Subject to police search?

[lornaschinske]

Originally Posted by thechandler

Maybe so, but hopefully not the tune that sings murder is justified.

Silly boy, it's not murder if there is no body to be found!

[Lady Chicory]

Luke I can understand your reasoning wanting to keep your friends safe by using a designated driver. Ontario Canada the laws are as such; if you can prove the vehicle is a complete residence which means all the following must be meet. At minimum a 3 piece bath, kitchen with fridge, stove, sink, and sleeping accommodations. This makes it a home and subject to all laws pertaining to homes. By our laws for an officer to enter your home or in this case your bus they need either a warrant or justifiable cause. Justifiable cause can be anything that makes the officers sincerely believe a law is being broken. This includes but not limited to sounds, smells, and visual evidence.
OP was correct that when under power the bus becomes a vehicle and therefore subject to all rules of the road which means no open alcohol period. In Ontario there is also licensing laws also if the bus is capable of seating 11 passengers a bus license is required to drive it. Research local laws as what might be might be applicable may very well change if you cross any borders or state lines on the way to your destination. Best to limit the partying to when stationary.

[Redbear]

WOW!

Luke wrote: "if a policeman saw my fun wagon and pulled me over do you think he would insist on seeing the passenger area?"
> It depends on who and where. Border Patrol within 100 air miles of Canada or Mexico will check the back for sure. Locals depend on local laws. Even where "reasonable cause to believe" is required but does not exist, they may search anyway, and it is up to your defense attorney to try and throw out what they might find. Good Luck.

Smitty wrote: "If you want to "party" underage, do it at someone's house, not on the road."
> Amen. Sleep it off after the party, then leave and go home. Or use a taxi or designated driver.

Papabear wrote: "You can refuse a search of your vehicle. At that point you can be held until a K9 unit has arrived and done a walk around and either cleared you or taken a hit"
>It again depends on who and where. NY's top court recently ruled tighter restrictions are guaranteed by the State than the US Constitution, so no "free air sniffs" without reasonable cause to believe, unless there is a Fed dog handy. And I have not heard of "Alcohol Dogs." "Drug Dogs" and "Bomb Dogs" yes, and (no lie) "Cell Phone Dogs" in prisons. But it is still up to your attorney to get any evidence found thrown out if they perform an "illegal" search anyway.

Thechandler wrote: "think back to your highschool years, we all drank."
>Thinking back to my high school 'extra curricular' activities, it was the grace of God, not intelligent decisions on my part that allowed me to survive them.

Smitty wrote: "Now, let's see.....ever seen a car-load of teens? Ever see them jack with the guy driving? "
> That's why the law here won't allow a bunch of even sober non-related teens to ride with an under-21 driver. The law currently allows one friend as a passenger, and several legislators want to change that down to zero.

I agree with Lorna that if you are old enough to handle deadly weapons and risk your life for your country (thank you), you are old enough to handle alcohol. And RV passengers in many places have exemption from the "No Open Containers in Vehicles" laws. But the bottom line is, the original idea (now scrapped) sounds like a cop magnet.

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted by lornaschinske

And then there are the parents who would take things into their own hands. I know that if my girls were under age and I found out they were in the situation that OP proposes... let's just say he would never see his 21st birthday, no body would ever be found and I would have an airtight alibi. It pays to know folks in low places.

You belong in a straitjacket, in a padded cell. Having a beer at age 19 is EEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL, but MURDER FOR HIRE is A-OK? Talk about some seriously twisted values. I hope your children are able to escape before being damaged for good by their psycopath mother.

[lornaschinske]

Message edited. My apologies for my reply. My only excuse is that I was full of cough meds and have nothing else to say on this subject.

[RevBill]

Smitty .. use your mod-powers and just delete this thread .. this is a mess ...

[crazycal]

And then there are the parents who would take things into their own hands. I know that if my girls were under age and I found out they were in the situation that OP proposes... let's just say he would never see his 21st birthday, no body would ever be found and I would have an airtight alibi. It pays to know folks in low places.

Originally Posted by lornaschinske

Maybe so, but hopefully not the tune that sings murder is justified.

Silly boy, it's not murder if there is no body to be found!

Have you been hitting the bottle. You know that cough syrup has alcohol in it too. Why would you say that to the world. I guess there goes your alibi.

[roach711]

Luke - doesn't matter whether your plan is legal or not, it's got TRAIN WRECK written all over it.

Lorna - You just said out loud what any parent would be thinking. I would seriously consider going postal on any guys that lured my girls into this sort of situation.

[crazycal]

Originally Posted by Smitty

If you hadn't noticed, I had my mod status revoked for not being a liberal ass-kisser............only was told a different "story" as the reason.

Smitty

LOL. Smitty, you're too nice to be a mod. You have to be a hard assed, opinionated, outspoken kinda guy to be a mod and that's just not you. Sorry. Maybe in your next life.

[chopperdr]

register it as a Livery vehicle, and get a class B lic, and you are all set, at least thats one way around it in Mass.

[madpsalmer]

Great another blog gone to the dogs sorry Smitty. I bet they say they are tolerant and open minded as well. Thanks for having the conviction to be true to who you are, and what you believe.

