Minn. High Court Allows Boat Searches

By ASHLEY H. GRANT
..c The Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Thursday that game
wardens can search boats without the consent of the owner or probable cause to
suspect illegal activity.

The court put the protection of natural resources ahead of fishermen's
expectations of privacy.

Fishing boats should not have the same Fourth Amendment protections against
searches as homes or even cars because ``fishing is a largely recreational
privilege that anglers choose to engage in with knowledge of the regulations
governing their conduct,'' Justice James Gilbert said.

The case involved John Colosimo, a lawyer from Virginia, Minn., who would not
let a game warden inspect his boat in northern Minnesota. Colosimo's
misdemeanor conviction for refusing an inspection, overturned by an appeals
court, was reinstated by the Supreme Court.

Colosimo, who faces up to 90 days in jail, did not immediately return a call
for comment.

Col. Mike Hamm, enforcement chief for the Department of Natural Resources, said
the decision was ``a great thing.''

Colosimo had argued that allowing officers to inspect boats without some
evidence of wrongdoing violates the constitutional protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

But state officials argued that with 2.1 million fishermen and about 200
conservation officers in Minnesota, the only way to protect natural resources
was searching with or without consent.

Only one of the six jurists who voted, Justice Alan Page, disagreed with the
entire decision, though another justice dissented in part.

Page warned that the ruling ``ensures that every such search will be
reasonable, even when based on a conservation officer's whim.''



09/25/03 18:01 EDT


Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP news
report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed
without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active
hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.





http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

On 26 Sep 2003 22:01:23 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Minn. High Court Allows Boat Searches

snipped scary article

Similar conditions have existed in New York State for some time. DEC
(Dept. of Environmental Conservation) Officers have far more power
than even the State Police. No warrant is required for home, vehicle,
or personal searches. Probable Cause is relegated to the intuition of
the officer, or a Ouija board, as the case may be.


....carry on.
noah

To email me, please remove the "FISH" from the net.

On 26 Sep 2003 20:14:14 -0500, noah
wrote:

On 26 Sep 2003 22:01:23 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Minn. High Court Allows Boat Searches

snipped scary article

Similar conditions have existed in New York State for some time. DEC
(Dept. of Environmental Conservation) Officers have far more power
than even the State Police. No warrant is required for home, vehicle,
or personal searches. Probable Cause is relegated to the intuition of
the officer, or a Ouija board, as the case may be.


...carry on.
noah


....an afterthought.

If we, as a nation, are ever deprived of our liberty, it won't be to
the likes of bin Laden or Hussein. We will offer it up, piecemeal, to
our "protectors", who will gladly take it. It will make things
"easier", right?


"Those who sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserve
neither."- Benjamin Franklin

....carry on.
noah

To email me, please remove the "FISH" from the net.

On 26 Sep 2003 21:06:16 -0500, noah
wrote:


"Those who sacrifice liberty in the name of security deserve
neither."- Benjamin Franklin

....or

"Those that suppress freedom always do so in the name of law and
order." - John Lindsay

....carry on.
noah

To email me, please remove the "FISH" from the net.

Isn't driving "largely a recreational activity that drivers choose to engage
in with knowledge of the regulations governing their conduct"?

Besides, you can sure as hell understand driving regulation better than
fishing regulations. You almost need a damn lawyer to decipher half the
regulations. Maybe that's why the lawyer was concerned

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Minn. High Court Allows Boat Searches

By ASHLEY H. GRANT
.c The Associated Press

ST. PAUL, Minn. (AP) - The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Thursday that
game
wardens can search boats without the consent of the owner or probable
cause to
suspect illegal activity.

The court put the protection of natural resources ahead of fishermen's
expectations of privacy.

Fishing boats should not have the same Fourth Amendment protections
against
searches as homes or even cars because ``fishing is a largely recreational
privilege that anglers choose to engage in with knowledge of the
regulations
governing their conduct,'' Justice James Gilbert said.

