Pulled over for speeding...

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by NoBozo

FWIW: Over 40 years ago when I was in the Navy, we had a little hand held instrument called a "Stadimeter". It was totally mechanical/optical....that worked something like a Marine Sextant....by measuring angles..Except it was designed to give you RANGE to a target. I'm sure that today it would be really easy to do the same thing with current technology.... for pennys.

Originally posted by Kamper

There ae numerous range-finder devices available for hunters using optical or simple mechanical techniques.

The simplest is inspired by the golf range finder. A viewer/telescope has several images of a golf flag in a variety of sizes. You hold the image over the target flag and when it matches, you have the range. (Our golfing members can probably give a more accurate price but I think these are around $20.) There is a sniper scope that uses the same technique but with dots that represent the size of an average human head. Since there is usualy at least one human head visible on a boat this method would work well enough for calculating boat ranges like 150'.

While it sounds like only minimal training would be needed...training would still be needed especially if the MPO wanted to use the findings in court.

Then factor in that the MP boat was being operated by a single individual, at night, doing 55MPH over an uneven surface (the lake) while trying to maintain control of his boat and maintain a "fix" on his "target"...Winnipesaukee. How would he be able to bring either device to his eyes in order to use these nifty little tools?

One other thing that has been lost in the discussion is the speed of Winnipesaukee's boat. In his post he stated:

we were cruising in the Gilford-Governor's Island area, listening to the radio doing the boat's minimum planing speed--about 18mph or so. I didn't have the GPS, but I wasn't doing 25mph. This fact is certain.

The 30-35MPH figure came from the MPO that was chasing him from behind (or somewhere off to the port side) using the formula that he had to travel 55MPH to catch up to him! If the MPO had kicked it up a notch and done 70MPH to catch up I wonder how fast Winnipesaukee would have been going then?

Sounds like another case of BWMPOB!

[Kamper]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

... While it sounds like only minimal training would be needed...training would still be needed especially if the MPO wanted to use the findings in court. ...

I whole-heartedly agree with you that speed enforcement requires much more than "minimal training." My response to NoBozo was meant to express that a ranging device, alone, is more suitable for the 150' rule enforcement than speed control.

"Distance to target" is only part of the calculation to determine speed. Without fixed reference points to compare against a boat's passage, it would take a lot of experience to estimate speed. At night (imo) it would approach impossible for a visual observer to be accurate enough to get a conviction.

It's possible the MP will, or has calculated speed tables for various channels. By "parking" in the same spot and timing the line of sight transit past two distant landmarks, they can get a reasonably accurate estimate that way too. For that they would need the boat's ranges at the start and finish of the equation. The trigonometry techniques to do this have been available for millenia. Again though, at night the reliability of this method would decrease.

From what we have heard from member "Winnipesaukee" the officer in question didn't even claim to use techniques like this but theoretically could have.

I'd expect that lack of radar would not guarantee aquittal for speeding if the officer can demonstrate reasonable skill with mathematical calculations. Doppler radar is arguably the best technology for this purpose but with only 4 sets the MP may have to opt for technique Vs. toys in many locales. At minimum it will probably be sufficient probable cause for a stop.

That's all I think I know about that...

[Airwaves]

Originally posted by Winnipesaukee

I do believe it is reasonable for me to only have given my name, address, and DOB. He wanted my full SSN, and took down the entire SSN on his notepad.

I refused (at first) to give him my SSN because yes, he most likely would have announced it over the air, along with my name and address.

That brings up an interesting question. If the MPO broadcast Winnipesaukee's full SSN over the air (even though the MP frequency is scrambled, or he may have used a cellphone it can still be monitored) and Winnipesaukee notices some activity in his personal accounts in the following days and weeks that were not authorized by him, is there legal recourse against the MPO, MP, Dept of Safety etc because they broadcast his entire SSN number over the public airwaves where it was stolen by an ID thieft?

Any lawyers out there?

[VADET]

My bad Winnepesaukee I should have read more carefully, it was a warning not a ticket. Please I am not attacking your actions or defending the actions MP, I was not there. The only point I was trying to convey was that sometimes people can make situations worse than they have to be. Its not right but it is reality.

You are correct VTSteve, there are as you say "young whippersnappers with a badge and an attitude." There are good people in law enforcement, just as there are bad people who should not wear a badge. My point is simply that it is tough to win that battle right then and there on the water. If you are not satisfied with the Officer or his actions report him, it is your right.

Most states have gotten away from using the SSN on identification records. Name and date of birth is typically enough information for confirmation through most state databases.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VADET

...Name and date of birth is typically enough information for confirmation through most state databases...

