4th Amendments thoughts...

[Teflon Don]

Normally, I'd said you have a good point. But this is the upper westside of Manhattan we're speaking of.

It was here, in 1972, Bill Buckley overheard an upper westsider make the remark Buckley made famous: "I can't believe McGovern lost. Everyone I know voted for him."

That is true. I always say, I am never surprised by what lefties say, but they do manage to surprise me. Perfect example is poor Jarod here who is just trying to take his yacht out for a Sunday cruise and he is being profiled and harassed by a cop.

The humanity of it all.

FREE MUMIA!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You are the idiot. The Revenue Cutter Service was created by the same congress that wrote the bill of rights in the same year. They are not covered by the forth. If you demand perfect privacy, stay off the water. We don't need idiots like you out there anyway.

some of us need you to explain how the 4th Amendment doesn't extend over the water.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Funny how your words change... there is a difference between 'headed toward a dock for a few seconds' and "My son lurched the boat toward a dock and I grabbed the wheel and corrected the direction."

Example of J-Rod's usual behavior:

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You are all idiots.

You might be correct that the officer might have had RS to stop and search me, but the point is that according to the law, as it currently stands he does not need RS to do what he did. I disagree, a single lurch for a couple seconds that was immediately corrected is not RS of criminal suspicion, but it does not matter in the above situation, according to the law.

Are you cool with that interpretation of the law?

First you start of bitching about the Officer doing a routine stop and search, after your boat LURCHED towards the dock.
Now you want to make this about the Court's ruling.
Please make up your mind and we might be able to continue from that spot.

 

[Damocles]

The stop wasn't "random" you swerved towards a dock and jerked the wheel. What the Sheriff saw was what appeared to be a drunken boating incident.

 

[Teflon Don]

The stop wasn't "random" you swerved towards a dock and jerked the wheel. What the Sheriff saw was what appeared to be a drunken boating incident.

But you have to understand. Those types of things are only for the rubes, not for upstanding Richerals like Jarod.

 

[Jarod]

The stop wasn't "random" you swerved towards a dock and jerked the wheel. What the Sheriff saw was what appeared to be a drunken boating incident.

To me a single lurch does not make for enough to create RS, but that is a legit argument.
Another argument brought up by this situation is that the law does not require RS if you are on the water. apparently the founding fathers somehow included an "on the water" exception in the 4th Amendment that the Republicans on this cite seem to agree with.

Why should the government have a right to search my belongings simply because they are floating in coastal waters?

 

[Teflon Don]

To me a single lurch does not make for enough to create RS, but that is a legit argument.
Another argument brought up by this situation is that the law does not require RS if you are on the water. apparently the founding fathers somehow included an "on the water" exception in the 4th Amendment that the Republicans on this cite seem to agree with.

Why should the government have a right to search my belongings simply because they are floating in coastal waters?

Why do you oppose water safety? Is 15 minutes of your time too much to ask for the safety of the children?

If one life can be saved by you giving up 15 minutes then it is worth it

If you aren't doing anything wrong then what do you have to worry about?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

To me a single lurch does not make for enough to create RS, but that is a legit argument.
Another argument brought up by this situation is that the law does not require RS if you are on the water. apparently the founding fathers somehow included an "on the water" exception in the 4th Amendment that the Republicans on this cite seem to agree with.

Why should the government have a right to search my belongings simply because they are floating in coastal waters?

While you may have that opinion, I think you are leaving out the essential element... the single lurch was by your own words for a few second and most importantly it was towards a dock. Had you done it in open water, it may not have been as suspicious and drawn the search. But a sudden lurch towards a dock is a sign of either impaired driving or a novice driving. They absolutely should have pulled you over in that situation in my opinion. You were a potential danger to others. It is their job to make sure that you are not.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

While you may have that opinion, I think you are leaving out the essential element... the single lurch was by your own words for a few second and most importantly it was towards a dock. Had you done it in open water, it may not have been as suspicious and drawn the search. But a sudden lurch towards a dock is a sign of either impaired driving or a novice driving. They absolutely should have pulled you over in that situation in my opinion. You were a potential danger to others. It is their job to make sure that you are not.

Boating while impaired is rampant on the LI Sound, and it makes the water incredibly unsafe, so I have to agree.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Boating while impaired is rampant on the LI Sound, and it makes the water incredibly unsafe, so I have to agree.

