Just before they blow your brains out for handling a weapon when THEY have an entry plan in effect.
This is turning laughable.
...My wife saw them get close and told me we would be boarded. I told her they would hail us first. A minute later we turned around and three officers were already aboard....
My read is they communicated with your wife and didn’t feel the need also use the radio.
Yeah - Google Nicholas and Tuttle to see how that plan works out. The hyper aggressive dynamic entry types regard all "civilians"If I am awakened by strangers creeping around inside my boat, am I to assume they are LEO’s and surrender to them? Or should I arm myself and prepare to protect my wife and myself? Even on a boat I think I still have a right to protect life and limb from unannounced intruders.
Common misconception, but the Supreme Court has ruled on this specifically. If a law-enforcement officer asks you to voluntarily do anything -- answer questions, submit to a search, whatever -- and you tell him "no," that absolutely does NOT constitute either "probable cause" nor "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of anything. They cannot justify an unwarranted search by claiming that you refused to consent to a voluntary search and they found that suspicious.Saying "no" would have probably enabled the reasonable suspicion clause of their contract.
Common misconception, but the Supreme Court has ruled on this specifically. If a law-enforcement officer asks you to voluntarily do anything -- answer questions, submit to a search, whatever -- and you tell him "no," that absolutely does NOT constitute either "probable cause" nor "reasonable, articulable suspicion" of anything. They cannot justify an unwarranted search by claiming that you refused to consent to a voluntary search and they found that suspicious.
Beyond that, the OP never said that he was underway when this happened. Perhaps he was anchored, his wife was on deck and clearly saw the LEOs, and so they just stepped onto his swim platform and up onto the boat. If that's the case, I don't see a problem. If they were, in fact, underway when the boarding occurred, then they were putting themselves at unnecessary risk by not having him slow or stop.
And a fast boarding isn't any more dangerous than s faster boarding if done correctly in my opinion....the boats sometimes suck together better and are less affected by the natural waves.
This 4-part article makes a very interesting read. It provides the history behind the USCG powers as well as a discussion of the 4th amendment and legal challenges. I highly recommend it:
https://www.sailfeed.com/2012/10/coast-guard-boardings-and-your-fourth-amendment-rights-part-1/
Richard
m/v Stillwater
Yes, however, a boarding where the person at the helm knows another boat is going to approach would be safer regardless of speed, as they're less likely to make a course change, etc. Fortunately, unless on a very loud boat, a higher speed boarding is less likely to happen un-noticed, as the boat delivering the boarding party is likely going to be making more noise (wake interaction, engine noise, general water noise, etc.) than they would if approaching slowly.
I'm not sure if you had time to read all 4 parts. In part 4 there is acknowledgement of the commandant's rule to not search private spaces.I am not sure a lot of that article is accurate.
It's not what I experienced in 20+ years of stopping vessels at sea.
While a warrant-less search is permissible by law....most stops are "safety" checks and cannot search small areas, compartments, personal gear etc....without probable cause.
Even IF the boarding team can....99.9% of the time I was involved, we didn't because the USCG protects that overreaching authority with vengence to not lose it over a silly little case.
While a warrant-less search is permissible by law....most stops are "safety" checks and cannot search small areas, compartments, personal gear etc....without probable cause.
Even IF the boarding team can....99.9% of the time I was involved, we didn't because the USCG protects that overreaching authority with vengence to not lose it over a silly little case.
Any body who didn't grow up learning to deal with authority by saying "Yes sir, no sir" and maybe thinking quietly "3 bags full sir" led a sheltered life.
Get real. Get it over with.
The only proper way to respond is compliance. Right, wrong, doesn't matter. Deal with the situation as it happens. Prove your not a threat. Cooperate and %99.9 of the time things will end well. Isn't that all you really want ????
Nope...every court I know of has held up the USCG's right to board BECAUSE they have honored it for centuries now with general restraint....those that haven't have been overturned I would think.I think a Captain of his OWN vessel has every RIGHT to verbally object to being boarded by ANY LE done in a way that is sneaky or the CAPTAIN unaware of it. There is really little excuse for this to happen. I am not saying I would physically resist or start a fight with armed gendarmes, but they would sure get a tongue lashing for which one has EVERY right to deliver to overzealous LE behavior.
This idea that we must submit to every whim of LE while minding our own legal business is just crap! I think a court would agree.
It seems pretty dangerous. If the OP had changed course or speed as the boarding was taking place it could have resulted in a serious injury. The boardings I have seen they get the capt. attention with lights and siren...tell him or hear to maintain a slow steady course.....and then they board.