misfish Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 I fish in his boat, he never has fish. I might have a couple, but it,s not my boat. Thats all I got to say about that.
John Bacon Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 So you're upset they did a thorough check of your boat? Do you know how many times these guys are probably lied to by people? lol I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't take your word for it. Are you suggesting that it is likely that someone may remove their prop, batteries, and fishing equipment from their boat in order to trick a CO on a road side check in believing that they had not been fishing?
Terry Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 Are you suggesting that it is likely that someone may remove their prop, batteries, and fishing equipment from their boat in order to trick a CO on a road side check in believing that they had not been fishing? oh good, i thought maybe it was just me that thought that
grimsbylander Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 yes they did not have the legal right (probable cause) to search and or to continue searching my boat Why not??? This was my point...I read your original post and as it's highlighted below, YOU ADMITTED TO GIVING THEM PERMISSION. Just like you have the right to say no, they have the right to have you sit on the side of the highway and wait for a warrant. And guess what, if it's not a dwelling and they believe waiting to search could jeopardize the investigation/evidence, they can search without a warrant!! So they did everything to the book...they asked...you said no...they said you'll have to wait for a warrant, and you said go ahead...YOUR words. So what's your beef and all this huffing and puffing about civil rights when you gave them permission?? Or maybe your story is complete Bull? Yeah, this is the most likely scenario. So for someone that obviously backed down because they were willing to get a warrant yet didn't have to, smart call on saving the .25 to call a lawyer... Oh, and my guess is they weren't upset they didn't find anything, they were upset that some guy with less than a teaspoon of knowledge about civil rights, the Ontario Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, and the limitations of enforcement within the Act by CO's, thought he'd play Johnnie Cochran and waste valuable time and resources. This has nothing to do with rights being disregarded. I have seen it before and have been stopped a couple of times by them The one time was about this time of year and I was towing my bass boat home from winter storage. I had no prop on it no safety equipment. No rods no fishing stuff. Not even electronics. They asked if I had any fish I said no Then they asked if they could search. And I said no Then they said I would need to sit there until a warrant arrives to let them search I said you do understand I it would need to be in the water to have fish on it. And without batteries and rods and what not seems unlikely I would have fish. In the end I let them search. And they asked. If you had nothing to hide why would you not allowed us to search. I said. Because if it's my right to say no. Why would you expect me to say yes. They seemed upset they found nothing and sent me on my way
Terry Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 even if they got a search warrant , they would have to lie to the judge to get it i will say again probable cause they didnt have it to search they didnt have it for a warrant after a few seconds into the search they had to know there was now the boat was in the lake , they should have stopped so no probable cause some people a sheep and are helping to walk us down to the butcher shop
Headhunter Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 Ok, I changed my mind, I'm with Brian on this one! LOL HH
grimsbylander Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 even if they got a search warrant , they would have to lie to the judge to get it i will say again probable cause they didnt have it to search they didnt have it for a warrant after a few seconds into the search they had to know there was now the boat was in the lake , they should have stopped so no probable cause some people a sheep and are helping to walk us down to the butcher shop More Bull...forget the ifs and buts...DID you give them permission? You said you did!! NOT a rights violation! Stop conjuring up alternate scenarios to try to justify your twisted story. And now you're saying the search is ok BUT THEY SHOULD HAVE STOPPED AFTER A FEW SECONDS??? LMAO Like I said complete Bull Congrats to the CO's on following the letter of the law and working to protect our resources!!! I wish there were more of you and the inspections were more frequent!!
misfish Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 Ok, I changed my mind, I'm with Brian on this one! LOL HH LMAO
Fisherman Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 even if they got a search warrant , they would have to lie to the judge to get it i will say again probable cause they didnt have it to search they didnt have it for a warrant after a few seconds into the search they had to know there was now the boat was in the lake , they should have stopped so no probable cause some people a sheep and are helping to walk us down to the butcher shop
Terry Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 (edited) grimsbylander i hope law enforcement does you and your family some day we will come back to this tread and laugh and and try to pick it a part to prove a lame point gosh it will be fun Edited May 25, 2017 by Terry
Carp Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 I get the privacy thing, but IMO, as soon as you refuse to allow them to do their checks, red flags go up and they now have reason to believe you're hiding something. You'll get searched extra thoroughly. If they can, they'll nail you for little things that would otherwise have been overlooked. Ask yourself this: Who would a judge side with ? The guy who refused to allow the CO's to do a routine roadside check, or the law enforcement officers conducting that check ?
