Pulled over for speeding...

[Winnipesaukee]

As per a few requests here, I'm posting my experience of being pulled over by MP a few weeks ago.

It was about 11pm or so, so the "speed limit" was 25mph. I never go fast in the powerboat at night anyway. Conditions were clear and calm all around--wind, water. I had one guest onboard and we were cruising in the Gilford-Governor's Island area, listening to the radio doing the boat's minimum planing speed--about 18mph or so. I didn't have the GPS, but I wasn't doing 25mph. This fact is certain.

Brad Paisley's Mud On The Tires was on, and straight off my port side (remember that--straight off my port side), I see those exciting flashing blue lights. I throttle back to neutral and he comes closer. I'm wondering what is wrong...are my bowlights out? Did a towel fly out of the boat? Speed didn't even cross my mind.

Off goes the radio, on goes his obnoxious spotlight right on me. I yell over to get that light off my face. Of course he doesn't. Even real police don't do that. Now I'm completely blind. Oh well. I later find out that I'd have an hour to get my night vision back anyway...

He pulls over to me, says good evening (I'll say he was very professional during the entire encounter), and asks if I knew about the speed limit on the lake. I tell him of course, and he tells me I was exceeding the 25mph limit.

He asks for my boating cert and ID. Oops. I left my wallet back on shore. I politely tell him that and gladly offer him my name, address, and DOB. He demands my SSN. I am absolutely not giving my social security number to some kid. He argues with me, threatens me with arrest, tells me we can be here all night. I'm not absolutely sure of the law about identifying oneself to a LEO, so I just give it to him. Whatever. He does a safety check, pulls away and "runs my information." I wait, and wait, and wait. My guest is getting cold.

He comes back, immediately, because of a unique detail with my address, I realize he never ran my information. I ask him just how fast I was going. He says "You came around Pitchwood and I paced you. It took me 3 minutes to catch you at 55mph, so I'd estimate you were going between 30 and 35. Wouldn't he have come up from behind me then? Not off my port side?

At this point I'm livid and start to lose my temper. Maybe I shouldn't have, I know. I was lawfully operating my vessel and get pulled over and detained for an hour while some MP clown tries to get me for doing merely 5-10 over the speed limit without any proof. I ask him if he got me on RADAR, he says no, I just paced you. I tell him his arithmetic would never stick in court, ask for my registration back and to be on my way. The least he could have done was ask me if I'd been drinking... He just gives me a verbal "warning," and I tell him that I guess I'll idle home because I can't go any slower on plane. The end.

I guess I could have been a bit more polite and patient with him. Now my blood pressure's going up again thinking about it!

Comment, questions, concerns? Flame away!

[Airwaves]

Be just as polite as he was when you report the event and file a complaint to his superior. It sounds to me like the kid was bored and was looking for something to do.

Estimating the speed as he "caught up to you" then came at you from abeam your post side? Please!

[BroadHopper]

Just be polite and report it to HQ. Almost always works for me. Sometimes just asking for his badge number ends up with a warning when the situation is just not in his or her favor.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Can you imagine the incredible skill it takes to judge the exact distance to a stern light while driving 55 mph in the dark at some vector to the subject boat. Is the public served by the young man going 55mph in the dark to stop someone going 30?

[NoBozo]

FWIW: Over 40 years ago when I was in the Navy, we had a little hand held instrument called a "Stadimeter". It was totally mechanical/optical....that worked something like a Marine Sextant....by measuring angles..Except it was designed to give you RANGE to a target. I'm sure that today it would be really easy to do the same thing with current technology.... for pennys.

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by NoBozo

FWIW: ... a "Stadimeter" ... was designed to give you RANGE to a target. I'm sure that today it would be really easy to do the same thing with current technology.... for pennys.

There ae numerous range-finder devices available for hunters using optical or simple mechanical techniques.

The simplest is inspired by the golf range finder. A viewer/telescope has several images of a golf flag in a variety of sizes. You hold the image over the target flag and when it matches, you have the range. (Our golfing members can probably give a more accurate price but I think these are around $20.) There is a sniper scope that uses the same technique but with dots that represent the size of an average human head. Since there is usualy at least one human head visible on a boat this method would work well enough for calculating boat ranges like 150'.

If anybody wants to try marketing such a device I relinquish any claims for intellectual rights!

[4Fun]

Even if you were going 30 MPH it's poor judgement on his part to go 55MPH for 3 minutes to catch up to you. He should have a ticket.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

It took me 3 minutes to catch you at 55mph, so I'd estimate you were going between 30 and 35. Wouldn't he have come up from behind me then? Not off my port side?

I got pulled over on the Route 3 Laconia bypass by an officer with the same logic. He was parked off the road right where it begins in Belmont, so when I passed him I was in my blast off acceleration mode. When I turn on there, I generally like to romp on it, redline first, redline second, then shift to top gear and cruise at 60. I got pulled over about 2 miles down the road, where he asks me how fast I was going. I asked him what he had, he said he didn't know ( ) but that he had to go 110 mph to catch up with me, and that "I really took off like a bat out of hell." Well of course one must go faster than the car one is chasing in order to catch up, especially if he was stopped when I passed him. It's basic logic!

No proof of speed (since I wasn't really speeding) = no ticket

[Dave R]

Originally Posted by chmeeee

When I turn on there, I generally like to romp on it, redline first, redline second, then shift to top gear and cruise at 60.

Good thing you weren't on a liter class sport bike, you'd be going in excess of 100 MPH in first and 125+ MPH at the redline in second...

Originally Posted by chmeeee

I got pulled over about 2 miles down the road, where he asks me how fast I was going. I asked him what he had, he said he didn't know ( ) but that he had to go 110 mph to catch up with me, and that "I really took off like a bat out of hell." Well of course one must go faster than the car one is chasing in order to catch up, especially if he was stopped when I passed him. It's basic logic!

No proof of speed (since I wasn't really speeding) = no ticket

They should teach basic math and physics at the NH Police Academy so that stuff like this does not happen. From what I've heard, the main focus there is on military-style obedience and general humiliation.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by NoBozo

FWIW: Over 40 years ago when I was in the Navy, we had a little hand held instrument called a "Stadimeter". It was totally mechanical/optical....that worked something like a Marine Sextant....by measuring angles..Except it was designed to give you RANGE to a target. I'm sure that today it would be really easy to do the same thing with current technology.... for pennys.

Originally posted by Kamper

There ae numerous range-finder devices available for hunters using optical or simple mechanical techniques.

The simplest is inspired by the golf range finder. A viewer/telescope has several images of a golf flag in a variety of sizes. You hold the image over the target flag and when it matches, you have the range. (Our golfing members can probably give a more accurate price but I think these are around $20.) There is a sniper scope that uses the same technique but with dots that represent the size of an average human head. Since there is usualy at least one human head visible on a boat this method would work well enough for calculating boat ranges like 150'.

While it sounds like only minimal training would be needed...training would still be needed especially if the MPO wanted to use the findings in court.

Then factor in that the MP boat was being operated by a single individual, at night, doing 55MPH over an uneven surface (the lake) while trying to maintain control of his boat and maintain a "fix" on his "target"...Winnipesaukee. How would he be able to bring either device to his eyes in order to use these nifty little tools?

One other thing that has been lost in the discussion is the speed of Winnipesaukee's boat. In his post he stated:

we were cruising in the Gilford-Governor's Island area, listening to the radio doing the boat's minimum planing speed--about 18mph or so. I didn't have the GPS, but I wasn't doing 25mph. This fact is certain.

The 30-35MPH figure came from the MPO that was chasing him from behind (or somewhere off to the port side) using the formula that he had to travel 55MPH to catch up to him! If the MPO had kicked it up a notch and done 70MPH to catch up I wonder how fast Winnipesaukee would have been going then?

Sounds like another case of BWMPOB!

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by Dave R

Good thing you weren't on a liter class sport bike, you'd be going in excess of 100 MPH in first and 125+ MPH at the redline in second...

Yeah, those things scare me. You must have to have a damn good grip on the handlebars just to stay on with the way they accelerate!

Similar to Rattlesnake Guy's post, I also question how the public safety is served by a cop speeding way too fast just to catch up with somebody who may or may not be going a little too fast. 55 in a boat at night to catch up with somebody who is going 18? 110 mph on the road just to catch up with me going 60? Neither seem safe or worthwhile.

[LIforrelaxin]

Well this is very interesting indeed to ready through this thread.....

However something I would like to know.... Winnipesaukee.... did you report this incident to the head of the MP??? What was his feedback???

[NoBozo]

Does the MP actually have a boat capable of 55MPH..?? Just wondering. The Navy Seals have a 36 foot RIB with twin 470HP inboard Turbo-Diesels on Hamilton JET drives that will probably do 60.

Maybe the MP needs something like this for going after those Hard Core violators.

http://www.specwarnet.net/vehicles/NSW11mRIB.htm

[VADET]

I am a little confused Winnipesaukee, in one breath you say this MP was very professional during the entire encounter, then you go on to call him a clown and refer to him as a kid. If you feel you are not guilty of the offense then go to court and plead not guilty, thats how the system works. Is there really a reason to take cheap shots at this person who is not here to defend thier actions. I would say that by your actions that night, as you described them, you talked yourself into this ticket.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by VADET

I am a little confused Winnipesaukee, in one breath you say this MP was very professional during the entire encounter, then you go on to call him a clown and refer to him as a kid. If you feel you are not guilty of the offense then go to court and plead not guilty, thats how the system works. Is there really a reason to take cheap shots at this person who is not here to defend thier actions. I would say that by your actions that night, as you described them, you talked yourself into this ticket.