That is highly incorrect.

Unfortunately it is quite a common occurence for individuals to give a false name/dob that exist in a database but is not theirs. Typically an individual will use the name & dob of an immediate relative (brother or sister) or a well known friend.

Only a poorly trained or inexperienced police officer would accept a name/dob, even verified through SPOTS, without obtianing some other unique identifier to ascertain with certainty an individual unable to provide positive identification, if the conditions warranted such an inquiry.

Finally, while most States have removed the requirement to have a SSN imprinted on an ID card, you would be surprised how many people still have their SSN on record within the SPOTS system. Very few individuals successfully memorize a correct SSN along with someone elses name and DOB, so utilizing a portion of the SSN is still a common and quick way to satisfy an identity inquiry.

If necessary there are even a number of other "tricks of the trade" that an experienced officer has up his sleeve to ascertain identity, but the last four of the SSN is usually sufficient.

Each and every stop is different, and your demeanor will often easily determine the length, breadth and final outcome of the stop in question.

[Shreddy]

Hey Winnipesaukee, can you describe what the MPO looked like/anything about him? The reason I ask is I do have a friend who is a MPO and he is fairly young. He also tends to get night shifts with the black amphibian boat with outboards. I've already laid into him quite a bit about MP's reputation as it is, but if you can tell me it's him, I'll bring it up to him to make sure it never happens again.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by 4Fun

Even if you were going 30 MPH it's poor judgement on his part to go 55MPH for 3 minutes to catch up to you. He should have a ticket.

I completely agree. If it is unsafe for a civilian to be doing greater than 25 at night, then why is it ok for a MP to go more than 2x the legal speed to catch up to a person who the MP thought was going merely 5-10 mph over the limit? Where is the logic?
Poor judgement is putting it nicely. I would say that Barak Obama's quote regarding the Cambridge police officers actions would be more appropriate here.

[VADET]

Skip I can only speak for where I live. We have the ability to obtain a DMV photo and other unique identifiers for comparison pretty much from any location.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VADET

Skip I can only speak for where I live. We have the ability to obtain a DMV photo and other unique identifiers for comparison pretty much from any location.

Understood.

But NHMP officers aboard small craft do not have that capability, that's why you must bear with them as they verbally ascertain your identity and verify that information via radio or cell back to dispatch. The law recognizes these unique circumstances and allows to officers the necessary latitude inherent in the statute posted earlier.

While NH continues to make great strides towards deploying real time data technology to the officer in the field, do to the rural characteristics of much of the State the necessary infrastructure needed to make that possible in all areas is still being built out.

[Airwaves]

Portion of RSA posted by Skip

c) Knowingly refuse, on demand of a peace officer or agent of the director, to produce some means of positive identification such as a driver's license, passport, or other document, or to verify his identity by some other means so that the identity of the operator or person otherwise in charge of a vessel can be determined with reasonable certainty by such peace officer or agent of the director;

I wonder if your SSN is legally exempt from this paragraph. I checked both my SS Card and my wife's and both specifically state:
"For Social Security and Tax Purposes - Not for Identification"

So in addition to the MPO in all probability putting Winnipesaukee's Name, address and SSN on the air (exposing him to identity theft) the SSN is NOT to be used for identification according to the Federal Government (Social Security Administration).

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Portion of RSA posted by Skip

I wonder if your SSN is legally exempt from this paragraph. I checked both my SS Card and my wife's and both specifically state:
"For Social Security and Tax Purposes - Not for Identification"

So in addition to the MPO in all probability putting Winnipesaukee's Name, address and SSN on the air (exposing him to identity theft) the SSN is NOT to be used for identification according to the Federal Government (Social Security Administration).

I believe if you check on this you will find that MPs do not call stops in, nor give any information out over the air, except in extreme circumstances. The information they request is for filling out their paperwork documenting the stop. That protects both you and the officer.

There were many years that the MP functioned in the field (small lakes, rivers, ponds) without any radios at all. Even when radios finally were obtained, many could not reach Gilford. Even Winni has dead spots.

The SS request is made when the person in question has no ID. He can say his name is John Smith and he lives at 123 main St. Does that positively identify him? Most people are honest with their SS # and will give it out to an officer, although they have the choice to say no. The flip side of that is, if the officer is not satisfied that the person's true identity is being given, that person may be brought in for further investigation until which time he is properly identified.

The best policy, IMHO, is to be civil, cooperative and honest with the officer, whether on the water or on land. Having attitude does nothing to enhance your position. If you feel you were wrongly treated or verbally abused by the officer, make a complaint to HQ, rather than hash it out during the stop.

