TIRED of Folks Trying to RUN MY LIFE

[Treasure_Hunter]

You said the Harbor Master told you that you only had permission for one day, and you ha been doing it all summer. Why did you assume the permission was forever?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[ScubaDetector]

You said the Harbor Master told you that you only had permission for one day, and you ha been doing it all summer. Why did you assume the permission was forever?

THAT is what he told the sheriff that hassled me. NOT what he told me last month. He asked me if I was staying in shallow water. I said yes, I am not going out past the end of the fishing pier. He said OK and left. He didn't take any of my information and didn't say it was only for the day. And yes, I have been doing it since May 31'st with no problems till Sept 4th. He NEVER said anything about me not going back or giving me only a day permission.

Hope that is more understandable.

 

[cudamark]

So, this is all verbal permission? Nothing in writing?

 

[ScubaDetector]

So, this is all verbal permission? Nothing in writing?

Yep. Can't get it in writing if you are in the water!. I do have a witness in a way though. But I do understand where this could and might go. They will lie and I will lose. I acknowledge that. However, I know what I was told and I don't break laws.

If they told me it was a warning and it was for one day, you would THINK they would have got my name and information last month instead of say OK and leave. When I gave warnings I had documentation of it.

I really would like to explain more at this time but lets see what happens in court before I let all the cats out of the bag. Somebody lurking on here is throwing out a lot of threats and I don't want him to know everything at all. I have an ace that might and might not help. Only time will tell in this whole mess. If I get found guilty, I will know I did my best and I followed the law the way I was supposed to.

Folks, I saw a lot in my years in law enforcement. I know there is no justice in the justice system. I am not thinking I have an open and shut case where the judge will find in my favor. However I do believe I have a solid case and I will refuse any plea deal outside of a dismissal of the whole thing.

I will stand for my rights when push comes to shove. An officer has absolutely NO right to threaten anyone, unless he feels his life is in danger or someone else is. There was absolutely no need for him to treat anyone the way he treated me from the start. That is where this whole situation went south. A bully with a badge that thought nobody would stand up for themselves.

 

[Deft Tones]

Respectfully, I disagree. Permission is another issue. Permission or not, you were ordered out of the water 1st thing, according to your post, and you disobeyed the lawful order of "get out of the water!" when you went back under the water in direct violation of the order.

His investigation.... your job to not impede it....permission or not.

I support your diving, but the law is not likely on your side with that charge...imho.

I hope you just had water in your ears and really couldn't hear anything at all.

 

[ScubaDetector]

Respectfully, I disagree. Permission is another issue. Permission or not, you were ordered out of the water 1st thing, according to your post, and you disobeyed the lawful order of "get out of the water!" when you went back under the water in direct violation of the order.

His investigation.... your job to not impede it....permission or not.

I support your diving, but the law is not likely on your side with that charge...imho.

I hope you just had water in your ears and really couldn't hear anything at all.

I think I understand what you are saying. However, I have a question for you regarding that. You read the law. It said you have to have permission from the City Harbormaster. So if you feel you have that permission. WHAT sheriff officer has the right to give you an order to get out? It wasn't a lawful order IMHO. He has NO authority over the person the law tells you to go to.

So if a homeowner gives you permission to hunt his farm when he is gone, and you drive over an hour to get there. You are happily detecting the property and minding your own business. A sheriff pulls up and demands you leave or you will get a citation, will you leave? Not me. Then the kicker. The sheriff calls the homeowner and he comes and says, you only had permission for a day last week. So the Sheriff gives you two citations. One for tresspassing and one for failure to obey.

The sheriff is not giving you a lawful order, badge or no badge. If you have proof you can stick to your guns or leave. I think I have proof. Will see what the judge believes.

It is very close to the same principal. No sheriff has the authority to override the Harbormaster. This is where I am sticking to my guns.

Thanks for the comments all. As I said. No use in fighting it out here. I know some will agree with me and others think I am not playing with a full deck because I fought an authority figure. That is completely understandable. I had to make people think I could do something I couldn't to keep peace as an officer. However, there was no situation here until the sheriff officer made it.

Either the judge will agree with me or slap me with a fine. Either way, I will be able to tell my side of the story and see where the ball bounces from there.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

So, this is all verbal permission? Nothing in writing?

