Thursday, March 28

On Watch

Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr +

Lake Erie Boater Fights $75 Fine for Missing PFD, Says State Violated His Fourth Amendment Rights

By Peter A. Janssen

Here’s a court case that challenges our thinking about our constitutional right against unlawful search and seizure vs the enforcement of standard boating safety.

But first, the facts: On May 23, 2016, Frederick W. Karash, 37, of North East, Pennsylvania, was fishing with four friends on Lake Erie on his 23-foot boat. At 7:30 p.m. James Smolko, an officer with the Pennsylvania Fish and Game Commission, who was patrolling the lake, stopped Karash’s boat to check for fishing licenses. After all five people produced their licenses, Smolko conducted a safety inspection of the boat. He found only four life jackets and issued Karash a citation with a $75 fine for the missing PFD.

Karash challenged the search as unconstitutional and represented himself through three levels of court proceedings until he finally won a 2-1 decision by a three-judge panel of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Senior Judge Eugene B. Strassburger ruled that the stop violated Karash’s rights under the Fourth Amendment, which provides protection against unwarranted searches and requires authorities to have probable cause to search someone’s home or property.

Strassburger wrote that officers must abide by the same reasonable-suspicion rules on water as they do on land. Further, he wrote, “The Commonwealth has not demonstrated that it is unable to set up a system of inspection (i.e. sobriety checkpoints) similar to what is done on roadways.”

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Judith Ference Olson wrote that such a solution was impractical on a large body of water. In any event, she wrote, in the case of Lake Erie, boaters could simply float over to Canadian waters and out of Pennsylvania’s jurisdiction.

After losing that decision, the Pennsylvania Fish and Game Commission asked the entire state Superior Court to hear the case. It agreed, vacating the three-judge decision.

Recently a nine-judge panel of the state Superior Court heard the case. The ACLA represented Karash, arguing that both the U.S. and Pennsylvania Supreme Courts have held that random stops of cars are unconstitutional unless they are carried out in a systemic manner with pre-established guidelines, such as drunk-driver checkpoints.

The Fish and Game Commission argued that it needs to conduct random searches to achieve boater safety.

We’ll keep you up to date as this case unfolds. Read more:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/legal-battle-over-75-boating-fine-where-liberty-itself-stake

 

Share.

About Author

Comments are closed.