Venice, FL bad water cop
 

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
:

On 8 Mar 2007 17:25:34 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

People who bring boats to Florida from states where there is no
registration of boats or where it is considered "optional" are
informed about the Florida law, let off with a warning, and told they
have 2-weeks to finish up their visit to Florida *or* apply for a
registration.

There's the crux of the matter.

A warning implies that one has broken a law and the law enforcement
option is to issue a warning so that one doesn't (1) do it again or is
notified that a problem exists and needs correction.

What this guy is doing is judging intent ahead of time - if the
reports are as stated. He can't do that - in fact, a case could be
made for profiling if he does this on a regular basis. I'm surprised
that somebody hasn't done so.

It's a question of intent. He has the right to stop a vessel and ask,
but if the owner presents documents that indicate it is owned by a
person whose state of residence doesn't require registration or
visible evidence of registration, he does not have the right to issue
a warning for a law that has not been broken.

A warning is an official law enforcement document - law enforcement
officers and adminsitrations track warnings issued. In this case, to
issue a warning, he would have to be able to prove that the vessel has
been in Florida waters for longer than two weeks - which would be
impossible to prove. He can't issue a warning for less than two weeks
because no law has been broken.

Exactly right. And contrary to earlier posts, Florida does NOT have the
right to regulate registration of transient boats in any way it chooses.
Boats from other states are travelling in interstate commerce. Our
constitution does not let individual states inhibit or overly burden
interstate commerce. That's why they HAVE to have the two week "grace
period" and a 90 day period for use tax payments. After those periods,
it's considered that they aren't travelling any more, but are there to
stay, at least for the time being. But if you're just travelling through
for one day, Florida couldn't make you register even if it wanted to.

What this bad cop does, is assume that any unregistered boat is violating
the law and been there more than two weeks. I don't think that's probable
cause and in any other case would subject this bad cop to a civil rights
lawsuit. Somehow in the maritime world we're deemed to give up our civil
rights and can be borded anytime anywhere without cause. Still doesn't
give him the right to write bogus "warnings" or to detain people and
force them to listen to his inane lectures. If I was properly registered,
knowing I committed no violation, and on land (like the couple in the
article) I would simply get up and walk away. Let him arrest me. I'll own
the town.

Venice, FL bad water cop
 

On Mar 8, 8:34�pm, akheel wrote:
Short Wave Sportfishing wrote :





On 8 Mar 2007 17:25:34 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

People who bring boats to Florida from states where there is no
registration of boats or where it is considered "optional" are
informed about the Florida law, let off with a warning, and told they
have 2-weeks to finish up their visit to Florida *or* apply for a
registration.

There's the crux of the matter.

A warning implies that one has broken a law and the law enforcement
option is to issue a warning so that one doesn't (1) do it again or is
notified that a problem exists and needs correction.

What this guy is doing is judging intent ahead of time - if the
reports are as stated. *He can't do that - in fact, a case could be
made for profiling if he does this on a regular basis. *I'm surprised
that somebody hasn't done so.

It's a question of intent. *He has the right to stop a vessel and ask,
but if the owner presents documents that indicate it is owned by a
person whose state of residence doesn't require registration or
visible evidence of registration, he does not have the right to issue
a warning for a law that has not been broken.

A warning is an official law enforcement document - law enforcement
officers and adminsitrations track warnings issued. *In this case, to
issue a warning, he would have to be able to prove that the vessel has
been in Florida waters for longer than two weeks - which would be
impossible to prove. *He can't issue a warning for less than two weeks
because no law has been broken.

Exactly right. And contrary to earlier posts, Florida does NOT have the
right to regulate registration of transient boats in any way it chooses.
Boats from other states are travelling in interstate commerce.


Only if they're enroute to a dealer. See the State of Florida website.




Our
constitution does not let individual states inhibit or overly burden
interstate commerce.


Has nothing to do with interstate commerce. If I am operating my
private vessel or vehicle, I'm not conducting interstate commerce. You
want to talk about a cruise ship or a charter boat bringing people in
from out of state, that would be interstate commerce. Hauling a boat
on a trailer, from a factory to a dealer, is also interstate commerce
and the cargo doesn't need to be licensed.