He did not get a ticket, he got a verbal warning, so he cannot go to court and plead not guilty. He just had his time wasted and received a message, which was probably the intent. That along with a quick sobriety check.

[Winnipesaukee]

I think their James Bond Zodiac RIBs are capable of 55mph. That's what pulled me over.

I didn't get a ticket. I got a VERBAL warning.

He was very professional despite my less-than-professional attitude, which I do give him credit for.

He was a clown because of his actions and "reasoning" while he hassled an innocent boater for over an hour in chilly weather.

And he is a kid because he is a kid!

I did not complain or report the incident to MP. I highly doubt they would do anything. I'm sure some higher-up at MP frequents this very popular forum, and if they do, I welcome a PM to discuss.

Certainly not trying to bash cops but my situation was a little ridiculous.

edit: No, I did not receive a sobriety check!

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by VADET

I am a little confused Winnipesaukee, in one breath you say this MP was very professional during the entire encounter, then you go on to call him a clown and refer to him as a kid. If you feel you are not guilty of the offense then go to court and plead not guilty, thats how the system works. Is there really a reason to take cheap shots at this person who is not here to defend thier actions. I would say that by your actions that night, as you described them, you talked yourself into this ticket.

If that's what you got out of his posts, then I would suggest you're probably not too far from being part of the problem yourself. His shots weren't cheap at all, but rather spot on target. How would you defend yourself from such an accusation?

Hey, every law enforcement person has to live down the antics of the young whippersnappers with a badge and an attitude, nothing new here, or anywhere for that matter. If it doesn't bother you, that personal trait probably bothers others about you.

[Winnipesaukee]

Maybe Skip can help out on this: what exactly is the law pertaining to identifying oneself to a LEO? I believe this one fits.

NH RSA 594:2 Questioning and Detaining Suspects. – A peace officer may stop any person abroad whom he has reason to suspect is committing, has committed or is about to commit a crime, and may demand of him his name, address, business abroad and where he is going.

Was I required to give him my Social Security Number? I suspect not.

[Skip]

Excellent question Winni, however you are looking at the wrong statute. I have attached the entire appropriate statute below and highlighted the appropriate section in red.

When you have no positive identification on you, the written and case law gives wide latitude to the detaining officer to positively determine your identity. Many individuals, although no longer required in NH, have their social security number on file with their driver's license. Many officers will ask you for the last four digits of your social and then run this through DMV to verify your identity. No one, for obvious liability reasons, runs full social security numbers, especially "over-the-air".

While the reason for the stop may be vague to you, many individuals that have refused to give a reasonable amount of verifiable identification have found themselves in custody until their identity is verified, and also found themselves with a misdemeanor offense if the stop was valid. This is a very difficult proposition and arrest for a NHMP officer in a small boat with no backup transportation nearby, but a fairly easy and quite common arrest for a land based officer in a cruiser.

Over the years I made a number of successfully prosecuted arrests for this offense by those individuals that decided to become "sidewalk lawyers".

And what a waste...it only takes a few minutes of civil conversation to satisfy the officer's required informational questions and move on.

That is why it is always best, no matter the circumstances, to be civil, keep your emotions and anger (and tongue) in check and file the appropriate complaint with the pertinent supervisor as soon after the stop as possible, if you feel you were mistreated.

Believe me, if your complaint is valid and made at the appropriate time and place you will be heard, even at NHMP headquarters.....

270:12-b Disobeying an Officer. –
I. No person, while operating or otherwise in charge of a vessel, raft, or float of any kind, type, or character or an amphibian or pontoon aircraft under step speed shall:
(a) Knowingly refuse, when requested by a peace officer or agent of the director, to give his name, address, and date of birth, and the name and address of the owner of the vessel, raft, float or amphibian or pontoon aircraft of any kind, type, or character;
(b) Knowingly refuse, on demand of a peace officer or agent of the director, to sign his name in the presence of such officer or agent;
(c) Knowingly refuse, on demand of a peace officer or agent of the director, to produce some means of positive identification such as a driver's license, passport, or other document, or to verify his identity by some other means so that the identity of the operator or person otherwise in charge of a vessel can be determined with reasonable certainty by such peace officer or agent of the director;
(d) Knowingly neglect to stop when signaled to stop by any peace officer or agent of the director, who is in uniform or who displays his badge conspicuously on the outside of his outer coat or garment, or who signals such person to stop by means of any authorized audible or visual emergency warning signals; or otherwise willfully attempt to elude pursuit by a peace officer or agent of the director by increasing speed, extinguishing lights while still in motion, or abandoning a vessel while being pursued;
(e) Knowingly refuse, when requested by a peace officer or agent of the director, to:
(1) direct said amphibian or pontoon aircraft, vessel, raft, or float to shore or to any dock, wharf, or mooring designated by said officer or agent;
(2) follow any vessel operated or controlled by any peace officer or agent of the director to any point on shore, or any wharf or mooring designated by said officer or agent; or
(3) allow said officer or agent to direct or tow said boat, raft, or float to any point on shore or to any dock, wharf, or mooring.
II. Any person who fails to comply with the requirements of this section or provides a false name, address, or date of birth shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

[Winnipesaukee]

Skip, thank you for your response.

I do believe it is reasonable for me to only have given my name, address, and DOB. He wanted my full SSN, and took down the entire SSN on his notepad.

I refused (at first) to give him my SSN because yes, he most likely would have announced it over the air, along with my name and address.

But again, I appreciate your help.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

...
edit: No, I did not receive a sobriety check!

I didn't mean to imply that he gave you a real sobriety check or that you needed one

But when ever a LEO stops you, he is watching you for signs of intoxication. He would not be doing his job if he didn't. Once he stops you, he has taken on that liabilty.

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

... While it sounds like only minimal training would be needed...training would still be needed especially if the MPO wanted to use the findings in court. ...

I whole-heartedly agree with you that speed enforcement requires much more than "minimal training." My response to NoBozo was meant to express that a ranging device, alone, is more suitable for the 150' rule enforcement than speed control.

"Distance to target" is only part of the calculation to determine speed. Without fixed reference points to compare against a boat's passage, it would take a lot of experience to estimate speed. At night (imo) it would approach impossible for a visual observer to be accurate enough to get a conviction.

It's possible the MP will, or has calculated speed tables for various channels. By "parking" in the same spot and timing the line of sight transit past two distant landmarks, they can get a reasonably accurate estimate that way too. For that they would need the boat's ranges at the start and finish of the equation. The trigonometry techniques to do this have been available for millenia. Again though, at night the reliability of this method would decrease.

From what we have heard from member "Winnipesaukee" the officer in question didn't even claim to use techniques like this but theoretically could have.

I'd expect that lack of radar would not guarantee aquittal for speeding if the officer can demonstrate reasonable skill with mathematical calculations. Doppler radar is arguably the best technology for this purpose but with only 4 sets the MP may have to opt for technique Vs. toys in many locales. At minimum it will probably be sufficient probable cause for a stop.

That's all I think I know about that...

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Winnipesaukee

I do believe it is reasonable for me to only have given my name, address, and DOB. He wanted my full SSN, and took down the entire SSN on his notepad.

I refused (at first) to give him my SSN because yes, he most likely would have announced it over the air, along with my name and address.

That brings up an interesting question. If the MPO broadcast Winnipesaukee's full SSN over the air (even though the MP frequency is scrambled, or he may have used a cellphone it can still be monitored) and Winnipesaukee notices some activity in his personal accounts in the following days and weeks that were not authorized by him, is there legal recourse against the MPO, MP, Dept of Safety etc because they broadcast his entire SSN number over the public airwaves where it was stolen by an ID thieft?

Any lawyers out there?

[VADET]

My bad Winnepesaukee I should have read more carefully, it was a warning not a ticket. Please I am not attacking your actions or defending the actions MP, I was not there. The only point I was trying to convey was that sometimes people can make situations worse than they have to be. Its not right but it is reality.

You are correct VTSteve, there are as you say "young whippersnappers with a badge and an attitude." There are good people in law enforcement, just as there are bad people who should not wear a badge. My point is simply that it is tough to win that battle right then and there on the water. If you are not satisfied with the Officer or his actions report him, it is your right.

Most states have gotten away from using the SSN on identification records. Name and date of birth is typically enough information for confirmation through most state databases.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VADET

...Name and date of birth is typically enough information for confirmation through most state databases...

That is highly incorrect.

Unfortunately it is quite a common occurence for individuals to give a false name/dob that exist in a database but is not theirs. Typically an individual will use the name & dob of an immediate relative (brother or sister) or a well known friend.

Only a poorly trained or inexperienced police officer would accept a name/dob, even verified through SPOTS, without obtianing some other unique identifier to ascertain with certainty an individual unable to provide positive identification, if the conditions warranted such an inquiry.

Finally, while most States have removed the requirement to have a SSN imprinted on an ID card, you would be surprised how many people still have their SSN on record within the SPOTS system. Very few individuals successfully memorize a correct SSN along with someone elses name and DOB, so utilizing a portion of the SSN is still a common and quick way to satisfy an identity inquiry.

If necessary there are even a number of other "tricks of the trade" that an experienced officer has up his sleeve to ascertain identity, but the last four of the SSN is usually sufficient.

