Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich Z
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
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
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.
|
I spent a little time on the phone today, with Mr. Steve Miller (what a cool name huh
) 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.
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
, 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"
) 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