Mark, on the one hand, "written" permission is much more comforting and enforceable (in cases like this). Yet on the other hand, asking for some bureaucrat to " ... put that in writing", is the FASTEST way to get a "no". All that will do is conjur up legal hassles. And very few public officials like to put their name in writing (as if being asked to sign a contract).

So I would always go with informal casual verbal. Yes it's true that someone later on can retract, or forget, or dispute the parameters of their "yes". But on the other hand, by thrusting a paper for some desk jockey to sign, will often-time get them to re-think their yes. As if your/our hobby is so dangerous or risky that it needs someone's "written" permission.

Same for knocking on doors of private homes: The moment you put contracts (split agreements, legal jargon, etc...) in front of a homeowner, will only conjur up problems (or riches, etc...) on their part. So always better just to go with a yes. Only if the person granting the "yes" asks for something in writing, is when the 2 people need to draft something up.

Also: In the eyes of the law, a verbal contract is JUST as enforceable as a written one. Yes it's true someone can deny having said "yes", but ..... oh well.

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

THAT is what he told the sheriff that hassled me. NOT what he told me last month. He asked me if I was staying in shallow water. I said yes, I am not going out past the end of the fishing pier. He said OK and left. He didn't take any of my information and didn't say it was only for the day. And yes, I have been doing it since May 31'st with no problems till Sept 4th. He NEVER said anything about me not going back or giving me only a day permission.

Hope that is more understandable.

Yep, that answer my question as I really didn't know....

 

[Deft Tones]

Let's say you have permission to hunt anywhere, (harbor, private property, federal battlefield, anywhere... don't care) LEO rolls up and decides to investigate, which he's allowed to do. LEO says, "stop your activity and come here."

In the course of his duties , namely investigating a potential crime that you/your activities are the subject of, then your cooperation is at least minimally expected in the judicial system. You do not have the right under the law to disregard a lawful order from LEO'S as the subject of a field investigation. Asking, or demanding... doesn't matter, an order to get out of the water so an investigation can be conducted is not unreasonable and it would be expected one would comply, at least for the safety of everyone involved. LEO's order only has to be legal. Not polite, impolite, demanding, unprofessional, or even reasonable - legal... if it meets that requirement it's generally considered a lawful order.

At a traffic stop a guy doesn't roll down his window. LEO orders him to roll it down. No matter how anyone feels about it, the man must legaly comply and roll his window down, or the officer is legally allowed to force his compliance.

To me, an order to get out of the water is on par with an officer ordering you to the curb at a traffic stop. If he wants to investigate you, he's within the law to conduct the investigation in the manner he determines most safe at least. So telling you to get out of the water isn't unlawful or unreasonable imo.

Once out of the water (or off private permission, or whatever LEO's terms are), that is the time to present your explaination, argument, and evidence so the LEO in the field can conduct the investigation.

I've seen that it's wise to not fight the enforcement side of the justice system directly...especially in the field. Do anything to hinder an "investigation" and in the end you may win the race but not the ride.

 

[ScubaDetector]

Let's say you have permission to hunt anywhere, (harbor, private property, federal battlefield, anywhere... don't care) LEO rolls up and decides to investigate, which he's allowed to do. LEO says, "stop your activity and come here."

In the course of his duties , namely investigating a potential crime that you/your activities are the subject of, then your cooperation is at least minimally expected in the judicial system. You do not have the right under the law to disregard a lawful order from LEO'S as the subject of a field investigation. Asking, or demanding... doesn't matter, an order to get out of the water so an investigation can be conducted is not unreasonable and it would be expected one would comply, at least for the safety of everyone involved. LEO's order only has to be legal. Not polite, impolite, demanding, unprofessional, or even reasonable - legal... if it meets that requirement it's generally considered a lawful order.

At a traffic stop a guy doesn't roll down his window. LEO orders him to roll it down. No matter how anyone feels about it, the man must legaly comply and roll his window down, or the officer is legally allowed to force his compliance.

To me, an order to get out of the water is on par with an officer ordering you to the curb at a traffic stop. If he wants to investigate you, he's within the law to conduct the investigation in the manner he determines most safe at least. So telling you to get out of the water isn't unlawful or unreasonable imo.

Once out of the water (or off private permission, or whatever LEO's terms are), that is the time to present your explaination, argument, and evidence so the LEO in the field can conduct the investigation.