Each and every stop is different, and your demeanor will often easily determine the length, breadth and final outcome of the stop in question.

[Shreddy]

Hey Winnipesaukee, can you describe what the MPO looked like/anything about him? The reason I ask is I do have a friend who is a MPO and he is fairly young. He also tends to get night shifts with the black amphibian boat with outboards. I've already laid into him quite a bit about MP's reputation as it is, but if you can tell me it's him, I'll bring it up to him to make sure it never happens again.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by 4Fun

Even if you were going 30 MPH it's poor judgement on his part to go 55MPH for 3 minutes to catch up to you. He should have a ticket.

I completely agree. If it is unsafe for a civilian to be doing greater than 25 at night, then why is it ok for a MP to go more than 2x the legal speed to catch up to a person who the MP thought was going merely 5-10 mph over the limit? Where is the logic?
Poor judgement is putting it nicely. I would say that Barak Obama's quote regarding the Cambridge police officers actions would be more appropriate here.

[VADET]

Skip I can only speak for where I live. We have the ability to obtain a DMV photo and other unique identifiers for comparison pretty much from any location.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VADET

Skip I can only speak for where I live. We have the ability to obtain a DMV photo and other unique identifiers for comparison pretty much from any location.

Understood.

But NHMP officers aboard small craft do not have that capability, that's why you must bear with them as they verbally ascertain your identity and verify that information via radio or cell back to dispatch. The law recognizes these unique circumstances and allows to officers the necessary latitude inherent in the statute posted earlier.

While NH continues to make great strides towards deploying real time data technology to the officer in the field, do to the rural characteristics of much of the State the necessary infrastructure needed to make that possible in all areas is still being built out.

[Airwaves]

Portion of RSA posted by Skip

c) Knowingly refuse, on demand of a peace officer or agent of the director, to produce some means of positive identification such as a driver's license, passport, or other document, or to verify his identity by some other means so that the identity of the operator or person otherwise in charge of a vessel can be determined with reasonable certainty by such peace officer or agent of the director;

I wonder if your SSN is legally exempt from this paragraph. I checked both my SS Card and my wife's and both specifically state:
"For Social Security and Tax Purposes - Not for Identification"

So in addition to the MPO in all probability putting Winnipesaukee's Name, address and SSN on the air (exposing him to identity theft) the SSN is NOT to be used for identification according to the Federal Government (Social Security Administration).

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Portion of RSA posted by Skip

I wonder if your SSN is legally exempt from this paragraph. I checked both my SS Card and my wife's and both specifically state:
"For Social Security and Tax Purposes - Not for Identification"

So in addition to the MPO in all probability putting Winnipesaukee's Name, address and SSN on the air (exposing him to identity theft) the SSN is NOT to be used for identification according to the Federal Government (Social Security Administration).

I believe if you check on this you will find that MPs do not call stops in, nor give any information out over the air, except in extreme circumstances. The information they request is for filling out their paperwork documenting the stop. That protects both you and the officer.

There were many years that the MP functioned in the field (small lakes, rivers, ponds) without any radios at all. Even when radios finally were obtained, many could not reach Gilford. Even Winni has dead spots.

The SS request is made when the person in question has no ID. He can say his name is John Smith and he lives at 123 main St. Does that positively identify him? Most people are honest with their SS # and will give it out to an officer, although they have the choice to say no. The flip side of that is, if the officer is not satisfied that the person's true identity is being given, that person may be brought in for further investigation until which time he is properly identified.

The best policy, IMHO, is to be civil, cooperative and honest with the officer, whether on the water or on land. Having attitude does nothing to enhance your position. If you feel you were wrongly treated or verbally abused by the officer, make a complaint to HQ, rather than hash it out during the stop.

[Airwaves]

As Winnipesaukee wrote in his original post:

He demands my SSN. I am absolutely not giving my social security number to some kid. He argues with me, threatens me with arrest, tells me we can be here all night.

Since the SSN is not a document, can't be lawfully used for identification but is vulnerable to theft, not a good idea to give it to anyone. The line that is particularly bothersome to me is Winnipesaukee was threatened with arrest if he did not devulge his SSN!

Nightwing wrote

I believe if you check on this you will find that MPs do not call stops in, nor give any information out over the air, except in extreme circumstances. The information they request is for filling out their paperwork documenting the stop. That protects both you and the officer.

If that is their policy it makes no sense to me at all.

If you stop someone for an infraction MPOs don't "run them" for outstanding warrants? I know a lot of cops and that is the first thing they do in a stop. Tell dispatch where they are, what they've stopped and "run them" through the computer.

The question of the use of the SSN as ID aside, what happens if a bad guy decides to pull a gun and send him to Davy Jone's locker? How does the MP even know what they are looking for?

[winnipesaukeenh]

Winnipesaukee, based on the attitude portrayed in your post, it's likely that you being less than cooperative when you were pulled over is the reason you were stopped for so long. Just a thought...

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

As Winnipesaukee wrote in his original post:

Since the SSN is not a document, can't be lawfully used for identification but is vulnerable to theft, not a good idea to give it to anyone. The line that is particularly bothersome to me is Winnipesaukee was threatened with arrest if he did not devulge his SSN!

Nightwing wrote

If that is their policy it makes no sense to me at all.

If you stop someone for an infraction MPOs don't "run them" for outstanding warrants? I know a lot of cops and that is the first thing they do in a stop. Tell dispatch where they are, what they've stopped and "run them" through the computer.

The question of the use of the SSN as ID aside, what happens if a bad guy decides to pull a gun and send him to Davy Jone's locker? How does the MP even know what they are looking for?

Stop and think about it. MP HQ is in Gilford. The dispatch center usually has only a couple or three people working. Those people deal with the radio, people who come to the door and telephone calls, which can be numerous on a summer day or night.

The department averages close to 100 employees. Suppose 60 officers are on duty, patrolling the many lakes and rivers in NH. Suppose 30 or 40 of them are on a boat stop and calling in requests for record checks. It would be an impossible task for dispatch and the delays in getting people on their way would be unfair to to the public.

Consider too, that the field officers had no radio contact for years due to lack of equipment. The job had to be done with the officer working alone, with backup perhaps an hour away, and no way to contact HQ.

If a bad guy decides to pull a gun...well, that was/is one of the risks of the job, which, until this year, was done by unarmed officers.

Unless the policy has changed, boat stops are not normally called in. If you have further doubts, 293-2037.

[tis]

When we see someone get stopped out here, it seems like they are there are very long time. I think it is just a long process in general. It may be because of the waiting time with dispatch, but whatever, it IS a long time.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by tis

When we see someone get stopped out here, it seems like they are there are very long time. I think it is just a long process in general. It may be because of the waiting time with dispatch, but whatever, it IS a long time.

The paperwork is lengthy.

[winnipesaukeenh]

Originally Posted by tis

When we see someone get stopped out here, it seems like they are there are very long time. I think it is just a long process in general. It may be because of the waiting time with dispatch, but whatever, it IS a long time.

Probably because they have to pull up to the boat, notify dispatch of the stop, inform the person why they are being stopped, gather identification, do the safety inspection, pull away, do the paperwork, come back to the boat, explain the paperwork, etc. I've been stopped at night before and it is a lengthy process. Also, they do call in the stop, or at least at night they do. When we were stopped, the officer called in some information to dispatch (although I couldn't hear exactly what it was...probably the location and description or bow numbers of my boat) Plus it's probably not too easy to be writing on a boat when you're being rocked back and forth.

[NightWing]

Calling in the stop at night (in an area where the radio reaches) is a safety issue, so the dispatcher knows where the stop is made and the bow number of the boat.

The original question arose about personal information being transmitted to obtain records on the operator. Those records are primarily motor vehicle related and not of great value on the water.

[winnipesaukeenh]

Originally Posted by NightWing

Calling in the stop at night (in an area where the radio reaches) is a safety issue, so the dispatcher knows where the stop is made and the bow number of the boat.

The original question arose about personal information being transmitted to obtain records on the operator. Those records are primarily motor vehicle related and not of great value on the water.

I think that it is of great value on the water, because there is information about a persons history that is directly related to boat operation. I was in law enforcement in the past and I can say that it's standard practice to call in someones "information" which consists of their last name, first name and middle initial,as well as DOB. This can allow you to see if someone has a valid driver's license, see what their motor vehicle history is, as well as if they have a criminal history/outstanding warrants (depending on what you ask dispatch for). On the water, i'm assuming that they check for active warrants, or if the operator is under suspension for operating a boat due to a BWI, or other offense which would revoke their boat operating privileges. If for some reason the officer requests a social security number due to lack of identification, they will likely call dispatch via a cell phone and give them the last 4 digits, rather than call it out over open radio.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by winnipesaukeenh

I think that it is of great value on the water, because there is information about a persons history that is directly related to boat operation. I was in law enforcement in the past and I can say that it's standard practice to call in someones "information" which consists of their last name, first name and middle initial,as well as DOB. This can allow you to see if someone has a valid driver's license, see what their motor vehicle history is, as well as if they have a criminal history/outstanding warrants (depending on what you ask dispatch for). On the water, i'm assuming that they check for active warrants, or if the operator is under suspension for operating a boat due to a BWI, or other offense which would revoke their boat operating privileges. If for some reason the officer requests a social security number due to lack of identification, they will likely call dispatch via a cell phone and give them the last 4 digits, rather than call it out over open radio.

