Marine Patrol, Friday Night (4rth) at Weirs

[HomeWood]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Mike M

3. If you are stopped by a NH Marine Patrol boat ask them, nicely, why they are stopping you. If they say a "routine safety check" then I would (again nicely) question their authority to stop you for a "routine safety check" by contacting THEIR SUPERVISOR FIRST via Cell or VHF.

I also suggest doing this if you really want a ticket for some reason.

Nightwing is right, call if you don't believe it. This thread is getting a little repetitive with the "Can the MP really stop you at any time?" questions. Like in court....asked and answered.

I suggest being polite and cooperative the entire time even if you disagree and even if you get a ticket. Calling a supervisor for any questions is done AFTER the stop, not during. Then again....what do I know?

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Homewood

I also suggest doing this if you really want a ticket for some reason.

Nightwing is right, call if you don't believe it. This thread is getting a little repetitive with the "Can the MP really stop you at any time?" questions. Like in court....asked and answered.

I suggest being polite and cooperative the entire time even if you disagree and even if you get a ticket. Calling a supervisor for any questions is done AFTER the stop, not during. Then again....what do I know?

The only thing I have to say about that is that I understand from reading past posts that you're in law enforcement.

It's a pretty sad indictment against your own profession to suggest that every officer that stops you is petty and vendictive enough to punish someone for politely going to a more knowledgeable superior officer for a ruling. If that is the norm then something is very very wrong with the hiring practices of that community/agency.

[Silver Duck]

Here's a slightly different spin on this question. I know darned well that I'll pass a standard safety check. But, I think that we all know that the legal requirements are somewhat "minimalistic".

I'd be very interested in discussing, with one of the "old pros" that have been in the MP for a while, what other safety-related items that it would be a real good idea to have along but which I haven't thought of.

So, is it possible to arrange such a discussion without fouling up and getting stopped?

Silver Duck

[HomeWood]

Yup, you figured it out, I am. Do whatever you want if you are stopped, but starting off a legal stop with an argument (however polite it might be) will never be in your favor. Here's a general rule in the world of policing for us. If an officer makes a perfectly legal traffic or boat stop and the driver starts arguing over the legality of it or they argue that they didn't do whatever it was, the officer will 99.9% of the time write a ticket to cover his or her own behind (I do). If they don't write a ticket and the person complains, it can make the officer look bad in different ways. I would love to host a public forum for a Q & A session about how policing really works. I enjoy your posts Airwaves and I'm sure your a great person. But when I see (in my opinion) poor advice, I like to speak up and hopefully save somebody a ticket. That's right, SAVE somebody from getting one. I'm not a power tripping, trigger happy, "book 'em Danno" kind of cop you might think I am. It's just my opinion and I respect yours.

[HomeWood]

Originally Posted by Silver Duck

So, is it possible to arrange such a discussion without fouling up and getting stopped?
Silver Duck

Absolutely, I'm sure they would be more than happy to inspect your boat or go over a list of required items. If you voluntarily go ask for their help on what you need to be legal and if they were to find something wrong....I bet you'd get a friendly reminder and gold star on your safety certificate for trying to be a responsible and safe boater.

[JDeere]

I was "stopped" by MP in a different state. Well not stopped I was broken down. MP came by and asked what was wrong and asked for my registration. Wouldn't you know it..........I forgot my registration...grabbed the wrong keys. He explained why I had just broken the law. Then he went on to explain why he could not tow me to the docks. Actually he must have told me 10 times why he could not do it.

Told him that I understood and that I would not even dream of asking him.

Guess what? A few minutes later he tows me back to the docks with a smile and gives me a friendly reminder to make sure I have my registration with me.

I honestly did not expect or ask for a tow AND I did expect a ticket on the registration issue but I was nice and he was nice...funny how that goes.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

JDeere, it's nice to hear about the pleasant interactions with police or MP in situations like yours. Frequently, we only hear about the bad. Sounds like his PR ratings went up alot that day!!

I've not yet been stopped by MP for anything (not that I'm looking to be stopped but I've probably just cursed myself now!) but I've had a couple of brief conversations when I've seen them tied up at a public dock. I've always found them to be polite, courteous and a wealth of information.

[Mike M.]

Airwaves, thank you for the response.

Originally Posted by Airwaves

3. If you are stopped by a NH Marine Patrol boat ask them, nicely, why they are stopping you. If they say a "routine safety check" then I would (again nicely) question their authority to stop you for a "routine safety check" by contacting THEIR SUPERVISOR FIRST via Cell or VHF.

Originally Posted by HomeWood

I also suggest doing this if you really want a ticket for some reason.

Nightwing is right, call if you don't believe it. This thread is getting a little repetitive with the "Can the MP really stop you at any time?" questions. Like in court....asked and answered.

I suggest being polite and cooperative the entire time even if you disagree and even if you get a ticket. Calling a supervisor for any questions is done AFTER the stop, not during. Then again....what do I know?

