Florida Law Enforcement ie; FWC

[Blue Crab]

Originally Posted by jeanathon

Police states exist when the population waits for it to be this bad before calling it a police state.

I am surprised daily at otherwise smart folks who refuse to think this is happening, and label those that do in derogatory terms. Heads up and outta the sand mates! Turn off your electronic I V drips and pay closer attention to our rapidly changing world.

The local cops of every stripe are just following orders. Few question the orders and none on payday. In law, the end result has been termed the Nuremberg Defense but I suspect it dates from the dawn of what we call civilization itself. Short attention span folks can watch My Bodyguard from Netflix.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke.

Much as I'd like to fly this flag it would be a poke in the eye to law enforcement. Still, I see it more and more out here on the edge and am considering it.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by DotDun

Hmm....trying to pay attention to this thread.

I assume you are referring to the life-saving Personal Floatation Devices (PFDs) and not Adobe Acrobat files known as PDF...???

I have often been boarded by LEOs wanting to inspect my Adobe Acrobat files known as PDF. Never known of LEOs questioning anyone about personal floatation devices. Who knew you should have a personal floatation device on your boat. Thanks for the heads up.

[captain58sailin]

PDF is the military designation: Personal Device Flotation.

[Captain Bill]

I once worked for the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) as a biologist and we used to sometimes work with what was then the Florida Marine Patrol(another division of FDNR), before it was merged with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission to form the FWC. This was more than 30 years ago. During that time the "War on Drugs" was really starting to get going. Along with that came several changes in the law, one of which was confiscation, which allowed the FMP to confiscate boats involved in illicit activities. I believe that they had this power before that with regards to fisheries law violations but most of the "poachers" were using cheap almost derelict boats for the most part. They didn't amount to much of a prize, but the drug runners were using much more sophisticated boats and they were big prizes. Over this time I saw a dramatic change it attitude among some of the officers we worked with. It was almost like a contest to see who could get the biggest prize. They went from driving around small relatively high performance runabouts to very fancy boats that looked like off shore racers that they had confiscated from drug dealers. It seemed to me that they would get a high or a rush from trying to get the best prize. In 1984, I was on the Florida State scientific dive team when a freighter named the Mercedes washed up on the beach if front of the Kennedy estate on Palm Beach during a November storm. Three of us from the team had to go to Palm Beach and survey the area off shore to be sure that no coral reefs would be damaged when the freighter was pulled off the beach. Instead of being picked up in a normal FMP patrol boat we were picked up in a 70 Ft sports fisherman the FMP had confiscated in a drug bust. To this day I've never been on a more luxurious boat. Why did the FMP need a boat like that? They didn't but it was a big prize and it was theirs. The FMP guys on it were in my opinion acting like 5 year olds on Christmas morning, even though the boat had been confiscated a year before.


In the meantime Florida made some law changes that I'm not exactly sure are a good idea for a free society. They made a lot of traffic and boating violations civil matters instead of criminal ones. What it did was make it a lot harder for innocent people or people who saw themselves as innocent to defend themselves from civil authority. When such violations were criminal matters you automatically could get your day in court to defend yourself. If you won, you got nothing, if you lost you got a fine and court costs, and depending on the severity of the offence possibly jail time or community service. When they made it an administrative fine you were not subject to jail time and there were upper limits on the amount of the fine that were lower than under the criminal statutes. It also meant that you did not have an automatic right to a court hearing as to your guilt. Under administrative law you are guilty simply by being charged. If you decide to defend yourself you can get a court hearing, but in doing so you take the matter out of the administrative process and into the criminal ones. All of the limitations on fines and the lack of possible jail sentences of the administrative process go away and one becomes subject to the full weight of the criminal justice system. In my opinion this is a form of blackmail, not justice, and it makes it much more difficult to defend ones self against what may have been a overzealous officer or one that is just offended by you. It makes it much easier for the officer to write you up for what might be called subjective violations, such as that experienced by the guy "bow riding" on the sailboat. There doesn't actually seem to be a law against doing that, but is caught up under the header of unsafe boating practices which the officers are allowed to subjectively write up administrative violations. It is very simple for the officers to do that since their judgment is not reviewable under normal circumstances. The fine is usually low enough to make it impractical to get a lawyer and fight it in court. The officer does not have to testify in court unless one chooses to fight the fine and subject themselves to criminal jeopardy. The money collected goes into trust funds that support the law enforcement organization. It also makes it much more likely to see charge creep. That is the officer will write an administrative violation at a higher level that is lawfully permitted. In Florida the most common incidents where this is routinely practiced is in regards to marine sanitation. There are two levels of fines under the law in this regard. The first is for not having your Y valve or overboard dump properly secured in the closed position. That fine is supposed to be $50. There is a $250 fine for actually dumping sewage overboard. I am aware of several people who were assessed a fine for not having their valves properly secured. Every one of them was written at the $250 level even though the valves were in the proper position, just not locked which warranted only the $50 fine.

