Trawler Forum

Trawler Forum (http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/)
-   General Discussion (http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/)
-   -   I was boarded today (http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s3/i-boarded-today-47497.html)

psneeld 11-12-2019 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDW (Post 819927)
I am genuinely curious about the thinking of people who would so easily give up their rights. Let's suppose this happened on land. The scenario is like this:

You are awakened at 2 AM by sounds in your living room, investigating you discover 4 uniformed Army recruits in flak jackets and carrying automatic weapons. They politely explain they are here on an administrative search, and would like to see that all the code required fire alarms and smoke detectors are in order, that there are no overloaded extension cords in use, and that your tax bill has been properly paid. They explain that they knocked but got no response, but in any case are not required to ask or announce. They troupe through the kitchen, bath, and bedrooms to observe these items (and anything else their eyes might fall upon). The check only takes about 45 minutes, after which they politely say all is in order and have a nice night.

Would you be happy with this, supposing it occurred only once a year or so?

Change "living room" to "cockpit" and "Army recruits" to "CG recruits" and a few very minor details and you have a CG boarding.

The legal rationalizations argued for the CG boardings are even more applicable to houses: the intrusiveness of the search is no different, the likelihood of finding regulation infractions at least as great or greater, the costs less, and the greater public good therefore better served. Further, the frequency of discovery of probable cause for further investigation from this suspicionless search would be higher in houses, you are likely to uncover drugs, illegal aliens, terrorist cells etc. warranting further investigation at a much greater rate.

This is what Article IV was meant to prevent, due to recent memory of it happening at the time. It was not what the revenue cutter act was meant to allow, regardless of how it has become twisted today. That act was meant to collect taxes from commercial shipping crossing boarders.

That is your definition of Articlle IV....not mine or probably many others so don't bother to keep quoting it in any response or question to me.

As to current search, safety stop procedures.......roots might go back to the revenue cutter days, but they have been reviewed many times on both sides of the discussion.

As to my house being "invaded" versus my boat...sure I see a difference. As to either being good? Either is only going to happen with probable cause/warrant almost all of the time.

I have met a lot of people in my life...and an extraordinary few has had it happen to them or ever mentioned it.

The few that have been boarded at night for various reasons and the only ones boarded without warning had probable cause such as no answer to radio calls.

So I don't see the current legal language and boardings ias unreasonable, no system is perfect and has mistakes possible, and no worries about an entry unless they shoot me.

Alaskan Sea-Duction 11-12-2019 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDW (Post 819927)
I am genuinely curious about the thinking of people who would so easily give up their rights. Let's suppose this happened on land. The scenario is like this:

You are awakened at 2 AM by sounds in your living room, investigating you discover 4 uniformed Army recruits in flak jackets and carrying automatic weapons. They politely explain they are here on an administrative search, and would like to see that all the code required fire alarms and smoke detectors are in order, that there are no overloaded extension cords in use, and that your tax bill has been properly paid. They explain that they knocked but got no response, but in any case are not required to ask or announce. They troupe through the kitchen, bath, and bedrooms to observe these items (and anything else their eyes might fall upon). The check only takes about 45 minutes, after which they politely say all is in order and have a nice night.

Would you be happy with this, supposing it occurred only once a year or so?

Change "living room" to "cockpit" and "Army recruits" to "CG recruits" and a few very minor details and you have a CG boarding.

The legal rationalizations argued for the CG boardings are even more applicable to houses: the intrusiveness of the search is no different, the likelihood of finding regulation infractions at least as great or greater, the costs less, and the greater public good therefore better served. Further, the frequency of discovery of probable cause for further investigation from this suspicionless search would be higher in houses, you are likely to uncover drugs, illegal aliens, terrorist cells etc. warranting further investigation at a much greater rate.

This is what Article IV was meant to prevent, due to recent memory of it happening at the time. It was not what the revenue cutter act was meant to allow, regardless of how it has become twisted today. That act was meant to collect taxes from commercial shipping crossing boarders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by psneeld (Post 819940)
That is your definition of Articlle IV....not mine or probably many others so don't bother to keep quoting it in any response or question to me.

As to current search, safety stop procedures.......roots might go back to the revenue cutter days, but they have been reviewed many times on both sides of the discussion.

