Marine Patrol, Friday Night (4rth) at Weirs

[sa meredith]

OK, this is what I watched (and heard) last night on the Weirs Beach Public docks...
At roughly 10:30 PM I was taking a walk with a friend and we decided to walk down the stairs off of the strip onto the docks, and then ventured out to sit at the very end of the last "finger" (closest to the beach). We sat there from 10:45 until 12:15/12:30 and watched the marine patrol pull over EVERY BOAT that left the docks, and as many as they could grad heading from Meredith into the channel. The only exception was when both Patrol boats (there were only two) were already busy with stops, then the occasional night boater slipped thru. Although I am a regular boater on the lake, I have never taken up the sport of "night boating" so I figured, at first, they must be in violation of some infractrion....although everything looked good to me. Both stern and bow lights on, docking lights off, no wake, and so forth. But the blue lights just kept clicking on EVERY TIME. And it occured to me they were stopping everyone, when, at about 11:50 one of the MP boats had drifted in to roughly 25/30 yards of me, and the other pulled up along side of him after coming back from a stop near the channel entrance, and yelled to the first boat "Hey, did you grab that one yet?" The reply, "No, you take 'em." And with the that the second boat powered up and stopped a pontoon boat that had just left the docks. (I heard this as plain as day...no mistake)
My guess would be that, as it was the 4rth of July, what was happening was similar to a State Police "Checkpoint" on the raod, where cars are stopped randomly to check for DWI. Can someone tell us, is this an acceptable practice?
And lastly, of all the boats stopped, only one was detained. The MP seemed to tie off to him in the channel, and after some time tow him in to very near the beach. It was a 32/36 foot cabin cruiser that had just left the Weirs.
3 guys on the boat, and they did not look very happy. Did not look like they were going anywhere for at while.

[SAMIAM]

The other night there were only two boats in our bay and the MP stopped both of them.one a deck boat with a family on board and a small fishing boat with two guys.Guys were just still fishing and having a couple of beers at 8pm and the operator ended up getting a sobriety check on board the MP boat. Yesterday,my wife heard the officer yell at a grown man who had his feet over the side of his boat (passanger) Spoke to him in a very disrespectful way.
I never see them when some bonehead pulls a dangerous stunt but they're always when they can enjoy hassling people for very minor violations.

[lifeonthefarm]

I was around the Weirs at roughly the same time as you sa meredith and I saw both MP boats as well. One stopped a boat leaving the docks with absolutely no lights on and a pontoon boat with no port (red light). Being visible in a high traffic area and stopping boats for "minor infractions" that they are trained to observe (such as a plate light on your car) is going to nab those people who choose to over indulge during the holiday weekend. Kudos to the MP for doing their job.

And samiam they nabbed these two boneheads yesterday pulling what I describe as a "dangerous stunt" http://www.wmur.com/news/16796286/detail.html

[Scupper]

My guess would be that, as it was the 4rth of July, what was happening was similar to a State Police "Checkpoint" on the raod, where cars are stopped randomly to check for DWI. Can someone tell us, is this an acceptable practice?

My guess is a violation took place that you may not have observed, IE: registration violation, greater than headway speed within 150' from a dock, etc. In order for an officer to conduct a traffic (automobile, boat) stop, they must have at the least articuable suspicion or probable cause that a violation took place or was about to take place in their presence. Without A.S. or P.C. the officer would just be pulling over random citizens for no reason, thus violating the 4th ammendment of the US Constitution or Part I Article 19 of the New Hampshire Constitution; illegal search and seizure.

Just an FYI., "checkpoints" that are conducted randomly, in NH have to be advertised in advance prior to them taking place due to the NH Supreme Court has ruled it unconstitutional to stop people at random, lacking A.S. and P.C. I hope this information has helped answer your curiosity. I have been stopped by the Marine Patrol a few times. Usually for picking up my boat from the marina and the marina folks neglecting to put on my decals.

[sa meredith]

Scupper and lifeonthefarm
I understand what you both are saying. And I do understand how the system works and why they would make a stop. But honestly, I watched them jump from one boat to the next. I sat there for over an hour and a half, and it was one stop after another. If you were not paying close attention, you would have thought it was the same stop. Seriously, I bet I watched a dozen stops. Oh well..no biggie. I thought maybe someone who got stopped might be a forum member. I would not be surprised to see this thread reacted to when the new work week begins, and people log on to the forum.

[kchace]

Actually, the rules for pulling over a car and a boat are completely different. The MP (or Coast Guard et al) do not need ANY reason at all to stop a boat and check it out. Here is one RSA that I found that mentions the matter. There are federal laws as well that essentially say the same thing that apply when in Coast Guard patrolled waters.

270-D:6 Inspections. – All vessels afloat on public waters may be inspected by the commissioner or his duly authorized representative, to determine their seaworthiness and safety equipment at any time. No person shall allow any vessel which fails to pass such inspection to be used or operated on the waters of this state until brought into compliance.

Notice that it says "at any time" and that there are no prerequisites.

Here is a link to the CG rule:

http://uscgboating.org/safety/fedreqs/law_board.htm

Ken

[Mr. Moyer]

SA Merideth you are spot on. a forum member was pulled over in the stops at Weirs. I was one of the boats who got pulled over coming out of the weirs on the 4th. I had gone to the NASWA with 2 of my friends and needed gas on the way home. Both gas stations in the channel were closed, so I had to go to the Weirs. It was around 7:55 and approaching dusk, so I turned on the nav lights. Since it was still somewhat light out, and my 360 white was working, I didn't notice that the bulb had burned out. Needless to say, MP did. They came over and stopped me and asked the typical questions, like registration, boating license, where the sfety stuff was (lifejackets, throwable, horn etc) they also asked if I had been drinking at all, and for once my answer was the right one. I had made a conscience effort knowing we would be travelling close to dusk, to only have soda/water at the Naswa. (no beers since the 1pm celebratory beer for finishing the cabinets in the cottage). Also, the lake was choppy and crowded, so I wanted to be on my toes, since I have a 21ft bowrider and I was coming from Alton. I have to say the MP officer was as polite as possible while still being firm to the rules. We had to go back to the station and buy a replacement bulb, since by the time we were done the stop it was getting pretty dark. All things worked out well, and we were treated to excellent fireworks shows across the entire lake for the ride home.
I for one am completely against the stopping of all boats regardless of an infraction, I personally think it is an invasion of rights, but I didn't give them a choice, since my lights weren't working properly. Fortunately, the MP officer wasn't a hammerhead.