In my opinion the knee jerk reaction to 9/11 and the war on drugs has been a disaster for personal freedom in the US. The US may not be a police state in the model of Cuba, Nazi Germany, or the old Soviet Union yet, but it is a lot more of a police state than it was when I was young and in my opinion continues to head in the wrong direction. I don't think that this is a Republican or Democratic problem unlike many others. It has been a creeping cancer that has infected both parties and most of all infects the law enforcement bureaucracies that exist no matter what party is in power. The people in Homeland Security, the war on drugs, local law enforcement and the FWC need to justify their jobs. Crime is down, so why do we need so many police. Homeland security has not managed to stop any significant terrorist incidents. Most of them have been stopped outside of our borders by other departments. These police, what ever uniform they wear, don't really have all that much to do. If they go around not busting people or harassing people under guise of "investigating" or “inspecting”, pretty soon people are going to be wondering why we have so many of them and why we need to pay ever increasing taxes to support them.

I've known several police officers over the years. My daughter is even married to one. My estimation is that about half of them are dedicated public servants who want only to serve and protect. The other half seem to be on some sort of power trip and get a real personal high from their power, some being more extreme in this regard than others. My experience is that it depends on which of these law enforcement types you run into what kind of day you are going to have if you have to interact with them.

By the way if you think that if you fight a charge in court that the system is not stacked against you consider this. A common question to a potential juror in Florida goes along the line of ""if you have a police officer and a witness that tell two different versions of what they saw which one would you believe?". If you want to get out of jury duty just say the the witness, or even, which ever one the evidence supports and you'll get to go home.

[DotDun]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

PDF is the military designation: Personal Device Flotation.

[OutOfControl]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

I aviate professionally, among other things I am the accountable manager for the repair station where I work as I'm an A&P/IA as well as a Commercial pilot, as such I have a few "friends" in the FSDO from being a test pilot, A&P, IA, Accountable manager. This exact thing was brought up in conversation by FSDO primary inspector on his last visit, see the CBP and Home land security folks are harassing the flying public and the FAA does not like it anymore than us pilots.
He is absolutely correct about being stopped, but its Homeland Security and or CBP doing the inspecting.
Want to almost guarantee a stop / visit? Originate your flight in Colorado and stop a couple of times on the way home, that will get you special attention.

a64, I was replying to this statement by bassdan.

"It's sad to see the country revert to such a police state. I am a private pilot, and have been reading about over 50 incidents in the last year about private pilots being pulled over on runways and harassed by police for things such as "making too many stops"."

First off the "police" would have no jurisdiction on most airport property and even if they could pull someone over it would not be on the runway. His statement was total BS and I called him out on it.
I am a retired FAA employee and I can assure you that we were required to report any and all suspicious activity.
The World as we knew it changed dramatically on 9/11/01 and we had to adjust, for good or bad it is what it is. But we are far from a so-called "police state".

[Hudson Force]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

..........................

In the meantime Florida made some law changes that I'm not exactly sure are a good idea for a free society. They made a lot of traffic and boating violations civil matters instead of criminal ones. What it did was make it a lot harder for innocent people or people who saw themselves as innocent to defend themselves .............................................

Thanks, Captain Bill, for this insightful post. It has far greater influence upon my opinion, and my learning, than listening to a brief rant and name-calling. Post #214 was a little long, but don't scan it too quickly,- very valuable!

[dougdaniel]

Originally Posted by OutOfControl

a64, I was replying to this statement by bassdan.

"It's sad to see the country revert to such a police state. I am a private pilot, and have been reading about over 50 incidents in the last year about private pilots being pulled over on runways and harassed by police for things such as "making too many stops"."

First off the "police" would have no jurisdiction on most airport property and even if they could pull someone over it would not be on the runway. His statement was total BS and I called him out on it.
I am a retired FAA employee and I can assure you that we were required to report any and all suspicious activity.
The World as we knew it changed dramatically on 9/11/01 and we had to adjust, for good or bad it is what it is. But we are far from a so-called "police state".

That's what I thought until a friend of mine, a policemen with the Oakland, CA PD told me that he had arrested a pilot on a taxiway of the Oakland International Airport for taxiing while drunk. Being a pilot myself, I was glad to have a drunk pilot out of the cockpit, but concerned about the separation of powers issue. When I asked him about the jurisdiction he said there were two issues here. First was public safety within his jurisdiction and the other was the practical issue of who is going to be sympathetic to the drunk pilot.

