Boaters will face roadside checks for invasive species

[Stick in Mud]

I certainly see your point, but I guess I just don't agree that we're on a slippery slope that will lead us into totalitarianism. Late-hour additions happen all the time--and have been happening for a long time. Let's hope that if this issue does become serious, it'll be challenged in court.

[Riverratpete]

Maybe your right and I'm just being crying wolf but as a life long fisherman and sportsman in this state I'm very concerned about the direction we seem to be heading. It seems to me that every year there is more and more laws added..none withdrawn of course. They've taken a perfectfully peaceful and relaxing recreation and turned it into a money grubbing fest where a fella can't even feel like a law abiding citizen unless they have a law book with them. Maybe I'm just getting older and things are changing but in the immortal words of Don Henley "call something paradise, kiss it goodbye".

[simple1]

I certainly see your point, but I guess I just don't agree that we're on a slippery slope that will lead us into totalitarianism. Late-hour additions happen all the time--and have been happening for a long time. Let's hope that if this issue does become serious, it'll be challenged in court.

It's just a difference of opinion. I think the line is crossed when you can be stopped and checked without first commiting a violation of the law. Every one is entitled to their opinion and I certainly respect the opinion of those who disagree with mine. This will be challenged in court and I really don't know what the outcome will be. Not totalitarianism as they are trying to solve a real problem the best they can. I really would like to find out the legal reasoning they are using to stop and search boats on a highway.

[Hockey Guy]

I’m sorry to jump in again, but I posted on a different forum as well and I noticed that I didn’t come back on here to explain myself. First of all I was very upset when I wrote Fascist and Nazi, but I was referring to fascist in the context of the government ideology of suppressing individual freedom. And, the Nazi reference was meant to simply introduce the “brown shirt” mentality, and complete helplessness with concern to compliance on this subject. You will have NO choice whether you want to be pulled over for hours and searched or not! However, I do agree with your point that I was a little harsh. I simply am tired of my individual liberties being trampled because I happen to be a part of a minority group. In this case a fisherman. I still find it amazing that people are fighting me so strongly on this subject in the other forums. The fact that the largest contributing factor of invasive species transfer is animals and birds, and that this law will accomplish nothing, isn’t even the point in my opinion. I just don’t understand how easily some people are willing to give up the individual liberties simply because the law in question may serve as a benefit to them.

Simple1 brought up a point that this law actually will set precedence for. He stated that texting is illegal so does that mean they can pull everyone over and take their phone to see if they have been texting while driving? Sometimes the solutions to the problems aren’t easy, but allowing the government to trample on our constitutional rights is NEVER EVER the answer. I don’t care if they are only setting up checkpoints at 2% of the highways or 50% of the highways. We live under that rule of law and our forefathers were brilliant enough to set up a system that gave us basic liberties and the government LIMITED power for a reason. This law will just be an incredible annoyance because we could be pulled over for hours, but that’s not the point. Everyone needs to look past your personal interest in the problem they are attempting to solve and focus on the unprecedented power they are granted to enforce it.

It is just a matter of opinion and like most things it comes down to which side of the aisle you are on politically. I my opinion we have such an inverted morality right now throughout this country that people are willing to give up their liberties as long as it benefits them… for now! Maybe I am the one that is off base here, but I actually had people suggest in the other forum that if I don’t like being pulled over without probable cause and waiting for hours in order to have my boat illegally searched, that I should sell my boat! Seriously? Am I the only one that doesn’t see that as a prime example of inverted morality?

[BobT]

I agree Aaron. And the police should also randomly stop us to see if we recently sent a text, because it's against the law to do that also. Then the next set of stops should be DWI checks because drinking and driving is against the law. And lastly we should be pulled over for a seat belt check. Then everyone can be assured we are safe.

Simple1

That was a mouthful!

[BobT]

I don't have an issue with them checking at boat ramps. I think that is a good idea, and I expect to see the DNR on lakes. I just think that stopping vehicles, even 1 on the highway is too far. And second I really don't believe this will do anything to stop the spread. But I agree that saying Fascist or Nazi is taking it too far. Im sure they all have the best intentions, but that does not mean I agree either. If they are going to hire 150 new people to do this they will pull boats over.

Man, you are taking the words right out of my mouth. Are you standing behind me looking over my shoulder?

[BobT]

You raise a good point, spread. Will ANYTHING stop the spread of invasives? If the answer is no, then why do anything to try to stop it? If the answer is yes, then do all that you can (and all that is constitutionally legal). And if it's "only" going to slow the spread, then, welll, I don't know...

How can we feel certain about the outcomes of these laws? If we are willing to throw up our hands and say, "Well, the spread of invasives is inevitable," then I guess the implication is that we should do nothing about it. That seems....I don't know...unacceptable to me. What's the other option here, doing nothing? Or trying to do something? And then what should we do? I don't think there are any easy answers, and I'm sure most of them have flaws that some of us will be unhappy with...but I'm not going to go around calling people fascists because they're attempting to solve an issue that I think we all agree is problematic. Just my measly .02.

Since when does disagreeing with an unconstitutional infringement upon our rights translate into, "we should do nothing about it?" Sheesh! I think maybe it's time we can get off the extremism train.

1. We should all be up in arms when our legislature attempts to derail our guaranteed rights under the constitution.

2. Placing "spot checks" at the ramps of infested waters seems to be a far more efficient use of our money and resources than placing them at some out of the way location and hoping a infested boat comes by. That's like placing police officers in a city playground to look for would-be bank robbers. What a waste of effort and resources.