[Kamper]

Actually, the rules for pulling over a car and a boat are completely different. The MP (or Coast Guard et al) do not need ANY reason at all to stop a boat and check it out. ...
Ken


I believe a recent NH Supreme Court decision said that was incorrect. NH police including NHMP need probable cause for stops. No more random "safety inspections" was the main result. It's possible they can do BWI check-points the same as land police do for DWI, and they have been accused of "forcing" '150ft rule' violations to justify a stop.

Once they stop your boat for anything they can then do a safety check and if they observe behaviors that indicate intoxicaton, or turn up other violations, they can act. This is probably something a good lawyer could get thrown out if you can afford to fight it through apeals. I'm sure our legal expert, Skip, will clarifiy this if I'm too far off the mark. Still it's safer to behave than trust the court will see it your way.

Good luck!

[HomeWood]

I don't understand why this type of situation or ones like it generate the complaints that they do. MP have a job to do and you should be happy that they are doing it. It's a darn if you do and a darn if you don't situation for us law enforcement folk. You want us to do our job, but only if it's not you who is being stopped or inconvenienced by it. This isn't directed at anybody here, just speaking in general. If you have any questions on why MP do what they do, I suggest you call and speak to them directly. I got stopped at a huge DWI check point the other night on the way home from work and I was very happy to see them doing it in my town. I enjoy reading all the "Captain Bonehead" threads on here and then after that I enjoy reading the MP complaint stories. Seems contradicting to me, but then again I'm just a cop and nobody knows my job better than the people who DON'T do it.

Hope everybody had a nice 4th! I worked :(

[Orion]

The MP was out in force in Wolfeboro, too. Does anyone else feel that they should be using a dimmer blue light when they are just patrolling? The multiple blue strobes were very blinding and made it very hard to navigate with all the other boat traffic. It was also nearly impossible to determine their direction of travel since the blue strobes masked their navigation lights. I witnessed one boater who made that mistake and actually cut the MP boat off.

[JDeere]

I don't understand why this type of situation or ones like it generate the complaints that they do. MP have a job to do and you should be happy that they are doing it.


I think he hit the nail on the head. The posts could have just as easily been that someone saw a person without a stern light go right by MP and not stop them. Then the outcry that they are not doing their job. I think MP does a fine job.....................well...........until I get stopped for something or other.:rolleye1:

[EricP]

The MP was out in force in Wolfeboro, too. Does anyone else feel that they should be using a dimmer blue light when they are just patrolling? The multiple blue strobes were very blinding and made it very hard to navigate with all the other boat traffic. It was also nearly impossible to determine their direction of travel since the blue strobes masked their navigation lights. I witnessed one boater who made that mistake and actually cut the MP boat off.

I have the exact same complaint about police car lights at night, absolutely unnecessary for them to be so bright, it's blinding. There should be a daytime and nightime setting on the police cars and MP boats.

[codeman671]

I think he hit the nail on the head. The posts could have just as easily been that someone saw a person without a stern light go right by MP and not stop them. Then the outcry that they are not doing their job. I think MP does a fine job.....................well...........until I get stopped for something or other.:rolleye1:

I agree that they have been out in full force and doing their jobs, but some of them need to learn what "NO WAKE" means. I was heading in in to Glendale at 5pm today and stopped in the broads to pick up a beach ball when an MP RIB passsed in front of me about 75' out and sent a wall of water over the front of my tritoon soaking us. He was just cruising at 10-15mph I am guessing. I had the right of way and was moving forward at idle.

[Slickcraft]

For the past 30 years we have been making regular trips from Fay's to the Glendale docks to Welch and back from April through October, passing countless MP boats along the way over the years. We have never been stopped. Then again, we do observe all of the rules.

[codeman671]

For the past 30 years we have been making regular trips from Fay's to the Glendale docks to Welch and back from April through October, passing countless MP boats along the way over the years. We have never been stopped. Then again, we do observe all of the rules.

I am not sure if your post was pointed at me or not. To be clear anyhow, I was not stopped by them, I stopped to pick up debris and as I started to move an MP boat came by me too close, ignoring the rules that he is supposed to be enforcing.

He soaked 2 3 year olds and an 8 year old...

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by codeman671
I agree that they have been out in full force and doing their jobs, but some of them need to learn what "NO WAKE" means. I was heading in in to Glendale at 5pm today and stopped in the broads to pick up a beach ball when an MP RIB passsed in front of me about 75' out and sent a wall of water over the front of my tritoon soaking us. He was just cruising at 10-15mph I am guessing. I had the right of way and was moving forward at idle.
Did you hail the Marine Patrol on VHF 16 to complain?

I know that for some reason the NHMP boats don't carry a VHF Marine radio but HQ is supposed to monitor VHF16.

I would have hailed MP HQ and complained! Then followed up with a written report if necessary!

I have also gone through that area and been overtaken by MP boats traveling at excessive speed heading back to HQ, violating my 150' as well as the overtaking rule!

It seems that some of these folks don't believe any of the rules apply to them! In my case I did not have a cell or VHF on the boat I was operating at the time. I have since put NHMP in speed dial and installed VHF!