You have raised valid points. However, past practice was that the stop stood on its own. The MV record was not to be used to influence the outcome of the stop. Plus, as I previously pointed out, it would be a difficult task for the dispatcher to keep up with and would add to the time of the stop.

Can not checking criminal history allow some bad guys to slip through? No doubt, but the primary purpose of the MP is to enforce boating laws. They do not have the manpower or facilities to cover all possible forms of law enforcement. Should an arrest occur due to BWI, the criminal record check would be obtained once the person was in a secure facility.

Remember that prior to this year, the MP was unarmed, which would pose an extreme risk to the officer if he or she was in an isolated area, out of radio range and came across a boater who had active warrants for violent crime. Attempting to arrest that person could prove deadly.

Yes, having complete information about the boater would have some advantages, but that info is not required to do the task at hand.

[winnipesaukeenh]

Originally Posted by NightWing

You have raised valid points. However, past practice was that the stop stood on its own. The MV record was not to be used to influence the outcome of the stop. Plus, as I previously pointed out, it would be a difficult task for the dispatcher to keep up with and would add to the time of the stop.

Can not checking criminal history allow some bad guys to slip through? No doubt, but the primary purpose of the MP is to enforce boating laws. They do not have the manpower or facilities to cover all possible forms of law enforcement. Should an arrest occur due to BWI, the criminal record check would be obtained once the person was in a secure facility.

Remember that prior to this year, the MP was unarmed, which would pose an extreme risk to the officer if he or she was in an isolated area, out of radio range and came across a boater who had active warrants for violent crime. Attempting to arrest that person could prove deadly.

Yes, having complete information about the boater would have some advantages, but that info is not required to do the task at hand.

Asking for a records check to see if the person is a valid boat operator wouldn't take a lot of time at all. Of course, not every operator that gets pulled over will go through this check, but if need be, MP has the resources to perform this check. To my knowledge, there are by far more day shift officer's throughout the state than there are night shift officer's, so i'm sure that running a quick check on someone wouldn't prove to be inconvenient if the officer is inclined to do so.

Yes, the primary purpose of the MP is to enforce boating laws, but they are also entrusted to enforce state criminal law as well. They are police officers, so they have the rightful authority to enforce any criminal violations along with any boating violations.

I agree that prior to this year, attempting to arrest someone with a violent felony warrant would definitely be a dangerous task, but not everyone that is pulled over gets ran through a criminal history check. As with on the road, if an officer gets any type of inclination that something "isn't right", they are likely to run a criminal history check...same thing on the water, especially now that the entire division is armed.

Nightwing, thanks for your input on this topic. I think that a lot of people don't really understand the operations of the MP aside from enforcing safe passage violations and making sure boats have required safety equipment, so us talking about it here will hopefully give them some insight.

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by NightWing

Should an arrest occur due to BWI, the criminal record check would be obtained once the person was in a secure facility.

Attempting to arrest that person could prove deadly.

If I recall from an old thread,MP does not make arrests.They can hold somebody until the police from the town they happen to be in arrive.

[winnipesaukeenh]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

If I recall from an old thread,MP does not make arrests.They can hold somebody until the police from the town they happen to be in arrive.

That's incorrect. Marine Patrol Officers can make arrests. They are considered police officers under state statute and can arrest violators of boating & criminal laws. Who do you think makes arrests for boating while intoxicated...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by winnipesaukeenh

"...Winnipesaukee, based on the attitude portrayed in your post, it's likely that you being less than cooperative when you were pulled over is the reason you were stopped for so long. Just a thought..."

It can't be any help "being remembered" for the next time, either!

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...why is it ok for a MP to go more than 2x the legal speed to catch up to a person who the MP thought was going merely 5-10 mph over the limit? Where is the logic...?"

and

Originally Posted by 4Fun

Even if you were going 30 MPH it's poor judgement on his part to go 55MPH for 3 minutes to catch up to you. He should have a ticket.

Communities do have to grapple with the consequences of "a police chase":

1) Some allow the alledged offender to disappear into the distance—possibly striking others. The inevitable result is the resurgence of more miscreants causing still more unhappy results.

2) Other communities must deal with the lawbreaker (and his tragic consequences) following an ego-influenced or adrenalin-driven chase by LEOs.

Such consequences don't necessarily result in punishment of the officer; moreover, in some jurisdictions, the offender can be charged with felony-murder—where appropriate.

3) But for this lake, my question would be, "Why has such a 'speedy' chase become 'objectionable' when a 'velocity' like this was thoroughly justified here just five months ago?"

4) Anyway, who's going to write an MP a ticket for doing his job?

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by winnipesaukeenh

Asking for a records check to see if the person is a valid boat operator wouldn't take a lot of time at all. Of course, not every operator that gets pulled over will go through this check, but if need be, MP has the resources to perform this check. To my knowledge, there are by far more day shift officer's throughout the state than there are night shift officer's, so i'm sure that running a quick check on someone wouldn't prove to be inconvenient if the officer is inclined to do so.

At first blush...that seems plausible but only if the boating certificate information was universally available. Boating Ed is a separate entity from MP. They issue certificates to people who have taken the course through their program. Many other certificates are issued through the Coast Guard and individual states. Some are obtained on line. There is no central database that contains all this information.

Motor Vehicle records are available through the SPOTS network that is tied in with every other state. To my knowledge, boating records are not.

The Boating Education certificate is not a license, is issued just once and does not get points or penalties assessed against it. It is just proof that the holder has passed a course as required by law.

Keep in mind that it is not the officer's responsibility to prove the boater has one, so running a records check, if even possible, would not be necessary.

[Airwaves]

Nightwing you have brought some interesting comments about the MP and its operations that probably should be looked at further.

Just to bring this back to my original questioning of the SSN demand you posted something in a reply to tis that would IMHO puts the SSN in public domain for a second time.

Response from Nightwing to tis

The paperwork is lengthy.

The paperwork is also public record and if the MP doesn't have the manpower to run records checks on boat stops on a routine basis I doubt that the MP would redact the SSN from the MPO report before turning over a copy to a member of the public requesting it.

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It can't be any help "being remembered" for the next time, either!

and

Communities do have to grapple with the consequences of "a police chase":

1) Some allow the alledged offender to disappear into the distance—possibly striking others. The inevitable result is the resurgence of more miscreants causing still more unhappy results.

2) Other communities must deal with the lawbreaker (and his tragic consequences) following an ego-influenced or adrenalin-driven chase by LEOs.

Such consequences don't necessarily result in punishment of the officer; moreover, in some jurisdictions, the offender can be charged with felony-murder—where appropriate.

3) But for this lake, my question would be, "Why has such a 'speedy' chase become 'objectionable' when a 'velocity' like this was thoroughly justified here just five months ago?"

4) Anyway, who's going to write an MP a ticket for doing his job?

Assuming the circumstances above are accurate...

1. I agree you just can't let everyone just drive of in to the sunset and not chase. There is a time for pursuit and this was not it. The MPO made a poor call.

3. Also, I don't remmeber when it was not "objectionable" to do 55MPH at night? Most arguments I read were so people could just get on plane at night when there was good visibility.

4. There is the rub. No accountability.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Nightwing you have brought some interesting comments about the MP and its operations that probably should be looked at further.

Just to bring this back to my original questioning of the SSN demand you posted something in a reply to tis that would IMHO puts the SSN in public domain for a second time.


The paperwork is also public record and if the MP doesn't have the manpower to run records checks on boat stops on a routine basis I doubt that the MP would redact the SSN from the MPO report before turning over a copy to a member of the public requesting it.

Not true. Public record requests from the nosy public are not just handed out by anyone. I assure you that any document released would be screened for sensitive information and blacked out appropriately. This document would be handed out with the approval and review of a supervisor.

Again, any questions about policy...293-2037.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It can't be any help "being remembered" for the next time, either!

3) But for this lake, my question would be, "Why has such a 'speedy' chase become 'objectionable' when a 'velocity' like this was thoroughly justified here just five months ago?"

4) Anyway, who's going to write an MP a ticket for doing his job?

Because 5 months ago (more like 8 months ago), there was no law pertaining to velocities on the water at night. If it is so unsafe for a civilian to travel >25mph, then it is just as unsafe for a law officer to travel at more than 2x that speed. I maintain that premise on both land and lake.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by NightWing

Not true. Public record requests from the nosy public are not just handed out by anyone. I assure you that any document released would be screened for sensitive information and blacked out appropriately. This document would be handed out with the approval and review of a supervisor.

Again, any questions about policy...293-2037.

NOSY public?

No, that is not how it works. It's how LEOs would like it to work but it's not how it works.

Anyone can walk in off the street and ask to see the PUBLIC RECORD, the radio dispatch log book and reports filed by LEOs. Unless those reports are involved in an ongoing investigation or litigation they are public record and NOSY public can obtain them. I don't need a dispatcher telling me or anyone else what FOIA is or is not! Even the recordings of the 9-1-1 calls, the radio transmissions between the vessel and dispatch are PUBLIC record!

My point is that you suggest the MP does not have the manpower to run routine checks when a boat is stopped.

If that is true then why does the MPO need the SSN, or in this case threaten with arrest a person for not giving his SSN to the MPO?

If MP has the manpower to redact a report filed by an MPO requested by the public then it is reasonalbe to say they have the manpower to run a criminal check during a boat stop to protect their officers!

If they don't run the information (SSN) during a stop then is not necessary for the MPO to request it. If they run it (SSN) OTA then it puts the person at risk for ID theft.