You must have never done any trucking. I'm going to assume this hasn't
changed in the last zillion years (and even if it has the constitution
hasn't), and you will find "pro-rate" plates on tractors and trailers
all the time. Even when engaged in interstate commerce, various states
can and do exact a license or permit fee from rigs that are in that
state only a portion of the time. Interstate commerce- licensed or
taxed by the state. Happens all the time.



That's why they HAVE to have the two week "grace
period" and a 90 day period for use tax payments.


You didn't read the article carefully, either. According to the
newspaper account, there is no "two week grace period". You're in
violation on minute one, day one. The warning tickets give you two
weeks to get into compliance with the law or get out of state, but you
aren't somehow "legal" if you've been there less than 2 weeks.




After those periods,
it's considered that they aren't travelling any more, but are there to
stay, at least for the time being. But if you're just travelling through
for one day, Florida couldn't make you register even if it wanted to.




What this bad cop does, is assume that any unregistered boat is violating
the law and been there more than two weeks.

No, what this admittedly bad cop does is recognize that any
unregistered boat is violating the law the minute it gets wet in
Florida. He passes out warning tickets that allow two weeks to get the
problem resolved.



I don't think that's probable
cause and in any other case would subject this bad cop to a civil rights
lawsuit. Somehow in the maritime world we're deemed to give up our civil
rights and can be borded anytime anywhere without cause.

Still doesn't
give him the right to write bogus "warnings"



No, he should not write bogus warnings- only warnings to people
operating a boat that doesn't carry registration from some state.

or to detain people and
force them to listen to his inane lectures.

Agreed. He should do his job without lecturing anybody.




If I was properly registered,
knowing I committed no violation, and on land (like the couple in the
article) I would simply get up and walk away. Let him arrest me. I'll own
the town.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Venice, FL bad water cop
 

On 8 Mar 2007 21:02:15 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

You must have never done any trucking. I'm going to assume this hasn't
changed in the last zillion years (and even if it has the constitution
hasn't), and you will find "pro-rate" plates on tractors and trailers
all the time. Even when engaged in interstate commerce, various states
can and do exact a license or permit fee from rigs that are in that
state only a portion of the time. Interstate commerce- licensed or
taxed by the state. Happens all the time.

Well I have and you are correct - but that's because it is Interstate
Commerce and use taxes are pro-rated base on mileage. There is also a
fuel thing, but it's been a long time since I've done any truck
driving.

In this case, it's private recreational use and thus subject to
criminal laws, not commercial laws. A warning is still a misdemeanor.

That's why they HAVE to have the two week "grace
period" and a 90 day period for use tax payments.

You didn't read the article carefully, either. According to the
newspaper account, there is no "two week grace period". You're in
violation on minute one, day one. The warning tickets give you two
weeks to get into compliance with the law or get out of state, but you
aren't somehow "legal" if you've been there less than 2 weeks.

I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. The only way that I can
think of where Florida can "demand" a registration is if they are not
signatories to registration reciprocity which I don't think is the
case. For example, New Hampshire does not have reciprocity with other
states for marine registration. Thus, you have to obtain a New
Hampshire non-resident registration for your boat if you plan to use
your boat privately in New Hampshire. Even at that, there is a time
limit - like a few days or maybe like 5 days or more - something like
that. That may have changed too - I'm going remembering here and I am
getting old.

I believe that Florida does reciprocate with registrations and honors
my CT registration if I go to Florida for a month of fishing. Now if
that is true and they honor the registration policies and procedures
of other states for transient use, then it follows that if an owner
who lives and normally operates his boat in a state that does not
require visible registration or even registration period is perfectly
legal in Florida waters up until they pass the 90 day period at which
time they are in violation of Florida law.

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. To put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.

