Pulled over for speeding...

[VtSteve]

I certainly agree with the information requirements as SOP. But in an effort not to challenge any sacred cows, this thread has gotten so far off topic for a variety of reasons.

My primary focus is on this.

He comes back, immediately, because of a unique detail with my address, I realize he never ran my information. I ask him just how fast I was going. He says "You came around Pitchwood and I paced you. It took me 3 minutes to catch you at 55mph, so I'd estimate you were going between 30 and 35. Wouldn't he have come up from behind me then? Not off my port side?

Some seem pretty content to dismiss any valid suggestion that many of the stops, and actions, seem to border on harassment. "Call MP headquarters and state your case", is simply not a valid statement for discussion. It's a good diversion, as is making the OP out to be someone that was mostly at fault.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

...My primary focus is on this...Some seem pretty content to dismiss any valid suggestion that many of the stops, and actions, seem to border on harassment....

Let's make one thing clear.

I have no reason to suspect or doubt Winnipesaukee's credibility.

That said, we are not discussing a verbatim or unbiased account of what may have occurred during the night in question.

Instead we are discussing an unverifed account based on one person's perspective of a certain event. That person admits he was agitated about being stopped, and what went on during the stop. I can assure you that if we heard the NHMP officer's version, it would most likely be different because it would be based on his perception of the the events that transpired that evening.

Now, some posters have taken this perception and added additional attributes to what probably happened during and after the stop, and then formulated generalized comments on what the NHMP policies must be!

I have been in the business long enough to know that there is always three sides to these events....the perceptions of those being stopped, the perceptions of those who made the stop and somewhere in betwen the actual unbiased facts of what happened. That is why we have a legal system where a judge and/or a jury will make the ultimate decision on fact after hearing both sides of the story.

I must state I am perplexed by your constant assertions that many of the NHMP's stops and actions border on harrassment. Except for a handful of individuals that have related some events here, you have produced no evidence of your assertion of this alleged widespread problem both in this thread and others.

The NHMP effects hundreds of stops annually. They patrol dozens of bodies of water and along the coast on a daily basis, much of it under high scrutiny of the public. Dozens of individuals return to the agency on a seasonal yearly basis with the core being annually employed. Given these facts, I find it inherently strange that if indeed the NHMP is continually harassing the public, obtaining SS information illegally and in general completely incompetent, as constantly alleged here by a handful of posters, then why have I not read about it in any of the local or statewide papers? Why is their not umbrage and outrage in the editorial or letters to the editor sectionsd of the various daily and weekly papers I read that cover areas covered by the NHMP? Why has their not been any civil rights law suits filed and ajudicated againt this agency?

Closer to home, there are a great number of posters here that live and frequent the Lake all year long. Where are their observations of these constant misdeeds?

Listen, as in any organization there are people that should not be employed because they are not good at what they do. And they usually are weeded out accordingly. There are others who are very good at their job, but make an occasional mistake. And sometimes good people are asked to perform or enforce tasks that their bosses insist, tasks that may not make sense or are poorly planned or implemented. In this I think the NHMP is no different then any other law enforcement agency, or any other organization for that matter.

In the end I think that day in and day out they perform an amazing job given the limited funding and tools they receive from the State, with the enormous pressure that the State (especially the legislative body in Concrd) place upon it. I truly believe that the vast majority of it's employees are honest and hard working people that give their all to keep us safe. And when folks make unsubstantiated claims against those good men & women, or attribute RSAs or other laws incorrectly in an attempt to discredit the Agency, I for one will offer my opinion on the matter.

And if someone presents verifiable proof of misdeed or misconduct I will also feel free to offer my (hopefully) constructive criticism and advise folks of what their proper legal remedy or rights may be.

And for those of you that have made it through my diatribe here...thanks for your patience, whether you agree or not.....