As I posted prior, this is a case of BWMPOB! Nothing unusual. My objection is the demand under threat of arrest of his SSN!

[NightWing]

Airwaves, your entire argument is based on the fact that you believe the officer was going to call the SS number in. You don't know that. Requesting the SS number during a motor vehicle stop on the street is also done under certain circumstances. You aren't screaming about police on the street, just on the water.

If you question any of the MP policies, in particular how that information is used and protected, call MPHQ. Until then, ranting about how someone else described their interaction with MP and what the informational rights of the public are is a waste of time. Some documents are not available to the public.

I won't reply to you anymore because you are trying to start a fight where there is none.

As far as your SS being at risk, I wouldn't worry. Nobody would want to steal your identity anyway.

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by NightWing

Airwaves, your entire argument is based on the fact that you believe the officer was going to call the SS number in. You don't know that. Requesting the SS number during a motor vehicle stop on the street is also done under certain circumstances. You aren't screaming about police on the street, just on the water.

Yes, I am making the argument based entirely on the fact that what Winnipesaukee post was true. We have no other point of reference. On the street the officier that stops a vehicle calls in his/her position, plate number and reason for the stop. Then they have the license number, not the SSN.

If you question any of the MP policies, in particular how that information is used and protected, call MPHQ. Until then, ranting about how someone else described their interaction with MP and what the informational rights of the public are is a waste of time. Some documents are not available to the public.

I won't reply to you anymore because you are trying to start a fight where there is none

Not responding is a typical response. (Quite frankly my posts where not aimed at you to begin with!)
The argument is whether MPOs that (according to you) apparently don't call in information when they stop a boat and whether they have the authority to demand, under threat of arrest, an SSN.

Apparently you also believe that public record is not actually available to the public because of policy?

As far as your SS being at risk, I wouldn't worry. Nobody would want to steal your identity anyway.

I'm happy to hear that I can throw my SSN around in NH without concern that anyone will use it to steal my ID! Post yours here; _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _.

Calling in the stop at night (in an area where the radio reaches) is a safety issue, so the dispatcher knows where the stop is made and the bow number of the boat.

In that case they will (should) transmit the information back to the officer that is conducting the stop, no?

The original question arose about personal information being transmitted to obtain records on the operator. Those records are primarily motor vehicle related and not of great value on the water

.'
No longer true since under the new law that must not be mentioned, boating infractions are linked to your drivers license so the MPO needs to know if the person(s) is prohibitied from boating in NH, etc.

What you did not respond to is the issue that a report by an MPO or any other LEO is a public record and a dispatcher or even his/her supervisor saying no does not make it "classified".

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

...I don't need a dispatcher telling me or anyone else what FOIA is or is not!...

The Freedom of Information Act only pertains to Federal Government operations. It does not pertain to the subject at hand here. This is the danger when you make assumptions and accept as fact an heretofore unverified accusation, especially if you are not clear on the applicable regulations. As you build on the story and fabricate additional items based on personal bias, mistakes are made and your entire argument loses its credibility.

First and foremost, let me assure the readers that your Social Security number is indeed used as a means of identification by local, state and federal authorities. However, that number does not appear on any summonses or warnings issued by law enforcement authorities in New Hampshire. It is mandatory and will appear on arrest records and local, county or state jail intake files however this information is not available for review by the public as mandated by the correct governing legal reference, NH RSA 91:a and not the Freedom of Information Act. The inference that this is illegal or improper is again a misguided application of the pertinent regulation. Social Security information is exchanged freely and regularly by local, state and federal government agencies as identification means within law enforcement records on a daily basis. What the law prevents is the mandatory display of this number on readily accessible identification cards, such as Driver's licenses or boating safety certificates. It does not prevent the collection, use or documentation of this number for data base purposes. That is why it is legal for a law enforcement officer to ask you for part or all of your Social Security number to assist in identification purposes.

In the course of my routine daily duties I monitor dozens of state, county and local law enforcement agency radio transmissions, including those of the NH Marine Patrol. And no, I am not a dispatcher although I have the utmost respect for the outstanding job these underappreciated folks commit themselves on a daily basis. On a daily basis I hear officers in the field utilize a portion of the SS number, usually the last four digits, to assist in field identifications. I have never heard an officer or dispatcher reveal a full number over the air although that exchange of information does occur routinely by telephone and other secure means of electronic communication.

Finally, if an officer asks you for your social security number because you have not provided a reasonable means of identification you can simply refuse to give it. The "disobey an officer" statute does not require you to give it. However, you will need to work with the officer to provide alternative "in the field" easily verifiable information to satisfy the law. The length of the stop will greatly hinge on the ease at which the officer can be assured that he has the correct individual in temporary custody. You wouldn't want an officer so restricted in his abilities to obtain correct identification that he incorrectly cites you for an offense caused by a third party using your name & dob. That's just common sense.

[VtSteve]

I certainly agree with the information requirements as SOP. But in an effort not to challenge any sacred cows, this thread has gotten so far off topic for a variety of reasons.

My primary focus is on this.

He comes back, immediately, because of a unique detail with my address, I realize he never ran my information. I ask him just how fast I was going. He says "You came around Pitchwood and I paced you. It took me 3 minutes to catch you at 55mph, so I'd estimate you were going between 30 and 35. Wouldn't he have come up from behind me then? Not off my port side?

Some seem pretty content to dismiss any valid suggestion that many of the stops, and actions, seem to border on harassment. "Call MP headquarters and state your case", is simply not a valid statement for discussion. It's a good diversion, as is making the OP out to be someone that was mostly at fault.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...My primary focus is on this...Some seem pretty content to dismiss any valid suggestion that many of the stops, and actions, seem to border on harassment....

Let's make one thing clear.

I have no reason to suspect or doubt Winnipesaukee's credibility.

That said, we are not discussing a verbatim or unbiased account of what may have occurred during the night in question.

Instead we are discussing an unverifed account based on one person's perspective of a certain event. That person admits he was agitated about being stopped, and what went on during the stop. I can assure you that if we heard the NHMP officer's version, it would most likely be different because it would be based on his perception of the the events that transpired that evening.

Now, some posters have taken this perception and added additional attributes to what probably happened during and after the stop, and then formulated generalized comments on what the NHMP policies must be!

I have been in the business long enough to know that there is always three sides to these events....the perceptions of those being stopped, the perceptions of those who made the stop and somewhere in betwen the actual unbiased facts of what happened. That is why we have a legal system where a judge and/or a jury will make the ultimate decision on fact after hearing both sides of the story.

I must state I am perplexed by your constant assertions that many of the NHMP's stops and actions border on harrassment. Except for a handful of individuals that have related some events here, you have produced no evidence of your assertion of this alleged widespread problem both in this thread and others.

The NHMP effects hundreds of stops annually. They patrol dozens of bodies of water and along the coast on a daily basis, much of it under high scrutiny of the public. Dozens of individuals return to the agency on a seasonal yearly basis with the core being annually employed. Given these facts, I find it inherently strange that if indeed the NHMP is continually harassing the public, obtaining SS information illegally and in general completely incompetent, as constantly alleged here by a handful of posters, then why have I not read about it in any of the local or statewide papers? Why is their not umbrage and outrage in the editorial or letters to the editor sectionsd of the various daily and weekly papers I read that cover areas covered by the NHMP? Why has their not been any civil rights law suits filed and ajudicated againt this agency?

Closer to home, there are a great number of posters here that live and frequent the Lake all year long. Where are their observations of these constant misdeeds?

Listen, as in any organization there are people that should not be employed because they are not good at what they do. And they usually are weeded out accordingly. There are others who are very good at their job, but make an occasional mistake. And sometimes good people are asked to perform or enforce tasks that their bosses insist, tasks that may not make sense or are poorly planned or implemented. In this I think the NHMP is no different then any other law enforcement agency, or any other organization for that matter.

In the end I think that day in and day out they perform an amazing job given the limited funding and tools they receive from the State, with the enormous pressure that the State (especially the legislative body in Concrd) place upon it. I truly believe that the vast majority of it's employees are honest and hard working people that give their all to keep us safe. And when folks make unsubstantiated claims against those good men & women, or attribute RSAs or other laws incorrectly in an attempt to discredit the Agency, I for one will offer my opinion on the matter.

And if someone presents verifiable proof of misdeed or misconduct I will also feel free to offer my (hopefully) constructive criticism and advise folks of what their proper legal remedy or rights may be.

And for those of you that have made it through my diatribe here...thanks for your patience, whether you agree or not.....

[SIKSUKR]

I love your eerrr...diatribe Skip. Always interesting, informative diatribe.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Skip

I must state I am perplexed by your constant assertions that many of the NHMP's stops and actions border on harrassment. Except for a handful of individuals that have related some events here, you have produced no evidence of your assertion of this alleged widespread problem both in this thread and others.

I have no assertions anymore, and will refrain from posting what I have reviewed as inflammatory posts. If they are off base, sorry for that. I was only commenting on what was posted.

[Airwaves]

I’ll respond to this only because you are playing word games in an effort to discredit what I have been posting and responding to:

The Freedom of Information Act only pertains to Federal Government operations. It does not pertain to the subject at hand here. This is the danger when you make assumptions and accept as fact an heretofore unverified accusation, especially if you are not clear on the applicable regulations. As you build on the story and fabricate additional items based on personal bias, mistakes are made and your entire argument loses its credibility.

