|Re: Case reopened, lol|
Posted by John Refkin on November 03, 2005 at 16:30:07:|
In Reply to: Case reopened, lol posted by Dave on November 03, 2005 at 11:56:54:
Thanks for responding to my post as I predicted you would. But I don’t understand where you see the errors of my rebuttal.
As for Fish and Game Code section 1006, this is what you posted:
“1006. The department may inspect the following:
Nowhere in this Section does it state that a dive boat with divers in the water is probable cause to search.”
Dave, it clearly states, THE DEPARTMENT (meaning Game Wardens) MAY INSPECT (which by legal definition is “To examine carefully and critically, especially for flaws”) ALL BOATS… WHERE FISH MAY BE HELD.
The probable cause exists under MAY BE HELD. Any idiot, Game Warden or not, can determine that a dive boat with divers may have fish/ lobsters on board. Their probable cause and reasonable believe is in their observations. Section 1006 supports their search based on these simple observations.
And then you mention 7002. Did you mean 7702? There is no 7002 in the Fish and Game Code. I don’t know where you got this 7002 section from, but Fish and Game Code section 7702 states: The department may enter and examine any canning, packing,
Please take note of the part where it states the DEPARTMENT MAY BOARD ANY FISHING BOAT… OR EXAMINE ANY RECEPTACLE CONTAINING FISH.
In your research, look up Fish and Game Code section 45 as well. It describes the definition of “fish” used in the code. Hope this helps clear up any confusions you may have about these two sections. Thanks for reading my post.
|Optional Link URL:|
|Optional Link Title:|
|Optional Image URL:|
|Post Background Color:||White Black|
|Post Area Page Width:||Normal Full|
|You must type in the
scrambled text key to
This is required to
help prevent spam bots
from flooding this BBS.