I've seen that it's wise to not fight the enforcement side of the justice system directly...especially in the field. Do anything to hinder an "investigation" and in the end you may win the race but not the ride.

No investigation. it wasn't stop till I see what permission you have. It was demand I get out and threaten with 500.00 fine period. I know what investigations are. i was a cop for 9 years. I was within my rights. Please do what you feel is right and please don't think what I did was wrong until a judge says I was wrong.

We all have one life to live. Cops cannot make unlawful demands. He can't tell you to put out a cigarette. He can't do a lot of things. He was wrong. Lets let a judge speak.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

deft-tones. Excellent post. I was thinking the same thing. Sort of like a cop who says "keep your hands where I can see them" sort-of-order, yet the subject thinks "who are you to tell me what to do?". At SOME point, yes, cops DO have the authority to expect some obedience (lest no cop could ever get his job done, investigate a complaint, etc....)

But on the OTHER hand: At what point does it become arbitrary and capricious ? Like if the officer tells you to "drop your pants and whistle dixie" Is there EVER a point where a *reasonable person* is not under an obligation to "do everything a cop says" ? At what point has a cop over-stepped his bounds ?

If it's left up to the individual receiving the orders (Scuba in this case), then that becomes subjective. I mean, ALL of us (in the heat of the moment) will probably consider the cop's order to be irrational, un-called for, etc..... But sure, at a certain point of ridiculousness, no one would think we are subject to do irrational orders.

Interesting legal dilemma here. I will be curious to see the outcome.

 

[Bugalooob]

Your lucky you didn't get the coverall charge of obstructing governmental administration, if an officer orders you out then get out and fight your battle in court...I would get his badge number and hit him with a civilian complaint and abuse of authority

 

[Deft Tones]

Tom, it's difficult to sometimes know what is and what isn't a lawful order, for sure. That's universally dependent upon the laws, and to a slightly less extent the circumstances.

Here is the thing, unless someone is willing to resort to being a law unto themselves, society be damned, the only recourse one has to dispute the legality of an order is in the courtroom under the discression of a judge...after the fact!

The field is generally the last and worst place to dispute such orders with LEO. The risk being escalation of conflict, which we all see these days often ends in death.

We all have heard "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", and it's truly a longstanding legal principal, but also it works in reverse that knowledge of the law is an excuse. As subjects to the law, it ought to be incumbent on us to know the laws pertaining to our rights and activities that we're subjected. That's the answer for anyone... know the laws and you'll know when an unlawful order is given. Knowing is key, but choosing the manner to battle that unlawful order takes prudence.

If you know an order is unlawful, not think, but know it, then inform the LEO and give them a chance to reconsider. If they proceed unlawfully then prudence would suggest laws matter not to this individual and one should act with extreme caution. Unless my life were in jeopardy, and there are situations I could imagine, I'd begrudgingly comply then take LEO to court, personally.

Each person has to make their own decisions based on their knowledge, circumstances, and good sense. So many variables to complicate things.

 

[Deft Tones]

ScubaDetector, I apologize, but after re-reading #46 it seems I missed your likely point. Are you attempting to argue jurisdictional authority created an unlawful order situation?

Please say no.

Sorry, but if so, the Harbormaster likely has authority pertaining to the waterways/rights of way and nowhere else. The sherriff most certainly has authority in all of that county, to include any jurisdiction of the harbormasters jurisdiction that falls within that sheriff's county. Jurisdictional authority frequently overlaps...almost all the time these days.

Keep up the fight, man.

Should never have been an issue to begin with.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

..... if an officer orders you out then get out and fight your battle in court...I would get his badge number and hit him with a civilian complaint and abuse of authority

... Is this like a police officer requiring you to step out of your car? They don't need to explain the reason for doing so, you just have to be compliant, right? .....

This is what happened in my particular situation of being "roughed up by an over-zealous cop". I was compliant at-the-time. Then made a complaint to his superiors. And ... in the end .... that officer was relegated to a desk job and can never carry a gun again !

HOWEVER, let me be the devils (scuba's) advocate for a moment, to skippy and bugaloog: What if an officer stops you when walking down the street, and tells you to: "Drop your pants! Spread your cheeks! And whistle dixie!" Are you under an obligation to "obey his orders? And fight it later in court" ?

