Good Job Marine Patrol!!

[Woodsy]

Swiped from the Citizen Court Log....

Jennifer N. York, 28, of ****., pleaded innocent to violating the 150 ft. rule while driving a 1989 Mach I powerboat in Meredith in July. She was found guilty and fined $600.

Jennifer N. York, 28, of ****., pleaded innocent to driving a boat on Lake Winnipesaukee in Laconia in July without a valid boater education certificate. The complaint was placed on file without a finding on a motion by the state. A charge of boating while intoxicated was dropped or "nol prossed" by Marine Patrol Lt. Timothy Dunleavy.

Hmmm.... within 150' and no SBC!

Good Job Marine Patrol!!

Woodsy

[Chris Craft]

to bad they dropped the intoxication part (unless they were unsure). My guess is that she was rude to the MP's and that is what landed her in the jam. It has been my understanding that they ussually give warnings for that unless it is a blatantly dangerous situation.

[codeman671]

Let me get this straight, they got her on the 150' rule but dropped a BWI and failure to hold a valid boaters education certificate??? :eek:

I hope they had good reason to drop a BWI being that it is a helluva lot more serious than the 150' rule...

[Woodsy]

I don't have the facts in the case.... I just posted what the Laconia Citizen published. I am assuming they didn't have enough evidence to convict on a DWI.... I also think thats why the 150' violation was a $600 fine.

I was just pointing out that the MP do indeed enforce the rules...

Woodsy

[lifeonthefarm]

I could be wrong, but I believe a misdemeanor plea to Careless and Negligent Operation of boats carries a $500 fine. Could have been the reason why they didn't pursue a BWI. I imagine Marine Patrol does a lot of court work year round so just because you aren't hearing about it in the papers doesnt mean that its not happening...

For instance, the website www.byebyedwi.com (lets not get in to ethics here) has some examples of recent BWI cases in N.H. Take it for whatever its worth, and just remember that the webmaster is only posting cases that they won...
It seems that any DWI case on the road or water is pretty hard to prove these days.

[lakershaker]

That $600 fine is extraordinarily high for a safe passage violation (standard used to be $57.60 before the recent increases). Looking at everything, this must have been a negotiated settlement, but would likely keep the defendent from a suspended license since the BWI was nol-prossed. Either that, or she was so close to the officer her fender bumped off his bow!

[jeffk]

Hopefully this woman learned a valuable lesson that boating while stupid in New Hampshire is not going to be tolerated. The fine was painful enough that she won't be able to shrug it off. Hopefully she realizes that she is very lucky to have gotten a "pass" on the BWI charge and will sign up for a boating course so that she is better informed for any future boating activities.

Also, we can hope that this has been a big topic of conversation with her friends and family so that they can also learn from her experience. The "publicity" effect from these strong convictions can be even better than the conviction itself if others recognize that 1) they need a safety certificate to boat in New Hampshire, 2) BWI is monitored and enforced, and 3) OH, there's a 150 foot safe passage rule in New Hampshire ??!!!

[Kamper]

That amount could also be the total of fines for both offenses.

[This'nThat]

For instance, the website www.byebyedwi.com (lets not get in to ethics here) has some examples of recent BWI cases in N.H....
It seems that any DWI case on the road or water is pretty hard to prove these days.

No, I would say that ethics is a big part of why there are so many repeat offenders. The web site link is very illustrative -- the cases cited by the attorny seemed to be open-and-shut; but, the attorny was able to get the defendents off on technicalities. And, he's quite proud of that, regardless of any future consequences. Ethics not important??? I disagree. Here's the attornies quote: "After trial, the defendant was found: NOT GUILTY!!! This driver never lost his right to drive for a single day!!!". This, after failing all the sobriety tests.

If you are a defendent, this must be great. If you are a driver, motoring down the highway with your family, and get hit by this person because he never lost his right to drive for a single day, then this would change your life (whatever's left of it) forever.

[ApS]

"...A charge of boating while intoxicated was dropped or "nol prossed" by Marine Patrol Lt. Timothy Dunleavy..."

An actual charge of BWI would beg a field sobriety test.


"I was just pointing out that the MP do indeed enforce the rules..."
How so?

The most serious rule violation—by far—was dropped by a NHMP Lieutenant!

[lifeonthefarm]

the legal term "nol pros means that the charges were not put forward. The person was STILL arrested for BWI and taken off the water and placed in to handcuffs. WIthout knowing the details of the case its hard to say what happend. Maybe the person didn't blow into a breathilyzer. That would mean their drivers license would automatically be suspended for 90 days by the DMV, not the court. If that was the case then the prosecution would be losing a key piece of evidence (blood alcohol content). Not a fatal blow to the prosecution, but it just may have been in this case...

[Skip]

Before there is any (more) speculation that the NHMP may have acted outside of their scope in the case cited, no DWI charges (once filed) are dropped in the State until and unless the case has been reviewed by the New Hampshire Attorney General's Office and said office agrees that the charge be dropped or modified. Furthermore the Attorney General's Office keeps a log of all such cases and said log is available for review by the media or the general public. Anyone can call or drop by the Attorney General's Office during regular business hours if they are interested in the facts of this particular case.

On a sidenote, there are persistent claims by at least one poster here that information regarding waterborne accidents held by the Marine Patrol are not accessible or hidden. Again, the particulars of any closed accident case are readily available and only require an inquiry be made at NHMP Headquarters, as others of you already know and have accessed. The policies and procedures followed by the NHMP in answering any applicable Right-to-Know (RSA 91-A) request are no different than that of any other State agency and the same procedures for public information request releases that are followed by virtually every other law enforcement agency in the State.

The fact that some folks may be too embarrased or timid to take the time to seek the information they desire and that is readily available is a personal issue that only they can attest to!