HomeWood - If you pulled me over for speeding and I simply said "Officer, what is the reason for the stop?" You would be more likely write me a ticket for asking a question?

I did call Marine Patrol head quarters to verify what you said. I strongly disliked the response I received. I just can't believe in the "live free or die" state my 4th amendment is waived at their discretion.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Mike M.

I did call Marine Patrol head quarters to verify what you said. I strongly disliked the response I received. I just can't believe in the "live free or die" state my 4th amendment is waived at their discretion.

So, what was the response you received?

[Mike M.]

I was told by the MP Officer:
They have the right to pull over any boat...

I was assured they do not exercise that authority.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Mike M.

I was told by the MP Officer:
They have the right to pull over any boat...

I was assured they do not exercise that authority.

And that is exactly what has been posted previously. Why did you take offense at that? They can but don't.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by NightWing

And that is exactly what has been posted previously. Why did you take offense at that? They can but don't.

How could a US and NH citizen not take offense? A member of the NH Marine Patrol states that he has powers that the NH Supreme Court and the MP's own standard operating procedures clearly say that he doesn't.

From the posted appeal link:

"At trial, Officer Cook testified:

When I - - when I come by and I raise my life jacket, my fluorescent orange PFD, and the person doesn’t either pull one out and do something, that gives me articulable suspicion that he doesn’t have one on board or he can’t find it. So I wait in time, I do not stop - - I do not stop people, I drive by until they show that they don’t have it. Or they can’t find it. That’s when I pull over."

So the officer admits he needs articulable suspicion to make a stop. Now this case was tossed because of his little trick. The state tries to say that the person was free to leave without answering the officers request, but clearly the officer would have used that as a reason to stop and search.

Think about living in a world where refusing to answer questions from the police was enough evidence to allow them to search you and your belongings.

[Mike M.]

I take offense that they can, I appreciate that they don’t.

The reason I find that offensive is pretty simple, it is making the assumption that you are guilty of something until you have proven yourself innocent...

[NightWing]

Get past that. Driveby canoe and kayak checks used to be fairly common since a number of drownings in the spring and fall resulted from capsizing or falling out of a canoe. PFDs were not always found. However, it isn't done anymore as far as enforcement goes. And yes, the authority to stop at any time still exists.

It seems that many people equate their own experience with MP with that court case which has been beaten to death. They feel that their rights have been violated when stopped "for no reason." Well, there was a reason and it was a legitimate one or you wouldn't have been stopped. Pay attention to what the officer says when he or she first comes alongside. Whatever the infraction was, the boat will still get a safety inspection, regardless of any action taken on the reason for the stop.

Remember, there are many reasons to stop a vessel other than safe passage, as there are many reasons to stop a motor vehicle other than speeding.

Enjoy the lake, enjoy your boat. Nobody is out to get you and your rights are not being infringed upon. (generic statement not aimed at anyone.)

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by NightWing

Get past that. Driveby canoe and kayak checks used to be fairly common since a number of drownings in the spring and fall resulted from capsizing or falling out of a canoe. PFDs were not always found. However, it isn't done anymore as far as enforcement goes. And yes, the authority to stop at any time still exists.

Respectfully I disagree. While the NHMP asserts it can perform safety checks at any time, I don't see how that jives with the decision and the reasoning given by the majority in the case I previously presented. They dismissed the charge because they ruled the safety check to be a "stop" and all "stops" require "articulable suspicion" per NH law. They didn't excuse it because the stop was a safety check. Since the NHMP doesn't exercise what it thinks is it's authority it's a moot point but in cases where the courts have ruled I don't see much leeway for the NHMP in safety checks other than for them to be, legally speaking, voluntary. They seem to be able to ask if you have a PFD but you aren't required to answer.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Respectfully I disagree. While the NHMP asserts it can perform safety checks at any time, I don't see how that jives with the decision and the reasoning given by the majority in the case I previously presented. They dismissed the charge because they ruled the safety check to be a "stop" and all "stops" require "articulable suspicion" per NH law. They didn't excuse the because the stop was a safety check. Since the NHMP doesn't exercise what it thinks is it's authority it's a moot point but in cases where the courts have ruled I don't see much leeway for the NHMP in safety checks other than for them to be, legally speaking, voluntary. They seem to be able to ask if you have a PFD but you aren't required to answer.

MnM, here is the deal. Joe citizen is operating his boat on public waters that are under the jurisdiction of the NHMP. Such operation is a regulated activity. An officer observes a violation, either one of operation or one of equipment that is plain to see. He stops that vessel and advises why the boat was stopped. He asks Joe Citizen to produce a positive form of ID or equivalent and a Boating Ed certificate. He asks for the registration. He then performs a safety check by asking Joe to produce certain safety equipment. He pushes off and fills out his paperwork. He may issue a warning, a defective equipment tag or a summons or a combination, depending on the severity of the violation first observed, and/or the condition or presence of required safety equipment. That is it.