First and foremost, let me assure the readers that your Social Security number is indeed used as a means of identification by local, state and federal authorities. However, that number does not appear on any summonses or warnings issued by law enforcement authorities in New Hampshire. It is mandatory and will appear on arrest records and local, county or state jail intake files however this information is not available for review by the public as mandated by the correct governing legal reference, NH RSA 91:a and not the Freedom of Information Act.

Semantics. I use the term FOIA to describe the public’s right to public information as others use the term Jetski to describe PWCs. It is easier to use that term, and have it understood, than it is to use the ambiguous term RSA 91.A.

Because LEOs have used something in the past and continue to demand it does not make it lawful.

In the course of my routine daily duties I monitor dozens of state, county and local law enforcement agency radio transmissions, including those of the NH Marine Patrol. And no, I am not a dispatcher although I have the utmost respect for the outstanding job these underappreciated folks commit themselves on a daily basis. On a daily basis I hear officers in the field utilize a portion of the SS number, usually the last four digits, to assist in field identifications.

This was the crux of my posting. The use of a SSN over the air, whether via police radio or cellphone, both are over the air and can be monitored. The question I was raising has to do with the liability of the state etc for reparations etc in the event Winnipesaukee’s information was used OTA and stolen by someone.

In another post NightWing stated that is it unusual for an MPO to radio in a stopped boat and radio that information to dispatch, but also said the SSN was used for identification. That appears to be a contradiction.

Unless the SSN is radioed in, which NightWing said would be unusual, then how can it possibly be used for identification purposes? The MPO would not have access that information unless he put it out OTA.

Finally, if an officer asks you for your social security number because you have not provided a reasonable means of identification you can simply refuse to give it. The "disobey an officer" statute does not require you to give it.

And I point to the statement by Winnipesaukee that he was threatened with arrest if he refused to give the MPO his SSN.

Instead we are discussing an unverifed account based on one person's perspective of a certain event. That person admits he was agitated about being stopped, and what went on during the stop. I can assure you that if we heard the NHMP officer's version, it would most likely be different because it would be based on his perception of the the events that transpired that evening.

No doubt the MPOs version would be different, but we are commenting on the only information that we have. Not what we speculate what the MPO might say as you are doing. You are certainly showing your bias by taking an unstated side to a story that you don’t have and dismissing the account of a person at the scene because he was agitated implying he must be wrong in spite of your statement to the contrary.

So the focus of my posts were thus...If a SSN is demanded and someone steals Winnipesaukee's ID what recourse does he have against the state?

If the MPO does not routinely call in boat stops then why demand under penalty of arrest (even though that is not lawful) the SSN when they are not going to run it until well after the boater has left the scene?

Simple questions but I dare to challenge the status quo so I'm inflamatory and looking for a fight.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Airwaves - i thiink your comments are more than reasonable. The common practice of using SSNs for identification hits a really sensitive nerve with me. People have no idea of the grief and aggravation caused by stolen identity.

[ITD]

LEO: What's your Social Security Number?

ITD: Sorry, I don't remember.

[Winnipesaukee]

MPO: I need your social security number

Winni: *rudely* No you don't. I can give you my name, address, and DOB.


...Oops!

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Airwaves - i thiink your comments are more than reasonable. The common practice of using SSNs for identification hits a really sensitive nerve with me. People have no idea of the grief and aggravation caused by stolen identity.

Has happened to me 3 times, I will not give it out for any reason.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Winnipesaukee

MPO: I need your social security number

Winni: *rudely* No you don't. I can give you my name, address, and DOB.


...Oops!

Ha ha, we all have our moments, don't we!!

[VtSteve]

The Privacy Act of 1974 was meant to be a deterrent to using the SSN as a primary ID#. But as we know, government agencies of all kinds are slow to respond to change. As a result of their actions over the years, identity theft has become sport, a profitable sport. It was suggested many times that the SSN number be replaced by some other form of ID, but it has not. But that's a whole nother argument I suppose.

The main thread used to consist of the stop itself. I try to re-read it every time I visit this thread, since it has long since been forgotten.

[VADET]

This may end the whole messy SS# debate.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Crap,
He stole my number.

[Winnipesaukee]

Finally some free time! As wild as Winni may be when it's crowded, I'll take a boat up there over a moped on the Vineyard anytime!!!


At the beginning of the month I sent an email to NHMP inquiring about the use of SSN numbers, and asked whether mine was transmitted over the air.

I got a very in-depth and informed response.

A few quotes from Lt. Tim Dunleavy's reply back (any my responses):

Mr. Winnipesaukee,

Thank you for your inquiry as to the circumstances of your contact with Marine Patrol Officer XXXX XXXX the evening of July 9, 2009. You raise several issues in your correspondence that I will address in this response. Furthermore, I will address several issues that you have also raised on the Winnipesaukee.com forum that I feel need clarification as well. Hopefully, you too, will see the need to post some of this information so that it will help clarify some of the misinformation being discussed.

As for your questions;
NH Marine Patrol does not have a policy on the use of a person’s Social Security (SS) number as a means of positively identifying a vessel’s operator. Law Enforcement officers throughout the country use this as one of the many ways of determining a person’s true identity. Some states have used the SS # as the person’s driver’s license number. Other states make the number available on their law enforcement data bases after collecting the number when the person was arrested. There are a variety of reasons why a state may have this information and, as a result, share it with other law enforcement agencies.

Marine Patrol Officers are trained to use the SS # as a secondary means of confirming the information a person provides them. In your specific case, MPO XXXX requested a print out of your Massachusetts registry information and indeed confirmed that your SS # was provided accurately. Interestingly, the address you provided him was not what the registry listed (this is the address you provided him verbally and indicate to us in your email that he “refused to hear”). Therefore, having given your SS # to the officer saved further inconvenience for you at a later date.

My SSN does indeed match my driver's license. The vessel was registered to a family member of a different address.

Regarding your SS# being broadcasted over the radio, Marine Patrol Officers are trained in the various privacy laws that exist in this state regarding personal information being accessed by the public. NH has very strict laws that regulate this information and policies are in place to protect it. Our officers are aware that SS # are used by identity thieves and do not transmit this information over the airwaves. (I have attached the two radio transmissions from MPO XXX notifying our headquarters of his stop with you and him clearing the stop.)

I would also like to take this opportunity to address some of the other issues you raised in your email and on the Winnipesakee.com forum. I will qualify my statement by saying (as many of the follow-up entries to your thread pointed out) that your version and the officer’s version are somewhat different. I have learned after 20+ years with Marine Patrol that the actual facts often lie somewhere in the middle of the two versions and that each person’s perception has become their reality. I also recognize that not every officer is going to have an identical approach to their enforcement of our various laws and their application of authority will differ from one to another. That being said, a goal of our training is to establish consistency in the enforcement of our laws and rules from one officer to another.

I would also like to take this opportunity to address some of the other issues you raised in your email and on the Winnipesakee.com forum. I will qualify my statement by saying (as many of the follow-up entries to your thread pointed out) that your version and the officer’s version are somewhat different. I have learned after 20+ years with Marine Patrol that the actual facts often lie somewhere in the middle of the two versions and that each person’s perception has become their reality. I also recognize that not every officer is going to have an identical approach to their enforcement of our various laws and their application of authority will differ from one to another. That being said, a goal of our training is to establish consistency in the enforcement of our laws and rules from one officer to another.

MPO XXXX stopped you after he observed you passing through the area of light #44, Pitchwood Island. He was in the light #2 no wake zone, Eagle Island. In his opinion, you were traveling greater than the allowable night-time speed of 25 mph. He brought his patrol boat up to speed and began to “pace” you with his boat’s GPS showing approximately 40 mph. It also took him the entire length of Governor’s Island before he was able to reach you. (Perhaps you didn’t see his lights, may have thought he was after another boat, etc. (I am not implying that you were running from the stop. MPO XXX does not believe you were trying to avoid him.) Ultimately you were stopped just west of light #28. MPO XXX couldn’t prove you were traveling 25+ mph, but certainly these facts as he perceives them, would lead to a level of articulable suspicion warranting a stop at 11:42 pm (according to our dispatch/radio log for that evening.)

This is interesting. Not once, but twice, the MPO told me he paced my boat, at 55mph (his speed) for 3 minutes. To do this, he would have covered almost 3 miles. Governor's Island is only, maybe, 2 statute miles long. Coming out of the NWZ at FL 2, this doesn't seem possible. I was also not pulled over "just west of FL 28" (Witches). I remember hugging the island and had just passed the black spar on the northeast side, and changed course to ESE, lining me up with the Witches channel. That was when I saw the blue lights abeam on my port side. I was maybe 1 statute mile from FL 28 when I was stopped...

I have attached three files for you to listen to. Two are the radio transmissions that MPO XXX made while making contact with you. You will hear that he stopped you at 2348 hours and cleared at 0008 hours. The third transmission is MPO XXX signing off for fuel at our headquarters at 0021 hours. This time was confirmed on video as well. At our 2330 hour officer safety check, MPO XXX advised our dispatch that he was near Moulton’s Cove in Paugus Bay. This was twenty minutes before he stopped you. My point is that MPO XXX was not with you for one hour, in fact, it was twenty minutes.

I can only hope this information helps to answer your questions, and allows you to help correct some of the misrepresentations you made on the forum. While you are free to vent your frustrations about the stop or the fact that you were asked for your SS #, I hope this sheds some light on the various issues our officers deal with on a daily basis.

