Re: Summation of "reasonable" litmus test

Great Dive Trips at Bargain Prices with the Sea Divers

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by tleemay on January 12, 2005 at 11:10:46:

In Reply to: Summation of "reasonable" litmus test posted by Dave on January 11, 2005 at 20:52:45:

Some interesting information I found this morning.
This is a pretty good site of information even
though it does not address commercial boats
specifically in it's info.

"Moving Vehicle/Probable Cause Doctrine--an automobile, truck, van, motorhome, boat, airplane or other movable object can be searched IF there is (a) probable cause (b) the vehicle is moving or about to be moved, and (c) a warrant cannot be readily obtained. Every part of the vehicle can be searched, including closed containers in the trunk, although special justification is needed for trunks. Diminished expectations of privacy are assumed to exist with moving vehicles. Probable cause can be easily established via police dogs, who have a sense of smell six million times greater than that of a human."

So if applying this to a dive boat, there has to
be reasonable cause. From what I can gather from
reading other posts here, reasonable cause would
be because there are fishing poles and dive gear,
not so much as suspected being on the boat, but in
plain sight. Agreed?

Would this summation apply to off shore commercial
boats, and if it does, does it apply beyond the
limits of a port's line of demarcation?


"Certain quasi-public police departments (i.e., port police, transit police) are allowed to do warrantless searches, and the Court has held that probation officers, although government officials for most purposes, have the right to justify searches under less than probable cause."

Noting above, I wonder if this right to
warrantless search extends to DF&G officers?

"If the police come upon evidence obtained by employees of a private carrier, such as Federal Express, bicycle delivery, rental car or limousine service (to name a few), or private security (hotel detectives, department store security guards, etc.) no warrant is required and the evidence is admissible. Such private individuals are not subject to the same Fourth Amendment provisions as government officials. This exception applies only if the private search for evidence is made without the knowledge or participation of a government agent."

So, as an example, the captain of a boat watches
a fisherman catch and bag a fish either of
questionable size, or a well known protected
species that is on the no take lists. Does the
captain have the right to search the fisherman's
bag, measure the fish - which is illegal in size
or species allowed to take, and then report the
fisherman to DF&G officials for possible poaching
investigation with the fish LEGALLY being used
as evidence by a court of lay to support a

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup




Optional Link URL:
Optional Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ California Scuba Diving BBS ] [ FAQ ]