4th Amendments thoughts...

Taft2016 said:
1. The more you talk, the less I believe you're an attorney
2. I don't believe you knew anything about checkpoints beforehand, which is why you said it was a "random" stop.
3. I don't believe you stayed in the area and watched. You would have mentioned that initially.
4. My thoughts are, based on what you said initially, especially the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court, it's probably Constitutional. But I have no experience or knowledge of martime law.
Click to expand...

1. I don't really care what you believe.
2. What I experienced was a random stop. They don't do "checkpoints" regarding boats in Florida because its not a legal requirement, they are free to do "safety inspections" at will so why would they set up a "checkpoint"?
3. We were fishing and stopped for quite a while, but I don't care what you believe.
4. So you know nothing about maritime law, yet you go off half cocked about me saying the stop was random.
 
Jarod said:
1. I don't really care what you believe.
2. What I experienced was a random stop. They don't do "checkpoints" regarding boats in Florida because its not a legal requirement, they are free to do "safety inspections" at will so why would they set up a "checkpoint"?
3. We were fishing and stopped for quite a while, but I don't care what you believe.
4. So you know nothing about maritime law, yet you go off half cocked about me saying the stop was random.
Click to expand...

1. Yes, you do.
2. Checkpoints do not need to be a legal requirement. They can do safety checkpoints on the roadways, I assume they can also be done on the waterways. "Safety inspection" is the same thing as a checkpoint.
3. Yes, you do.
4. Like I prefaced it, assuming the laws for checkpoints on the water are the same as those on land...

Perhaps the counselor would be so kind as to explain the differences in safety or DWI checkpoints on the land vs. water.

Although, I have to believe if the counselor could, he wouldn't be here fishing for answers.
 
Jarod said:
Impaired operation? The fact that we headed toward a dock for a few seconds, then corrected. To you, is that enough to make a stop and search "reasonable"?
Click to expand...

It absolutely was ....and by your description, it was not random..... and you say he 'searched' the boat ?....Inspecting your boat concerning the safety equipment is hardly a search.
He observed what he considered an erratic movement and he had a duty to check out the reason for that. He probably asked about your alcohol use on the boat too...
so get over it.
 
Taft2016 said:
1. Yes, you do.
2. Checkpoints do not need to be a legal requirement. They can do safety checkpoints on the roadways, I assume they can also be done on the waterways. "Safety inspection" is the same thing as a checkpoint.
3. Yes, you do.
4. Like I prefaced it, assuming the laws for checkpoints on the water are the same as those on land...

Perhaps the counselor would be so kind as to explain the differences in safety or DWI checkpoints on the land vs. water.

Although, I have to believe if the counselor could, he wouldn't be here fishing for answers.
Click to expand...


Ill give you a case, give me a second to find it, its been a while since I have had to pull it.
 
NOVA said:
It absolutely was ....and by your description, it was not random..... and you say he 'searched' the boat ?....Inspecting your boat concerning the safety equipment is hardly a search.
He observed what he considered an erratic movement and he had a duty to check out the reason for that. He probably asked about your alcohol use on the boat too...
so get over it.
Click to expand...

He did not ask about alcohol, it was like 9:30 in the morning. So to you, a single erratic movement that put nobody at any risk is a reasonable cause for the government to be allowed to search your boat? I disagree, but that was the opinion I was looking for. Thank you for sharing.
 
The Court reasoned...


"The district court reasoned that the Marine Patrol's stopping respondents' vessel was likewise unconstitutional since there was "no basis for distinguishing between automobiles and boats in applying the Fourth Amendment's proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures.” 375 So.2d at 1078. Since we find there is a distinction substantial enough to tip the balance in favor of the state's legitimate interest, we disapprove that portion of the district court's opinion. Since we conclude that there was no probable cause to search the boat, however, we approve the district court's decision that the evidence should have been suppressed."
 
Jarod said:
He did not ask about alcohol, it was like 9:30 in the morning. So to you, a single erratic movement that put nobody at any risk is a reasonable cause for the government to be allowed to search your boat? I disagree, but that was the opinion I was looking for. Thank you for sharing.
Click to expand...

Try crossing the yellow line while driving your car with a cop following....same issue...
Quite polite of him not to ask about drinking on the boat, but don't think he wasn't looking around for it....sounds like a good cop
 
Jarod said:
Your link sir..

