The ALL Florida Online Corvette Club - I saw this sign while approaching a hiking trail.

The ALL Florida Online Corvette Club (https://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/index.php)

- Firearms and Other Weapons (https://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=101)

- - I saw this sign while approaching a hiking trail. (https://www.corvetteflorida.com/forums/showthread.php?t=55480)

Quote:

Originally Posted by C6Flatfoot (Post 131856)

TOOOOOO many variables in this hypothetical encounter to argue about being patted down, and when an officer would do so, but we both know that any officer with some time on the job follows his or her training, legalities, and immediate circumstances, as well as his or her gut feelings about a pat down. I'm sure you didn't pat down anyone unless your hackles were raised and you felt a concern about your safety or contraband.

We could have a great chat and go on and on about it, but it was only meant as a consideration.

You may be correct because most LEOs who work in the wilderness or wildlife areas are usually on their own and far from a back up. This factor alone may make them more apt to pat down persons they encounter. I never worked in a position like that so I don't know how I would conduct myself. It would be interesting to get an opinion of a retired LEO that worked in this rural capacity.

Any outcome of the encounter would ultimately depend on the circumstances, and interactions of the LEO and the person(s) involved.

Good thread and food for thought. :)

Absolutely bro:thumbsup:
Way too many variable.
Was meant as something else to consider, not an arguement.
If it came across that way, my apologies.

You're pretty much dead on on the pat downs. Usually suspected something.

When I started and up until I went to Street crimes, Special Operations and Motors, I worked a lot of remote area.

Far east side of our county, and the most remote reaches both north and south.
They didn't call it "Fort Lonesome" for nothing:)

As a Deputy Sheriff, our closest backup was sometimes 30 minutes or more away...if there was one at all.

YOu had to rely on your instincts and training, and a good does of BS and luck didn't hurt either;)

Take care and stay safe:thumbsup:

If you ignore what the sign says, good luck...Remember that you are on their property...

I guess I've just never fully understood this concept of "private" state property. After all, who provides the money for the purchase and maintenance of such properties? So the bigety wigeties in state government can use OUR money to buy these private playgrounds for their own private use and tell us unwashed masses to keep our grubby paws out? Or make stipulations about how WE can utilize the land but they are exempt from those same regulations? I can understand if it's some high security records storage facility of some sort, but raw undeveloped land?

I guess the people that make the rules can make whatever rules they pretty damn well want to..... :shrug01:

Quote:

Originally Posted by als2052 (Post 131896)

If you ignore what the sign says, good luck...Remember that you are on their property...

Who's property?

Unless I'm in a place that specifically prohibits carry, like a bar, I'm packen. If I'm patted down or searched that's when the attorney takes over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by als2052 (Post 131896)

If you ignore what the sign says, good luck...Remember that you are on their property...

Yep!:thumbsup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Z (Post 131898)

You're over dramatizing it.
This is nothing new...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob K (Post 131905)

Who's property?

While it "may" be considered "public land", we've allowed our government to apppoint/elect a board to govern it.
As such, they make the rules for it's use.

As we've seen with Federal lands, the rules have changes for those licensed to carry:thumbsup:
If the state can't see fit to follow suit, then I'll just avoid thier land.

Chances are very good that this will never be an issue for those of us here.

Quote:

Unless I'm in a place that specifically prohibits carry, like a bar, I'm packen. If I'm patted down or searched that's when the attorney takes over.

And it's quite possible you may find yourself relieved of said license.
It just depends.

You can be patted down for just about any reason. Most of the time, we're going to say our safety and that of the citizen (so we know you're not going for a knife or other weapon later).
Probably BS, but it'll hold up in court;)

As for the attorney, there's still that whole, bookiing, mug shot, bail and bunking with bubba for the evening thing that you have to get past first.:lmao:

I'll pass:D

First thing I'm going to say is "what sign". Second thing I'm going to say is "illegal search". Just between us they are not going to deprive me my right to self defense. You know me and I am a law abiding citizen and also have the utmost respect for law enforcement but I'm carrying, screw the sign, end of story.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Z (Post 131857)

Isn't a pat down a form of search that itself requires probable cause?

Not really.
They're not the same and do not require the same level of probable cause.
As a matter of fact, a pat down, doesn't require PC at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich Z (Post 131800)

Beats me. The statutes covering this are pretty obtuse about their actual legal authority. I'm not sure this can circumvent state law concerning CCW permits unless it states that such areas are exempt.

Truth of the matter is, anyone can make up a sign to say anything they want, but that doesn't necessarily mean that anyone reading it has to obey what it says.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob K (Post 131923)

I spent a little time on the phone today, with Mr. Steve Miller (what a cool name huh:thumbsup:) and a very nice lady named Karen, of the St. Johns WMD.

They indicated that another person (Mike) called and spoke with thier legal hounds yesterday. I assume it was our Mike, but I haven't seen a response on the board.
Mr. Miller forwarded a copy of the email response provided in reference to Mike's request (redacted).

We all wen't round and round for quite some time, and I found them to be very helpful, polite and patient when dealing with a citizens request.:thumbsup:

So, in response to the above two (2) quotes:

Quote:

Mr BXXXXXXX

Below the email I referred to, about the case in which you are interested. Also attached is a copy of the current version of 40C-9.

