Times have changed!!

[Bill25]

I think JRC brings up the correct problem here "Driving with docking lights or spot lights is dangerous and rude, but I don't think it's illegal". If MP didn't have a legal reason to stop the poster then he is correct they should have just said it's unsafe to driving with docking lights on and have a good evening folks. If it's in fact not illegal and they gave him a warning, that to me is even a bigger problem. If this is true he should report it to MP HQ. Maybe the force needs additional training in proper legal stops.

[lifeonthefarm]

docking lights obstruct from your red/green navigational lights. driving down the lake with them is illegal because if you cant see them then you arent displaying them.

[jrc]

Originally Posted by lifeonthefarm

docking lights obstruct from your red/green navigational lights. driving down the lake with them is illegal because if you cant see them then you arent displaying them.

The only thing close is this:

Saf-C 403.14 Time for Lights. Proper lighting, as required in Saf-C 403.15 and Saf-C 403.16, shall be displayed between sunset and sunrise. Lights shall be lighted at such times and no other lights which might be mistaken for the prescribed lights shall be exhibited.

You going to have a hard time convincing me that typical docking lights can be mistaken for the prescribed lights.

Now if you want to push it, you could look at:

270:29-a Careless and Negligent Operation of Boats. – Any person who shall operate a power boat upon any waters of the state in a careless and negligent manner or so that the lives and safety of the public are endangered shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

I doubt anyone would feel this applies. It might be enough for an articulatible suspicion.

[hazelnut]

That's a stretch. Who is to say that docking lights obstruct Nav lights. I have both docking lights and Nav lights and they most certainly DO NOT obstruct one from seeing my Nav lights. I realize that I should not drive with them on so i do not do it. If this was a case of something that was not illegal than Marine Patrol could have given the old "Excuse me sir, you left your docking lights on." "Oh thank you sir." "Have a good evening folks." Instead it turned in to a full scale stop.

So the main question is where is the RSA that states that it is ILLEGAL to drive with docking lights on? Do not feed me the obstruction of my Nav lights BS because I'll challenge anyone to a test on that.

You're up Skip this is usually your area of expertise.

[secondcurve]

Hazelnut:

Please give the MP a break. If Old Hubbard had been drunk and plowed his boat into another and in the process injured people, folks like you would be howling about why the MP didn't do something about the situation when it hadthe opportunity. It takes time to figure out what is going on after a stop and to evaluate the situation.

[hazelnut]

Secondcurve,
Did you even READ my post. I am not jumping all over Marine Patrol?!?! I am merely inquiring as to the motivation for the stop and the subsequent length of the stop. You also make huge assumptions as to what I would do:

"folks like you would be howling about why the MP didn't do something about the situation when it hadthe opportunity"

My original post was pointed towards those who thought that Nav lights were obscured by docking lights. Now you have twisted it into me dumping on MP and speculating what my reaction would be after a made up situation? Geesh.

[secondcurve]

Hazelnut:

My apologizes. I misread your post. I stand corrected.

[Pineedles]

"They started with the license and registration bull$#@&. I got pretty pissed at that point. I told them that this harrasement was wrong."

I don't know Hazelnut, you seem pretty pissed off at the MP? I too would not like to have been delayed that long, and their time would have been better spent looking for DUI boaters after seeing that you were not. I don't know what they are obligated to check for after a stop. I would think they would have some discretion.

[wildwoodfam]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

"They started with the license and registration bull$#@&. I got pretty pissed at that point. I told them that this harrasement was wrong."

I don't know Hazelnut, you seem pretty pissed off at the MP? I too would not like to have been delayed that long, and their time would have been better spent looking for DUI boaters after seeing that you were not. I don't know what they are obligated to check for after a stop. I would think they would have some discretion.

That quote is from Old Hubbard - not Hazelnut...Better recheck your quotes and offer an apology -

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

That's a stretch. Who is to say that docking lights obstruct Nav lights. I have both docking lights and Nav lights and they most certainly DO NOT obstruct one from seeing my Nav lights.

Operating with docking lights can "flash" the night vision of other boaters. You never know when there might be an unlighted kayak near Meredith.

[hazelnut]

Where did I say that?????

Please carefully reread the thread before you misquote me.

Secondcurve, No problemo... I was merely offering a counterpoint to the main theme of the thread. I want to know if the stop was warranted legally. I default to Skip on that one. If not a truly legal issue then I think the original poster can vent here and ask why not cut a little break here. just a friendly warning could have been issued in my humble opinion. Again just my opinion not based on law and procedure or anything official. Just a little human courtesy based on a visual assessment of the particular individuals involved. I mean haven't we all wished for a lenient State Trooper in our lifetime after being pulled over for going 5-10 over the posted? The offense in question here seems to be even less offensive than that considering there is no written law directly addressing that.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

...I want to know if the stop was warranted legally. I default to Skip on that one...