[Slickcraft]

I am not sure if your post was pointed at me or not. To be clear anyhow, I was not stopped by them, I stopped to pick up debris and as I started to move an MP boat came by me too close, ignoring the rules that he is supposed to be enforcing.

He soaked 2 3 year olds and an 8 year old...

codeman: My post was not pointed at you. The original subject matter of the thread had to do with what some believed to be many questionable stops by the MP. In my case I have never observed MP making questionable stops.
I agree with you that the MP must also follow the rules.

[codeman671]

Did you hail the Marine Patrol on VHF 16 to complain?

I know that for some reason the NHMP boats don't carry a VHF Marine radio but HQ is supposed to monitor VHF16.

I would have hailed MP HQ and complained! Then followed up with a written report if necessary!

I have also gone through that area and been overtaken by MP boats traveling at excessive speed heading back to HQ, violating my 150' as well as the overtaking rule!

It seems that some of these folks don't believe any of the rules apply to them! In my case I did not have a cell or VHF on the boat I was operating at the time. I have since put NHMP in speed dial and installed VHF!

I did not have a VHF onboard and felt that the phone call would have gone to deaf ears. I have noticed it a lot lately though, especially in the Glendale area.

[Skip]

...Skip, will clarifiy this if I'm too far off the mark...

Didn't see the incidents described so I have no first hand knowledge as to the basis of the alleged stops.

But for anyone curious, just make a phone call at your convenience to NHMP HQ. I am sure they will be happy to explain to you the basis they utilize in stopping and checking watercraft.

Same goes for complaints. If you have a valid complaint, concern or suggestion and have the time to type your concern(s) here on the website, then you obviously have the time to either phone or drop an e-mail to NHMP to express your concerns.

Like anything else, the good folks at NHMP can't fix what they don't know about.

Once again, this LINK (http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/ss/contactus.html) provides all necessary contact information, plus a valid general e-mail address.

If you give them the courtesy of a call or an e-mail, they will respond. :)

Skip...

[kjbathe]

...because our annual "Complain about Marine Patrol" thread has officially begun! :)

I personally like the job they do, am happy when they pull intoxicated operators off the water and take actions to enforce the regulations. Sure, I wish they could bag every offender of the 150' rule, but reasonable people understand that MP can't be everywhere all the time. Some people feel MP is just out there to hassle folks, but that's an argument of convenience and one completely inconsistent with my experience. Then again, not being engaged in the type of behavior or operation that catches MP's watchful eye makes avoidance of the "hassle" a rather trivial exercise.

And for the folks complaining about the excess brightness of their lights... Our being "blinded" is not entirely unintentional. It is part of the overall system officers use to help increase their own safety. If you can't see, perhaps you shouldn't be moving. ;)

And just because it was a great weekend -- RAH RAH RAH!!! GO MP!!! :laugh:

[sa meredith]

[QUOTE=kjbathe;75263]...because our annual "Complain about Marine Patrol" thread has officially begun! :)


As the starter of this thread, I went back and re-read my post. I can't find a complaint or anything like one in it. I just had never seen MP jumping from boat to boat like I did Friday night. And I was wondering if this is an acceptable/ common practice.
I actually think it is probably a good idea. Drinking and boating at night is a recipe for disaster.

I guess I see you point though, kjbathe, reading thru about the blue lights and so forth.
I think the MP have a fairly difficult job.

[SIKSUKR]

Yesterday I was floating on my PWC south of Welch Island and a MP boat pulled up to me.I thought,he's going to do a safety check so I started getting my certification Id out.He pulled up and asked if everything was ok and when I said yes,he waved and moved on.

[pmj]

I personally am glad they are doing their job . Think of it this way..If any of those checkpoints resulted in one life being saved, just one..was it worth it?? You bet it was. Sure, its seen as an inconvenience, but safety is number one priority.

I posted this on another thread but here is an incident that made me happy that the MP are present on the lake:

We were once outside of Wolfeboro Bay on our 21ft sailboat when some strong gusts started blowing through. I went up on deck (with life jacket on) to take down the main. Right about the same time, an MP was trolling about and slowed down, obviously watching us, then just idled. Once I had the sail down and all lines secure I retreated back to the cockpit. We had the motor on by that point and headed towards home. The MP waved and continued on his patrol. I was pretty impressed at that. I think he was just making sure we were safe and didn't get into any trouble taking down the sails.
pmj

[jrc]

In this country and state, the courts decided how our rights against illegal search and seizure are applied to many different situations, including being stopped in a boat by a marine patrol. You may be willing to give up those rights for a extra safety but a lot of people are not.

I hope the MP did everything by the book. From what I've learned from Skip, that means they must have articulatable suspicion before stopping. Now you might say that having a checkpoint is worth it if just one life is saved. But if the checkpoint turns out to be illegal then all the evidence found is gone. So all the people that could be fined or jailed could go free.

I'm all for the MP making visible presence and stopping even small infractions to check for drunks. I just don't want overzealous people to make illegal stops. That doesn't do anyone any good. It violates our rights and risks letting guilty people go free.

[VtSteve]

I'm sure they are very sensitive to the public's concern over the latest boating accident, and the "unconfirmed" reports derived from it. I'm not against it at all, and I hope it does act as an overall deterrent, but just sayin ....

[Mr. Moyer]

I must agree with jrc on this matter. I for one am very pleased with the MP on Winnie, but have to admit that I am not for eliminnating my rights to random checks. As mentioned in my last enry, I did deserve to get pulled over, due to a safety light which was burned out. I deem this a reason to be pulled over and well they are discussing the infraction, to pull the saftey check, registrataion pull and the such. The one thing I am against is unannounced bui checks and random stops. This a major deterent yes, but can serve a greater harm to the community.
We have discussed on numerous threads how the local economy is hurting. I ask any retail/ restaurant business owner to answer honestly if they want dui/bui/safety checkpoints in front of their establishment. The obvious answer is no. This will deter customers from coming. Yes I agree that the drunk patrons are not needed by any establishment and in my opinion anyone operating drunk on the lake should be ashamed of themselves knowing the dangers. The problem is those law abiding citizens, who go out for a beer or dinner and just don't want to be hassled, by random stops or the consequential safety check.