Fisherman Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 If I'm not mistaken, you don't get wacked for find ins, by that I mean things that may be found during a search not relevant to what you are being searched for in the first place. You may be surprised how much is thrown out as inadmissable taken by overzealous Fuzz. Illegal stuff that you shouldn't have like dope is a no brainer.
grimsbylander Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 grimsbylander i hope law enforcement does you and your family some day we will come back to this tread and laugh and and try to pick it a part to prove a lame point gosh it will be fun You hope law enforcement does me or my family???? What does that even mean??? LOL If the worse thing that ever happens is they ASK to search, I really have nothing to worry about. But good job trying to keep the whole alarmist view on civil rights going and side-stepping the fact YOU told them they could search.
Rizzo Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 I am surprised someone would refuse the search. You have nothing to hide, so why waste these guys time? They are simply trying to do a job to protect resources. As soon as you reject the search you act like you are guilty. If you got pulled over at a RIDE check, and you had nothing to drink, would you refuse the breathalyzer? I can't understand the confrontational nature. I would just politely tell the guy "go ahead" and then I would have a polite chat while he is doing it. I would rather be 10 kms down the highway thinking "what a nice that guy that CO was" than be the confrontational guy who is now being given the gears and is still sitting at the checkpoint.
moxie Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 So you're upset they did a thorough check of your boat? Do you know how many times these guys are probably lied to by people? lol I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't take your word for it. It's disingenuous and there in lies the issue. I'd wait for the warrant and I hope that while not realistic, more people would stop being push overs and stand up for themselves. Justifiable Defiance is the publics way of enforcing and educating those who might feel it is only up to them to do so.
BillM Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 It's disingenuous and there in lies the issue. I'd wait for the warrant and I hope that while not realistic, more people would stop being push overs and stand up for themselves. Justifiable Defiance is the publics way of enforcing and educating those who might feel it is only up to them to do so. I under stand sticking up for yourself, I just don't see this as one of those times.
moxie Posted May 25, 2017 Report Posted May 25, 2017 I under stand sticking up for yourself, I just don't see this as one of those times. It's never a good time. I'd rather go with, "There's no time like the present."
jjcanoe Posted May 26, 2017 Report Posted May 26, 2017 A conservation officer is a peace officer (same as OPP or local or mounties) and you must follow their direction when they ask you to pull over do it. There were plenty of signs posted, this guy stoped on the highway then backed up on the highway and exited just before the checkpoint. Towing a boat full of fishing gear
dave524 Posted May 26, 2017 Report Posted May 26, 2017 Me thinks too many here are getting their legal facts from U.S. cop and lawyer shows.
porkpie Posted May 26, 2017 Report Posted May 26, 2017 It's disingenuous and there in lies the issue. I'd wait for the warrant and I hope that while not realistic, more people would stop being push overs and stand up for themselves. Justifiable Defiance is the publics way of enforcing and educating those who might feel it is only up to them to do so. Good for you, so far you are one of the few that understands the whole argument of defending your Charter rights. If you are going to stand on your charter right to what you believe is unreasonable search, then you may be inconvenienced and it will probably take some time. I can respect a guy for being willing to walk the mile, even if disagree with his reasoning. If you are going to knuckle on your belief in your rights and your personal principles and consent to search the minute you realize you might be inconvenienced and it might take extra time, do you really have principles?
porkpie Posted May 26, 2017 Report Posted May 26, 2017 Me thinks too many here are getting their legal facts from U.S. cop and lawyer shows. ?.
manitoubass2 Posted May 26, 2017 Report Posted May 26, 2017 Lol, look at that sign. No wonder people didn't pull over
Carp Posted May 26, 2017 Report Posted May 26, 2017 I agree the sign could be bigger and higher to be more visible, but it's pretty clear that if you've been hunting or fishing, they want you to stop at the checkpoint.
manitoubass2 Posted May 26, 2017 Report Posted May 26, 2017 I agree the sign could be bigger and higher to be more visible, but it's pretty clear that if you've been hunting or fishing, they want you to stop at the checkpoint. No, there should be an officer directing traffic. Not some sign you can barely read
Dara Posted May 26, 2017 Report Posted May 26, 2017 Yup. Any one I have been stopped there is some sort of officer picking which one to flag in and which ones to pass on. If he doesn't wave me in I keep going. For what it's worth though. I have gotten away with lots of stuff by being polite and just got a warning
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now