[SIKSUKR]

I love your eerrr...diatribe Skip. Always interesting, informative diatribe.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Skip

I must state I am perplexed by your constant assertions that many of the NHMP's stops and actions border on harrassment. Except for a handful of individuals that have related some events here, you have produced no evidence of your assertion of this alleged widespread problem both in this thread and others.

I have no assertions anymore, and will refrain from posting what I have reviewed as inflammatory posts. If they are off base, sorry for that. I was only commenting on what was posted.

[Airwaves]

I’ll respond to this only because you are playing word games in an effort to discredit what I have been posting and responding to:

The Freedom of Information Act only pertains to Federal Government operations. It does not pertain to the subject at hand here. This is the danger when you make assumptions and accept as fact an heretofore unverified accusation, especially if you are not clear on the applicable regulations. As you build on the story and fabricate additional items based on personal bias, mistakes are made and your entire argument loses its credibility.

First and foremost, let me assure the readers that your Social Security number is indeed used as a means of identification by local, state and federal authorities. However, that number does not appear on any summonses or warnings issued by law enforcement authorities in New Hampshire. It is mandatory and will appear on arrest records and local, county or state jail intake files however this information is not available for review by the public as mandated by the correct governing legal reference, NH RSA 91:a and not the Freedom of Information Act.

Semantics. I use the term FOIA to describe the public’s right to public information as others use the term Jetski to describe PWCs. It is easier to use that term, and have it understood, than it is to use the ambiguous term RSA 91.A.

Because LEOs have used something in the past and continue to demand it does not make it lawful.

In the course of my routine daily duties I monitor dozens of state, county and local law enforcement agency radio transmissions, including those of the NH Marine Patrol. And no, I am not a dispatcher although I have the utmost respect for the outstanding job these underappreciated folks commit themselves on a daily basis. On a daily basis I hear officers in the field utilize a portion of the SS number, usually the last four digits, to assist in field identifications.

This was the crux of my posting. The use of a SSN over the air, whether via police radio or cellphone, both are over the air and can be monitored. The question I was raising has to do with the liability of the state etc for reparations etc in the event Winnipesaukee’s information was used OTA and stolen by someone.

In another post NightWing stated that is it unusual for an MPO to radio in a stopped boat and radio that information to dispatch, but also said the SSN was used for identification. That appears to be a contradiction.

Unless the SSN is radioed in, which NightWing said would be unusual, then how can it possibly be used for identification purposes? The MPO would not have access that information unless he put it out OTA.

Finally, if an officer asks you for your social security number because you have not provided a reasonable means of identification you can simply refuse to give it. The "disobey an officer" statute does not require you to give it.

And I point to the statement by Winnipesaukee that he was threatened with arrest if he refused to give the MPO his SSN.

Instead we are discussing an unverifed account based on one person's perspective of a certain event. That person admits he was agitated about being stopped, and what went on during the stop. I can assure you that if we heard the NHMP officer's version, it would most likely be different because it would be based on his perception of the the events that transpired that evening.

No doubt the MPOs version would be different, but we are commenting on the only information that we have. Not what we speculate what the MPO might say as you are doing. You are certainly showing your bias by taking an unstated side to a story that you don’t have and dismissing the account of a person at the scene because he was agitated implying he must be wrong in spite of your statement to the contrary.

So the focus of my posts were thus...If a SSN is demanded and someone steals Winnipesaukee's ID what recourse does he have against the state?

If the MPO does not routinely call in boat stops then why demand under penalty of arrest (even though that is not lawful) the SSN when they are not going to run it until well after the boater has left the scene?

Simple questions but I dare to challenge the status quo so I'm inflamatory and looking for a fight.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

Airwaves - i thiink your comments are more than reasonable. The common practice of using SSNs for identification hits a really sensitive nerve with me. People have no idea of the grief and aggravation caused by stolen identity.

[EricP]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

Airwaves - i thiink your comments are more than reasonable. The common practice of using SSNs for identification hits a really sensitive nerve with me. People have no idea of the grief and aggravation caused by stolen identity.

Has happened to me 3 times, I will not give it out for any reason.