That is not compromising his rights any more than if he were stopped on the street. Same drill, "I stopped you because................., license and registration and (depending on state) proof of insurance." He then returns to his cruiser, fills out his paperwork and issues appropriate documents or warnings to the operator. The required safety equipment and check is unique to boating law and it has worked well for many years.

[Skip]

Nightwing has summed it up very well in the preceding post.

But to put it very simply:

In order to be stopped and detained by the NHMP, for any amount of time, the officer must have had articulable suspicion that a violation has, is or is about to be committed.

The NHMP cannot stop you solely to inspect your vessel if they have no reason to believe you have or are about to violate the law.

The Courts have been very clear about this, and have specifically addressed it in the case cited by Mee-n-Mac.

The SOP cited in the Court decision further verifies Nightwing's explanation that no one is stopped solely to conduct an inspection, but when stopped for a violation fully expect an inspection to occur, as authorized by the RSA cited.

The original post that started this thread laid out a situation where the poster was not aware of any offenses occuring, and asking if random stops were authorized as is done with landside DWI checkpoints.

My opinion is no, random stops are not authorized. And while it is posible that the NHMP could get court permission to conduct lakeside BWI checks, I am not aware if they have ever attempted to do so. Maybe Nightwing could comment on that.

And no, the scenario laid out above that a partnership with the USCG could allow cicumvention of fourth ammendment rights is not applicable. Those standards apply only in a very narrow venue and then only within port security and coastal areas under USCG jurisdiction, Lake Winnipesaukee not being one of the areas of operation.

Let me close by reinforcing what Nightwing has said, you will not be randomly stopped and boarded by the NHMP on the Lake. But if the officer has stopped you for what he can articulate was belief that an offense was occuring, expect a full safey inspection.

As a sidebar, since we always seem to equate boating laws in some way with motor vehicle law, let me offer this up for thought.

Many years ago police officers, after stopping a car, would order the operator to open the trunk so the safety of the spare tire could be verified. And interestingly enough, many things were always discovered in the trunk. The citizens and the courts finally had enough, and that practice has long since been snuffed out due to the abuses it offered. If indeed unbridled/unauthorized stops and inspections were occuring across our inland waters, I would expect the same outrage and results from the boating public. However, I seldom if ever read of reliable first person experiences...its usually qualified with "I thought I saw" or "my buddy told me" or "I think I heard...." type stories.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by NightWing

MnM, here is the deal. Joe citizen is operating his boat on public waters that are under the jurisdiction of the NHMP. Such operation is a regulated activity. An officer observes a violation, either one of operation or one of equipment that is plain to see. He stops that vessel and advises why the boat was stopped. He asks Joe Citizen to produce a positive form of ID or equivalent and a Boating Ed certificate. He asks for the registration. He then performs a safety check by asking Joe to produce certain safety equipment. He pushes off and fills out his paperwork. He may issue a warning, a defective equipment tag or a summons or a combination, depending on the severity of the violation first observed, and/or the condition or presence of required safety equipment. That is it.

That is not compromising his rights any more than if he were stopped on the street. Same drill, "I stopped you because................., license and registration and (depending on state) proof of insurance." He then returns to his cruiser, fills out his paperwork and issues appropriate documents or warnings to the operator. The required safety equipment and check is unique to boating law and it has worked well for many years.

I agree with everything you've said above.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by Mike M.

I take offense that they can, I appreciate that they don’t.

The reason I find that offensive is pretty simple, it is making the assumption that you are guilty of something until you have proven yourself innocent...

Oooo oooo let me play Constitutional Lawyer for a bit. I agree with you and I suspect that such a stop, if contested all the way to the Supreme Court, would result in a finding that such a broad power is contrary to the SCOTUS prior rulings on the 4'th and 14'th amendments. Even in a Terry Stop the officers must have some suspicion that wrongdoing is afoot. There's probably a reason why SOP2010 is on the books and I'll opine it's not because of some overwhelming concern for your Constitutional rights.

[Kamper]

One possible explanation...

A few months ago the USCG and the NHMP (Dept of Safety) signed an agreement authorising each to act as agents of the other (My phrasing). The USCG has never been required to show cause to stop and board a US vessel anywhere or a foreign vessel in US waters. An 'agent' of the USCG could be expected to have the same authority and that could be what the NHMP will argue if brought to court on the matter.

I read about this in the Telegraph or Union Leader. The text of the memorandum was not published. That's all I got folks.

Just a theory.

[HomeWood]

Originally Posted by Mike M.

HomeWood - If you pulled me over for speeding and I simply said "Officer, what is the reason for the stop?" You would be more likely write me a ticket for asking a question?

This is the last comment I'll make on this because it's an endless debate, but asking that specific question alone will not get you a ticket. If you question the officers legal authority to stop you for speeding and then ask for a supervisor to verify it...I think it's safe to say that a pink copy would be issued. Like I say, Mr. John Q. Public always knows best