Just because Federal law gives the FAA jurisdiction and responsibility for airports does not mean that no other agency can enforce laws on an airport.

While the US is far from a police state there are and always will be some police who became policemen so they could push people around. Others truly want to make things better for all of us. They are, after all, people. Since laws can never cover all situations, the police must be able to use their judgement. Some do it well some don't.

I think that as citizens we have to complain to our politicians, form organizations like the AOPA who will hold these agencies accountable, then be polite and non-confrontational with law enforcement when we interact.

[tomfl]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

SNIP

In the meantime Florida made some law changes that I'm not exactly sure are a good idea for a free society. They made a lot of traffic and boating violations civil matters instead of criminal ones. What it did


SNIP

What it did was reduce the case load in the criminal justice system. The wait time for what I will call real criminal trials is way too long already. Not trying to minimize a $US50 or $US250 fine but do you really want to put that in front of someone facing murder, rape, or arson charges. The same thing happened to lots of pot offenses, now you just get a ticket instead of going to jail.

I am still waiting to find out what the ticket was written for.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by tomfl

What it did was reduce the case load in the criminal justice system. The wait time for what I will call real criminal trials is way too long already. Not trying to minimize a $US50 or $US250 fine but do you really want to put that in front of someone facing murder, rape, or arson charges.

If you want to live in a free society you just might. You did in fact state the primary justification for why they did this. They had a problem to solve, what I am opposed to is the way they solved it. They could have easily set up traffic courts or some other type of court for petty offenses. They did not have to change from a 200 year old system that assumed you were innocent until the state, county, etc proved you guilty in a court of law, to a system where you were guilty simply by being charged. This is not how a free society treats its people. This is state no longer under the rule of law but rule at the whim of a particular police officer. As you point out more and more former criminal acts are being put into this administrative category. This is especially true in the regulatory environment. The federal government under many circumstances can fine you or confiscate your property under administrative proceedings, which don't require a court finding. If you want to fight this you must prove that you are innocent and that the government had no justification in doing what they did. This again is a situation where you are guilty simply by the act of being charged and you have to prove yourself innocent. Under the guise of administrative law we are rapidly loosing our freedom. Again this is not the way people live in a free society. Some may claim that this is not a police state, I say it is. It may not resemble traditional police states, but any state where one is presumed guilty when simply charged by the police is a police state. These police may be disguised as bureaucrats, but they have police powers. They also have the powers of judge and jury. Sometimes they wear a uniform and sometimes they do not. The only thing they can't do is put you in jail. They still have to go to court to do that, but for how long? It doesn't matter if it's at the state federal or local level, but government sees fit to create more and more laws without creating the court infrastructure to administrate them. They simply make it a civil or administrative matter that allows them to deprive you of your property or money without a court judgment. This is not a free society under the rule of law, it is a police state under the rule of police in the guise of administrators and sometimes actual people called police.

[skipmac]

Great post. No ranting, raving, name calling, but based on similar experience to Bill's, accurate and unemotional facts.

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

This was more than 30 years ago. During that time the "War on Drugs" was really starting to get going. Along with that came several changes in the law, one of which was confiscation, which allowed the FMP to confiscate boats involved in illicit activities. I believe that they had this power before that with regards to fisheries law violations but most of the "poachers" were using cheap almost derelict boats for the most part. They didn't amount to much of a prize, but the drug runners were using much more sophisticated boats and they were big prizes. Over this time I saw a dramatic change it attitude among some of the officers we worked with. It was almost like a contest to see who could get the biggest prize. They went from driving around small relatively high performance runabouts to very fancy boats that looked like off shore racers that they had confiscated from drug dealers. It seemed to me that they would get a high or a rush from trying to get the best prize.

I lived in south Florida and was working in various areas of the boating business during this same time and saw the same changes. The war on drugs did nothing but create a monster, or more accurately several monsters.

It created a macho, over zealous climate for law enforcement that caused the public to lose trust and respect for law enforcement and has done nothing to stop illegal drug sales in the US. Much worse, it turned a business run by a bunch of stoned hippies to a dangerous mob activity run by armed gangs.

It also gave us zero tolerance which would result in your boat being confiscated if a single seed or roach was found on board . I believe the zero tolerance policy has been discontinued but I still carefully question anyone that goes out with me to make sure nothing illegal comes on board "by mistake".

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

I've known several police officers over the years. My daughter is even married to one. My estimation is that about half of them are dedicated public servants who want only to serve and protect. The other half seem to be on some sort of power trip and get a real personal high from their power, some being more extreme in this regard than others. My experience is that it depends on which of these law enforcement types you run into what kind of day you are going to have if you have to interact with them.

