Marine Patrol, Friday Night (4rth) at Weirs

[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.