Busted for possession of (lake) weed – need attorney/legal help

My issue involves possession of weed. To be specific, the weed in question came from a lake, where it is a native species and lives out its life as a natural part of the food chain. It became attached to my boat trailer, presumably 2 weeks before the incident, when I either put my boat into a lake or took it out of that lake.

As I took my family of 4, plus my 2 parents, out of town to begin a relaxing vacation to a northern Wisconsin cabin, the MN DNR detoured my route plan via a roadside check. This consisted of 8 to 12 officers directing anyone pulling a boat to drive into a school parking lot for a mandatory inspection and possible cleansing via an expensive washing device. When the trailer for my 24 foot pontoon boat was inspected, they found a “significant” amount of weeds on it. I have attached a picture I took of the “significant” amount of weeds that fit in the palm of one of the female officers hands. The purpose of the inspection was to look for invasive species of weeds and/or mussels. The weeds on my trailer were not invasive, they were native. For my crime of transporting native species of weeds I received a ticket that I believe to be worth $130 to the state and an initial court date of September 23rd for Chisago County, Minnesota. I have had that initial court date and now have a pre-trial set for the end of October.

The amount of the fine does not justify the cost of an attorney. However, as I believe that both the laws and the enforcement of the laws are not constitutional, I intend to go through the legal proceedings rather than fork over the money immediately. If you or anyone you know would be interested in taking on this case, please let me know. I believe it may involve the concepts of privacy, probable cause, due process and requiring perfection for compliance. It may prove to be a good way to get your name out there, as it is a contentious issue. Even having someone help by answering legal questions I have about the trial process and about the specifics I am arguing would be a great help.

Thanks!

Attachments:

1. 

   20140823_1206391.jpg
   

2. 

   20140823_120639.jpg
   

Let us know how this all works out. I am with you on the BS factor of guilty by trailering roadside checks.

The amount of weeds that could be pulled off my trailer would fit in a thimble. Not even, there are none. Laws are laws man, tough break but better bend over better and check until laws are changed.

Kind of reminds me of asbestos issues we have. Its code if you don’t know what it is, is to assume it is.

That sucks. I believe its just a mater of time before all of us guys that transport boats will go through this. Forget the plug, miss a weed, ect. Its just another cost of owning a boat in MN.

Had to laugh when I got checked a few weeks back by a CO driving a boat with a 2011 registration sticker on the side. If they dont follow the boat registration laws does that mean they do not have to follow the AIS laws also?

So where was the road side check point?

“Had to laugh when I got checked a few weeks back by a CO driving a boat with a 2011 registration sticker on the side. If they dont follow the boat registration laws does that mean they do not have to follow the AIS laws also?”

Kind of like watching a Highway patrol officer last weekend breeze through a construction zone at 80 MPH, while he was drinking coffee. Must be nice to be able to ignore the law when you feel like it.

nhamm wrote:

The amount of weeds that could be pulled off my trailer would fit in a thimble. Not even, there are none. Laws are laws man, tough break but better bend over better and check until laws are changed.

Kind of reminds me of asbestos issues we have. Its code if you don’t know what it is, is to assume it is.

I understand your analogy, but to turn your nose up and say that you ae perfect doesn’t sit well.

These discussions get so far off the real issue that we forget that this is not what the DNR asked for. The DNR didn’t ask for these laws. These laws are being made by uninformed people that can’t back a trailer in the water.

These laws are designed to fail. It’s no wonder that there are actually some counties that are refusing to prosecute some of these if they go to court.

First off Im not defending the roadside checks. Just adding a few things I picked out.

Right to privacy… Public road.

Probable cause… They only need reasonable articulable suspicion.

Dt

deertracker wrote:

First off Im not defending the roadside checks. Just adding a few things I picked out.

Right to privacy… Public road.

Probable cause… They only need reasonable articulable suspicion.

Dt

Selective road side checks have proven to be illegal time and time again in the courts.
I remember when a DNR officer did not need to ask permission to enter your ice shack and the courts said that to be illegal.
Just because a law is in the books does not mean it is a legal law and I would fight this in court!
I have always said that if I come up onto a roadside checkpoint for boats that I would drive right on by. If they pull me over I will inform them of the 1st and 4th amendments if our constitution and would welcome a prosecutor to take me to court.
And yes you have a right to privacy on a public road in your private vehicle.

I recall our DNR holding off on starting road side checks because they didn’t think they were going to hold up.