[Airwaves]

As Winnipesaukee wrote in his original post:

He demands my SSN. I am absolutely not giving my social security number to some kid. He argues with me, threatens me with arrest, tells me we can be here all night.

Since the SSN is not a document, can't be lawfully used for identification but is vulnerable to theft, not a good idea to give it to anyone. The line that is particularly bothersome to me is Winnipesaukee was threatened with arrest if he did not devulge his SSN!

Nightwing wrote

I believe if you check on this you will find that MPs do not call stops in, nor give any information out over the air, except in extreme circumstances. The information they request is for filling out their paperwork documenting the stop. That protects both you and the officer.

If that is their policy it makes no sense to me at all.

If you stop someone for an infraction MPOs don't "run them" for outstanding warrants? I know a lot of cops and that is the first thing they do in a stop. Tell dispatch where they are, what they've stopped and "run them" through the computer.

The question of the use of the SSN as ID aside, what happens if a bad guy decides to pull a gun and send him to Davy Jone's locker? How does the MP even know what they are looking for?

[winnipesaukeenh]

Winnipesaukee, based on the attitude portrayed in your post, it's likely that you being less than cooperative when you were pulled over is the reason you were stopped for so long. Just a thought...

[ApS]

Originally Posted by winnipesaukeenh

"...Winnipesaukee, based on the attitude portrayed in your post, it's likely that you being less than cooperative when you were pulled over is the reason you were stopped for so long. Just a thought..."

It can't be any help "being remembered" for the next time, either!

Originally Posted by chipj29

"...why is it ok for a MP to go more than 2x the legal speed to catch up to a person who the MP thought was going merely 5-10 mph over the limit? Where is the logic...?"

and

Originally Posted by 4Fun

Even if you were going 30 MPH it's poor judgement on his part to go 55MPH for 3 minutes to catch up to you. He should have a ticket.

Communities do have to grapple with the consequences of "a police chase":

1) Some allow the alledged offender to disappear into the distance—possibly striking others. The inevitable result is the resurgence of more miscreants causing still more unhappy results.

2) Other communities must deal with the lawbreaker (and his tragic consequences) following an ego-influenced or adrenalin-driven chase by LEOs.

Such consequences don't necessarily result in punishment of the officer; moreover, in some jurisdictions, the offender can be charged with felony-murder—where appropriate.

3) But for this lake, my question would be, "Why has such a 'speedy' chase become 'objectionable' when a 'velocity' like this was thoroughly justified here just five months ago?"

4) Anyway, who's going to write an MP a ticket for doing his job?

[Airwaves]

Nightwing you have brought some interesting comments about the MP and its operations that probably should be looked at further.

Just to bring this back to my original questioning of the SSN demand you posted something in a reply to tis that would IMHO puts the SSN in public domain for a second time.

Response from Nightwing to tis

The paperwork is lengthy.

The paperwork is also public record and if the MP doesn't have the manpower to run records checks on boat stops on a routine basis I doubt that the MP would redact the SSN from the MPO report before turning over a copy to a member of the public requesting it.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Nightwing you have brought some interesting comments about the MP and its operations that probably should be looked at further.

Just to bring this back to my original questioning of the SSN demand you posted something in a reply to tis that would IMHO puts the SSN in public domain for a second time.


The paperwork is also public record and if the MP doesn't have the manpower to run records checks on boat stops on a routine basis I doubt that the MP would redact the SSN from the MPO report before turning over a copy to a member of the public requesting it.

Not true. Public record requests from the nosy public are not just handed out by anyone. I assure you that any document released would be screened for sensitive information and blacked out appropriately. This document would be handed out with the approval and review of a supervisor.

Again, any questions about policy...293-2037.

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It can't be any help "being remembered" for the next time, either!

3) But for this lake, my question would be, "Why has such a 'speedy' chase become 'objectionable' when a 'velocity' like this was thoroughly justified here just five months ago?"

4) Anyway, who's going to write an MP a ticket for doing his job?

Because 5 months ago (more like 8 months ago), there was no law pertaining to velocities on the water at night. If it is so unsafe for a civilian to travel >25mph, then it is just as unsafe for a law officer to travel at more than 2x that speed. I maintain that premise on both land and lake.

[4Fun]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

It can't be any help "being remembered" for the next time, either!

and

Communities do have to grapple with the consequences of "a police chase":

1) Some allow the alledged offender to disappear into the distance—possibly striking others. The inevitable result is the resurgence of more miscreants causing still more unhappy results.

2) Other communities must deal with the lawbreaker (and his tragic consequences) following an ego-influenced or adrenalin-driven chase by LEOs.