I'll give an example. Last week I was going to go to lunch in Wolfboro both days. After the first day, I was approached by someone at the docks and was told be careful, MP was doing random safety checks all weekend. Since I wasn't sure if my fire extinguisher was charged or that all of my safety equip was up to date, I hottailed it out of there and decided not to risk it the next morning. Turns out it was a voluntary safety chech from a helpful group on the lake and not MP, but the point is that I didn't go back and spend $75-$100 at the dock area the next day, we stayed at the cabin instead.
It turns out from my MP stop the next weekend that all of my info was up to date and my extinguisher was charged.
This is a factor that I haven't seen mentioned by anyone. I'm assuming no one owns a retail business where theyre have been a history of DUI stops or even police in the area. There was actually a lawsuit in FLA around a routine weekend dui stop that put a restaurant out of business. Don't have the link, but something to think about. As mentioned earlier, I would think there are so many great stories about the MP on this lake. They seem to get it, I think the reason for this thread was to alert anyone to the concerns of random stops on numerous fronts. just my 10 cents worth.

[Kona Family]

Sounds like everyone agrees MP should be very active pulling over violators. However, do they still have the right to pull over any boater without reason? I know last year they could pull over any boat, any time whether you did something wrong or not and proceed to inspect your vessel, safety equipment, etc.

[kchace]

Sounds like everyone agrees MP should be very active pulling over violators. However, do they still have the right to pull over any boater without reason? I know last year they could pull over any boat, any time whether you did something wrong or not and proceed to inspect your vessel, safety equipment, etc.


This is my understanding. If its different now, I'd like to know the details and the source - not hearsay.

Ken

[kjbathe]

Since I wasn't sure if my fire extinguisher was charged or that all of my safety equip was up to date, I hottailed it out of there

I appreciate and share the concerns folks have about protecting their individual rights and making sure searches are legal, but the quote above has me shaking my head.

If you're not sure your equipment is up to snuff, then you should just check it and find out before you go out. Not going to dinner or avoiding MP is missing the point. MP and operators both have the same goal here -- to make sure you have a functional fire extinguisher on board if, God forbid, you should ever need it. That way, he gets to tow in "Annoyed but safe Mr. Moyer" vs. "Charcoal Briquette Mr. Moyer." ;)

I guess it's just perspective. I view MP as being able to confirm what I already know vs. being out to nab me for something I may have missed. I know I'm compliant with the law, but if MP wants to spend 30 minutes to validate my ability to operate and ensure the safety of my vessel, my passengers and those with whom I share the lake, welcome aboard! I know it sounds a little odd, but it's nice to have the second pair of eyes and sanity check that things are as they should be.

[NightWing]

Marine Patrol has the authority to perform safety checks anytime. Past practice has been that a boat will not be stopped just for an inspection but every boat stopped will be inspected.

If you still question the NHMP policy, why not call them and ask a supervisor?

293-2037

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I am happy to say that we have never been stopped. Now that the boys are older and more likely to be out alone than not, I should remind them where all the stuff is that they would get asked about if stopped.

Is my list complete of what they will ask for?

Boat Registration
Boater Education Certificate
Life Vest for every passenger
Throw-able Ring or Cushion
Fire Extinguisher
Horn or Whistle

Anything else they ask for???

Thanks and safe boating

[jrc]

I am happy to say that we have never been stopped. Now that the boys are older and more likely to be out alone than not, I should remind them where all the stuff is that they would get asked about if stopped.

Is my list complete of what they will ask for?

Boat Registration
Boater Education Certificate
Life Vest for every passenger
Throw-able Ring or Cushion
Fire Extinguisher
Horn or Whistle

Anything else they ask for???

Thanks and safe boating

If you are in a motor boat over 26'
You need two fire extinguishers, one can be fixed in the engine space
You also need a bell and a whistle, hand, mouth or powered (I think your boat horn counts as a powered whistle)

If you are in a motor boat over 40'
You need three fire extinguishers, one can be fixed in the engine space
You still need a bell and a powered whistle (again, I think your boat horn counts)

Plus they can check that the lights work. They have to work even if you never plan to go out at night.

[Mike M.]

Has anyone confirmed whether the MP can legally stop you without a reason? Any links would be appreciated.

Thank you

[Mr. Moyer]

KJ bath,

As I'm sure you read in my post, I was stopped the following day and had all of my appropriate equiptment on board. The concern I have is that some obsure rule or a new ordinance, or whatever costs me a couple of hundred dollars that i would rather not spend for the MP college fund. I'm pretty good about trying to upkeep the boat, but it is by far not my largest priority in life. I am in the midst of rehabbing a house in Alton, so some things get missed.
I don't have anywhere near the faith that you do in our MP's intentions. They are having a slow year, so they are more likly to pull over boats. This is a quote of an MP officer to my fiend who got stopped sat on his way from rattlesnake to west alton marina because of speed in a pontoon boat whose max speed is 35 mph. Ironically he also had out of state registration. My concern is not that I'm doing anything wrong, but that I missed something by accident etc. and it costs me hard earned money.

Would you feel the same if a cop pulled you over randomly to check to see if your registration was up to date without just cause. I don't think you would, but I don't know you personally. I can only speak for myself and my response to that is, leve me alone unless I'm doing something illegal or dangerous or both.

As you recall the stop was justified (my nav lites were out), so I certaintly don't have a problem with it. I do have a problem with harrassing stops, to accomplish quotas or to justify the mp time spent on the water. I think the only justification needed is that all stay safe. I will rarely chastise the MP, because I do appreciate their efforts and think there job in most case is thankless.
Hope you all had a great weekend on the lake, I certaintly did and looking foreward to nice weather next weeknd. see you all out there,

[NightWing]

Has anyone confirmed whether the MP can legally stop you without a reason? Any links would be appreciated.

