In article , "Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:
Scott,
Specifically? Well Scott, I not a lawyer so I can't quote you specific
rights. Perhaps it's more a feeling that the newer laws being passed in the
name of terrorist defense will be used as an excuse to justify more
intrusion into our personal lives.
Paul

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
.. .
Which rights, specifically were revoked?


No rights were "revoked" (which would require at least one new Constitutional
Amendment), but a number are violated by the Patriot Act.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville PA __/)__/)__

"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote in message
...
Larry,
I hear ya, our rights are being revoked, all in the name of
terrorism.
Paul

"Larry W4CSC" wrote in message
...
snipped
Many of the unconstitutional stops-for-no-reason were thinly disguised
drug
raids without warrant or valid reasons. They dug around in the boat,
I
think, because there were teens aboard my boat.

It's nonsense and ought to be stopped. I don't remember signing away
any
of the Amendments to our Constitution at the DNR boat license
office.......

Larry W4CSC

In article pa4gc.17470$bl.3425@okepread03, says...


In article , "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:
Scott,
Specifically? Well Scott, I not a lawyer so I can't quote you specific
rights. Perhaps it's more a feeling that the newer laws being passed in the
name of terrorist defense will be used as an excuse to justify more
intrusion into our personal lives.
Paul

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
. ..
Which rights, specifically were revoked?


No rights were "revoked" (which would require at least one new Constitutional
Amendment), but a number are violated by the Patriot Act.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and
the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right
to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Law enforcement routinely flouts all of these. But the Fourth Amendment in
particular has been a dead letter for many years, shot through with Supreme
Court exceptions. However, the discussion was about boats in particular.
Vessels on navigable waters are not protected and may be stopped and searched
at any time for any reason or no reason. The Court so ruled nearly 200 years
ago and despite many opportunitioes to revisit the matter has never ruled
otherwise. You are in a boat you are fair game for LEA, anytime, anyplace.

In article , Gogarty wrote:
In article pa4gc.17470$bl.3425@okepread03, says...


In article , "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:
Scott,
Specifically? Well Scott, I not a lawyer so I can't quote you specific
rights. Perhaps it's more a feeling that the newer laws being passed in the
name of terrorist defense will be used as an excuse to justify more
intrusion into our personal lives.
Paul

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
.. .
Which rights, specifically were revoked?


No rights were "revoked" (which would require at least one new Constitutional
Amendment), but a number are violated by the Patriot Act.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and

the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right

to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Law enforcement routinely flouts all of these. But the Fourth Amendment in
particular has been a dead letter for many years, shot through with Supreme
Court exceptions. However, the discussion was about boats in particular.
Vessels on navigable waters are not protected and may be stopped and searched
at any time for any reason or no reason. The Court so ruled nearly 200 years
ago and despite many opportunitioes to revisit the matter has never ruled
otherwise. You are in a boat you are fair game for LEA, anytime, anyplace.


Unfortunate, but true.

In article , Gogarty wrote:
In article pa4gc.17470$bl.3425@okepread03, says...


In article , "Paul Schilter"
paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:
Scott,
Specifically? Well Scott, I not a lawyer so I can't quote you specific
rights. Perhaps it's more a feeling that the newer laws being passed in the
name of terrorist defense will be used as an excuse to justify more
intrusion into our personal lives.
Paul

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
.. .
Which rights, specifically were revoked?


No rights were "revoked" (which would require at least one new Constitutional
Amendment), but a number are violated by the Patriot Act.

Amendment IV - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probably cause, supported by
oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and

the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V - No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except
in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in
actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor
shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor
shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI - In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right

to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been
previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the
assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VIII - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Law enforcement routinely flouts all of these. But the Fourth Amendment in
particular has been a dead letter for many years, shot through with Supreme
Court exceptions. However, the discussion was about boats in particular.
Vessels on navigable waters are not protected and may be stopped and searched
at any time for any reason or no reason. The Court so ruled nearly 200 years
ago and despite many opportunitioes to revisit the matter has never ruled
otherwise. You are in a boat you are fair game for LEA, anytime, anyplace.


Unfortunate, but true.

In article ,
Gogarty wrote:

You are in a boat you are fair game for LEA, anytime, anyplace.

Actually, the above is not quite correct. You are only "Fair Game"
for the USCG, and not from just any LEA. You may refuse any local,
State, or Federal LEO, to board your vessel without a Warrent. The only
exception, besides USCG, would be a US Marshal. When ever I needed
to board a vessel without the skippers permission (FCC Field Agent)
I had to go get a USCG Officer/NonCom, or the local US Marshal, and use
their authority to conduct my investigation. Only happened a few times
while I was a Fed.

Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @

Bruce,
I believe the U.S. Customs can also board without probable cause. I
understand that if you have a trailer boat they can follow you home and then
search the home. Customs has a lot of power.
Paul

"Bruce in Alaska" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Gogarty wrote:

You are in a boat you are fair game for LEA, anytime, anyplace.

Actually, the above is not quite correct. You are only "Fair Game"
for the USCG, and not from just any LEA. You may refuse any local,
State, or Federal LEO, to board your vessel without a Warrent. The only
exception, besides USCG, would be a US Marshal. When ever I needed
to board a vessel without the skippers permission (FCC Field Agent)
I had to go get a USCG Officer/NonCom, or the local US Marshal, and use
their authority to conduct my investigation. Only happened a few times
while I was a Fed.

Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @

In article ,
"Paul Schilter" paulschilter@comcast,dot,net wrote:

Bruce,
I believe the U.S. Customs can also board without probable cause. I
understand that if you have a trailer boat they can follow you home and then
search the home. Customs has a lot of power.
Paul

Not sure about Customs, if you didn't leave US Waters. I suspect that
if you "cleared customs" that they then would need a Warrent for any
further inspection. If you didn't leave US Waters then they would
need "Cause" to board you, I think.

Bruce in alaska
--
add a 2 before @

I have been told that U.S. Customs agents and the U.S. Coast Guard can board
any American flagged vessel or any vessel in U.S. waters without probable
cause. The (Massachusetts) state police (and even some harbormasters) claim
they too can board any vessel without probable cause because they are
"deputized" by U.S. Customs.

"Listen to the live broadcast of 'Nautical Talk Radio' with Captain Lou every
Sunday afternoon from 4 - 5 (Eastern Standard Time) on the web at
www.959watd.com or if you are in Boston or Cape Cod set your radio dial to
95.9FM.

In article ,
(Capt Lou) wrote:

The (Massachusetts) state police (and even some harbormasters) claim
they too can board any vessel without probable cause because they are
"deputized" by U.S. Customs.

All kinds of LEO's CLAIM that they can do this and that, but the LAW
is very clear on these points. US Flagged Vessels can only be boarded
against the skippers wishes by USCG and US Marshals. The point can
be debated, at the point of a gun, but in Court, after you spent your
jailtime waiting for trial, the LAW will prevail. Most LEO's understand
this, and get a USCG Officer/Noncom to accompany any boarding, or get
one of the local US Marshals to go along. When I was a FED, (FCC)
this was SOP for us when we were refused boarding. I remeber an incident
down in Grays Harbor, WA, where one of my fellow Agents wanted to inspect
a local charterboat, and the skipper refused to allow him to board. He
went down to the local USCG Lifeboat Detachment, and got the CPO, to
mount a Boarding Party with M60's and Tompson's and returned to the
charterboat, boarded and found 50Kg of dope stuffed under a bunk.
Our guy busted him for an expired SOLAS Certificate, but the USCG
took the boat and the guy got 20 Years in the Federal Slam for Drug
Running.

Bruce in alaska who recognizes that LEO's LIE all the time about
what they can do.........
--
add a 2 before @

In article ,
(Capt Lou) wrote:

The (Massachusetts) state police (and even some harbormasters) claim
they too can board any vessel without probable cause because they are
"deputized" by U.S. Customs.

All kinds of LEO's CLAIM that they can do this and that, but the LAW
is very clear on these points. US Flagged Vessels can only be boarded
against the skippers wishes by USCG and US Marshals. The point can
be debated, at the point of a gun, but in Court, after you spent your
jailtime waiting for trial, the LAW will prevail. Most LEO's understand
this, and get a USCG Officer/Noncom to accompany any boarding, or get
one of the local US Marshals to go along. When I was a FED, (FCC)
this was SOP for us when we were refused boarding. I remeber an incident
down in Grays Harbor, WA, where one of my fellow Agents wanted to inspect
a local charterboat, and the skipper refused to allow him to board. He
went down to the local USCG Lifeboat Detachment, and got the CPO, to
mount a Boarding Party with M60's and Tompson's and returned to the
charterboat, boarded and found 50Kg of dope stuffed under a bunk.
Our guy busted him for an expired SOLAS Certificate, but the USCG
took the boat and the guy got 20 Years in the Federal Slam for Drug
Running.

Bruce in alaska who recognizes that LEO's LIE all the time about
what they can do.........
--
add a 2 before @