Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hazelnut
...I want to know if the stop was warranted legally. I default to Skip on that one...
|
There are two reasons that the MPs could use to effectively initiate the stop as described.
The first reason is covered under the previously quoted Administrative Rule Saf-C 403.14 as this particular regulation is very broad in its scope.
The second reason is that if the auxilary lights obstructed the officer's ability, even momentarily, to ascertain the proper lights then the officer can also articulate and justify the stop.
Let's look at it using another example. Many times a motor vehicle stop will be initiated because an officer may not be able to clearly see an inspection sticker or misread a plate expiration sticker and so on. If the officer can articulate to the Court that the stop was made in good faith when an actual violation may not have occured then stop and a reasonable investigation is usually held as warranted.
Like the overnight anchoring regulation that we have discussed before, this is yet but another example where there is no direct regulation specifying an offense, but a violation is determined and a stop occurs by using a number of other related factors.
In my opinon, whether or not there is no direct regulation prohibiting the use of or possession docking lights (or any type of spot or flood or auxilary lighting) there is ample peripheral regulation to allow a stop to occur if the use of such lighting distracts another from ascertaining the employing boat's navigational intentions.
I won't comment on whether the actual scope and length of the stop exceeded the accepted norm as I was not witness to the event. However, I will venture to opine that if the MP boat was close enough to the boat in question to effect the stop because of its use of docking lights then most likely the Court would find the reason for the stop to be valid.