This has been true in cars since the Carter administration, by Supreme court
decree and in boats since the Washington administration.
Cops, DEA, Coast Guard, Customs and wildlife officers have always had the power
to stop and search a boat or a car.
There is absolutely no expectation of privacy in your car or boat. I am not
saying it is right, only that it is true. The courts have upheld the 4th
amendment in your home but as soon as you hit the road or the water you lost
that protection.
Yes the govenment is out of control and don't expect the Republicans OR the
Democrats to help you.
Check out www.lp.org if you want some freedom.

When your left(ist) brain kicks in, try to at least state something
halfway plausible.

Or not.

Darn Wally. I thought I was in your kill file.
You promised to put me there after you were so very disappointed to discover no
boating content in a thread somebody started and titled "OT: George Bush is
Getting Scary" (or something very similar).

If you would care to furnish some examples of GWB's abstract reasoning ability,
please do. Or is enough to imply that people who have not been impressed with
some aspects of his intellectual profile are just too stupid to appreciate the
man's obvious brilliance?

The again, Bush may appear more or less intelligent depending on personal
perspective.

"noah" wrote in message
...
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.

Let me point out, gently, that the ability of DNR officers in Minnesota
to search boats was only overturned by a lower court last year. This is
a practice they have engaged in for many years. So don't get too upset.

del cecchi

On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:53:29 -0500, "del cecchi"
wrote:


"noah" wrote in message
.. .
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.

Let me point out, gently, that the ability of DNR officers in Minnesota
to search boats was only overturned by a lower court last year. This is
a practice they have engaged in for many years. So don't get too upset.

del cecchi


???. I'm not upset. My response concerned Gould's post.

NY DEC Officers are still quite capable of searching your boat, car,
house, garage, freezer, and Grandma's undies if they "suspect" you
have violated game laws. I abide by the game laws, but I resent the
intrusion into Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

Q: How do you eat an elephant?
A: One bite at a time.

....carry on.
noah

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

The most recent SCOTUS case on point is probably UNITED STATES v. ARVIZU
and they firmly established that in the case of a vehicle "probable cause" has
been watered down to "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is being committed and
we all can only guess what a cop thinks is "reasonable". They are always a
little suspicious.
This is from the 2002 opinion, citing a 1975 case

"United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975), tilts in favor of
a standard less than probable cause in such cases, the Fourth Amendment is
satisfied if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to
believe that criminal activity "

It is always true that they can search, they have the gun. The only thing a
citizen can hope for is that a court tosses out any evidence they find. That
doesn't do anything for your privacy, inconvenience or damage to property.
Soverign immunity really makes it hard to sue them.

On 28 Sep 2003 04:15:55 GMT, reg (Gfretwell) wrote:

The most recent SCOTUS case on point is probably UNITED STATES v. ARVIZU
and they firmly established that in the case of a vehicle "probable cause" has
been watered down to "reasonable suspicion" that a crime is being committed and
we all can only guess what a cop thinks is "reasonable". They are always a
little suspicious.
This is from the 2002 opinion, citing a 1975 case

"United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. S. 873, 878 (1975), tilts in favor of
a standard less than probable cause in such cases, the Fourth Amendment is
satisfied if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to
believe that criminal activity "

It is always true that they can search, they have the gun. The only thing a
citizen can hope for is that a court tosses out any evidence they find. That
doesn't do anything for your privacy, inconvenience or damage to property.
Soverign immunity really makes it hard to sue them.

Greg- thanks for the case info.

I don't object to law enforcement. Generally, it's there to protect
"us". What does puzzle me, 'fer instance, is why a fish-and-game
officer would have powers exceeding those of State and Local police?
Particularly involving search without a warrant.

Additionally, since 9/11, the Bill of Rights has taken a serious hit.
It doesn't have to be so, and I am wary of anyone telling me that they
are removing or "modifying" civil liberties in order to "protect me".
Protect me from who? Fanatics or politicians with an agenda?



....carry on.
noah

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

Additionally, since 9/11, the Bill of Rights has taken a serious hit.
It doesn't have to be so, and I am wary of anyone telling me that they
are removing or "modifying" civil liberties in order to "protect me".
Protect me from who? Fanatics or politicians with an agenda?

I ran across an interesting question recently. In the rush to modify civil
liberties under the Patriot Act, at what point did the Bush Administration
demonstrate that our civil liberties, guaranteed by the Constitution, seriously
impeded the detection or prosecution of potential terrorists in the US?




http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveilla...0011031_eff_us
a_patriot_analysis.php

"noah" wrote in message
...


NY DEC Officers are still quite capable of searching your boat, car,
house, garage, freezer, and Grandma's undies if they "suspect" you
have violated game laws. I abide by the game laws, but I resent the
intrusion into Constitutionally guaranteed rights.


Question: If a DEC officer boards a boat containing sleeping people, at
night, and they bust in your door and are shot as intruders, does the court
consider the boat "your castle", as they would if you were in your house?

If a DEC officer boards a boat containing sleeping people, at
night, and they bust in your door and are shot as intruders, does the court
consider the boat "your castle"

The cops will be a lot more likely to shoot you, they are trained and wide
awake, with their guns at the ready. All reaching for your gun will do is give
them a reason to shoot.
Your wrongful death suit may address things like warrants and identifying
themselves prior to the entry but they will still win the gunfight.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 04:20:00 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"noah" wrote in message
.. .


NY DEC Officers are still quite capable of searching your boat, car,
house, garage, freezer, and Grandma's undies if they "suspect" you
have violated game laws. I abide by the game laws, but I resent the
intrusion into Constitutionally guaranteed rights.


Question: If a DEC officer boards a boat containing sleeping people, at
night, and they bust in your door and are shot as intruders, does the court
consider the boat "your castle", as they would if you were in your house?


Doug- I hate to be the one to tell you, but you don't *have* a castle
(at least when it comes to DEC). I suspect the same is true when it
comes to the Fed's, under the Patriot Act. While you were fishing,
they stole your Bill of Rights. )

Regards,
....carry on.
noah

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