Posted by tleemay on January 11, 2005 at 10:41:12:
In Reply to: Food for thought posted by Elaine on January 11, 2005 at 10:15:36:
I'm not a lawyer, but I have been involved in
many legal preceedings on the white collar civil
and criminal level. So take this observation for
what it's worh.
In your example above;
If the liquor store just got robbed, I can see the searching for reasonable cause. Someone reported
the alledged crime to the law authorities, whom
have the duty and empowerment of enforcement to
investigate accordingly.
To equate that scenario to a boat full of divers;
If divers are on the boat, what is the reasonable
cause? Did someone witness and report poaching on
the boat that day to DF&G? If not, it looks like
the DF&G is searching without suspicion that a
crime has been committed in the first place. Isn't
that a "presumptious" assumption made on their part?
I see the argument for reason due to fishing poles
and dive gear being on deck in plain sight. What
if a CHP stops and searches your vehicle because
he sees you light a cigarette with a Bic lighter.
He received a report of an arson set fire down the
street and now want's to look in your trunk for
accellerants.
I am streatching a bit, but I hope you get what I
am trying to convey.
Comments?