Such consequences don't necessarily result in punishment of the officer; moreover, in some jurisdictions, the offender can be charged with felony-murder—where appropriate.

3) But for this lake, my question would be, "Why has such a 'speedy' chase become 'objectionable' when a 'velocity' like this was thoroughly justified here just five months ago?"

4) Anyway, who's going to write an MP a ticket for doing his job?

Assuming the circumstances above are accurate...

1. I agree you just can't let everyone just drive of in to the sunset and not chase. There is a time for pursuit and this was not it. The MPO made a poor call.

3. Also, I don't remmeber when it was not "objectionable" to do 55MPH at night? Most arguments I read were so people could just get on plane at night when there was good visibility.

4. There is the rub. No accountability.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

As Winnipesaukee wrote in his original post:

Since the SSN is not a document, can't be lawfully used for identification but is vulnerable to theft, not a good idea to give it to anyone. The line that is particularly bothersome to me is Winnipesaukee was threatened with arrest if he did not devulge his SSN!

Nightwing wrote

If that is their policy it makes no sense to me at all.

If you stop someone for an infraction MPOs don't "run them" for outstanding warrants? I know a lot of cops and that is the first thing they do in a stop. Tell dispatch where they are, what they've stopped and "run them" through the computer.

The question of the use of the SSN as ID aside, what happens if a bad guy decides to pull a gun and send him to Davy Jone's locker? How does the MP even know what they are looking for?

Stop and think about it. MP HQ is in Gilford. The dispatch center usually has only a couple or three people working. Those people deal with the radio, people who come to the door and telephone calls, which can be numerous on a summer day or night.

The department averages close to 100 employees. Suppose 60 officers are on duty, patrolling the many lakes and rivers in NH. Suppose 30 or 40 of them are on a boat stop and calling in requests for record checks. It would be an impossible task for dispatch and the delays in getting people on their way would be unfair to to the public.

Consider too, that the field officers had no radio contact for years due to lack of equipment. The job had to be done with the officer working alone, with backup perhaps an hour away, and no way to contact HQ.

If a bad guy decides to pull a gun...well, that was/is one of the risks of the job, which, until this year, was done by unarmed officers.

Unless the policy has changed, boat stops are not normally called in. If you have further doubts, 293-2037.

[tis]

When we see someone get stopped out here, it seems like they are there are very long time. I think it is just a long process in general. It may be because of the waiting time with dispatch, but whatever, it IS a long time.

[NightWing]

Originally Posted by tis

When we see someone get stopped out here, it seems like they are there are very long time. I think it is just a long process in general. It may be because of the waiting time with dispatch, but whatever, it IS a long time.

The paperwork is lengthy.

[winnipesaukeenh]

Originally Posted by tis

When we see someone get stopped out here, it seems like they are there are very long time. I think it is just a long process in general. It may be because of the waiting time with dispatch, but whatever, it IS a long time.

Probably because they have to pull up to the boat, notify dispatch of the stop, inform the person why they are being stopped, gather identification, do the safety inspection, pull away, do the paperwork, come back to the boat, explain the paperwork, etc. I've been stopped at night before and it is a lengthy process. Also, they do call in the stop, or at least at night they do. When we were stopped, the officer called in some information to dispatch (although I couldn't hear exactly what it was...probably the location and description or bow numbers of my boat) Plus it's probably not too easy to be writing on a boat when you're being rocked back and forth.

[NightWing]

Calling in the stop at night (in an area where the radio reaches) is a safety issue, so the dispatcher knows where the stop is made and the bow number of the boat.

The original question arose about personal information being transmitted to obtain records on the operator. Those records are primarily motor vehicle related and not of great value on the water.

[winnipesaukeenh]

Originally Posted by NightWing

Calling in the stop at night (in an area where the radio reaches) is a safety issue, so the dispatcher knows where the stop is made and the bow number of the boat.

The original question arose about personal information being transmitted to obtain records on the operator. Those records are primarily motor vehicle related and not of great value on the water.

I think that it is of great value on the water, because there is information about a persons history that is directly related to boat operation. I was in law enforcement in the past and I can say that it's standard practice to call in someones "information" which consists of their last name, first name and middle initial,as well as DOB. This can allow you to see if someone has a valid driver's license, see what their motor vehicle history is, as well as if they have a criminal history/outstanding warrants (depending on what you ask dispatch for). On the water, i'm assuming that they check for active warrants, or if the operator is under suspension for operating a boat due to a BWI, or other offense which would revoke their boat operating privileges. If for some reason the officer requests a social security number due to lack of identification, they will likely call dispatch via a cell phone and give them the last 4 digits, rather than call it out over open radio.