Add in the fact that the Coast Guard has always had the right to search without warrant or even probable cause and he is upset about nothing that hasn't been law for at least a couple hundred years.

 

[Truth Detector]

What makes you assume I am not black?

Are you?

If they inspected every 12th boat they passed, that would not be random, would it?

Is there a point here? You think they should count every Nth boat to make it fair? Maybe yours was?

 

[Callinectes]

The argument can be made that the officer had RS, my point is that based on the law he did not need it, and to me, that's wrong.

Hey guess what? I think obamacare sucks. And I really, REALLY hate the way the SCOTUS interpreted that one(except I must admit, it exposed Obamacare Lie#1, that it wasn't a tax). What can you do? Welcome to the big poo-poo sandwich. Now take a bite and chew on it.

 

[Rune]

some of us need you to explain how the 4th Amendment doesn't extend over the water.

as if you didn't know;

Why can the Coast Guard search our boats without a warrant or probable cause, when the police can’t search our homes, cars, offices, motorhomes etc.?
It’s always been this way. The same congress that passed the Bill of Rights passed the Revenue Service Act of 1790, which gave revenue cutters the right to search any vessel anywhere in US waters, and any US-flagged vessel anywhere in the world.
Our fledgling nation was strapped for cash, and tariffs were the way to solvency. This was controversial even back in 1790, since many of our gripes against the British, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, had to do with tariffs (see Boston Tea Party). The crews of revenue cutters were allowed to board vessels to make sure they’d paid the tariffs on their cargoes.


Since 1790 the Coast Guard has been shaken up, mishmashed, and passed around like a red-headed stepchild, but the Revenue Service Act of 1790 has only gone through minor changes.
The modern Coast Guard is an amalgamation of five federal agencies: the Revenue Cutter Service, the Lighthouse Service, the Steamboat Inspection Service, the Bureau of Navigation, and the Lifesaving Service. The Coast Guard, as a named entity, wasn’t created until 1915 under Woodrow Wilson. For much of its history it was part of the Treasury Department. In times of war it sometimes falls under the Navy’s command and sometimes acts on its own, but Coast Guardsmen and their predecessors have fought in every war in our nation’s history.
Now the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, with added counter-terrorism and intelligence responsibilities.

http://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-2/

 

[SmarterthanYou]

as if you didn't know;

Why can the Coast Guard search our boats without a warrant or probable cause, when the police can’t search our homes, cars, offices, motorhomes etc.?
It’s always been this way. The same congress that passed the Bill of Rights passed the Revenue Service Act of 1790, which gave revenue cutters the right to search any vessel anywhere in US waters, and any US-flagged vessel anywhere in the world.
Our fledgling nation was strapped for cash, and tariffs were the way to solvency. This was controversial even back in 1790, since many of our gripes against the British, as stated in our Declaration of Independence, had to do with tariffs (see Boston Tea Party). The crews of revenue cutters were allowed to board vessels to make sure they’d paid the tariffs on their cargoes.


Since 1790 the Coast Guard has been shaken up, mishmashed, and passed around like a red-headed stepchild, but the Revenue Service Act of 1790 has only gone through minor changes.
The modern Coast Guard is an amalgamation of five federal agencies: the Revenue Cutter Service, the Lighthouse Service, the Steamboat Inspection Service, the Bureau of Navigation, and the Lifesaving Service. The Coast Guard, as a named entity, wasn’t created until 1915 under Woodrow Wilson. For much of its history it was part of the Treasury Department. In times of war it sometimes falls under the Navy’s command and sometimes acts on its own, but Coast Guardsmen and their predecessors have fought in every war in our nation’s history.
Now the Coast Guard is part of the Department of Homeland Security, with added counter-terrorism and intelligence responsibilities.

http://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-2/

so the concern and interest in revenue (money) persuaded our newly elected government critters to abandon the 4th Amendment over certain parts of our terrain. and nobody wonders why some of us are concerned about losing the rest of our rights to congress?

 

[Rune]

so the concern and interest in revenue (money) persuaded our newly elected government critters to abandon the 4th Amendment over certain parts of our terrain. and nobody wonders why some of us are concerned about losing the rest of our rights to congress?

Who said I am not concerned?
This particular issue has been to SCOTUS 5 times and upheld every time. Is it right? I don't know, but it was written by the same men who wrote the bill of rights, at the same time. One simply doesn't have an expectation of privacy upon the sea. It has been that way for 220 years, without further encroachment, yet we have seen encroachment against the Bill of Rights as well as some other amendments.