Thank you

You don't need a link. It has been posted here dozens of times. If you can't find the answer or don't believe it, make the call.

293-2037

[Mike M.]

You don't need a link. It has been posted here dozens of times. If you can't find the answer or don't believe it, make the call.

293-2037

It has nothing to do with believing what I'm reading, my confusion is because I have just read multiple responses to my question.


Actually, the rules for pulling over a car and a boat are completely different. The MP (or Coast Guard et al) do not need ANY reason at all to stop a boat and check it out. Here is one RSA that I found that mentions the matter. There are federal laws as well that essentially say the same thing that apply when in Coast Guard patrolled waters.

270-D:6 Inspections. – All vessels afloat on public waters may be inspected by the commissioner or his duly authorized representative, to determine their seaworthiness and safety equipment at any time. No person shall allow any vessel which fails to pass such inspection to be used or operated on the waters of this state until brought into compliance.

Notice that it says "at any time" and that there are no prerequisites.

Here is a link to the CG rule:

http://uscgboating.org/safety/fedreqs/law_board.htm

Ken


and...


I believe a recent NH Supreme Court decision said that was incorrect. NH police including NHMP need probable cause for stops. No more random "safety inspections" was the main result. It's possible they can do BWI check-points the same as land police do for DWI, and they have been accused of "forcing" '150ft rule' violations to justify a stop.

Once they stop your boat for anything they can then do a safety check and if they observe behaviors that indicate intoxicaton, or turn up other violations, they can act. This is probably something a good lawyer could get thrown out if you can afford to fight it through apeals. I'm sure our legal expert, Skip, will clarifiy this if I'm too far off the mark. Still it's safer to behave than trust the court will see it your way.



So I guess I’m just confused because of my ignorance of the law.

States should have jurisdiction over federal law, but clearly federal law is enforced in states that have deemed some federal laws unconstitutional.

So if NH supreme court upholds our constitutional rights but there is a federal law allowing the coast guard to inspect any boat, does that mean you could potentially be stopped and searched in NH waters by the coast guard 'legally'?

I guess I will just give them a call tomorrow to find out.

[Airwaves]

Mike M
This took me a while to understand as well.

1. Lake Winnipesaukee is NOT a federal waterway. Therefore Coast Guard rules and regulations do not apply.

2. While the Coast Guard can stop a vessel at any time for any reason especially now under Homeland Security Rules there are no Coast Guard vessels on Lake Winnipesaukee.

3. If you are stopped by a NH Marine Patrol boat ask them, nicely, why they are stopping you. If they say a "routine safety check" then I would (again nicely) question their authority to stop you for a "routine safety check" by contacting THEIR SUPERVISOR FIRST via Cell or VHF.

4. If you can not contact their supervisor then submit to the routine safety check, write down the officer's name(s), note the time, possition and exactly what happened in your log.

Did you know all boats are supposed to carry logs and record their voyages? Not many boaters keep a log on Lake Winnipesaukee but it certainly comes in handy in cases like this.

I believe in NH you can record the stop on video but NOT NOT NOT audio so turning on your cellphone video function is NOT a good idea!

Then question what happened with someone knowledgeable about these things....a lawyer you know casually, show them your log.

If you (everyone on Lake Winnipesaukee) don't keep a log on your boat I'd start today since next year the new law HB847 take effect and will impact your drivers license.

A properly maintained "ship's" log can be considered a legal document but something hit and miss won't be considered. Every time you leave the dock write it down and keep it on board. (notebook is fine) Departure date and time, weather, destination, I'd suggest listing POB but perhaps a number of POB is better than names in some cases?, arrival, departure, arrival if you get a cell call note the time (not necessarly from whom or why) and especially anything unusual.

Do it beginning today faithfully and until the day you sell the boat and even note the sale of the boat! Keep the log and your "ship's" log is a legal document. If you only do it now and again or only when you're stopped...it won't help at all.

[kjbathe]

With all due respect, step 3 amounts to the inverse golden rule. You start being a jerk by questioning the officer's authority to make the stop and the officer will gladly oblige -- as is human nature -- and return in kind. I've known too many law enforcement officials to know anything other than if you help them do their job, they'll help you. But start being a pain about it and wasting their time, and any incentive to be helpful will be lost. That's the point where you get the summons or fine and they just move on. Life's too short for any of us to be dealing with jerks at work. MP is no different.

And I can't believe I'm really reading a suggestion on this forum that we should keep ships logs on the lake, make sure they are legally up to snuff, potentially engage counsel and, IMO, foster an adversarial us vs. them mentality with Marine Patrol.

If you're doing what you're supposed to be doing then MP just becomes another boater out there, the only difference being they have a light bar and we don't. Golden rule, folks. Golden rule....

[NightWing]

3. If you are stopped by a NH Marine Patrol boat ask them, nicely, why they are stopping you. If they say a "routine safety check" then I would (again nicely) question their authority to stop you for a "routine safety check" by contacting THEIR SUPERVISOR FIRST via Cell or VHF.



Marine Patrol has the authority to stop any vessel at any time to perform a safety inspection. That has been posted here before.

However, their policy has been not to stop a boat for an inspection, but to inspect every boat that is stopped. That has also been posted before.

The officer should tell you the reason for the stop. Shortly thereafter, he/she will begin a safety check.

For some reason, that initial conversation is forgotten by many posters here and all they can remember is the safety inspection....and that evolves into a statement that they were stopped for a safety inspection which is not the case.

If anybody doubts the policy, call NHMP. 293-2037

[jrc]

Marine Patrol has the authority to stop any vessel at any time to perform a safety inspection. That has been posted here before.


