Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-12-2019, 12:30 PM   #201
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: AICW
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 20,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDW View Post
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.
__________________
Advertisement

psneeld is online now  
Old 11-12-2019, 01:15 PM   #202
Guru
 
Alaskan Sea-Duction's Avatar
 
City: Inside Passage Summer/Columbia River Winter
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Alaskan Sea-Duction
Vessel Model: 1988 M/Y Camargue YachtFisher
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDW View Post
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 View Post
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.

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.
__________________

Alaskan Sea-Duction is offline  
Old 11-12-2019, 01:59 PM   #203
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: AICW
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 20,120
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....
psneeld is online now  
Old 11-12-2019, 10:10 PM   #204
Guru
 
BruceK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 10,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alaskan Sea-Duction View Post
Yes I know. My question is an EPIRB required in Australia.
They are compulsory in my State(NSW) if 2 miles or more offshore.
__________________
BruceK
Island Gypsy 36 Europa "Doriana"
Sydney Australia
BruceK is offline  
Old 11-12-2019, 10:53 PM   #205
Guru
 
City: Clearwater, FL
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Seas the Bay
Vessel Model: 1981 42' Hardin Europa
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 642
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
gkesden is offline  
Old 11-12-2019, 10:58 PM   #206
Guru
 
ssobol's Avatar
 
City: Leesburg, VA
Country: United States
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 736
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
...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.
ssobol is offline  
Old 11-12-2019, 11:15 PM   #207
Guru
 
Benthic2's Avatar
 
City: Boston Area
Country: United States
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,493
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.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	goodcopbadcop.jpg
Views:	17
Size:	23.7 KB
ID:	96399  
Benthic2 is offline  
Old 11-12-2019, 11:40 PM   #208
Guru
 
City: Clearwater, FL
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Seas the Bay
Vessel Model: 1981 42' Hardin Europa
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 642
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
gkesden is offline  
Old 11-12-2019, 11:54 PM   #209
Guru
 
Benthic2's Avatar
 
City: Boston Area
Country: United States
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,493
Oh my god!! Garrison got totally railroaded !!!! That is a frightening thing to read!!
Benthic2 is offline  
Old 11-13-2019, 12:35 AM   #210
Guru
 
Simi 60's Avatar
 
City: Queensland
Country: Australia
Vessel Model: Milkraft 60 converted timber trawler
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 2,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK View Post
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.
Simi 60 is offline  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:18 AM   #211
Senior Member
 
localboy's Avatar
 
City: Lake Stevens, WA via Honolulu
Country: USA
Vessel Name: 'Au Kai (Ocean Traveler)
Vessel Model: C-Dory 25
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 151
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.
__________________
Aloha...Mark
localboy is offline  
Old 11-13-2019, 07:48 AM   #212
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: AICW
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 20,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by gkesden View Post
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?
psneeld is online now  
Old 11-13-2019, 08:56 AM   #213
Veteran Member
 
City: Kentucky
Country: United States
Join Date: May 2019
Posts: 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDW View Post
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 . . .
slowgoesit is offline  
Old 11-13-2019, 10:02 AM   #214
Guru
 
City: Clearwater, FL
Country: United States
Vessel Name: Seas the Bay
Vessel Model: 1981 42' Hardin Europa
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 642
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.
gkesden is offline  
Old 11-13-2019, 12:48 PM   #215
Guru
 
City: Boston
Country: US
Vessel Name: Adelante
Vessel Model: IG 30
Join Date: Nov 2016
Posts: 673
Quote:
Originally Posted by DDW View Post
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.
SoWhat is offline  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:01 PM   #216
Guru
 
Bigsfish's Avatar
 
City: Miami River
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Gotcha
Vessel Model: Grand Banks. Heritage. 54
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 2,614
I think the key is you don’t poke the bear at the initial contact, your time will come later.
Bigsfish is offline  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:16 PM   #217
Guru
 
City: Hampton, va
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Didi Mau
Vessel Model: 2003 Ocean Alexander 456
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 938
I am glad I was able to start such an interesting thread.

Gordon
Gordon J is offline  
Old 11-13-2019, 01:16 PM   #218
Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 895
Really??
__________________

Chrisjs is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012
×