Back to the attorney/legal help. Let me know if you find one. When I get my plug in the boat ticket, I’ll be needing one as well.

If you think that is insulting you should experience getting busted with….You better sit down before you read on because this is on my permanent record forever: Having water in my live well next to the landing.

Maybe some day I will overcome this black smudge I carry on my record and the weight of the transgression still makes me wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. Slowly I have learned to live with myself but I know I will never be the same and I will never ever look at water in my live well the same.

BTW – water in your live well carrys a much heavier fine then your deadly sin.

Hang in there, you will learn to live with yourself. You just need to get past the first few dark, dark days.

Sincerely BP

How do you look your mother in the eye??

wildfan wrote:

And yes you have a right to privacy on a public road in your private vehicle.

Not sure what privacy was infringed on when the weeds are hanging off the exterior of the pontoon?

The only defense I can see in this case, and it is a long shot, is the road side check being “unconstitutional”.

He spends a fair amount of time on the amount of weeds and that the weeds are native…neither of which matters. It doesn’t matter how much vegetation there is, the law is if there are weeds present and has no bar for how much needs to be present. And the law doesn’t specify that they need to be invasive, the reason I would argue is because A.) There could be 1 tiny, unseen segment of a Euro Milfoil mixed in that would be enough to infect an entire lake. B.) A handful of weeds can be carrying other invasives such as zebra muscle larvae.

Searching, as in inspecting, the exterior of a car isn’t a violation of the protection against illegal search and seizure, neither is inspecting the exterior of a boat.

The two issues I would have are random road side checks and climbing into a boat and opening livewells and compartments.

The plug law is not unconstitutional. The weed transport law is not unconstitutional.

I still think people wrongly compare this to illegal searches of a home or car. So they automatically think looking at the exterior of a boat and finding weeds is some violation of some article of the constitution. Its not.

The laws that you are referencing have been around for 30 plus years and are not new. I remember as a kid pulling weeds off my fathers trailer every time it was pulled from the water.

It is your right to fight your case in court. But even if there aren’t these laws, would you not clean your boat and or trailer?

I will argue that any law that makes me guilty because it assumes I’m guilty is unconstitutional.

Prove the infested water in my boat will infest the infested water I’ll be fishing in next.

Our rights are more important then making it easy for governments to convict us by assuming we are carrying AIS.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

How do you look your mother in the eye??

LMAO.

biggill wrote:

I understand your analogy, but to turn your nose up and say that you ae perfect doesn’t sit well.

It doesn’t sit well with me either. Wasnt intentional to thumb up anything, simply my family can’t afford for dad to get a ticket for something as simple as pulling weeds off a trailer.
Good grief did you see how many were in that freaking bag!

I’m far from a lawyer and not much I can do to help you, but you sure have my moral support in this battle. I hope you are able to find someone to take on this case for you and try to eliminate these unconstitutional checkpoints and overbearing laws, which by the way, don’t seem to be helping one bit.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

Prove the infested water in my boat will infest the infested water I’ll be fishing in next.

How many times must I tell you the law is you must remove your plug. The law is not you are transporting invasives.

After our AIS training next year, does this mean that a fine would be considered a willful violation? Double the fine, maybe? Is the DNR going to hold this certificate against you? This topic has my wheels turning.

don’t seem to be helping one bit.

Sure they are! They are making criminals (or at least tarnishing records) of good people. Generating revenue, pulling CO’s out of the field for classes, giving classes for a fee, money spent to build a website and administer it…

The pendulum needs to move back towards the center.

David,

Just curious. I notice that this is a first post for you. Are you a current member who created an additional account or new to the site?

I support standing your ground here but unfortunately I think that any outcome won’t really benefit the rest of us.

I think you have a good chance of beating it, but it won’t be because the laws aren’t effective, it’ll be because of a loophole or the county will not prosecute.

Good luck though.

While I feel everyone’s pain, the fact people seem to still be breaking the existing laws does not bode well for you. They seem to be handing out a relatively large number of tickets. I think they are more likely to increase penalties and enforcement than to say “this isn’t working and is an exercise in futility”. Even though it is no matter the penalty or stepped up enforcement.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

I will argue that any law that makes me guilty because it assumes I’m guilty is unconstitutional.