The case involved John Colosimo, a lawyer from Virginia, Minn., who would
not
let a game warden inspect his boat in northern Minnesota. Colosimo's
misdemeanor conviction for refusing an inspection, overturned by an
appeals
court, was reinstated by the Supreme Court.

Colosimo, who faces up to 90 days in jail, did not immediately return a
call
for comment.

Col. Mike Hamm, enforcement chief for the Department of Natural Resources,
said
the decision was ``a great thing.''

Colosimo had argued that allowing officers to inspect boats without some
evidence of wrongdoing violates the constitutional protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

But state officials argued that with 2.1 million fishermen and about 200
conservation officers in Minnesota, the only way to protect natural
resources
was searching with or without consent.

Only one of the six jurists who voted, Justice Alan Page, disagreed with
the
entire decision, though another justice dissented in part.

Page warned that the ruling ``ensures that every such search will be
reasonable, even when based on a conservation officer's whim.''



09/25/03 18:01 EDT


Copyright 2003 The Associated Press. The information contained in the AP
news
report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed
without the prior written authority of The Associated Press. All active
hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.





http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Gene Kearns wrote:


If nothing else, this points to the dire need for a law prohibiting
stupid people from breeding... and their offspring from becoming
judges.

You'd also need a law preventing bright people from breeding. George
H.W. Bush and his wife Barbara are smart people, but they managed to
produce a son named George W. Bush who these days apparently has the
intellectual capabilities of a doorknob. Maybe he was bright before he
burned out his brain with coke and booze...




--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

I don't agree, Harry. The ultra-left has painted GW as a good natured
moron. IMHO, he is neither.


There are a number of facets to intelligence. Nobody scores extremely highly in
every category.

Whatever brains Bush has, they are not
apparent in what some would call his verbal IQ. He may be a whiz with
space/size relationships.....(I'm not, I used to look at those complex diagrams
of unfolded forms on school tests and make a wild guess which of the optional
shapes
would result when the object was refolded).
He may be slick with arithmetic or even complex math. There is abstract
intelligence and pragmatic intelligence.
Bush's ability to reason in the abstract is not very good, so perhaps he is
strong in the pragmatic.

My wife is a good example. She is a very bright woman, but she is perhaps about
average in the verbal category. She is excellent with numbers and accomplishing

projects. She has a knack for dealing with people. She outshines me in many of
the aspects where she excels. She has less imagination than I do, and often
gets lost in the middle of a sentence while whe figures out how to say what she
is trying to communicate, but neither of those characteristics make her less
"smart" than someone who speaks more effectively, just different. In the areas
where she is more talented, she is among the best.

Nobody has an overdose of all types of intelligence. Bush is deficient in the
verbal category, and that is an area where a national leader, (called upon to
answer questions at press conferences and to make speeches), should be
proficient enough to stave off objective criticism of
obvious errors in grammar and syntax.
Unfortunately, politicians fall into a category where they *are* judged by the
words they choose and their ability to speak.

Gould 0738 wrote:

I don't agree, Harry. The ultra-left has painted GW as a good natured
moron. IMHO, he is neither.


There are a number of facets to intelligence. Nobody scores extremely highly in
every category.

Whatever brains Bush has, they are not
apparent in what some would call his verbal IQ. Bush is deficient in the
verbal category, and that is an area where a national leader, (called upon to
answer questions at press conferences and to make speeches), should be
proficient enough to stave off objective criticism of
obvious errors in grammar and syntax.

Unfortunately, politicians fall into a category where they *are* judged by the
words they choose and their ability to speak.

Unfortunately? I disagree. If, like Bush, you have no ideas of your own
and you can't even articulate the ideas of others, you shouldn't be
considered material for national leadership.

Before the last Presidential election, I suggested that Bush and Gore
each be given a different page selected at random from a book any high
schooler should be able to read and understand. The page should have
been handed to them cold, that is, without a chance to practice with it.
Each should have been instructed to read the page aloud. The book? Oh,
anything by Dickens -David Copperfield, Tale of Two Cities, whatever.

