BUI/Safety/Credentials Checkpoints...
 

...should be implemented IMMEDIATELY...since the NHDofS manpower has been cut back, it makes sense to "pinpoint" the populated/busy areas around the Lake for unsafe boating infractions...should have excellent results saturday afternoons at the obvious "hot-spots"...The DRUNKS scare me...GET THEM off MY Lake...NOW...

What!
 

So you think boating "check points" would be a good thing for lake Winnipesaukee??!! Are you kidding me! And you think it would be right to stop check and search every person and boat on the lake for no obvious reason??

Last I knew this was the United States we lived in not China...

Dan

...they do it on the roads, why not the Lake...too bad if it takes a little of your precious time...ye doth protest too much...YOU can be first for the Blow-test...I WANT THE DRUNKS OFF THE LAKE...ZERO TOLERANCE...works for me, I'd feel safe then...

Not Allowed
 

NH- Unfortunately, NH does not allow random DUI or BUI checks. True, they do some on the roads, however, the State is required to provide notice regarding where and when they will be set up.

The drunks scare me as well on OUR lake (owned by the State on NH and its residents).

Please don't mistake one standing up for personal liberties (as provided under one of the greatest documents ever produced) for someone who wants to operate a boat under the influence.

I understand your concern...HOWEVER...

265:1-a Sobriety Checkpoints. – Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, no law enforcement officer or agency shall establish or conduct sobriety checkpoints for the purposes of enforcing the criminal laws of this state, unless such law enforcement officer or agency petitions the superior court and the court issues an order authorizing the sobriety checkpoint after determining that the sobriety checkpoint is warranted and the proposed method of stopping vehicles satisfies constitutional guarantees.

Thanks for the backup! I think the State just held a class on DUI as I saw a whole load of cruisers from towns all over NH at Mills Falls along with the SP DUI Camper.

No alcohol in boat law
 

I would support a 'no open container of alcohol in the boat' law, similar to road laws. Why can a guy legally pilot a 2000 horsepower, 6 ton boat while drinking but not a 150 horsepower, 2 ton Volkswagen Beetle .

My rule, the beer comes out when the cover goes on. I wish everyone followed this rule. Something wrong with a 3 or 6 ton vehicle bouncing along at 45mph filled with people consuming alcohol, including the loose nut at the helm......

Just my opinion. I am sure many would disagree.

...I concur...and I'm open to compromise on the issue...btw...the REALLY fast boat thing is probably over...

Since I live on my boat every weekend, I can't support a no open container law. I could support a no drunk driver law, but we already have one.

I could probably support a no open container in the driver's hand law, but that would be really tough to enforce, since the driver could just hand the container to someone when police were in view. Or the driver could switch from a visible beer can in his hand, to a mixed drink in a innocent container.

I really think we just need to enforce the BUI laws we have. And get better at winning cases. I'm not convinced that our MP don't have the tools they need today to make a difference. You don't need a checkpoint.

Another reason the Speed Limit law is needed.
 

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.

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.

How many times?
 

You've change your forum name? Your grammar looks awfully familiar..................

Probable Cause vs. Articulable Suspicion
 

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. :)

...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...:laugh:...

It is definitely the same db.

Last I checked we were not on the roads, we go to the lake to get away from all the BS of every day life. Why bring the BS to the lake? LEAVE THE LAKE THE WAY IT WAS PRE-SPEED LIMIT!!!

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.

Yes.

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.