Reginald P. Smithers III wrote:
HK wrote:

Chuck Gould wrote:

On Jul 8, 5:11?am, HK wrote:

Garrison Hilliard wrote:

200 People Busted For Alcohol-Related Offenses On The Little Miami
River
Last Update: Jul 8, 2007 2:26 AM
Close to 200 people fall victim to a sweep on the Little Miami
River. Officials
in Warren County were targeting alcohol-related offenses, from open
containers
to underage drinking. The operation left many people drying out and
forced to
pay a hefty fine.
Many people were feeling the heat, and not because of the
temperature. The main
objective of this operation is not to ruin activities but to make
sure the
Little Miami River can be a fun place for the whole family.
Out of sight and undercover, officers from several agencies were
looking to put
a stop to a common problem. There's a little too much drinking on
the Little
Miami River. Area residents living around the river complained of
rude and
obnoxious behavior, enough that something had to be done.
The Sackriders, a local family, agree with Warren County officials
who say
alcohol and the river don't mix. Most were upset to get ticketed,
in over a few
hours authorities handed citations close to 200 people.
The violations ranged from underage drinking to littering and life
jacket
violations. Some people on canoes got stopped more than once for
the most
popular offense, having an open container. The goal of the
crackdown is to make
sure the river is a friendly place for local families to make a
splash. Dozens
of empty beer cans were picked up in the seven-hour sweep
Meanwhile, on the water Chris and Rebecca Sackrider will stick to
drinking
water. There will be another similar sweep in the near future, but
officials in
Warren County are not saying when.
http://www.local12.com/mostpopular/s...d=2ccdfc37-1f6...


Works for me. Drunks on the water are damned dangerous.- Hide quoted
text -

- Show quoted text -


Subtle distinction: The government sweep didn't target drunks, the
tickets were handed out to people caught with an open bottle of beer
in a boat. If it's 100 degrees, 3-4 guys are out fishing, and somebody
other than the person operating the vessel pops open a beer that
shouldn't be considered a crime. It may be unwise, but if the boat
operator isn't drinking at the helm it's merely a questionable
practice and not a crime. IMO.

There's a difference between having a beer on a summer afternoon and
being a "drunk".

I thought Carrie Nation and Temperance Unions were ancient history.
Good thing they didn't catch one of the canoeists or kayakers smokin a
doobie.....if beer warrants a ticket those uptight puritans would
probably lynch somebody found with a joint.

No wonder the entire world seems to be moving to the west coast! :-)



You can't drive a car on the highways legally with an open container
of booze. I doubt you could ride a bike doing so, either. But driving
a boat with open containers of booze visible is ok?


I have heard you say many times, that you have had a beer on a boat on
hot summer day, and that you allow others to drink on your boat, you
just don't allow them to get drunk. Is that ok with you?

Harry, as usual is incorrect, there are states that it is still legal to
do so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...container_laws

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:53:32 -0400, animal05
wrote:

Harry, as usual is incorrect, there are states that it is still legal to
do so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...container_laws

You have to be careful with absolutes.

Technically, Connecticut is not in compliance with the Federal Open
Container requirements, but if an open container in found in a vehicle
in the course of a vehicle/traffic stop, a field sobriety and/or BAT
is required of the driver.

That was a recent change and I believe of the 13 states that are not
compliant have similar laws.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:53:32 -0400, animal05
wrote:


Harry, as usual is incorrect, there are states that it is still legal to
do so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...container_laws


You have to be careful with absolutes.

Technically, Connecticut is not in compliance with the Federal Open
Container requirements, but if an open container in found in a vehicle
in the course of a vehicle/traffic stop, a field sobriety and/or BAT
is required of the driver.

That was a recent change and I believe of the 13 states that are not
compliant have similar laws.

Don't get me wrong, this is one area where I think the fed guvmint is
right :-)

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 17:46:38 -0400, animal05
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:53:32 -0400, animal05
wrote:


Harry, as usual is incorrect, there are states that it is still legal to
do so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...container_laws

You have to be careful with absolutes.

Technically, Connecticut is not in compliance with the Federal Open
Container requirements, but if an open container in found in a vehicle
in the course of a vehicle/traffic stop, a field sobriety and/or BAT
is required of the driver.

That was a recent change and I believe of the 13 states that are not
compliant have similar laws.

Don't get me wrong, this is one area where I think the fed guvmint is
right :-)

I agree.

CT is an odd state with quite possibly the most moronic legislature in
the 50 states second only to RI and/or MA. You would think that they
would be all over this, but curiously they aren't.

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 12:53:32 -0400, animal05
wrote:

Harry, as usual is incorrect, there are states that it is still legal to
do so

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...container_laws

Note that the federal guidelines apply to:

1. Motor vehicles

2. Vehicles on a public highway or the right-of-way (i.e. on the
shoulder) of a public highway

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 03:27:08 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...container_laws

Note that the federal guidelines apply to:

1. Motor vehicles

2. Vehicles on a public highway or the right-of-way (i.e. on the
shoulder) of a public highway

Depending on the state, the definition of "public highway" can be considerably broader, including parking
lots, and private driveways. The following is for New York:

http://www.legalsurvival.com/dwilink/nov02.html

However, the federal definition of motor vehicle seems to exclude boats.

"MOTOR VEHICLE - Includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any
other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land but not on rails. 18 USC"

From:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m048.htm

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:40:56 -0000, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 03:27:08 -0400, Wayne.B wrote:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...container_laws

Note that the federal guidelines apply to:

1. Motor vehicles

2. Vehicles on a public highway or the right-of-way (i.e. on the
shoulder) of a public highway

Depending on the state, the definition of "public highway" can be considerably broader, including parking
lots, and private driveways. The following is for New York:

http://www.legalsurvival.com/dwilink/nov02.html

However, the federal definition of motor vehicle seems to exclude boats.

"MOTOR VEHICLE - Includes an automobile, automobile truck, automobile wagon, motorcycle, or any
other self-propelled vehicle designed for running on land but not on rails. 18 USC"

From:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m048.htm

It's difficult to figure out how a canoe on a navigable river fits
into any of that. I'd love to argue that one in court, starting with
jurisdiction and working your way up.