There are two reasons that the MPs could use to effectively initiate the stop as described.

The first reason is covered under the previously quoted Administrative Rule Saf-C 403.14 as this particular regulation is very broad in its scope.

The second reason is that if the auxilary lights obstructed the officer's ability, even momentarily, to ascertain the proper lights then the officer can also articulate and justify the stop.

Let's look at it using another example. Many times a motor vehicle stop will be initiated because an officer may not be able to clearly see an inspection sticker or misread a plate expiration sticker and so on. If the officer can articulate to the Court that the stop was made in good faith when an actual violation may not have occured then stop and a reasonable investigation is usually held as warranted.

Like the overnight anchoring regulation that we have discussed before, this is yet but another example where there is no direct regulation specifying an offense, but a violation is determined and a stop occurs by using a number of other related factors.

In my opinon, whether or not there is no direct regulation prohibiting the use of or possession docking lights (or any type of spot or flood or auxilary lighting) there is ample peripheral regulation to allow a stop to occur if the use of such lighting distracts another from ascertaining the employing boat's navigational intentions.

I won't comment on whether the actual scope and length of the stop exceeded the accepted norm as I was not witness to the event. However, I will venture to opine that if the MP boat was close enough to the boat in question to effect the stop because of its use of docking lights then most likely the Court would find the reason for the stop to be valid.

[Silver Duck]

If running with docking lights or a spotlight on (more than momentarily) is illegal, the MP needs to have a word with whoever was running either the Sophie C. or the Doris E. (couldn't tell which in the dark) Saturday night.

I was approaching the channel from Meredith at about 9:30 and whichever it was had her spotlight on way, way the heck before and after the channel. And, yes, it obscured her running lights; I saw something coming toward the channel, siad "what the Heck is that?" and stopped dead until she was past.

Silver Duck

[Pineedles]

I mistook Old Hubbard Rd's initial post as yours. I feel sooo stupid.

[Weirs guy]

I can see your frustration Old Hubbard Road, gone are the days when officer nice guy would follow the town drunk home from the bar instead of arresting him. I'll tell you what would help me feel better after this. Imagine it was your son or daughter on someone elses boat, are you sure they have all the proper safety gear? Are they sober? I guess I'd rather have the MP check then guess myself.

[Pineedles]

You are right Weirs Guy, about the old days when the officer followed you home once he determined you were drunk. I don't think this is the same situation. This cappy was not drunk, and yet he was fully examined. Do you think that time could have been better spent finding those DUI cappys? And I'm sure there were plenty of them after the show.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

You are right Weirs Guy, about the old days when the officer followed you home once he determined you were drunk. I don't think this is the same situation. This cappy was not drunk, and yet he was fully examined. Do you think that time could have been better spent finding those DUI cappys? And I'm sure there were plenty of them after the show.

I guess you could make the argument that the time would have been better spent stopping other craft. I see both sides here, Old Hubbard Rd was very upset that he received what he felt was harassment while out with his "nice family" (and, Old Hubbard Rd, I would have probably felt the same way), but how is the MP to know that without making the stop in the first place? On the other hand, how many boaters took note of the floating-blue-lighted-buoy-of-safety and took it easier then they normally would have, even if the MP's were just wasting time?

I guess the bright side for me is that the MP's weren't violating the 150' rule by my beach while they were busy with Old Hubbard Rd.

[hazelnut]

Rattlesnake guy maybe I didn't make it clear but what I meant was the spirit of the infraction. Not trying to compare the visual aspect but the severity of the violation, if you know what I mean. High Beams and Docking lights as far as what type of violation vs speeding and 150 foot rule. If that makes sense at all.

[bigpapi34]

i 2nd old hubbard rd on this...it was a late night and they all wanted to get home...like he said 5 years ago i bet this never would have happend....they should see that everyone under age had a life vest on and let them go...i would have been agry too if they made me go into everything and testing u...



-paul

[hazelnut]

Pineneedles, No need to feel stupid, apology accepted.

Skip, thanks for the post. I had a thought last night. I feel like the offense in question is equivalent to driving a car with the High Beams on. So most cops would pull over a motorist for that? I also feel like most cops after pulling over that motorist, lets say in a mini-van with a bunch of kids would probably go easy on them. I don't know I guess I'm an optimist.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I had a thought last night. I feel like the offense in question is equivalent to driving a car with the High Beams on.

Sorry but when someone on the road has high beams on you can still see the other cars. It is hard sometimes to pick the boats out of the shore lights. When someone's docking lights constrict you iris it is a lot worse than the headlights of one car being brighter than the others. We see you, but now can't see anything else in the dark.