Environmental Police

[scubastew]

Does just being at the boat dock, having a dive flag or a fishing rod give them reasonable belief that you just broke the law?

From reading the above snippet of the law I dont read that they even need a good reason.

Perhaps the ACLU needs to get a call as well! Something smells fishy!! I think I'd like to read the rest of that document referenced above. Seems like that an EPO can pretty much do anything they want and you have to trust that the officer is a fair person...humm

 

[Goose75]

It sounds to me like the Mass law is a work around by using the reasonable doubt clause. It looks like they have interpreted it to mean that anyone in a public fishing area may reasonably be considered to be engaged in violation and subject to random search. If city police used a similar clause it would quickly be challenged.

I've been told of similar clauses for game wardens in others states with the unspoken understanding of abuse it and lose it.

 

[Spectre]

So in order for them to search they must have a reasonable belief that I'm breaking the law in order to search.

Read that again:

"in which he has reasonal cause to believe [fish] are [possessed]"

They need to suspect you have fish & game... not that they suspect it to be illegal fish & game.

 

[Goose75]

The way I read it is that they have to suspect violation.

"...and does believe, that fish taken, held, kept, possessed, transported or held for transportation or sale in violation of law, may be found"

The "violation" is what makes it reasonable doubt. The "may" is what makes it broad reaching authority.

 

[warpig]

i have to throw in my 2 cents:

law or not; cop or not; anyone caught rifling throught someone's boat/truck/equipment without 1) identifying themselves AND 2) showing proper documentation to back it up is an invitation for a good-ole fashioned pistol-whipping.

is the officer within his legal rights? sure!

is the individual within his rights to defend his personal property from obscure strangers who quickly appears out of nowhere and starts looking through his gear? you bet!

any $5 lawyer can prove you didnt know he was a cop before you knocked him on his @ss. nobody is clairvoyant.

 

[Goose75]

Defending property is not as simple as it sounds from state to state. Some states are very restrictive on when, where and to what extent you are allowed to defend your property. I'm not familiar with Mass law but I believe it is one of the more restrictive states.

Plus law or no law, the consequences of confrontation can be immediate physical harm or lengthy court battles. The best thing to do is be polite, take names and report the incident.

 

[Spectre]

The way I read it is that they have to suspect violation.

"...and does believe, that fish taken, held, kept, possessed, transported or held for transportation or sale in violation of law, may be found"

The "violation" is what makes it reasonable doubt. The "may" is what makes it broad reaching authority.

OOH. Yea. What they sent johlar is -much- different then what Turk posted [and I didn't bother to read... 'cause I'm lazy].

 

[PAdiver93]

PA,

Somehow I doubt that ALL of your clients would go free, unless all of them were as innocent as the driven snow!

You are quite correct that an officer does not need either (1) probable cause, or even (2) reasonable suspicion to ASK. I have done so on a hunch, and, after receiving permission, have come up with weapons and drugs. Truly amazing!

However, what we were talking about was actual searches of items (in one case) in a vehicle, without officers either identifying themselves, or obtaining consent. I have to tell you, if that is legal in Massachusetts, they sure have redefined the laws up there!

You are correct - and yes I have people who consent to search even though they know stuff is there (some of them don't know that they can refuse w/t consequences) - as I always said - GREED and STUPIDITY pays for my bills. I like your other post ( seems like every cop that we get on this board actually follows the law and regulations) - POLICE or even DEP CAN NOT search without Probable cause, consent or reasonable suspicion (as outlined in the DEP statutes). On the other hand the post about RS being a very easy hurdle.... mmmm I don't know about that - and u can probably attest to that - in order for RS to arise the officer has to see an ongoing crime, have info from a source, know that suspect's record will point toward the fact that he/she might have a weapon; noticable bulge that looks like a weapon; or a certain motion from a suspect.... And that will only give enough RS for a Frisk/pat down (looking into BAGS in suspect's possession is permisable as long as it JUST a quick contents check).... DEP's regulations are CLEARLY unconstitutional but unfortunately noone has challenged them so far.... (Even though DEP is established by federal or state statute, US or even State Constitutions are still Supreme Law of this land - at least the last time I checked)...

 

[PAdiver93]

i have to throw in my 2 cents:

law or not; cop or not; anyone caught rifling throught someone's boat/truck/equipment without 1) identifying themselves AND 2) showing proper documentation to back it up is an invitation for a good-ole fashioned pistol-whipping.

is the officer within his legal rights? sure!

is the individual within his rights to defend his personal property from obscure strangers who quickly appears out of nowhere and starts looking through his gear? you bet!

any $5 lawyer can prove you didnt know he was a cop before you knocked him on his @ss. nobody is clairvoyant.

I'm not a $5 one but, dude - you r serving time for that.... Fight or flight still applies and say thank u to Rep. Courts - they disregard anybody's rights...

 

[PAdiver93]

Does just being at the boat dock, having a dive flag or a fishing rod give them reasonable belief that you just broke the law?

From reading the above snippet of the law I dont read that they even need a good reason.

Perhaps the ACLU needs to get a call as well! Something smells fishy!! I think I'd like to read the rest of that document referenced above. Seems like that an EPO can pretty much do anything they want and you have to trust that the officer is a fair person...humm

I'll give you something else - Mass or RI laws excluding or interfering with outofstate lobsterers (?) are clearly in violation of the Dormant Commerce Clause (which says that no state can discriminate against other states or other citizens) but you don't see any challenges... And do u think the Supr. CT. would actually say that lobstering is part of the interstate commerce??? (I'd love to see their decision in light of the medicinal pot case - there they starined to stick pot INTO the interstate commerce clause)....