Statute on rule development which we discussed:

In reference to Rich's concerns:373.1391(6)

The districts have the authority to adopt rules that specify: allowable activities on district-owned lands; the amount of fees, licenses, or other charges for users of district-owned lands; the application and reimbursement process for payments in lieu of taxes; the use of volunteers for management activities; and the processes related to entering into or severing cooperative land management agreements. Rules promulgated pursuant to the subsection shall become effective only after submitted to the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives for review by the Legislature not later than 30 days prior to the next regular session. In its review, the Legislature may reject, modify, or take no action relative to such rules. The districts shall conform such rules to changes made by the Legislature, or, if no action is taken, such rules shall become effective.

As to enforcement:

Here is reference to who can/shall enforce:
373.609
Enforcement; city and county officers to assist.
It shall be the duty of every state and county attorney, sheriff, police officer, and other appropriate city and county official, upon request, to assist the department, the governing board of any water management district, or any local board, or any of their agents in the enforcement of the provisions of this law and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder.
History.
—
And the coup d' grace:

Here is the statute defining the penalty
373.613
Penalties.
Any person who violates any provision of this law or any rule, regulation or order adopted or issued pursuant thereto is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

In ufurther conversation with Mr. Miller, it seems they are and have been, keenly aware of the issue, and wanted it changed this year; however, our new Governor, Rick Scott, has places what essentially amounts to a freeze on new rule making for about a hear and a half to 2 years.

Considering all they have to do to amend the rules, public notice process, legislative sessions, the house.....blah blah blah, it'll be at least 1.5 years before this gets changed.

That said, they are aware of the rule, are being pro-active :thumbsup::hurray:, working to amend thier rules.

As for the property in question, I spoke with Karen about that particular piece of land.

It appears it borders the WMD land and that there is a public access road that runs between one property and the management area.
A long as you are on the road, you're golden!
Step off the road, and you're illegal.

One other point is, where in many cases, WMD and WMA (Wildlife Management Areas) overlap, WMA rules override WMD.
You really want to be careful there.

As for this and many other WMD only controlled properties, my "guess" would be, and it's nothing more than that, a guess, "if" you were caught on thier property doing nothing more than traversing it, had no other issues and were up front and professional with the security person or LEO, nothing would happen other than to tell you "you can't do that for now" and ask you to quietly leave the property.

But I wouldn't bet my license on it;)

BTW-For the record, they use off duty FWC officers (who better to patrol the "woods":thumbsup:) for property security and rule enforcement.

A little research goes a long way toward making a sound and reasonable decision.

Hope some of this helps.

GB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob K (Post 131923)

There's no illegal search.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow (Post 131936)

Not really.
They're not the same and do not require the same level of probable cause.
As a matter of fact, a pat down, doesn't require PC at all.

I spent a little time on the phone today, with Mr. Steve Miller (what a cool name huh:thumbsup:) and a very nice lady named Karen, of the St. Johns WMD.

They indicated that another person (Mike) called and spoke with thier legal hounds yesterday. I assume it was our Mike, but I haven't seen a response on the board.
Mr. Miller forwarded a copy of the email response provided in reference to Mike's request (redacted).

We all wen't round and round for quite some time, and I found them to be very helpful, polite and patient when dealing with a citizens request.:thumbsup:

So, in response to the above two (2) quotes:

In ufurther conversation with Mr. Miller, it seems they are and have been, keenly aware of the issue, and wanted it changed this year; however, our new Governor, Rick Scott, has places what essentially amounts to a freeze on new rule making for about a hear and a half to 2 years.

Considering all they have to do to amend the rules, public notice process, legislative sessions, the house.....blah blah blah, it'll be at least 1.5 years before this gets changed.

That said, they are aware of the rule, are being pro-active :thumbsup::hurray:, working to amend thier rules.

As for the property in question, I spoke with Karen about that particular piece of land.

It appears it borders the WMD land and that there is a public access road that runs between one property and the management area.
A long as you are on the road, you're golden!
Step off the road, and you're illegal.

One other point is, where in many cases, WMD and WMA (Wildlife Management Areas) overlap, WMA rules override WMD.
You really want to be careful there.

As for this and many other WMD only controlled properties, my "guess" would be, and it's nothing more than that, a guess, "if" you were caught on thier property doing nothing more than traversing it, had no other issues and were up front and professional with the security person or LEO, nothing would happen other than to tell you "you can't do that for now" and ask you to quietly leave the property.

But I wouldn't bet my license on it;)

BTW-For the record, they use off duty FWC officers (who better to patrol the "woods":thumbsup:) for property security and rule enforcement.

A little research goes a long way toward making a sound and reasonable decision.

Hope some of this helps.

GB

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shadow (Post 131937)

There's no illegal search.

OK, just a couple of comments:

1. Thanks for all of the research. :thumbsup:

2. Didn't know it wasn't considered a "search".

3. I agree that everyone needs to be respectful.

4. I am going to carry regardless. :D

If "patting down" is not considered a search, then what is the PURPOSE of it? Just some friendly hands on contact between one consenting adult and the other not so consenting? :rolleyes:

I know it is claimed that it is for the safety of the officer(s), but seriously when does the concern for officer safety trump constitutionally guaranteed protections for us citizens? Sounds to me that "UP" is simply being redefined as "DOWN" just to conveniently bypass our legal rights concerning searches and seizures.