Where's the fine line drawn ?

 

[cudamark]

Mark, on the one hand, "written" permission is much more comforting and enforceable (in cases like this). Yet on the other hand, asking for some bureaucrat to " ... put that in writing", is the FASTEST way to get a "no". All that will do is conjur up legal hassles. And very few public officials like to put their name in writing (as if being asked to sign a contract).

So I would always go with informal casual verbal. Yes it's true that someone later on can retract, or forget, or dispute the parameters of their "yes". But on the other hand, by thrusting a paper for some desk jockey to sign, will often-time get them to re-think their yes. As if your/our hobby is so dangerous or risky that it needs someone's "written" permission.

Same for knocking on doors of private homes: The moment you put contracts (split agreements, legal jargon, etc...) in front of a homeowner, will only conjur up problems (or riches, etc...) on their part. So always better just to go with a yes. Only if the person granting the "yes" asks for something in writing, is when the 2 people need to draft something up.

Also: In the eyes of the law, a verbal contract is JUST as enforceable as a written one. Yes it's true someone can deny having said "yes", but ..... oh well.

In a situation where there is no hard and fast law regarding detecting/diving/swimming/etc, I agree. Take the verbal "yes" and run with it. When there is a law saying "you must have permission from the harbormaster", then I'd ask for that in writing "in case someone asks for it". That would have eliminated this whole incident....well, most of it anyway. The LEO would still have been a jerk and enjoyed being on his personal power trip, but, once the written permission with date(s) (or not) was produced, he would probably have gone on his way and Scoobie would have been back down looking for gold. Maybe if there are other complaints about this particular LEO, he might have a good case, otherwise, I think he will come up short. As DT, Skippy and others have mentioned, the initial non-compliance is the key issue here. Not whether the LEO knew about permission given or not, or, if he even knew the law. That wasn't the time to decide that. Comply with his order, and then decide if it was lawful or not. If not, then HE'S the one in trouble, not you.

 

[Xraywolf]

It also might be possible that the harbormaster in fact thought he was giving permission for 1 day, and didn't realize SD would be there nearly every day for 3 months straight.
Whether thats the case or not, likely what he will say.
In that case, is it possible that he didn't notice SD was there for hours on end dozens of times after that ? Possible, but not likely. Maybe he didn't really care, let the situation ride and never thought that an overlapping authority would/could be in conflict with his.

As far as "lawful order", I have to agree with others. A LE officer is under no obligation to instantly tell you the exact reason why you are being ordered to do something.
When getting pulled over, a cop doesn't shout on his bullhorn "The reason I am pulling you over is because you have a broken taillight and an expired plate". No, you pull over, he asks for your drivers license, registration, proof of insurance, he checks that then gets into why you were pulled over.
Same applies here. He was within his rights ordering you out of the water, and it could have been for any number of legit reasons. Since diving is not allowed there, would seem to me he has the inherent authority, and duty even, to order you out.
Once out, that would be the time to thrash out the issue and tell him you [allegedly] had permission.
I don't remember reading you say it, but you apparently ignored the order and went back under - And that was a mistake.

As far as who has ultimate/superior jurisdiction, the harbormaster or sheriff, that I would not know.

 

[SeabeeRon]

HOWEVER, let me be the devils (scuba's) advocate for a moment, to skippy and bugaloog: What if an officer stops you when walking down the street, and tells you to: "Drop your pants! Spread your cheeks! And whistle dixie!" Are you under an obligation to "obey his orders? And fight it later in court" ?

Don't think that would fall under "a lawful order"!

 

[Treasure_Hunter]

HOWEVER, let me be the devils (scuba's) advocate for a moment, to skippy and bugaloog: What if an officer stops you when walking down the street, and tells you to: "Drop your pants! Spread your cheeks! And whistle dixie!" Are you under an obligation to "obey his orders? And fight it later in court" ?

Where's the fine line drawn ?

Now your being ridiculous....




_________________________Tapatalk Signature_________________________

DT2016

 

[Honest Samuel]

You said the Harbor Master told you that you only had permission for one day, and you ha been doing it all summer. Why did you assume the permission was forever?

My number one rule is: Do not assume anything. You should get in writing from the Harbor Master for the summer. If they say no, get permission everyday. That should stop the harassment and the insults aim at you. Keep diving and keep in touch.