[reinhard1]

does anyone know for sure, proof positive, that the DNR will stop you on the highway for this program? their language to me so far is "the road side stops will occur at or very near the boat landing". they are aware of the Constitutional issue here and the leglislature wrote the language of the law with this in mind. we will see the details soon according to the DNR. let's see how the very few actual stops are planned and exactly where they will be located. they will not be located on any highway out of nowhere as some people think. good luck.

[BobT]

It's just that when I hear the phrase, "road side spot check," I immediately think of the old safety checks that I would encounter on the highways. I remember one time when I was coming home from work and was stopped on highway 169 between Mt. Iron and Kinney, right in the middle of nowhere. Like you said, let's wait and see I guess.

[simple1]

I sent the DNR an email yesterday for clarification. I hope they will get back to me on Tuesday. I will let you know their answer.

Simple1

[RumRiverRat]

It is an infringement on our 4th Amendment rights.

I will not stop for these checkpoints.

[Stick in Mud]

I don't mean to sound extremist at all; if I came across that way, I wasn't being clear. I'm sure this law will be challenged in court eventually, especially if they pull over someone with enough money to fight it until its logical conclusion. I'll also probably get much more angry at it when it begins to actually affect me....which might be a failure on my part to protect my individual liberties, but I do my best not to get worked up about things that are (more or less) out of my control. Ideologically I agree with all those who are disagreeing with me; emotionally, I just can't get as worked up about it. I'm glad there are people out there who do, don't get me wrong, but this case doesn't seem severe enough to me. Again, just my measly .02.

[Finns]

It is an infringement on our 4th Amendment rights.

I will not stop for these checkpoints.

Any different than sobriety check points? Do you not stop for those also?

[simple1]

The courts will decide if they are different or not. The Supreme Court ruled the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement (On 4th Amendment Rights) of being stopped at check points. But the state interest was to reduce drunk driving because the stated proved to the courts that drunk driving caused deaths. So the courts will decide if reducing deaths and fighting invasive species in lakes are on a level playing field. You can look up the case in Michigan Dept. Of State V. Stiz (1990)

I highly recommend everyone stops for the checkpoints and not to be argumentative or uncooperative with the officers trying to do their jobs. If you feel your rights have been violated by a stop, you can file a formal complaint or acquire the services of a lawyer at a later date. Not stopping or causing problems for an officer is only going to hurt you.

Simple1

[RumRiverRat]

Any different than sobriety check points? Do you not stop for those also?

Not Legal in MN.

Ruled Unconstitutional.

[simple1]

You are correct, I was looking at US law and missed this one. Now I'm really looking forward to my email from the DNR with some clarification on this issue.

[delcecchi]

It is an infringement on our 4th Amendment rights.

I will not stop for these checkpoints.

Then memorize these words....

"Don't taze me, bro"

[RumRiverRat]

"Don't taze me, bro"

If they taze me I will have an even bigger lawsuit!

[delcecchi]

If they taze me I will have an even bigger lawsuit!

You run the checkpoint. The troopers chase you down and pull you over. What then? Get out of the car peacefully? Or try to make "cops" on spike?

[Grainbelt]

What about the loons, gulls, cormorants and pelicans. They better have a cleaning station for those law breakers.

[RumRiverRat]

You run the checkpoint. The troopers chase you down and pull you over. What then? Get out of the car peacefully? Or try to make "cops" on spike?

You cannot be serious, there will not be troopers to chase you down.

It will also be very easy to avoid these checkpoints.

There are going to be set up on heavily traveled roads.

169 near Onamia

47 Near Isle

Just to name a few.

I will be setting up a Twitter account so I can Tweet locations, and other people can Tweet Locations of these illegal checkpoints.

[Stick in Mud]

Hm, that's the first rational reason I've heard for joining Twitter!

[BobT]

The courts will decide if they are different or not. The Supreme Court ruled the state interest in reducing drunk driving outweighed this minor infringement (On 4th Amendment Rights) of being stopped at check points. But the state interest was to reduce drunk driving because the stated proved to the courts that drunk driving caused deaths. So the courts will decide if reducing deaths and fighting invasive species in lakes are on a level playing field. You can look up the case in Michigan Dept. Of State V. Stiz (1990)

I highly recommend everyone stops for the checkpoints and not to be argumentative or uncooperative with the officers trying to do their jobs. If you feel your rights have been violated by a stop, you can file a formal complaint or acquire the services of a lawyer at a later date. Not stopping or causing problems for an officer is only going to hurt you.

Simple1

This is a good point and also true. There’s nothing to gain by being uncooperative, insulting, or in any way confrontational with the officers. They are merely doing what we hire them to do – enforce the laws. Aside from agreeing with you and standing with you to change the law, there’s nothing else they can do. Just like you or me, if they don’t do their job they risk losing it or at the very least losing their credibility as law enforcement officers.

There is a time and a place to preset the argument to change the law and the roadside check is neither.

[RumRiverRat]

This is a good point and also true. There’s nothing to gain by being uncooperative, insulting, or in any way confrontational with the officers. They are merely doing what we hire them to do – enforce the laws. Aside from agreeing with you and standing with you to change the law, there’s nothing else they can do. Just like you or me, if they don’t do their job they risk losing it or at the very least losing their credibility as law enforcement officers.

There is a time and a place to preset the argument to change the law and the roadside check is neither.

I disagree.

The roadside check is the perfect place to engage in civil disobedience.

I will not stop and I will not comply with roadside checks.

[RumRiverRat]

I always clean by boat, motor and trailer before I leave any landing even if that lake I was on does not have an infestation of invasive species. Just a good practice.

Of course you do, you tell us how law abiding you are every chance you get.

Your entire post has very little to do with the topic of roadside checks.

The one point you make that is absolutely false is that we brought these roadside checks on ourselves by not following the laws.

By that logic there should be Texting, Seat Belt, and DWI checkpoints because people break those laws.