|
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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 The information contained in the AP news report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.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 |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
|
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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 |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
"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 |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
|
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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 |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
"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? |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
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. :o) Regards, ....carry on. noah To email me, please remove the "FISH" from the net. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
Even if you live aboard your boat, it doesn't provide the same protections
as a "house". It's a form of transportation, and as such, can be boarded and inspected at any time with no good reason. That's just the way it is, and has been all the way back to our county's beginnings. Nothing new. "noah" wrote in message ... 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. :o) Regards, ...carry on. noah To email me, please remove the "FISH" from the net. |
Court OK's boat searches without warrant or probable cause...
Even if you live aboard your boat, it doesn't provide the same protections
as a "house". It's a form of transportation, and as such, can be boarded and inspected at any time with no good reason. That's just the way it is, and has been all the way back to our county's beginnings. Nothing new. Yes, because most boats fall into categories of maritime law that pertain to regulation of commerce. If you are engaged in commerce, you are subject to inspection of your activities at the whim of the government and it has always been so. It goes well beyond boats, too. A business can be inspected by the health department without a warrant or probable cause. The state tax authorities can demand access to your business records without a warrant or probable cause. Vessels below a certain tonnage are surely not being used in commerce. Two guys in a 12-foot boat trolling for sportfish are in a different category than people cruising offshore in a 50-foot trawler that (conceivably) could be loaded with contraband. "noah" wrote in message .. . 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. :o) Regards, ...carry on. noah To email me, please remove the "FISH" from the net. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:09 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com