The exercise would have been extraordinarily revealing.

A POTUS has to read a lot and understand what he is reading. Unless he's
Bush, who apparently doesn't read at all and is told what to do and say.


--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Chuck, If you continue being logical you will be banned from rec.boats.
You know have two strikes against you for being logical, one more and you
are out of here.


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I don't agree, Harry. The ultra-left has painted GW as a good natured
moron. IMHO, he is neither.


There are a number of facets to intelligence. Nobody scores extremely
highly in
every category.

Whatever brains Bush has, they are not
apparent in what some would call his verbal IQ. He may be a whiz with
space/size relationships.....(I'm not, I used to look at those complex
diagrams
of unfolded forms on school tests and make a wild guess which of the
optional
shapes
would result when the object was refolded).
He may be slick with arithmetic or even complex math. There is abstract
intelligence and pragmatic intelligence.
Bush's ability to reason in the abstract is not very good, so perhaps he
is
strong in the pragmatic.

My wife is a good example. She is a very bright woman, but she is perhaps
about
average in the verbal category. She is excellent with numbers and
accomplishing

projects. She has a knack for dealing with people. She outshines me in
many of
the aspects where she excels. She has less imagination than I do, and
often
gets lost in the middle of a sentence while whe figures out how to say
what she
is trying to communicate, but neither of those characteristics make her
less
"smart" than someone who speaks more effectively, just different. In the
areas
where she is more talented, she is among the best.

Nobody has an overdose of all types of intelligence. Bush is deficient in
the
verbal category, and that is an area where a national leader, (called upon
to
answer questions at press conferences and to make speeches), should be
proficient enough to stave off objective criticism of
obvious errors in grammar and syntax.
Unfortunately, politicians fall into a category where they *are* judged by
the
words they choose and their ability to speak.

I agree that there are different "types" of intelligence and that often
people that are gifted in one area lack others.

But I disagree that no one has them all. Some people do excell
in almost all areas. People can be good at math, numbers, the
abstract, the practical, and with people all at once.

As for Bush. I think his verbal and abstract reasoning skills aren't
very good. I think these are skills that are very important for a
president. He does seem good at some other things. I've heard
he is quite good with people in-person.

I used to think he was just a nice but not too bright fellow. Now
I'm starting to think that he is not nice and is brighter than I had
thought. Not a great thinker, but an excellent manipulator and
reader of what he has to say to get what he wants.



"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
I don't agree, Harry. The ultra-left has painted GW as a good natured
moron. IMHO, he is neither.


There are a number of facets to intelligence. Nobody scores extremely
highly in
every category.

Whatever brains Bush has, they are not
apparent in what some would call his verbal IQ. He may be a whiz with
space/size relationships.....(I'm not, I used to look at those complex
diagrams
of unfolded forms on school tests and make a wild guess which of the
optional
shapes
would result when the object was refolded).
He may be slick with arithmetic or even complex math. There is abstract
intelligence and pragmatic intelligence.
Bush's ability to reason in the abstract is not very good, so perhaps he
is
strong in the pragmatic.

My wife is a good example. She is a very bright woman, but she is perhaps
about
average in the verbal category. She is excellent with numbers and
accomplishing

projects. She has a knack for dealing with people. She outshines me in
many of
the aspects where she excels. She has less imagination than I do, and
often
gets lost in the middle of a sentence while whe figures out how to say
what she
is trying to communicate, but neither of those characteristics make her
less
"smart" than someone who speaks more effectively, just different. In the
areas
where she is more talented, she is among the best.

Nobody has an overdose of all types of intelligence. Bush is deficient in
the
verbal category, and that is an area where a national leader, (called upon
to
answer questions at press conferences and to make speeches), should be
proficient enough to stave off objective criticism of
obvious errors in grammar and syntax.
Unfortunately, politicians fall into a category where they *are* judged by
the
words they choose and their ability to speak.