Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post

Skip · 05-28-2004, 01:10 PM

Just to clarify the misleading headlines and confusion generated by the different stories in different papers.....

The facts alleged in the case were not in dispute.

The case hinged on whether the idividual in the kayak was actually "in custody" of the MP officer when the violation was noted and whether that officer indeed had "articulable suspicion" to make the stop.

As has been pointed out, MP's have their own regulation stating that basically states vessels will not be stopped without articulable suspicion.

The State's argument was that the policy had not been violated, that the individual in the kayak was not being detained by the MP but had simply been asked a quetion.

The individual argued that he felt being asked that question inferred he was not free to go, therefore the MP would have needed articulable suspicion to make the stop. Since he felt that articulable suspicion for a stop had not occured, the subsequent summons was then invalid.

Two of the three judges hearing the case for the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with the defendant.

Simply put, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has stated what is common knowledge amongst the law enforcement community in New Hampshire, it requires articulable suspicion to stop and detain. It does not require "probable cause" (as stated in one statewide paper) as probable cause is the standard necessary to make an arrest.

The question before the court was simply that....did this case of asking a question from a distance rise to the level of a temporary custodial situation? In my opinion, this officer conducted himself appropriately and did nothing that any other officer in his position would (or does) do. The question for the Court was to dissect over a period of days the action that an officer made in the field in the matter of seconds. No complaint, as that is the nature of being in law enforcement, knowing that every decision you make on the street in the matter of seconds could be second guessed years (and many days of discussion) later by people who need to make decisions based on second hand information.

The MP's have excellent guidelines that cover the conduct of their officers. This case will allow them (and many other agencies) to re-examine their policies to make sure they comply with this latest ruling from the NH Supreme Court.

This case proves that the "system" does indeed work. A single individual with no legal background was able to argue his case before the NH Supreme Court and come away with a victory.

Unlike a handful of individuals who constantly post here anonymously with everything they claim is wrong with the legal system, the individual in question put his money where his mouth was and intelligently questioned the system.

The New Hampshire Marine Patrol (and all New Hampshire law enforcement agencies)will come away a better because of this ruling. The New Hampshire Supreme Court comes away with greater respect by allowing an average citizen to challenge and prevail within it's boudaries. And every citizen wins when they realize that by taking action (instead of simply griping....or typing), they too can effect positive change within our government.

Contrary to minority opininon, New Hampshire once more continues to uphold it's motto of the "Live Free or Die" State!

05-28-2004, 01:10 PM	#4
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	Articulable suspicion..... Just to clarify the misleading headlines and confusion generated by the different stories in different papers..... The facts alleged in the case were not in dispute. The case hinged on whether the idividual in the kayak was actually "in custody" of the MP officer when the violation was noted and whether that officer indeed had "articulable suspicion" to make the stop. As has been pointed out, MP's have their own regulation stating that basically states vessels will not be stopped without articulable suspicion. The State's argument was that the policy had not been violated, that the individual in the kayak was not being detained by the MP but had simply been asked a quetion. The individual argued that he felt being asked that question inferred he was not free to go, therefore the MP would have needed articulable suspicion to make the stop. Since he felt that articulable suspicion for a stop had not occured, the subsequent summons was then invalid. Two of the three judges hearing the case for the New Hampshire Supreme Court agreed with the defendant. Simply put, the New Hampshire Supreme Court has stated what is common knowledge amongst the law enforcement community in New Hampshire, it requires articulable suspicion to stop and detain. It does not require "probable cause" (as stated in one statewide paper) as probable cause is the standard necessary to make an arrest. The question before the court was simply that....did this case of asking a question from a distance rise to the level of a temporary custodial situation? In my opinion, this officer conducted himself appropriately and did nothing that any other officer in his position would (or does) do. The question for the Court was to dissect over a period of days the action that an officer made in the field in the matter of seconds. No complaint, as that is the nature of being in law enforcement, knowing that every decision you make on the street in the matter of seconds could be second guessed years (and many days of discussion) later by people who need to make decisions based on second hand information. The MP's have excellent guidelines that cover the conduct of their officers. This case will allow them (and many other agencies) to re-examine their policies to make sure they comply with this latest ruling from the NH Supreme Court. This case proves that the "system" does indeed work. A single individual with no legal background was able to argue his case before the NH Supreme Court and come away with a victory. Unlike a handful of individuals who constantly post here anonymously with everything they claim is wrong with the legal system, the individual in question put his money where his mouth was and intelligently questioned the system. The New Hampshire Marine Patrol (and all New Hampshire law enforcement agencies)will come away a better because of this ruling. The New Hampshire Supreme Court comes away with greater respect by allowing an average citizen to challenge and prevail within it's boudaries. And every citizen wins when they realize that by taking action (instead of simply griping....or typing), they too can effect positive change within our government. Contrary to minority opininon, New Hampshire once more continues to uphold it's motto of the "Live Free or Die" State!