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...al,+410+So.2d+152&hl=en&as_sdt=40006&as_vis=1
Click to expand...

In case you missed it, I said previously:

Perhaps if some contraband is found and arrest is made, it might head for the US Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I was only going by what you said that it was Constitutional. The stop in question in this case was determined to be random, which is again irrelevant to what I was saying about a checkpoint or safety inspection. The court approves of this:

The same does not hold true for motorboat travel. It is not a pervasive or necessary mode of transportation for most people. There is not as great a sense of security and privacy when travelling in a boat as when travelling in an automobile. Thus subjecting boats to random spot checks for fishing permits or registration certificates does not seriously circumscribe the Fourth Amendment.

In sum we find that the state's interest in random stopping and brief detention of motorboats for the limited purpose of checking fishing permits, registration certificates and safety equipment outweighs a person's interest in being completely free from such limited intrusion. In light of the absence of less restrictive alternatives which would accomplish the state's goals, spot checks of motorboats are not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The district court erred in holding that State marine officers must have probable cause to stop a vessel for the limited purposes discussed above.
Click to expand...

It sounds like the court gives more leeway to boat checkpoints than vehicles.... so random stops sound OK in Florida.

In this case, the captain should have been arrested for not having the registration needed, and an inventory search done afterwards. An inventory search is just about always good, and that's the way veteran law enforcement would have gone about it.

And obviously, anything in plain view would automatically be admissible.
 
NOVA said:
Try crossing the yellow line while driving your car with a cop following....same issue...
Quite polite of him not to ask about drinking on the boat, but don't think he wasn't looking around for it....sounds like a good cop
Click to expand...

I think the case is Crooks v. State. Crossing the line is not enough, one must affect traffic. Their is no yellow line in the water.
 
Taft2016 said:
In case you missed it, I said previously:



I was only going by what you said that it was Constitutional. The stop in question in this case was determined to be random, which is again irrelevant to what I was saying about a checkpoint or safety inspection. The court approves of this:



It sounds like the court gives more leeway to boat checkpoints than vehicles.... so random stops sound OK in Florida.

In this case, the captain should have been arrested for not having the registration needed, and an inventory search done afterwards. An inventory search is just about always good, and that's the way veteran law enforcement would have gone about it.

And obviously, anything in plain view would automatically be admissible.
Click to expand...

So, are you okay with the government having the right to randomly stop you and inspect your vessel?
 
Jarod said:
So, are you okay with the government having the right to randomly stop you and inspect your vessel?
Click to expand...

The Florida Supreme Court is OK with it. I have no problem with it. Like I said, they do it here in NY as well.

I kind of appreciate it. I obey the fishing laws and don't care much for poachers.
 
Jarod said:
Impaired operation? The fact that we headed toward a dock for a few seconds, then corrected. To you, is that enough to make a stop and search "reasonable"?
Click to expand...

with all of the very minor, yet somehow possibly tragic, issues that happens with vehicles on the highways, why would you NOT think it would be the same on the water?
 
Jarod said:
I think the case is Crooks v. State. Crossing the line is not enough, one must affect traffic. Their is no yellow line in the water.
Click to expand...

No Jarod, you are absolutely incorrect. I am a professional mariner. People like you cause no end of trouble for people like me. Your flippant attitude towards the indication that an inebriated operator was at the wheel is disturbing at minimum,

Driving a boat while intoxicated is a huge and growing safety concern. Your loss of control of your vessel was ample cause for a stop. Checking for safety equipment is just good seamanship, seeing how he was on your vessel anyhow.
 
Personally I think allowing the government to board any vessel at will gives the Government WAY too much power and authority. I think it violates the 4th Amendment. I believe in a limited government, especially when my personal property is involved.
 
Taft2016 said:
1. The more you talk, the less I believe you're an attorney
2. I don't believe you knew anything about checkpoints beforehand, which is why you said it was a "random" stop.
3. I don't believe you stayed in the area and watched. You would have mentioned that initially.
4. My thoughts are, based on what you said initially, especially the ruling by the Florida Supreme Court, it's probably Constitutional. But I have no experience or knowledge of martime law.
Click to expand...

It is sometimes hard to believe but he is an attorney.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top