Don't know about the exact ration of good to bad but generally I think this is right on the money. My best friend from high school just retired after 30 years in law enforcement. I have two neighbors that are retired LEOs. All are good people and were in the business to stop criminals and protect the innocent. At the same time years ago I was pulled over by three patrol cars (they looking for a stolen car which wasn't us but we were in the wrong place) and heard on officer tell another, "I used to work in a grocery store and got tired of people ordering me around so I joined the police so I could be the one in charge".

Just like boaters, you will find good cops and bad cops. I have had boaters help me when I was in serious need and I have had boaters break in and steal all my electronics. I have had cops help me when I needed it most and I have had cops try to bully me.

So far all my interactions with USCG, FWC, etc have been pleasant and positive.

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

A common question to a potential juror in Florida goes along the line of ""if you have a police officer and a witness that tell two different versions of what they saw which one would you believe?". If you want to get out of jury duty just say the the witness, or even, which ever one the evidence supports and you'll get to go home.

Want another way to get off jury duty? My wife somehow got on a list and got called up four times in one year. Every time it came to questioning the individual jurors one of the questions was about education. When my wife answered that she graduated college she was dismissed, every time. Guess they only want uneducated, easily duped people on a jury.

[BandB]

Funny one yesterday. A captain friend of mine was delivering a sail boat to a shipper, DYT, for transport to Europe. He handed the FWC guy the documents for the boat. After looking a minute or so the guy asked "What language are these in?" The Captain closed the documents and the front made it clear it was French. Obviously, not something anyone present could read. I'd never thought of this before, but it has to happen a good bit.

[Jammer Six]

If the police make you so angry you're not going to take it anymore, you don't live in a police state.

Police states don't make their citizens angry. A police state creates despair, not anger.

In a police state, the police make you want to lay down, curl up and cry, or they make you think of suicide as a reasonable option. In fact, thousands of people who live in police states make exactly that choice each year.

The fact that you are unaware of this distinction means nothing.

Not to mention the obvious. You're posting about law enforcement. Claiming that they're a police state in that post is extremely amusing.

People who compare any American government to police states have, since I saw a police state in action, (North Korea, in 1975-1976) amazed me by their ungrateful, ignorant, self-centered, myopic view of the social contract.

I used to wonder what they were seeing, but then I realized it wasn't what they were seeing, it was who was looking.

Bias is not a reasonable substitute for critical thought.

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

If the police make you so angry you're not going to take it anymore, you don't live in a police state.

Police states don't make their citizens angry. A police state creates despair, not anger.

In a police state, the police make you want to lay down, curl up and cry, or they make you think of suicide as a reasonable option. In fact, thousands of people who live in police states make exactly that choice each year.

The fact that you are unaware of this distinction means nothing.

Not to mention the obvious. You're posting about law enforcement. Claiming that they're a police state in that post is extremely amusing.

People who compare any American government to police states have, since I saw a police state in action, (North Korea, in 1975-1976) amazed me by their ungrateful, ignorant, self-centered, myopic view of the social contract.

I used to wonder what they were seeing, but then I realized it wasn't what they were seeing, it was who was looking.

Bias is not a reasonable substitute for critical thought.

Jammer, I'm not sure I understand your post. You were in North Korea in 1975-76? Were you an American spy? Are you suggesting that all police states are created equal and that they all use the same methods to the same degree? Who was stating bias against whom? You think that Americans’ should not object to the creeping establishment of a police state until it reaches the level of North Korea or we citizens are reduced to despair? I just don't get your point. Are you suggesting that we are more free now with administrative justice than we were in say 1960 when the government had to take you to court to find you guilty of something? Granted the courts weren't perfect and if your skin was the wrong color you had very little chance at justice, but is a police officer or bureaucrat being able to levy a fine without a court finding you guilty of anything an improvement?

I still don't get the bias thing. I'm an American that believes in the rule of law. I just think that the person deciding if you have violated the law should be a supposedly impartial judge or judge and jury not a police officer or a bureaucrat. Is that what you call bias? The executive branch should accuse, but the judiciary should judge. This is the American way. It’s why three branches of government were established. The Legislative decides what the law should be, the Executive gets to accuse you of violating the law, and the Judiciary decides if you did. The Judiciary also gets to decide if the laws passed by the Legislative branch and enforced by the Executive branch are allowed under the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. I still don’t get the bias thing? Who is bias against whom?

[Blue Crab]

Call it what you will but as we continue to make law and war with executive orders rather than the consent of Congress, we have bypassed the rule of law by the rule of men. This is way beyond name-calling between the parties. It's all but systemic now. If you don't see it yet, you may be part of the problem.

Don't tell me how smart you are, how sophisticated you are, how rich/liberal/whatever you think you are, if you don't see these actions for what they are, the winds of civil war, you're not what you present yourself to be.