Bl rant

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Goooh

Okay, then lump in other violations like safety devices and alcohol during those checks and I bet you get up there.

I guess if only 48% of people keep way over their limit and undersized fish, then the population will be fine, right?

How do violations like alcohol and safety devices provide probable cause for an involuntary search of the ice chest/live well?

The 4th amendment requires probable cause for a specific violation. How does a safety violation provide probable cause to check for too many or undersize fish?

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The 4th amendment requires probable cause for a specific violation.

It does not say that.

And all I am doing is proving how grey probable cause is, and how easy it is for everyone to interpret it differently.

[all star rod]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

How do violations like alcohol and safety devices provide probable cause for an involuntary search of the ice chest/live well?

The 4th amendment requires probable cause for a specific violation. How does a safety violation provide probable cause to check for too many or undersize fish?

Fishing and hunting is not a right....it is a privilege...if you do not like the rules / laws very simple don't go. I tell you what the next time a GW ask to look in your ice chest tell him or her NO...I bet you will be in for a very long and bad day.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by all star rod

Fishing and hunting is not a right....it is a privilege...if you do not like the rules / laws very simple don't go. I tell you what the next time a GW ask to look in your ice chest tell him or her NO...I bet you will be in for a very long and bad day.

The Bill of Rights is not surrendered anytime a citizen participates in a privilege.

Most good attorneys will advise to never consent to a voluntary search, and I follow that advice. Of course, they also advise not to attempt to prevent a law enforcement officer from conducting a search, even if it appears to be illegal, and I follow that advice too.

I won't be opening the ice chest for them, but I won't prevent them from boarding the boat and opening it themselves if they feel they must. But I'll politely make it clear that I have not consented to the search.

I know some very good lawyers who would love to sue law enforcement who feels intent on taking retributive actions for the above approach.

Taking retributive actions against a citizen (giving him a "very long bad day") who politely declines a search request is a good way to end a law enforcement career and make the agency responsible for awards in the 6-7 figure range.

[BuckingFastard]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Most good attorneys will advise to never consent to a voluntary search, and I follow that advice. Of course, they also advise not to attempt to prevent a law enforcement officer from conducting a search, even if it appears to be illegal, and I follow that advice to.

I won't be opening the ice chest for them, but I won't prevent them from boarding the boat and opening it themselves if they feel they must. But I'll politely make it clear that I have not consented to the search.

I know some very good lawyers who would love to sue law enforcement who feels intent on taking retributive actions for the above approach.

Taking retributive actions against a citizen (giving him a "very long bad day") who politely declines a search request is a good way to end a law enforcement career and make the agency responsible for awards in the 6-7 figure range.

thats right.

[all star rod]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The Bill of Rights is not surrendered anytime a citizen participates in a privilege.

Most good attorneys will advise to never consent to a voluntary search, and I follow that advice. Of course, they also advise not to attempt to prevent a law enforcement officer from conducting a search, even if it appears to be illegal, and I follow that advice too.

I won't be opening the ice chest for them, but I won't prevent them from boarding the boat and opening it themselves if they feel they must. But I'll politely make it clear that I have not consented to the search.

I know some very good lawyers who would love to sue law enforcement who feels intent on taking retributive actions for the above approach.

Taking retributive actions against a citizen (giving him a "very long bad day") who politely declines a search request is a good way to end a law enforcement career and make the agency responsible for awards in the 6-7 figure range.

But yet you are not going to stop them from looking in your ice chest....all this big talk for nothing....PFTTT.....

that is what is wrong with America...I can see it now on Fox New..LC man hires the cockran law firm for having his ice chest checked by the GW...

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by all star rod

that is what is wrong with America...I can see it now on Fox New..LC man hires the cockran law firm for having his ice chest checked by the GW...

For being a PhD Engineer, you sure aren't very good on the details. Or are you intentionally misrepresenting what was written?

Can you grasp the difference between filing a suit because a game warden looked into one's ice chest and filing a suit because a game warden took retributive actions (giving a citizen a "very long bad day") for politely declining a request for a voluntary search?

I doubt I would sue simply because a GW boarded the boat and looked in the ice chest. Lawsuits are expensive, and it's unlikely one could find decent attorneys to take that one on contingency, and success in the effort could go either way depending on details.

But very good attorneys line up for cases where law enforcement took retributive actions when citizens did nothing more than politely decline a request for a voluntary search. I'd have to pay no money up front, show up for a couple of depositions, cash a 6-7 figure settlement check, and sleep better knowing that most agencies will now be slower to attempt retribution against honest citizens who politely assert their Constitutional rights.

[T-TOP]

Originally Posted by all star rod

Fishing and hunting is not a right....it is a privilege...if you do not like the rules / laws very simple don't go. I tell you what the next time a GW ask to look in your ice chest tell him or her NO...I bet you will be in for a very long and bad day.

since when???? where do you live... Iraq???

[all star rod]

Originally Posted by T-TOP

since when???? where do you live... Iraq???

So if you break the game laws a judge cannot revoke your hunting or fishing privilege?

[BassYakR]

Originally Posted by all star rod

Fishing and hunting is not a right....it is a privilege...if you do not like the rules / laws very simple don't go. I tell you what the next time a GW ask to look in your ice chest tell him or her NO...I bet you will be in for a very long and bad day.

Dumbest thing you have ever said!