As to my house being "invaded" versus my boat...sure I see a difference. As to either being good? Either is only going to happen with probable cause/warrant almost all of the time.

I have met a lot of people in my life...and an extraordinary few has had it happen to them or ever mentioned it.

The few that have been boarded at night for various reasons and the only ones boarded without warning had probable cause such as no answer to radio calls.

So I don't see the current legal language and boardings ias unreasonable, no system is perfect and has mistakes possible, and no worries about an entry unless they shoot me.

So there is one thing you you all are forgetting.

Money. :facepalm:

If you have the means to fight in court (money) then you are more likely to win your case. For the average recreational boater without $2 million to fight such a case, yes sir, no sir maybe the only way.

I also agree that if you are asked to be boarded and you nod your head or say "Sure come on board!" You may have just agreed with an involuntary search.

psneeld 11-12-2019 01:59 PM

No forgetting it....not worried that they will find anything wrong or it will be that hard to get out of.



I would be more worried if in foreign waters where I don't even know what is right or wrong or what permissions the police really have.


Plus there are defense options when you can make a good case....part of that is knowing the process and possible outcomes and what you do along the way.


Just because you are boarded and taken into custody (if even that) doesn't mean you will be charged.


You know how many drug smugglers, which were illegal aliens and caught red handed that I bought a coke for and watched them shipped back to S. America in basically less than a day or two?


What? Me worry....:D

BruceK 11-12-2019 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alaskan Sea-Duction (Post 819822)
Yes I know. My question is an EPIRB required in Australia.

They are compulsory in my State(NSW) if 2 miles or more offshore.

gkesden 11-12-2019 10:53 PM

I don't really want to get too involved in this discussion, because I mostly view it as a religious debate.

I believe that we all have the right to our own religions and opinions and to debate them, even if I choose not to take part. Having said that, the fact picture is a bit different.

If you happen to believe that a warrant issued based upon a false premise, and/or the findings and/or the consequential findings are readily thrown out, I would recommend reading U.S. v. Leon (1984). The case law may be different than you expect:

-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/897
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Leon

ssobol 11-12-2019 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psneeld (Post 819966)
...I would be more worried if in foreign waters where I don't even know what is right or wrong or what permissions the police really have....

So saying no to a boarding request in some foreign land could turn out even worse for you than in the US.

IMO, standing by your understanding of your rights at the time you receive a boarding request is probably not worth the long term hassle and expense of possibly being able to say "I told you so" to the LEO sometime in the future.

The sooner they board and search, the sooner they leave.

Benthic2 11-12-2019 11:15 PM

1 Attachment(s)
In this situation there are 2 people ( boater and officer ) and 2 possibilities for each of them. That gives us 4 possible outcomes. My graphic arts skills are limited, but I think you'll get the idea.

gkesden 11-12-2019 11:40 PM

Actually, now, thinking more about my last post, I might also suggest that those interested read Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1986), which teaches the handling of evidence derived from searches in such cases as law enforcement, in good faith, misinterprets a search warrant:

-- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supre...rt/480/79.html
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Garrison

Benthic2 11-12-2019 11:54 PM

Oh my god!! Garrison got totally railroaded !!!! That is a frightening thing to read!!

Simi 60 11-13-2019 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BruceK (Post 820138)
They are compulsory in my State(NSW) if 2 miles or more offshore.

QLD as well.
Probably all of Oz.

Don't know why people wouldn't have such an essential lifesaving bit of gear onboard, cheap as chips in the scheme of things.

localboy 11-13-2019 01:18 AM

Some of you have way too much time on your hands. You are concerned about something that possibly, may happen, but which the odds of happening are minuscule: The big, evil LE boogie man, just waiting to take recreational boaters to the scary gulag... Trust me, they got way bigger fish to catch.

Live your life. Go about your business. Do nothing wrong or illegal and you will merely be inconvenienced for a matter of minutes. There is no free ride. The same people some of you are second guessing and criticizing would sacrifice their lives to save you and yours.

Remember, people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

psneeld 11-13-2019 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gkesden (Post 820145)
I don't really want to get too involved in this discussion, because I mostly view it as a religious debate.

