a friend owned under a LLC, and he was able to recover the deer the next morning. Just before 11 a.m. on Oct. 15, Luster posted a picture of the dead buck on Facebook along with a single-word caption: 'Checkmate!'
Roughly two hours before Luster posted that photo, however, Officer Henderson had received a Turn in Poachers complaint about Luster from an unnamed source. The informant told Henderson they knew Luster had been baiting the hunting property because they flew over the same property with their drone on Aug. 10 and took pictures of bait there, which they shared with the game warden.
The bait wouldn't have been a violation of Iowa's game laws, which require hunters to remove any bait from a hunting area at least 10 days before the start of the first deer season. (The 2024-25 season opened in September.) The tip led Henderson to investigate further, though, and while looking through Luster's Facebook photos he found two trail camera pictures that were taken Oct. 9, and which showed a buck standing over a bare dirt spot near a blind and a bean field.
Henderson used those trail cam photos to apply for a search warrant on Oct 16. During his sworn testimony, he told the judge he'd learned of the buck Luster harvested 'in passing,' and he said the bare spot in the photos was clearly an area where bait or minerals had been placed at one time. The judge issued the warrant, which allowed Henderson to collect soil samples at the hunting property.
Lab analysis of those soil samples showed 'over 500 Mg of sodium at the bait site as well as DEET being a chemical used in the bait,' according to the lawsuit. And on Nov. 15, Luster applied for a second warrant to search Luster's house, pointing to the lab results as probable cause. (The presence of sodium could have meant that a salt block or other minerals had been placed there at some point, although the lawsuit contends that this concentration is within the normal range for soils in southeastern Iowa.)
On Nov. 18, Henderson executed that search warrant and charged Luster at his residence with three misdemeanors. One was for making a false ownership claim to get a landowner's tag, and the other two were for hunting deer in the presence of bait.
Luster's case was heard in Henry County, where he killed the buck in October. On Jan. 10, the state dismissed the first charge; it had verified that Luster was a part owner in the LLC that owned the hunting property.
The other two charges were dismissed in March, according to the lawsuit, which states that both bait charges (hunting over bait and 'attempting to hunt over bait') were unfounded. Luster's attorney takes those claims one step further, alleging in the suit that Henderson was acting 'maliciously' by bringing the charges and violating Luster's Fourth Amendment rights in the process.
'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 suit points out that Henderson's initial application for a search warrant was based on two pieces of evidence: the trail camera photos taken earlier in October, which don't show any bait on the ground or any sign that deer are eating bait, and the drone photographs taken by the confidential informant who called in the complaint against Luster on Oct. 15.
Those photos, however, were obtained illegally, the lawsuit states. Iowa law prohibits drone operators from flying a remotely piloted aircraft over private property, and this simple misdemeanor is elevated to a serious misdemeanor if that aircraft is equipped with a surveillance device, such as a camera.
The lawsuit alleges that although Henderson's investigation was sparked by the aerial drone photos and the claims made by a confidential informant, he mentioned neither in his sworn affidavit applying for his initial search warrant — and instead claimed that he learned about Luster's Oct. 15 buck 'in passing.' If Henderson had been upfront about the informant and their claims and photographs, the suit contends, he would have had to 'establish the credibility of the informant' as required by state law, which would have revealed that the drone photos were obtained illegally, and likely would have prevented the judge from issuing a search warrant in the first place.
In March, while fighting the charges in court, Luster filed a motion to have the evidence that resulted from those searches suppressed. Henderson chose not to disclose the identity of the confidential informant during that suppression hearing, and when pushed on this by the Assistant Henry County Attorney, both Henderson and the DNR continued to withhold the informant's identity. (It's unclear if this was done according to DNR procedure. Iowa law protects the identity of confidential informants during law enforcement investigations, but it makes exceptions during formal court proceedings.)
Read Next: Tennessee Judges Rein in Game Wardens, Declaring Warrantless Searches on Private Land Unconstitutional
'[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.'
Taken altogether, the lawsuit contends, the unlawful searches, along with the intentional misstatements and omissions made by Officer Henderson during his investigation, amount to serious violations of Luster's Fourth Amendment rights.
'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.