And refuted here before.


However, their policy has been not to stop a boat for an inspection, but to inspect every boat that is stopped. That has also been posted before.

And refuted here before.

If anybody doubts the policy, call NHMP. 293-2037

Always good advice

[Airwaves]

Where did I tell anyone to be a jerk? I said nicely! There are ways to do step number three without being a jerk!

As for questioning authority, I believe I read on this forum over the past couple of years the story of a NHMP officer stopping one of our members for violation of the safe passage law in which the NHMP officer told the forum member that 150 feet was the length of THREE FOOTBALL FIELDS!

Earlier this summer someone posted that the NHMP told them his 16 year old was required to wear a life jacket.

They make mistakes and if you call HQ to question their decision there should be no problem as long as you're not a jerk.

As for my suggestiong about carrying and maintaining a ships log, do what you want but if something happens and I'm not just talking about a run in with the NHMP a properly maintained log can be helpful.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Marine Patrol has the authority to stop any vessel at any time to perform a safety inspection. That has been posted here before.
{snip}

If anybody doubts the policy, call NHMP. 293-2037

I suggest you make that call. If I understand it properly, in NH v McKeown the Supreme Court ruled that the defendant had been "stopped" and therefore normal operating procedures, consistent with the laws of NH, must be applied. From the link below .... (emphasis added my me)

"SOP 2010 requires that "Marine Patrol Officers must operate in a uniform manner, consistent with applicable statutes and case law in conducting routine operations relating to stopping and detaining boaters on public waters." The SOP instructs officers that "boats shall not be stopped on the public waters for purely discretionary reasons." It further provides, in relevant part, that "[t]here must exist in the opinion of the Marine Patrol Officer, at a minimum, an articulable suspicion that the operator, or other occupant of the boat is in violation of some criminal or boating law, rule, or regulation; . . . or that the boat lacks the required safety equipment." As defined by the SOP, articulable suspicion includes, but is not limited to, "visual, audible, tactile, or other sensations experienced by the officer, which give rise to an apprehension on the officer’s part, that the conditions" set forth above exist."


http://www.nh.gov/judiciary/supreme/opinions/2004/mckeo073.htm

Whether you agree (or not) that the PFD inquiry was a "stop" or whether there was sufficient cause to be "stopped", the law stands that you can't be stopped unless there's good reason to suspect you're in violation of some rule or regulation.

[NightWing]

M&M, please don't take that out of context. I posted the fact that boats are not stopped just for inspection, even though the authority exists. The post was in reply to those countless questions and remarks about being stopped for an inspection. No, there must be a valid reason to stop the boat and once stopped and the violation discussed, the boat will be inspected.

[HomeWood]

Mike M

3. If you are stopped by a NH Marine Patrol boat ask them, nicely, why they are stopping you. If they say a "routine safety check" then I would (again nicely) question their authority to stop you for a "routine safety check" by contacting THEIR SUPERVISOR FIRST via Cell or VHF.


I also suggest doing this if you really want a ticket for some reason.

Nightwing is right, call if you don't believe it. This thread is getting a little repetitive with the "Can the MP really stop you at any time?" questions. Like in court....asked and answered.

I suggest being polite and cooperative the entire time even if you disagree and even if you get a ticket. Calling a supervisor for any questions is done AFTER the stop, not during. Then again....what do I know? :rolleye2:

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Homewood
Originally Posted by Airwaves
Mike M

3. If you are stopped by a NH Marine Patrol boat ask them, nicely, why they are stopping you. If they say a "routine safety check" then I would (again nicely) question their authority to stop you for a "routine safety check" by contacting THEIR SUPERVISOR FIRST via Cell or VHF.
I also suggest doing this if you really want a ticket for some reason.

Nightwing is right, call if you don't believe it. This thread is getting a little repetitive with the "Can the MP really stop you at any time?" questions. Like in court....asked and answered.

I suggest being polite and cooperative the entire time even if you disagree and even if you get a ticket. Calling a supervisor for any questions is done AFTER the stop, not during. Then again....what do I know?

The only thing I have to say about that is that I understand from reading past posts that you're in law enforcement.

It's a pretty sad indictment against your own profession to suggest that every officer that stops you is petty and vendictive enough to punish someone for politely going to a more knowledgeable superior officer for a ruling. If that is the norm then something is very very wrong with the hiring practices of that community/agency.

[Silver Duck]

Here's a slightly different spin on this question. I know darned well that I'll pass a standard safety check. But, I think that we all know that the legal requirements are somewhat "minimalistic".

I'd be very interested in discussing, with one of the "old pros" that have been in the MP for a while, what other safety-related items that it would be a real good idea to have along but which I haven't thought of.

So, is it possible to arrange such a discussion without fouling up and getting stopped?

Silver Duck

[HomeWood]

Yup, you figured it out, I am. Do whatever you want if you are stopped, but starting off a legal stop with an argument (however polite it might be) will never be in your favor. Here's a general rule in the world of policing for us. If an officer makes a perfectly legal traffic or boat stop and the driver starts arguing over the legality of it or they argue that they didn't do whatever it was, the officer will 99.9% of the time write a ticket to cover his or her own behind (I do). If they don't write a ticket and the person complains, it can make the officer look bad in different ways. I would love to host a public forum for a Q & A session about how policing really works. I enjoy your posts Airwaves and I'm sure your a great person. But when I see (in my opinion) poor advice, I like to speak up and hopefully save somebody a ticket. That's right, SAVE somebody from getting one. I'm not a power tripping, trigger happy, "book 'em Danno" kind of cop you might think I am. It's just my opinion and I respect yours.