[lapeer20m]

I am not advocating breaking any laws, but as far as an officer searching your vehicle, he needs either your consent, or probably cause to believe that a crime is being committed. Just for reference, the supreme court has found that when a vehicle is stopped, all of the occupants of the vehicle are also stopped. However, depending on the state, they are not necessarily required to provide ID (except for the driver of course)

With limited exception, i would never consent to any searches or seizures.

Both of these links are for very long video's, but are definitely worth watching.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlXzdA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

[lapeer20m]

Originally Posted by Redbear

WOW!

Luke wrote: "if a policeman saw my fun wagon and pulled me over do you think he would insist on seeing the passenger area?"
> It depends on who and where. Border Patrol within 100 air miles of Canada or Mexico will check the back for sure.

Not true. Border patrol has no more rights than any other police officer unless you are actually at the border except they can set up a check point, but you are not required to roll down your window provide id or even talk to them. They cannot detain you without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.

[Redbear]

Originally Posted by lapeer20m

Not true. Border patrol has no more rights than any other police officer unless you are actually at the border except they can set up a check point, but you are not required to roll down your window provide id or even talk to them. They cannot detain you without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed.

You may be right about that, but there is a difference between rights and reality. An old man I once worked with always said, "It's not how much {BS} you throw, it's how much you make stick." The reality is that your rights are only what the courts decide they are. All the laws in the world won't help you if the courts won't agree.

Some CBP agents are cross-deputized by individual states to make arrests under state laws, which would also allow them to initiate contact if observing a vehicle speeding or rolling through a stop sign. They do it here all the time. It is a requirement of State law that the driver would have to show ID to a sworn officer of the State at the stop, at a checkpoint, or anywhere else. Refusing to identify yourself simply because of the agent's primary mission is extremely likely to cause you problems.

I have been stopped at a floating CBP checkpoint on the Interstate between Lake Placid and Albany 3 or 4 times. The pool car I use for work is identical to an unmarked SUV, and as such I have been released without showing ID with just a "yes" to the question "Are you a United States Citizen." My co-worker, however, was issued a pickup truck with a closed cap to carry his tools in, and CBP was going to toss the back even after showing IDs, until one of the cooperating locals on the scene recognized and vouched for him.

Consider this reality. This is an incident from a year or so ago, as reported over a period of weeks by a newspaper near the border. The reported facts:
- CBP officials found some packaged marijuana in the woods within 5 miles of the Canadian border
- They heard an ATV in the woods nearby at the time
- Within an hour or so, they saw a local young man operating an ATV on a road within 13 miles of the border
- They attempted to stop the ATV in order to question the operator, and the operator refused to comply
- The agents shot the young man in the back as he was fleeing
- The young man was severely injured, but was not killed

The agents claimed the shooting was in self-defense, and stated that the young man tried to run them down with his ATV. There was no report as to whether the young man steered toward the agents when they were at the side of the road, or whether they stepped out in front of him and he simply refused to stop. It's hard to tell what really happened, as the two agents and the young man were the only ones there.

If the ATV was the only weapon, it can be argued that the threat of violence was ended when the young man was fleeing. For local officers, the use of deadly force is only authorized to end a violent threat to the officer or to the public. Protecting the public would include apprehending a violent felon who is fleeing. If a local officer fired at a subject suspected of a non-violent crime who was unarmed and fleeing, the shooter's career would be over.

According to procedure, the county DA presented a criminal charge to a grand jury against the agents under State law. The grand jury did not indict the agents. They must have decided that by endangering the officers with his ATV the young man committed a violent felony, so that fleeing the scene would allow the discretionary use of deadly force under State law.

In each situation you encounter, whether it's cops, a street gang, a stranger at your front door, or anyone else, you have to weigh whether what you feel is your "right" is worth exercising in the face of deadly or destructive force, or legal ruination. You need a realistic estimate about whether the courts would agree with your interpretation of the events should you confront a criminal with force, or initiate non-compliance with an officer's "illegal" order. If you don't exercise a "right," you have lost it, but you have to decide which rights are worth fighting for, and which should be let go. There is a saying that you get to "choose which hill you [are willing to] die on," and not every slight is worth becoming a martyr for. Sometimes staying completely out of the "neighborhood" [legal or geographic] is the wisest choice.

[lornaschinske]

There is an old saying among the RVing crowd..... "The side of the road is not the place to argue law... you do that in court".

[lapeer20m]

Very good post redbear.

I agree that if a bp agent witnesses your breaking the law, they can stop you and do in fact have the same powers as any other law enforcement officer. (at least in Michigan)

However, the Supreme Court of The United States has ruled that border patrol cannot detain an individual at a checkpoint for more than a few seconds without probable cause.

Here is the case us v martinez-fuerte in which the court stated: "We have held that checkpoint searches are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause to search" (though the court did hold that the probable cause bar was low for permanent checkpoints with limited impact on motorists). The Court also held, "our holding today is limited to the type of stops described in this opinion. -[A]ny further detention...must be based on consent or probable cause"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... nez-Fuerte

I also agree that there is a time and place to stand up for your rights. I tend to stand up for my rights whenever possible, although it is easier to go with the flow and not cause a ruckus. it is good every now and then to remind our servants that they are not allowed to exceed their lawful authority. who will watch the watchmen ?

[putterspitt]

any idea about a personel use bus? thats what it looks like I will have to go with, cant get anyone to insure it as a rv, since it wasnt done by a "pro"

[Seeria]

Try gmac?