Agreed. But this isn’t assumptions. How many ounces of liquids is one allowed on an airplne? There is set a safe amount of “stuff” in the law books for many things. Thats why this year they had the insane goal number of 0 violations for AIS, BC that’s exactly what they need for prevention.
Zero visible weeds on a trailer, doesn’t seem to out of hand. If they start breaking out a magnifying glass you betcha I’d be just as POed.
The real WEED most cops will just confiscate if tiny lil amounts and snuff out in front of ya, but large amounts, as we see in bags similar to above they will get ya for being so egregious. I find it similar with this case.

I want to share a small piece of the conversation that I had with who I though was a CO at the state fair. He was at the Enforcement booth at the DNR building.

I started the conversation asking about the new trailering laws. He instantly began to politely explain what to expect and how it would work. I began to ask what else may be on the horizon, and the response was no clue.

The conversation quickly turned to his opinion about these AIS laws and how they are intended to stop the spread, but the DNR was trying to manage them to slow the spread. Because that is the real goal.

He also had a lot of insight that 100% supports the naysayers on here about the effectiveness of these silly laws. Zeebs have very little impact on the health of a lake and that it is quite unlikely that transporting lake water with vilgers could infest a lake with zeebs.

He also explained that more than 90% of boats leaving a landing are technicall in violation of these new laws.

During the conversation he said that he didn’t want to tell me his name and was reluctant to tell me where his jurisdiction was. I assumed because he was giving me his personal opinion on the matter.

I’ve always been a little tentative to support BKs views on this matter, but this guy changed my mind and basically confirmed his point of view.

He even seemed quite frustrated with the laws being handed down.

Please remember, the DNR didn’t ask for this mess but they have no choice to carry out these silly laws. I just don’t understand how the enforcement dept has no say in this crap.

David, yours is a story that needs to be told, but maybe not in court. Rather to the Legislators who have the authority to make changes. And it isn’t just about calling your Representative or Senator. It means taking the time to walk the Capitol halls and attending/testifying in committees. I could help you navigate this. When these laws were made, myself and just two or three others showed up to bring the anglers voice to the conversation. We could sure use more voices and troops in the hearing rooms. There currently is a week long AIS training going on in Detroit Lakes. Standing room only for the 100+ folks all from Lakeshore, City and County agencies all looking to increase penlites and restrictions. Any anglers there to bring our perspective NOT. If we aren’t willing to bring our voice to the conversations, don’t be surprised that we feel misunderstood, penalized or left out.

http://www.lakedetroiters.com/

Vern
VP AFH

There currently is a week long AIS training going on in Detroit Lakes. Standing room only for the 100+ folks all from Lakeshore, City and County agencies all looking to increase penlites and restrictions. Any anglers there to bring our perspective NOT. If we aren’t willing to bring our voice to the conversations, don’t be surprised that we feel misunderstood,

Vern, you know that I agree with you completely on this…but one question?

How the hell to I explain taking a week of vacation to attend something like this?

What time were the hearings held? I though so. During the day when most fishermen are working.

Lakeshore, City and County agency people are all (mostly) getting paid or it’s part of their job to attend these meetings.

Misunderstood and left out…is I/we.

Unfortunately I have seen first hand what happened to one of my favorite lakes once Eurasion Millfoil got into the system. My take on this is you broke the law and should have been checking under the boat and removing all weeds.

I personally am under, beside, and behind the boat, on my knees, making sure I get every bit removed. Many times in the dark, with the bugs eating me alive. Just the world we live in, the motive to doing this is to stop other lakes from being ruined. While I cannot control what others do, I personally do everything humanly possible to make sure I do not cause the spread on an invasive specie.

While many may not like the law, the intent is correct and important. My personal experience at most landings has been most people try very hard to removal all vegetation and water. The few I see that pull on the trailer and just take off, typically have a boat and trailer rig that cost more than my house and cabin together, apparently some rich people think the laws do not apply to them.

Brian Klawitter wrote:

How do you look your mother in the eye??

As an inverted, mirror image.

Unfortunately I have seen first hand what happened to one of my favorite lakes once Eurasion Millfoil got into the system.

What lake please?

The only defense I can see in this case, and it is a long shot, is the road side check being “unconstitutional”.

This is not a longshot, the state courts have always found roadside checks to be unconstitutional.
If he would have been pulled over while driving because the C.O. noticed the weeds when they were following or was pulled up beside him then I would not have a problem with the ticket. But he was found in violation at a roadside checkpoint which has never found to be legal!
Thus the ticket would be voided due to where he was searched.