[HomeWood]

So, is it possible to arrange such a discussion without fouling up and getting stopped?
Silver Duck

Absolutely, I'm sure they would be more than happy to inspect your boat or go over a list of required items. If you voluntarily go ask for their help on what you need to be legal and if they were to find something wrong....I bet you'd get a friendly reminder and gold star on your safety certificate for trying to be a responsible and safe boater. :coolsm:

[JDeere]

I was "stopped" by MP in a different state. Well not stopped I was broken down. MP came by and asked what was wrong and asked for my registration. Wouldn't you know it..........I forgot my registration...grabbed the wrong keys. He explained why I had just broken the law. Then he went on to explain why he could not tow me to the docks. Actually he must have told me 10 times why he could not do it.

Told him that I understood and that I would not even dream of asking him.

Guess what? A few minutes later he tows me back to the docks with a smile and gives me a friendly reminder to make sure I have my registration with me.

I honestly did not expect or ask for a tow AND I did expect a ticket on the registration issue but I was nice and he was nice...funny how that goes.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

JDeere, it's nice to hear about the pleasant interactions with police or MP in situations like yours. Frequently, we only hear about the bad. Sounds like his PR ratings went up alot that day!! :)

I've not yet been stopped by MP for anything (not that I'm looking to be stopped but I've probably just cursed myself now!) but I've had a couple of brief conversations when I've seen them tied up at a public dock. I've always found them to be polite, courteous and a wealth of information. :D

[Mike M.]

Airwaves, thank you for the response.


3. If you are stopped by a NH Marine Patrol boat ask them, nicely, why they are stopping you. If they say a "routine safety check" then I would (again nicely) question their authority to stop you for a "routine safety check" by contacting THEIR SUPERVISOR FIRST via Cell or VHF.



I also suggest doing this if you really want a ticket for some reason.

Nightwing is right, call if you don't believe it. This thread is getting a little repetitive with the "Can the MP really stop you at any time?" questions. Like in court....asked and answered.

I suggest being polite and cooperative the entire time even if you disagree and even if you get a ticket. Calling a supervisor for any questions is done AFTER the stop, not during. Then again....what do I know? :rolleye2:

HomeWood - If you pulled me over for speeding and I simply said "Officer, what is the reason for the stop?" You would be more likely write me a ticket for asking a question?

I did call Marine Patrol head quarters to verify what you said. I strongly disliked the response I received. I just can't believe in the "live free or die" state my 4th amendment is waived at their discretion.

[NightWing]

I did call Marine Patrol head quarters to verify what you said. I strongly disliked the response I received. I just can't believe in the "live free or die" state my 4th amendment is waived at their discretion.

So, what was the response you received?

[Mike M.]

I was told by the MP Officer:
They have the right to pull over any boat...

I was assured they do not exercise that authority.

[NightWing]

I was told by the MP Officer:
They have the right to pull over any boat...

I was assured they do not exercise that authority.

And that is exactly what has been posted previously. Why did you take offense at that? They can but don't.

[jrc]

And that is exactly what has been posted previously. Why did you take offense at that? They can but don't.

How could a US and NH citizen not take offense? A member of the NH Marine Patrol states that he has powers that the NH Supreme Court and the MP's own standard operating procedures clearly say that he doesn't.

From the posted appeal link:

"At trial, Officer Cook testified:

When I - - when I come by and I raise my life jacket, my fluorescent orange PFD, and the person doesn’t either pull one out and do something, that gives me articulable suspicion that he doesn’t have one on board or he can’t find it. So I wait in time, I do not stop - - I do not stop people, I drive by until they show that they don’t have it. Or they can’t find it. That’s when I pull over."

So the officer admits he needs articulable suspicion to make a stop. Now this case was tossed because of his little trick. The state tries to say that the person was free to leave without answering the officers request, but clearly the officer would have used that as a reason to stop and search.

Think about living in a world where refusing to answer questions from the police was enough evidence to allow them to search you and your belongings.

[Mike M.]

I take offense that they can, I appreciate that they don’t.

The reason I find that offensive is pretty simple, it is making the assumption that you are guilty of something until you have proven yourself innocent...

[NightWing]

Get past that. Driveby canoe and kayak checks used to be fairly common since a number of drownings in the spring and fall resulted from capsizing or falling out of a canoe. PFDs were not always found. However, it isn't done anymore as far as enforcement goes. And yes, the authority to stop at any time still exists.

It seems that many people equate their own experience with MP with that court case which has been beaten to death. They feel that their rights have been violated when stopped "for no reason." Well, there was a reason and it was a legitimate one or you wouldn't have been stopped. Pay attention to what the officer says when he or she first comes alongside. Whatever the infraction was, the boat will still get a safety inspection, regardless of any action taken on the reason for the stop.

Remember, there are many reasons to stop a vessel other than safe passage, as there are many reasons to stop a motor vehicle other than speeding.

Enjoy the lake, enjoy your boat. Nobody is out to get you and your rights are not being infringed upon. (generic statement not aimed at anyone.)

[Mee-n-Mac]

I take offense that they can, I appreciate that they don’t.

The reason I find that offensive is pretty simple, it is making the assumption that you are guilty of something until you have proven yourself innocent...

Oooo oooo let me play Constitutional Lawyer for a bit. I agree with you and I suspect that such a stop, if contested all the way to the Supreme Court, would result in a finding that such a broad power is contrary to the SCOTUS prior rulings on the 4'th and 14'th amendments. Even in a Terry Stop the officers must have some suspicion that wrongdoing is afoot. There's probably a reason why SOP2010 is on the books and I'll opine it's not because of some overwhelming concern for your Constitutional rights.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Get past that. Driveby canoe and kayak checks used to be fairly common since a number of drownings in the spring and fall resulted from capsizing or falling out of a canoe. PFDs were not always found. However, it isn't done anymore as far as enforcement goes. And yes, the authority to stop at any time still exists.