I believe that we all have the right to our own religions and opinions and to debate them, even if I choose not to take part. Having said that, the fact picture is a bit different.

If you happen to believe that a warrant issued based upon a false premise, and/or the findings and/or the consequential findings are readily thrown out, I would recommend reading U.S. v. Leon (1984). The case law may be different than you expect:

-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/897
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Leon


Unless I missed it, don't they still have to find something to prosecute you for?


Sure they could plant something, but what are those chances?

slowgoesit 11-13-2019 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDW (Post 819929)
The problem with saying "Yes sir, welcome aboard sir" to any LEO, is that now you have voluntarily consented to be searched. Much harder to later claim a violation of rights. Under those circumstances you don't need to be belligerent or uncivil, just ask "do I have a choice?" with a smile. If the answer is "yes", you can go either way, if the answer is "no" then you have not voluntarily consented to the search when it proceeds anyway.

I like your response above. I have been "pulled over" several times, boarded several times. The boardings were all by the Coast Guard. Very professional, not intrusive, heck, they already know if you have something to hide by your actions when first approached!

Anyway, I have had three "attempted boardings" by LEO's of various flavors, NOT USCG. One (Puget Sound, WA) asked if I minded whether they boarded or not, I said, "Yes, I mind, and don't give you permission, but I will in no way attempt to physically stop you if you insist." May not be my exact words, but words to that affect. He chatted a minute or two more with me and departed. Never boarded. Was polite, but didn't push the issue.

2nd "attempted boarding" was by a DNR officer, in Hawaii, while moored to a public dock, Sand Island, Hawaii. He stated he was going to board my boat, issue a citation for not having a HI registration on my boat, and generally search to his hearts content. I pointed out that vessel was Federally Documented, didn't require a state registration (that was in 2000, not sure about now), and he had no authority to board and search. That's the short version, anyway, he left in a huff.

3rd was in Puget Sound, I refused permission, but told him I couldn't stop him, asked for identification, he pointed to his pistol and the blue lights on his boat, stated that was his permission. Boarded, poked around, didn't find anything, because there wasn't anything to find, spouted off some very incorrect noises regarding safety equipment required, etc, then left. I reported the boarding to the USCG, who said it was a local LEO issue, then called a friend of mine in the local Sheriff's Dept, who stated, by all means, make a formal complaint, that ***kweed exceeded his authority, etc, etc. I got a nice letter back stating that the Police Dept would look into the matter. Found out from my friend that he was reprimanded, in writing, and required to attend "retraining". Problem hopefully solved.

I will not forcibly resist a boarding, but I will never give permission.

Now the scenario where someone boards my boat in the dark, without announcing themselves, I hope that never happens because it could get unpleasant very quickly, for both sides . . .

gkesden 11-13-2019 10:02 AM

Hey psneeld,

No doubt.

I just posted thise because there was a post in the thread I felt suggested it was easy to get warrant searches thrown out. And, as it turns out, once a warrant is issued, that is a very high hill to climb, even if the foundation proves false or the execution was defective, unless there was a knowing violation by the issuing judge or executing LEO's or true and provable negligence.

SoWhat 11-13-2019 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DDW (Post 819929)
The problem with saying "Yes sir, welcome aboard sir" to any LEO, is that now you have voluntarily consented to be searched. Much harder to later claim a violation of rights. Under those circumstances you don't need to be belligerent or uncivil, just ask "do I have a choice?" with a smile. If the answer is "yes", you can go either way, if the answer is "no" then you have not voluntarily consented to the search when it proceeds anyway.

USCG and many state LEO's do not need consent to board and may or may not ask permission as a matter of courtesy. Your refusal for boarding has no meaning and is too vague and ambiguous for anyone to think it means you are refusing to consent to a search.

"I do not consent to a search" is a clear statement.

Note that if LEO decides you have shifty eyes, are sweating, unwilling to answer simple questions, smells marijuana etc then said LEO will proceed to perform a very detailed "safety" inspection.

Bigsfish 11-13-2019 01:01 PM

I think the key is you don’t poke the bear at the initial contact, your time will come later.

Gordon J 11-13-2019 01:16 PM

I am glad I was able to start such an interesting thread.

Gordon

Chrisjs 11-13-2019 01:16 PM

Really??


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012