4th Amendments thoughts...

Jarod said:
Ah, I see, so when two parties have a disagreement over what is to be done under the rules of the Constitution, who is to decide what happens?
Click to expand...

Whoever has the biggest gun or can shoot the straightest.

Before anyone has a conniption, no, I'm not serious. But that seems to be the way some folks would have it. I for one would hate to live in a world without laws, law enforcement and courts. And yes, that means that I'm ok with Jarod's boat getting searched.
 
leaningright said:
Whoever has the biggest gun or can shoot the straightest.

Before anyone has a conniption, no, I'm not serious. But that seems to be the way some folks would have it. I for one would hate to live in a world without laws, law enforcement and courts. And yes, that means that I'm ok with Jarod's boat getting searched.
Click to expand...

I agree with the rule of law, and generally abide by legal interpretations of the law, thus I did not fight the searching of my boat. That does not mean I agree it was Constitutional.
 
Jarod said:
I agree with the rule of law, and generally abide by legal interpretations of the law, thus I did not fight the searching of my boat. That does not mean I agree it was Constitutional.
Click to expand...

We are all sincerely sorry that you were inconvenienced
 
Teflon Don said:
We are all sincerely sorry that you were inconvenienced
Click to expand...

It was really not much of an inconvenience, in fact it was a good opportunity to teach my kids a bit about the law and governments place in it.

It was a great chance to show them about questioning authority and doing the rightt thing.
 
Jarod said:
It was really not much of an inconvenience, in fact it was a good opportunity to teach my kids a bit about the law and governments place in it.

It was a great chance to show them about questioning authority and doing the rightt thing.
Click to expand...

Then stop yer bitchin
 
Jarod said:
It was really not much of an inconvenience, in fact it was a good opportunity to teach my kids a bit about the law and governments place in it.

It was a great chance to show them about questioning authority and doing the rightt thing.
Click to expand...

LMAO....seriously, no one can be this ignorant. If it was not much of an inconvenience, why start a thread about it and whine like a dunce?

Lord help those kids of yours; they are being taught by a dunce.
 
Jarod said:
So, swerving in your lane on the road is not similar to a boat making a lurch in one direction?
Click to expand...

1) He did not swerve... they said he drifted across the line between the right lane and the shoulder. The first time being when the office pulled along side him in the left lane. A natural tendency to put space between vehicles. They also stated in that case that there was no evidence as to how far the 'drift' was.

2) You on the other hand lurched towards a dock... for a few seconds by your count. That is not the same thing at all. Had the man driving the car lurched towards a sidewalk for a couple seconds, THAT would be similar, but still not the same. The rules on the road are different than those for on the water. Something you should know as a lawyer and someone piloting the boat.
 
Jarod said:
So this weekend I was out on a boat I share with my sister. I had my three kids and wife with me, but I was being Capitan.

As we were heading out the inlet, I was teaching my son to drive. The boat was sluggish because it was full of fuel and sitting very heavy in the water. My son lurched the boat toward a dock and I grabbed the wheel and corrected the direction. A Sherriff boat was heading toward us while this maneuver occurred. At no time was anyone in any danger and we did not come close to the dock in question.

The Sheriff boat came close to me and told me to kill the engine, he was boarding. I obeyed and he died his vessel up to mine and preceded to ask a series of questions, requesting to see the registration, hear the horn, see the life vests, and fire extinguisher. We had all the required safety equipment. He then took the time to call in the registration. In all the stop took 15 min's.

What are your thoughts, was this stop a violation of the 4th Amendment? Was his inspection of by boat an unreasonable search? The Florida Supreme Court says no. While, on a purely selfish personal level, I am glad the local police are doing this, because there is a lot of unsafe boating in my area, I believe stopping boats without Reasonable suspicion of a criminal violation is a violation of my Constitutional rights.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

i do not think that there was any 4th amendment violation from what you described. i think that the sheriff saw the lurch and once he had determined (maybe) that there was no substance abuse involved decided to do a complete inspection

years ago (the 70's) i would get stopped for driving or walking while being a hippie, those were 4th amendment violations, but that was another time

oh well
 
Jarod said:
So this weekend I was out on a boat I share with my sister. I had my three kids and wife with me, but I was being Capitan.

As we were heading out the inlet, I was teaching my son to drive. The boat was sluggish because it was full of fuel and sitting very heavy in the water. My son lurched the boat toward a dock and I grabbed the wheel and corrected the direction. A Sherriff boat was heading toward us while this maneuver occurred. At no time was anyone in any danger and we did not come close to the dock in question.

The Sheriff boat came close to me and told me to kill the engine, he was boarding. I obeyed and he died his vessel up to mine and preceded to ask a series of questions, requesting to see the registration, hear the horn, see the life vests, and fire extinguisher. We had all the required safety equipment. He then took the time to call in the registration. In all the stop took 15 min's.