My guess is that you are barking up the wrong tree, and should focus more on the 1st, 2nd and 4th. They seem most threatened at this time, to me, though I am sure Billy will shortly point out how and why I am wrong

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Who said I am not concerned?
This particular issue has been to SCOTUS 5 times and upheld every time. Is it right? I don't know, but it was written by the same men who wrote the bill of rights,

this is simply untrue.

at the same time. One simply doesn't have an expectation of privacy upon the sea. It has been that way for 220 years, without further encroachment, yet we have seen encroachment against the Bill of Rights as well as some other amendments.

it's really difficult to encroach further upon some right to privacy on the sea if it never existed in the first place.

 

[Rune]

this is simply untrue.

No, it isn't.

it's really difficult to encroach further upon some right to privacy on the sea if it never existed in the first place.

Honestly, you would have to experience the relationship yourself. These men seldom act like cops, they routinely save our lives and often die in the process.
Somewhere there may be abuse of the system but I have never experienced it.

I have been boarded approximately 15 times; I have not had my wallet emptied, nor my duffle bag. They seldom enter below decks areas at all, are primarily interested in whether we have sufficient and proper safety equipment. I have never had my person searched, I have had a vessel I was Captain but not owner of forced to return to port having been determined to be manifestly unsafe.

This was for the good, since it forced the owner to spend money the cheap fuck didn't want to spend. In my entire career, spanning both coasts and the southern territorial waters I have never been bodily searched.

The Coast Guard has towed a vessel of mine twice that I can remember, for free, and though we were well within their custody at that time, they did not board us either time, since that is their policy. They do not conduct boardings of vessels they are assisting, so that mariners will not hesitate to call for help out of fear of boarding.

In another instance they delivered pumps, came aboard and assisted the crew with the pumping then departed when vessel safety had been assured, again without so much as asking to see documentation or anything.

Finally, when one of my boats sank with myself, my brother and another gentleman (since departed) aboard, in November, in the North Atlantic, the advice they gave during my mayday calls saved us all
and got us out of the water within 30 minutes.

As to encroach, I meant abuse, and as I pointed out, I have yet to see any abuse of these powers during what has now matured into a 37 year long career.

I respect your efforts to maintain freedom in this country, but this is not where to take your fight. The Coast Guard are partners in all legitimate marine enterprise.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, it isn't.

rune, you cannot be this stupid, really. are you telling us that you don't know the difference between the delegates and constituents that ratified the bill of rights and the elected congressmen who wrote the law?

Honestly, you would have to experience the relationship yourself. These men seldom act like cops, they routinely save our lives and often die in the process.
Somewhere there may be abuse of the system but I have never experienced it.

I have been boarded approximately 15 times; I have not had my wallet emptied, nor my duffle bag. They seldom enter below decks areas at all, are primarily interested in whether we have sufficient and proper safety equipment. I have never had my person searched, I have had a vessel I was Captain but not owner of forced to return to port having been determined to be manifestly unsafe.

This was for the good, since it forced the owner to spend money the cheap fuck didn't want to spend. In my entire career, spanning both coasts and the southern territorial waters I have never been bodily searched.

The Coast Guard has towed a vessel of mine twice that I can remember, for free, and though we were well within their custody at that time, they did not board us either time, since that is their policy. They do not conduct boardings of vessels they are assisting, so that mariners will not hesitate to call for help out of fear of boarding.

In another instance they delivered pumps, came aboard and assisted the crew with the pumping then departed when vessel safety had been assured, again without so much as asking to see documentation or anything.

Finally, when one of my boats sank with myself, my brother and another gentleman (since departed) aboard, in November, in the North Atlantic, the advice they gave during my mayday calls saved us all
and got us out of the water within 30 minutes.

As to encroach, I meant abuse, and as I pointed out, I have yet to see any abuse of these powers during what has now matured into a 37 year long career.

I respect your efforts to maintain freedom in this country, but this is not where to take your fight. The Coast Guard are partners in all legitimate marine enterprise.

there is no greater tyranny than that which is exercised 'for our own good'. I suspect that your opinion about this is biased due to your experience and love of sailing. sad.

 

[Jarod]

Add in the fact that the Coast Guard has always had the right to search without warrant or even probable cause and he is upset about nothing that hasn't been law for at least a couple hundred years.

Ah, so because they have been doing it for a long time makes it okay?