I'm not certain about the length of time I was stopped for... It certainly felt longer. I did have a shivering passenger by the end of the stop, as we definitely stayed out longer than we intended to. Although it was nice to hear back from NHMP and get their point of view, I still feel I was inconvenienced for doing absolutely nothing unlawful and do not appreciate the officer's actions in pulling me over.

Oh yeah, and after the stop I rushed home for some hot cocoa.

Definitely lump me in with the "Anti-Winni-speed-limit" crowd. Especially 25mph at night.

I do wish there was a way for the MP to effectively defend itself when scrutinized and (arguably) bashed on a popular forum... This doesn't exactly seem fair.

[VtSteve]

It's fair, because you posted it. There's no doubt that Skip has trained them well (they all write just like him)

The big issue for me is speed. Could you be that far off in your estimate?

Absolutely awesome CYA email. One of the best. Takes someone with excellent communication skills.

Now turn yourself in Winni, you're gonna be a felon.

[Treerider]

Airwaves was shocked that Winni was threatened with arrest....keep in mind that the Police, unlike you can say ANYTHING they want to get you to do what they want! They can and will lie, threaten with arrest etc. you best know your rights and act accordingly. Do a google search for ""Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane" and watch the entire video.....an eye opening video for sure

[VtSteve]

I have learned after 20+ years with Marine Patrol that the actual facts often lie somewhere in the middle of the two versions and that each person’s perception has become their reality. I also recognize that not every officer is going to have an identical approach to their enforcement of our various laws and their application of authority will differ from one to another. That being said, a goal of our training is to establish consistency in the enforcement of our laws and rules from one officer to another.

Skip, is there a form letter or are you forced to memorize this? Just kidding, I had to read it twice (it was posted twice).

Winni says he was,'t even doing 25, let alone the 30 to 35 he stated the officer told him. Now in the followup, he states a pace of 40 mph. In reality, using articulable suspicion, he was probably doing a BUI check, reasonable at that hour in some circumstances. But he couldn't prove Winni was going more than 25 mph.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Treerider

Airwaves was shocked that Winni was threatened with arrest....keep in mind that the Police, unlike you can say ANYTHING they want to get you to do what they want! They can and will lie, threaten with arrest etc. you best know your rights and act accordingly. Do a google search for ""Don't Talk to the Police" by Professor James Duane" and watch the entire video.....an eye opening video for sure

I recently did a stint as a juror on 4 week long cases. What was an eye opener to me was that it is perfectly legal, acceptable and expected for the police to lie to us. These lies can occur at any time during their interaction including when they are doing video taped interviews back at the station. The MP can tell you he clocked you at 45 even if it is not true simply to gauge your reaction or gain a guilty plea.

One piece of advice the Juror experience taught me was that even if you are innocent, and go to the station for a taped interview, go through the video introduction pleasantries and signatures. Then deny the accusation strongly. Then ask for your lawyer. Can't tell you how many jurors have a real problem with the accused not declaring innocence. And for the mess that is created when the accused tries to sift through the fishing expedition the police are trained to take. While I totally respect the police and the job they do, I don't think that being good liars is a good way to find the truth.

The physics of the night time closing distance gauging cause me a lot of problem. A human's ability to judge distance is a combination of the angle the eyes have to adjust to triangulate the distance, the size of the object based on our life experiences,(how many of us are fooled by the mini mount until we see it go on the near side of the island). The angle can also help. If you are 10 feet above the water, you can gauge distance based on angle from the horizon.

When you are following a boat in the dark, you can see the stern light. You can't see the size of the light. You can see it's brightness. A bright one might seem closer than a dim one. You can't see the boat to gauge it's size. Your eyes are at about the same elevation as the stern light so at a distance you can't use the horizon angle as a visual clue.

My guess is that many of us would have a hard time telling if a stern light is moving towards us or away from us while we were traveling in a moving boat. If humans were good at telling distance, we would not need the side lights. We could tell which direction boats were traveling with a single or multiple white lights. We can tell during the day because we can see the direction the boat is traveling and the wake behind it. I am very suspicious of the measurement accuracy of a well intentioned MP doing a moving estimation of a light bulb at a distance of a 1/2 mile.

Now if the boat did not cross over the MP and the mp also has to make up the angle vector to get behind the boater, it would impact the trigonometry even more.

Show us the statistical results of some independent testing of several MPs at night under various scenarios. If you can show that 90% of the time, the MPs can judge a speed in the dark to +/- 15 mph then being stopped for going 45 at night might have some validity. But it also means their is a 10 percent chance you were going less than 30. (Just on plane for some boats)

[MassCamper]

As a police officer in Massachusetts and a weekend warrior boater on Lake Winnipesaukee I feel compelled to respond to many of the posts in this thread. As you can see I have only posted one time before and enjoy reading the forum.

First let me start by saying that I have been a Massachusetts police officer for over 19 years. The way I see it this “routine” stop was doomed from the beginning. Let’s start with:

“on goes his obnoxious spotlight right on me. I yell over to get that light off my face. Of course he doesn't. Even real police don't do that. Now I'm completely blind. Oh well. I later find out that I'd have an hour to get my night vision back anyway...”

This was not the right foot to get this stop started on. The officers used his spotlight to insure his safety, to determine how many people were in the boat and to gain a tactical edge. This is what they are trained to do. Yes even “real” police officers do this.

Why would you yell back at a police officer to “get the light off my face”? How do you think the encounter will progress? Respect is a two way street and you certainly didn’t do anything to earn it right out of the gate! That being said the officer deserved to be commended for maintaining his professionalism and conducting himself as he is trained to do.

Next let me address the issue of speeding. Police officers are trained to do their job. In fact part of a standard radar certification course requires the officer to estimate the speed first, then confirm it with a speed measurement device or by clocking the speed. An officer can estimate your speed and in fact cite you based solely on his estimation of your speed. He is a police officer and his training and experience is reasonable suspicioun in and of itself.

Next issue is the fact that you did not have your boating safety certificate or positive identification in your possession. In this case the officer took every reasonable means to positively determine your identity. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts your social security number is listed on your drivers license printout from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Confirming the number you give him with the number on the printout is the easiest way to verify your identity.

I am amazed at all the comments about someone listening to a police scanner and stealing your social security number. I am going to go out on a limb here, but I feel safe to say that no one has ever been accused, charged, or convicted of stealing a person’s ssn from a police scanner. I investigated identity crimes for many years. Identities are purchased in bulk on black markets that obtain them through breached security at banks and creditors…. Not by listening to police scanners!

In closing, this officer was doing his job that night, trying to keep the Lake safe for everyone. Some advice to everyone… if you get stopped either on land or on the water, a little respect goes a long way.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by MassCamper

As a police officer in Massachusetts and a weekend warrior boater on Lake Winnipesaukee I feel compelled to respond to many of the posts in this thread. As you can see I have only posted one time before and enjoy reading the forum.

First let me start by saying that I have been a Massachusetts police officer for over 19 years. The way I see it this “routine” stop was doomed from the beginning. Let’s start with:

“on goes his obnoxious spotlight right on me. I yell over to get that light off my face. Of course he doesn't. Even real police don't do that. Now I'm completely blind. Oh well. I later find out that I'd have an hour to get my night vision back anyway...”

This was not the right foot to get this stop started on. The officers used his spotlight to insure his safety, to determine how many people were in the boat and to gain a tactical edge. This is what they are trained to do. Yes even “real” police officers do this.

Why would you yell back at a police officer to “get the light off my face”? How do you think the encounter will progress? Respect is a two way street and you certainly didn’t do anything to earn it right out of the gate! That being said the officer deserved to be commended for maintaining his professionalism and conducting himself as he is trained to do.

Next let me address the issue of speeding. Police officers are trained to do their job. In fact part of a standard radar certification course requires the officer to estimate the speed first, then confirm it with a speed measurement device or by clocking the speed. An officer can estimate your speed and in fact cite you based solely on his estimation of your speed. He is a police officer and his training and experience is reasonable suspicioun in and of itself.

Next issue is the fact that you did not have your boating safety certificate or positive identification in your possession. In this case the officer took every reasonable means to positively determine your identity. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts your social security number is listed on your drivers license printout from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Confirming the number you give him with the number on the printout is the easiest way to verify your identity.

I am amazed at all the comments about someone listening to a police scanner and stealing your social security number. I am going to go out on a limb here, but I feel safe to say that no one has ever been accused, charged, or convicted of stealing a person’s ssn from a police scanner. I investigated identity crimes for many years. Identities are purchased in bulk on black markets that obtain them through breached security at banks and creditors…. Not by listening to police scanners!

In closing, this officer was doing his job that night, trying to keep the Lake safe for everyone. Some advice to everyone… if you get stopped either on land or on the water, a little respect goes a long way.

Correct and an excellent explanation of the issues surrounding this stop.

Add to the fact that the NHMP has records to prove that Winnipesaukee grossly exagerated the amount of time he was stopped and that the NHMP did not reveal his SS # over the air, in my opinion, calls into question this poster's entire integrity regarding ths stop.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by MassCamper

Why would you yell back at a police officer to “get the light off my face”? How do you think the encounter will progress? Respect is a two way street and you certainly didn’t do anything to earn it right out of the gate!

This is all a matter of perspective. Not many citizens would find it very "respectful" to be pulled over at night and spotlighted when the officer has no proof or evidence of wrongdoing, and quite possibly did not even have a justifiable reason for pulling someone over in the first place (other than his own possible mis-perception of the events).