Venice, FL bad water cop
 

On Mar 9, 3:50�am, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:


I believe that Florida does reciprocate with registrations and honors
my CT registration if I go to Florida for a month of fishing. *Now if
that is true and they honor the registration policies and procedures
of other states for transient use, then it follows that if an owner
who lives and normally operates his boat in a state that does not
require visible registration or even registration period is perfectly
legal in Florida waters up until they pass the 90 day period at which
time they are in violation of Florida law.


Shortwave, there's a difference between reciprocity of registration
and reciprocity of "no registration required". You're 100% right, your
CT registration will be honored in Florida. In fact, you can boat in
Florida for a full 90 consecutive days on your CT sticker, or up to a
total of 180 days per year.

Florida requires all watercraft on the waters of its state to be
registered. So does Washington (unless it's an unpowered skiff or
sailing dinghy) for that matter, and so do a probable majority of
states. You are considered to be in compliance in Florida if your boat
has a current registration from any state, and it will be honored. If
you come from a state that doesn't require boats to be registered, you
get a warning ticket to (as you precisely stated) "inform you about
the law". Florida is no more required to reciprocate a *lack* of
regulation than it would be to allow people from California, Oregon,
or Washington to carry small amounts of medical marijuana for personal
use while vacationing at Disney World. Coming from a state where an
activity isn't regulated has never meant that you can conduct that
activity without any regulation when visiting another state that
chooses to regulate it.

This cop is a jerk, no dobut. But if he is writing warning tickets to
out of state boaters with no registrations, he's not, as has been
claimed, ticketing people who are "totally legal". Something "totally
legal" in (say) Nebraska, Kansas, or Alabama doesn't have to be legal
in Florida- and that would include running a boat without a
registration.

Florida is a sovereign state with every right to control or regulate
activities within its own borders. If the state requires that all
watercraft have a state registration of some sort, then boaters from
states without registration need to stay out of Florida, apply for a
Florida registration, or put up with getting warning tickets that
carry a two-week window of opportunity to get a registration or remove
the boat from Florida. If the law is unpopular with the residents of
Florida, then they should lobby their state assembly or legislature to
amend or repeal it.

It does sound like the cop is annoying as hell, but he's enforcing a
valid law.





In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. *To put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.

And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Venice, FL bad water cop
 

On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.

And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.

Venice, FL bad water cop
 

Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.
And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.

I totally disagree with your suggestion to "agree to disagree".

Venice, FL bad water cop
 

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:15:08 -0500, RJSmithers
wrote:

Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.
And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.

I totally disagree with your suggestion to "agree to disagree".

Ah well, then we will have to disagree about our agreement to agree to
diagree about the disagreement.

Agreed?

Venice, FL bad water cop
 

On Mar 9, 7:55�am, Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"

wrote:
In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. *o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.

And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.

Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. *:)

Let's agree to disagree.

And to disagree without being disagreeable. I'm all for that.

Venice, FL bad water cop
 

Tom Francis wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:15:08 -0500, RJSmithers
wrote:

Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.
And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.
Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.
I totally disagree with your suggestion to "agree to disagree".

Ah well, then we will have to disagree about our agreement to agree to
diagree about the disagreement.

Agreed?

My people will get with your people concerning this matter.

Venice, FL bad water cop
 

On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:48:04 -0500, RJSmithers
wrote:

Tom Francis wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 11:15:08 -0500, RJSmithers
wrote:

Tom Francis wrote:
On 9 Mar 2007 07:49:20 -0800, "Chuck Gould"
wrote:

In effect, issuing a warning - a misdemeanor - for potentially
violating a law is not accepted law enforcement practice. o put it
another way, the officer in question is issuing warnings for
potentially violating a law when he has no knowledge that the law will
be broken. He can only issue a warning at his discretion if the law
HAS been broken.
And if a boat is operating in Florida without a registration from
either Florida or some other state, a law has been broken.
Well, we ain't gonna change each other's minds on this. :)

Let's agree to disagree.
I totally disagree with your suggestion to "agree to disagree".

Ah well, then we will have to disagree about our agreement to agree to
diagree about the disagreement.

Agreed?

My people will get with your people concerning this matter.

And I'll have my people disagree with your peoples that we can have an
excuse to do lunch. :)