BUI/Safety/Credentials Checkpoints...

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by W Clarke

One of the best parts of the Speed Limit law is it gives the Marine Patrol the right to stop and search any boat that they believe is going too fast. Pulling over cowboys who seem to be boating reasonably and prudently but are exceeding the speed limit gives the Marine Patrol a good tool to look for BUI. This opportunity protects us all by allowing MP to stop those boats and conduct a safety inspection and sobriety check before the GFBL boat gets close to other boats, docks, swimmers and the general peace loving citizens.

While you are correct that it gives the MP one reason to stop a boat, there are plenty of other reasons they could use, and have used in the past. In fact, the pre-existing law of going too fast for conditions would have been a better reason. To stop a boat for speeding, they would have to be able to prove that the boat was speeding (radar gun). Stopping a boat for going too fast for conditions is very objective. What were the conditions, how fast was the boat travelling etc...all up to the MP officers discretion.

I once got stopped by the MP because they said that someone reported that I violated the 150' rule when I passed by their boat. First of all, it was complete BS, as I was never within 1000 yards of another boat. Secondly, the really shouldn't be able to stop me based on a second-hand account. It should be something that the MP saw himself. But I am OK with that.

I am not sure if MP has the right to stop a boat to perform a safety check without probable cause, but like I said, I am sure they could find a reason, any reason to stop a boat.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by chipj29

I am not sure if MP has the right to stop a boat to perform a safety check without probable cause, but like I said, I am sure they could find a reason, any reason to stop a boat.

I have been stopped for a safety check numerous times through the years. Without probable cause. What irks me is that I would have the MP sticker and the Power Squadron sticker posted on the side window. It makes me wonder if they had nothing better to do. I don't have a fancy GFBL nor do I have a boat that looks like it is barely floating. They will give me no clue why they pick me.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by chipj29

...I am not sure if MP has the right to stop a boat to perform a safety check without probable cause, but like I said, I am sure they could find a reason, any reason to stop a boat...

Just so everyone remains clear, a law enforcement officer needs Articulable Suspicion to stop and temporarily detain an individual. Probable Cause, a much higher standard, is necessary to effect an arrest on an individual.

In short an officer normally stops a person on a suspicion (articulable) that an offense has or will occur and during that detention sometimes develops additional facts and circumstances that could lead to probable cause to effect an arrest.

Hope this helps explain the terminology a little better....

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Skip

Just so everyone remains clear, a law enforcement officer needs Articulable Suspicion to stop and temporarily detain an individual. Probable Cause, a much higher standard, is necessary to effect an arrest on an individual.

In short an officer normally stops a person on a suspicion (articulable) that an offense has or will occur and during that detention sometimes develops additional facts and circumstances that could lead to probable cause to effect an arrest.

Hope this helps explain the terminology a little better....

Thanks Skip, I was hoping you would help me out.

[NHBUOY]

...thanx for the law review...I was trying to make a point, am am glad to hear common sense could prevail...maybe a new commitee...Boaters with COmmoNSense...BCONS...The acronym "works" tho...lol...I may run with this......

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Skip

Just so everyone remains clear, a law enforcement officer needs Articulable Suspicion to stop and temporarily detain an individual. Probable Cause, a much higher standard, is necessary to effect an arrest on an individual.

In short an officer normally stops a person on a suspicion (articulable) that an offense has or will occur and during that detention sometimes develops additional facts and circumstances that could lead to probable cause to effect an arrest.

Hope this helps explain the terminology a little better....

Let's say, a police officer, happens to be on patrol every night, say, near the Meredith Town Docks. He patrols the dock areas. Lets say, he witnesses someone stumbling towards his boat, gets in and starts it. Let's further assume that same stumbling person is attempting to leave the docks, Without untying the boat.

Is that articulable suspicion?

If that same stumbling person, that was earlier observed dancing with himself after who knows how many drinks, runs over the transom of another boat, is the officer complicit in a felony? What about the bar that dramatically over-served him?

It's similar to cutting off the supplier not the user.

Of course the offending server could just go about his business, and get publicity about safety issues and the like. But that's after the fact.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Let's say, a police officer, happens to be on patrol every night, say, near the Meredith Town Docks. He patrols the dock areas. Lets say, he witnesses someone stumbling towards his boat, gets in and starts it. Let's further assume that same stumbling person is attempting to leave the docks, Without untying the boat.

Is that articulable suspicion?

Yes.

If that same stumbling person, that was earlier observed dancing with himself after who knows how many drinks, runs over the transom of another boat, is the officer complicit in a felony? What about the bar that dramatically over-served him?

The bar can indeed be held responsible for overserving. Liquor Inspectors regularly investigate and sometimes bring charges in cases like these if enough evidence is developed.

You would need to prove that the officer knowingly or recklessly allowed someone that he should have known was intoxicated to operate. However liability has been charged in the past when an officer had an individual in his custody which he should have known was intoxicated, and then let them go. A very rare occurence but anything is possible. Criminal charges? Probably not, but civil liability can and has been applied to a few incidents in the past.

As always, it would depend on the facts and circumstances of the individual cae.