I don't mean to come down too hard on you, but I see an attitude from many LEO's that anyone stopped is guilty until proven innocent and that we should be thankful for the privilege of being pulled over. Even if someone IS breaking a routine law (speeding, etc.) I think that many times they are honestly not aware of it or attempting to circumvent authority.

[BroadHopper]

I am profound hard-of-hearing. I need to read lips to understand what a person is saying.

One night several years ago, I was driving Rte 3A North past the Hooksett toll booth. Blue lights were turned on and the high beams blinded my rear view mirror. I pulled over. I rolled down the window and put my hands on the steering wheel. My LEO friend told me to do that whenever I am pulled over. LEO's wants to see your hands and put them at ease. The spotlight on the car went on and I can't see out of the driver's outside rear view mirror. I find this a bit unusual. I can hear someone screaming at me. I'm not sure what he was saying. So I just stay in the car with my hands on the steering wheel. I can't see anything through my mirrors. All of a sudden two police officers with their guns drawn are on both side of the car, just to the rear of the front doors. I am **** scared and I am yelling. 'I'm hard of hearing and I need to read lips.' They keep yelling at me and waving their guns, as I keep repeating I am hard of hearing. It was getting tense. I can't see anything because of the spotlight and the high beams. It seems like eternity the shouting back and force. I wasn't aware but a state police officer pulled up and actually came to the door so I can read his lips. He told me to step out of the car with my hands where he can see them. I did so and I was quickly turned around with my hands on top of the car and searched. While the SPO was searching me he was cursing the two Hooksett officers for some reason. He ask me where I was coming from and where I was going. He told me that the vehicle I was driving fit the description of a vehicle involved in an armed robbery and they pulled me over for a check. After a license and registration check, the SPO apoligize for what had happen and he actually stated the Hooksett officers has over reacted. Well the two town officers cursed the SPO for saying that. I was told to leave. No apologies from the Hooksett officers.

I never been so scared in my life. This shows that the training the NH state police get is far superior than local police? I was told they get the same training, but in this case someone has a level head.

In my case a light blinding me makes communications worst and could end up in a tense moment such as this. When an officer is told the person is deaf or hard of hearing, they should have at least grant a little leeway.

[winnipesaukeenh]

Originally Posted by MassCamper

As a police officer in Massachusetts and a weekend warrior boater on Lake Winnipesaukee I feel compelled to respond to many of the posts in this thread. As you can see I have only posted one time before and enjoy reading the forum.

First let me start by saying that I have been a Massachusetts police officer for over 19 years. The way I see it this “routine” stop was doomed from the beginning. Let’s start with:

“on goes his obnoxious spotlight right on me. I yell over to get that light off my face. Of course he doesn't. Even real police don't do that. Now I'm completely blind. Oh well. I later find out that I'd have an hour to get my night vision back anyway...”

This was not the right foot to get this stop started on. The officers used his spotlight to insure his safety, to determine how many people were in the boat and to gain a tactical edge. This is what they are trained to do. Yes even “real” police officers do this.

Why would you yell back at a police officer to “get the light off my face”? How do you think the encounter will progress? Respect is a two way street and you certainly didn’t do anything to earn it right out of the gate! That being said the officer deserved to be commended for maintaining his professionalism and conducting himself as he is trained to do.

Next let me address the issue of speeding. Police officers are trained to do their job. In fact part of a standard radar certification course requires the officer to estimate the speed first, then confirm it with a speed measurement device or by clocking the speed. An officer can estimate your speed and in fact cite you based solely on his estimation of your speed. He is a police officer and his training and experience is reasonable suspicioun in and of itself.

Next issue is the fact that you did not have your boating safety certificate or positive identification in your possession. In this case the officer took every reasonable means to positively determine your identity. In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts your social security number is listed on your drivers license printout from the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Confirming the number you give him with the number on the printout is the easiest way to verify your identity.

I am amazed at all the comments about someone listening to a police scanner and stealing your social security number. I am going to go out on a limb here, but I feel safe to say that no one has ever been accused, charged, or convicted of stealing a person’s ssn from a police scanner. I investigated identity crimes for many years. Identities are purchased in bulk on black markets that obtain them through breached security at banks and creditors…. Not by listening to police scanners!

In closing, this officer was doing his job that night, trying to keep the Lake safe for everyone. Some advice to everyone… if you get stopped either on land or on the water, a little respect goes a long way.

Thank you very much for taking the time to post. People could learn ALOT from it, especially a select few posters I won't mention that are on this forum.

Plus, after reading the LT's response, it calls into question the integrity and truthfulness of Winnipesaukee original post, especially about the time issue!! How Winnipesaukee confused one hour for twenty minutes is beyond me...

[Phantom]

Well -- nearly a month has past since this original posting.

From the lack of others chiming in and sharing their stops "Stop's" for speeding I am left to draw the conclusion that "speeding stops" aka Radar traps is not really an issue this season .......... which would figure seeing as MP was opposed to the legislation in the first place --

Originally Posted by Phantom

I am left to draw the conclusion that "speeding stops" aka Radar traps is not really an issue this season .......... which would figure seeing as MP was opposed to the legislation in the first place --

Are you "trolling"?
Why would the MP be stopping boats for speeding when they are almost all going under 45 (except a handful of scofflaws)? I was seeing this thread as proof that American's are predominantly law-abiding and that the SL is doing just what we had hoped...slowing boaters down without the need for a lot of enforcement effort by the MP. You see it differently? I guess it's true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

[brk-lnt]

Originally Posted by elchase

Are you "trolling"?
Why would the MP be stopping boats for speeding when they are almost all going under 45 (except a handful of scofflaws)? I was seeing this thread as proof that American's are predominantly law-abiding and that the SL is doing just what we had hoped...slowing boaters down without the need for a lot of enforcement effort by the MP. You see it differently? I guess it's true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

If you were to play some statistically valid random videos of boats from this season, and some from last season, nobody would be able to tell you which was which. IE: any new legislation enacted this year has not had any measurable or noticeable effect on boats on the lake. It HAS however apparently had a great placebo effect for some people, and if you now feel safer on the lake, well, enjoy it while it lasts.

[VADET]

Sorry Rattlesnake Guy,
I'm sure you learned some things sitting on a jury for four weeks. If all you learned from that experience is that the police are expected to lie to you and deceive you then you are just incorrect.
Courts have upheld that Officers can lie to a suspect in an interrogation. However the courts look at extrinsic misrepresentations and intrinsic misrepresentations instead of truth v lie. The first of these implies coercion where as the other usually does not. Lying in an interrogation setting is a double edged sword because if the suspect calls your bluff, like in any good game of poker, your trust is lost and you are finished. I apologize for having just greased over years of Supreme Court decisions however my point is that Officers are not trained to lie to citizens Rattlesnake Guy, you are confusing separate issues. I have seen Officers fired for lying under oath and for lying in general.

I thank Lt. Dunleavy's for his response and he should commend his Officer for his professionalism that night.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by elchase

Are you "trolling"? .

Elchase -- Are YOU serious? With over 400 posts you think I'm trolling!!

My point and question were straight forward -- I am/was curious how many actual stops (and more importantly-how MP were treating those stops i.e verbal warning, citation, etc) are being made. On one side one could think that given a new law in effect that MP could be going hog wild -- on the other hand they appear to be acting as I would expect -using extreme discretion and tagging only the blatantly obvious.

Be careful in the future with your use of the word "trolling?"

[ApS]

We're missing "the third observer's opinion".

But still, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard countless arguments on police powers over this ½-century: Through this winnowing process, the system has evolved to our present laws regarding the "police stop" in general.

Those Supreme Court scrutinies now more-fully respect LEOs' reasonable right to self-protection during stops.

Due to the increased rate of violence nationally, any alteration in Supreme Court scrutinies that increases the dangers to enforcement officers would have effects on public safety far more profound than one could imagine. IMHO.

That's my opinion: do I hear an "Amen"?

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

That's my opinion: do I hear an "Amen"?

Only if "you're" done with those almost "unreadable" posts!

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Treerider

Airwaves was shocked that Winni was threatened with arrest

Actually in the three or four posts in which I commented on the threat of arrest I said in one that I was bothered by it. Not shocked.

The email from the LT is very well written and is a great CYA letter. As Lt Dunleavy states himself the truth of the matter usually lies somewhere in the middle, so taking the MPOs report on face value while discounting Winnipesaukee's is wrong. It's the first time we've heard the MPOs side and as I freely admitted it would be different from Winnipesaukee's version. No surprise there.

As for the SSN argument. I am still left somewhat confused by what Lt Dunleavy wrote.

In your specific case, MPO XXXX requested a print out of your Massachusetts registry information and indeed confirmed that your SS # was provided accurately.

But then he wrote:

Our officers are aware that SS # are used by identity thieves and do not transmit this information over the airwaves.

So is Lt Dunleavy saying the MPO left the stop without confirming Winnipesaukee's true identity or is he saying that either the MPO or dispatch put the information from the Massachusetts registry including the SSN over the air in spite of "policy"? I'm not getting that one.

Regardless, my hypothetical question that is still unanswered, that was directed to any legal mind that might be lurking, is what legal recourse against the MP and state could Winnipesaukee have IF his SSN number were broadcast and stolen?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

You MIGHT have some recourse IF you could prove beyond any doubt that the MP action was the cause of your identify theft. It is unlikely you could do this unless the thief confessed that the MP was the source of his receiving your ID.