What are your thoughts, was this stop a violation of the 4th Amendment? Was his inspection of by boat an unreasonable search? The Florida Supreme Court says no. While, on a purely selfish personal level, I am glad the local police are doing this, because there is a lot of unsafe boating in my area, I believe stopping boats without Reasonable suspicion of a criminal violation is a violation of my Constitutional rights.

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Clearly your problem is the term "unreasonable" and your issue with authority. You admit your child made a mistake and with that mistake a Water Patrol came toward you for, again, REASONABLE cause.

Your post is trash.
 
So, almost all of you Conservatives are unwilling to address the second issue regarding my post. Ill outline:

First Issue, did the officer have RS to stop me and search my boat. We have disagreements, I guess my standard for giving the Government extra power is higher than yours.

Second Issue, the one most of you refuse to discuss. The fact is that the officer, under current law and interpretation of the Constitution, the officer did not need RS to pull me over and search the boat. Are you cool with that? Does the Fourth apply on the water, if not why not? Why is it okay for the Government to ignore the 4th Amendment in certain circumstances? Are you cool with this power being given to the Government?
 
Jarod said:
So, almost all of you Conservatives are unwilling to address the second issue regarding my post. Ill outline:

First Issue, did the officer have RS to stop me and search my boat. We have disagreements, I guess my standard for giving the Government extra power is higher than yours.

Second Issue, the one most of you refuse to discuss. The fact is that the officer, under current law and interpretation of the Constitution, the officer did not need RS to pull me over and search the boat. Are you cool with that? Does the Fourth apply on the water, if not why not? Why is it okay for the Government to ignore the 4th Amendment in certain circumstances? Are you cool with this power being given to the Government?
Click to expand...

So you didn't like the nearly unanimous answer you got from ALL politcal spectrums on this forum and feel compelled to ask the same dumb question again hoping for a different answer? Profound.

By the way shit-for-brains; it wasn't JUST Conservatives who lectured you, you dishonest dunce.
 
Jarod said:
So, almost all of you Conservatives are unwilling to address the second issue regarding my post. Ill outline:

First Issue, did the officer have RS to stop me and search my boat. We have disagreements, I guess my standard for giving the Government extra power is higher than yours.

Second Issue, the one most of you refuse to discuss. The fact is that the officer, under current law and interpretation of the Constitution, the officer did not need RS to pull me over and search the boat. Are you cool with that? Does the Fourth apply on the water, if not why not? Why is it okay for the Government to ignore the 4th Amendment in certain circumstances? Are you cool with this power being given to the Government?
Click to expand...

But searching your boat was not a special power.
By your own admission, the boat "lurched" toward the pier, which could be a sign of impairment.

If it bothers you that much, then don't go boating and subjecting yourself to such an affront on your whiney sensibilities.
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
So you didn't like the nearly unanimous answer you got from ALL politcal spectrums on this forum and feel compelled to ask the same dumb question again hoping for a different answer? Profound.

By the way shit-for-brains; it wasn't JUST Conservatives who lectured you, you dishonest dunce.
Click to expand...

Is your butt still sore after having called Thomas Jefferson a moron?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But searching your boat was not a special power.
By your own admission, the boar "lurched" toward the pier, which could be a sign of impairment.

If it bothers you that much, then don't go boating and subjecting yourself to such an affront on your whiney sensibilities.
Click to expand...

You are still refusing to address the issue. According to the law, the lurch is irrelevant, the officer did not have to see any lurch to search.
 
You conservatives are avoiding the issue and I understand why. You pretend to be Constitutionalists, you want limited government, but only when it serves your purposes.

forget the lurch if you are brave, tell me what you think about the officer not being required to have RS to search a boat.
 
Jarod said:
So, almost all of you Conservatives are unwilling to address the second issue regarding my post. Ill outline:

Second Issue, the one most of you refuse to discuss. The fact is that the officer, under current law and interpretation of the Constitution, the officer did not need RS to pull me over and search the boat. Are you cool with that? Does the Fourth apply on the water, if not why not? Why is it okay for the Government to ignore the 4th Amendment in certain circumstances? Are you cool with this power being given to the Government?
Click to expand...

the legal argument that the government and courts have used for this is that safety inspections are not investigative, but administrative. administrative functions never violate the 4th Amendment because there is no suspected criminality involved.
 
Jarod said:
Is your butt still sore after having called Thomas Jefferson a moron?
Click to expand...

It will be just as soon as you find the post where I called Thomas Jefferson a moron. But alas, you're too stupid and too dishonest to comprehend how stupid you look making such dumbass claims.
 
Jarod said:
You conservatives are avoiding the issue and I understand why. You pretend to be Constitutionalists, you want limited government, but only when it serves your purposes.

forget the lurch if you are brave, tell me what you think about the officer not being required to have RS to search a boat.
Click to expand...

LMAO @ you Conservatives. You really are that stupid aren't you?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top