|
Grendel -> RE: Warning to Anyone using Lampe Launch (6/26/2008 2:37:46 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: eyesandgillz
Grendel,
For stops and searches, WCO's, DCNR rangers, etc. still need "reasonable suspicion" for the stop and "probably cause" for the search. Take a look at the link from the Commonwealth v. Ickes court case and opinion from 2005. Really gets interesting once you get to page 7 and continuing on to the end when they compare "regulated activities" which hunting and fishing fall under to the application of the vehicle codes. Not a total apples to apples comparison in this instance but, if you had a good enough lawyer, enough funds, and the right approach to the precedents and the right court, you could probably get an interesting decision.
http://www.aopc.org/OpPosting/Supreme/out/J-138-2004mo.pdf
Personally, it all comes down to common sense laws in my eyes. Is it common sense and reasonable to have a trailer in good working, safe condition? Of course. Should they be inspected over a certain threshold? I think most would agree, yes. Should the Commonwealth legislate that the manufacturer's of trailers who have to meet federal safety standards are wrong when they only put brakes on one axle of a dual axle trailer even though they have passed testing that says brakes on only one axle is adequate? I think most would agree, NO, that is unreasonable. Should a trailer operator who did have his inspection sticker be constantly harrassed? No, he shouldn't. Should someone who has been safety checked while on Commonwealth waters be subjected to the same checks repeatedly in a short amount of time or even on the same day? I think most would see that as unreasonable.
Me, I don't want to be one of the "sheeple" that has the government protecting "me" from myself. Being libretarian and very conservative in nature, I would like them to butt out of the citizen's everyday business as much as reasonably possible.
Don't want to wear a seatbelt, fine; don't legislate it though and have special safety checks for it. Let Darwin weed out the ones who don't want to wear it (except, children should be made to wear them under the age of 18). Myself, I wear mine every time I step foot in my vehicles.
Helmet laws are as they should be. But, you would never catch me on a motorcycle without one.
Smoking bans are the same thing for me. I hate smoking; despise it, detest it, but, if someone wants to go to a bar and have a drink and a smoke, then they should be able to do so. If a restaurant can adequately provide smoking and non-smoking sections then they should have that option. If I want to go to a bar for a drink then I will have to put up with the smoke or not go to that bar. I can still make that choice.
About the REAL ID and biometrics and all that other jazz, believe me, it is real. My brother works in DC in the IT field and his main project right now is developing the biometrics and database for this Orwellian crap. Gives him a good paycheck but I hope that it is never implemented.
Anyways, didn't want to step into this discussion but alas, here I am... :-)
Eyes,
Yes, you are certainly right about the probable cause. For example, not having a license displayed, or not having the charter Captain license/plackard visible, or more rods in water per person than is legal, etc... might constitute the probable cause to "stop."
However, regarding systematic safety checks at the ramp, that might be a different story. I am fairly certain that most stops on the water have the pre-requisite "probable cause" covered.
Good observation.
Doc
|
|
|
|