Respectfully I disagree. While the NHMP asserts it can perform safety checks at any time, I don't see how that jives with the decision and the reasoning given by the majority in the case I previously presented. They dismissed the charge because they ruled the safety check to be a "stop" and all "stops" require "articulable suspicion" per NH law. They didn't excuse it because the stop was a safety check. Since the NHMP doesn't exercise what it thinks is it's authority it's a moot point but in cases where the courts have ruled I don't see much leeway for the NHMP in safety checks other than for them to be, legally speaking, voluntary. They seem to be able to ask if you have a PFD but you aren't required to answer.

[Kamper]

One possible explanation...

A few months ago the USCG and the NHMP (Dept of Safety) signed an agreement authorising each to act as agents of the other (My phrasing). The USCG has never been required to show cause to stop and board a US vessel anywhere or a foreign vessel in US waters. An 'agent' of the USCG could be expected to have the same authority and that could be what the NHMP will argue if brought to court on the matter.

I read about this in the Telegraph or Union Leader. The text of the memorandum was not published. That's all I got folks.

Just a theory.

[NightWing]

Respectfully I disagree. While the NHMP asserts it can perform safety checks at any time, I don't see how that jives with the decision and the reasoning given by the majority in the case I previously presented. They dismissed the charge because they ruled the safety check to be a "stop" and all "stops" require "articulable suspicion" per NH law. They didn't excuse the because the stop was a safety check. Since the NHMP doesn't exercise what it thinks is it's authority it's a moot point but in cases where the courts have ruled I don't see much leeway for the NHMP in safety checks other than for them to be, legally speaking, voluntary. They seem to be able to ask if you have a PFD but you aren't required to answer.

MnM, here is the deal. Joe citizen is operating his boat on public waters that are under the jurisdiction of the NHMP. Such operation is a regulated activity. An officer observes a violation, either one of operation or one of equipment that is plain to see. He stops that vessel and advises why the boat was stopped. He asks Joe Citizen to produce a positive form of ID or equivalent and a Boating Ed certificate. He asks for the registration. He then performs a safety check by asking Joe to produce certain safety equipment. He pushes off and fills out his paperwork. He may issue a warning, a defective equipment tag or a summons or a combination, depending on the severity of the violation first observed, and/or the condition or presence of required safety equipment. That is it.

That is not compromising his rights any more than if he were stopped on the street. Same drill, "I stopped you because................., license and registration and (depending on state) proof of insurance." He then returns to his cruiser, fills out his paperwork and issues appropriate documents or warnings to the operator. The required safety equipment and check is unique to boating law and it has worked well for many years.

[Skip]

Nightwing has summed it up very well in the preceding post.

But to put it very simply:

In order to be stopped and detained by the NHMP, for any amount of time, the officer must have had articulable suspicion that a violation has, is or is about to be committed.

The NHMP cannot stop you solely to inspect your vessel if they have no reason to believe you have or are about to violate the law.

The Courts have been very clear about this, and have specifically addressed it in the case cited by Mee-n-Mac.

The SOP cited in the Court decision further verifies Nightwing's explanation that no one is stopped solely to conduct an inspection, but when stopped for a violation fully expect an inspection to occur, as authorized by the RSA cited.

The original post that started this thread laid out a situation where the poster was not aware of any offenses occuring, and asking if random stops were authorized as is done with landside DWI checkpoints.

My opinion is no, random stops are not authorized. And while it is posible that the NHMP could get court permission to conduct lakeside BWI checks, I am not aware if they have ever attempted to do so. Maybe Nightwing could comment on that.

And no, the scenario laid out above that a partnership with the USCG could allow cicumvention of fourth ammendment rights is not applicable. Those standards apply only in a very narrow venue and then only within port security and coastal areas under USCG jurisdiction, Lake Winnipesaukee not being one of the areas of operation.

Let me close by reinforcing what Nightwing has said, you will not be randomly stopped and boarded by the NHMP on the Lake. But if the officer has stopped you for what he can articulate was belief that an offense was occuring, expect a full safey inspection.

As a sidebar, since we always seem to equate boating laws in some way with motor vehicle law, let me offer this up for thought.

Many years ago police officers, after stopping a car, would order the operator to open the trunk so the safety of the spare tire could be verified. And interestingly enough, many things were always discovered in the trunk. The citizens and the courts finally had enough, and that practice has long since been snuffed out due to the abuses it offered. If indeed unbridled/unauthorized stops and inspections were occuring across our inland waters, I would expect the same outrage and results from the boating public. However, I seldom if ever read of reliable first person experiences...its usually qualified with "I thought I saw" or "my buddy told me" or "I think I heard...." type stories. :)

[Mee-n-Mac]

MnM, here is the deal. Joe citizen is operating his boat on public waters that are under the jurisdiction of the NHMP. Such operation is a regulated activity. An officer observes a violation, either one of operation or one of equipment that is plain to see. He stops that vessel and advises why the boat was stopped. He asks Joe Citizen to produce a positive form of ID or equivalent and a Boating Ed certificate. He asks for the registration. He then performs a safety check by asking Joe to produce certain safety equipment. He pushes off and fills out his paperwork. He may issue a warning, a defective equipment tag or a summons or a combination, depending on the severity of the violation first observed, and/or the condition or presence of required safety equipment. That is it.

That is not compromising his rights any more than if he were stopped on the street. Same drill, "I stopped you because................., license and registration and (depending on state) proof of insurance." He then returns to his cruiser, fills out his paperwork and issues appropriate documents or warnings to the operator. The required safety equipment and check is unique to boating law and it has worked well for many years.

I agree with everything you've said above.

[HomeWood]

HomeWood - If you pulled me over for speeding and I simply said "Officer, what is the reason for the stop?" You would be more likely write me a ticket for asking a question?


This is the last comment I'll make on this because it's an endless debate, but asking that specific question alone will not get you a ticket. If you question the officers legal authority to stop you for speeding and then ask for a supervisor to verify it...I think it's safe to say that a pink copy would be issued. Like I say, Mr. John Q. Public always knows best :rolleye2: