I was boarded today

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The courts have been more clear about this. The type of search the CG does is called an administrative search, and is allowed only to ensure compliance with safety, documentation, and revenue regulations. If during that search they see something "in plain sight" that arouses reasonable suspicion, then they can go further. The CG has sometimes interpreted safety compliance to require going through your underwear drawer and pockets. This has not held up in some court decisions and may not in the future.

The sticky question is: when does it become a 'pretextual' search, that is the real motivation is to find contraband but the pretext of the search is to check registration and life jackets? A fair amount of these court decisions is devoted to sorting this issue.

The general public, driving their RV down the highway, would not stand for armed military officers randomly stopping them, entering the vehicle and searching through the drawers, under the floor, on their persons, etc., nor will the courts. The excuse given for vessels is the ancient revue cutter act, and the fact that boats may have access to the open sea and foreign countries without a border stop. Certainly for pleasure boats operating on inland waters the distinction is weak or vanishing. The context in which the revenue cutter act was passed is obsolete, and has been for some time.

Meekly giving up your rights provided by the Constitution weakens it for everyone but at the moment your contacted is not the time to fight, voice your opinion certainly but control yourself. You may win in the long term but getting nasty and physical will just get you a ride and probably a night or two in jail until a hearing. More and more agencies are going to body cams which should provide a true picture but remember the authorities may walk you into a trap as the know the camera is on.

So you guys have a good point. I will concede that the USCG has jurisdiction on any navigable waterway. Out to 200nm?

My real concern is that local Sheriff or State cop who thinks they can board you in the same manner as the USCG: Anytime, anyplace. Using the "Safety Check" as an excuse to board you.

 

[ssobol]

So you guys have a good point. I will concede that the USCG has jurisdiction on any navigable waterway. Out to 200nm?

My real concern is that local Sheriff or State cop who thinks they can board you in the same manner as the USCG: Anytime, anyplace. Using the "Safety Check" as an excuse to board you.

The problem is that if you tell the local LEO that he/she can't come aboard to do an inspection it's not like they're just going to say "Well ok then, we'll be off now."

Telling them no will cause things to downhill fast.

In my area, I've seen the local LEOs set up on the ramps of the local boat launches to do DUI checks. They board any boat they want to. I was told when I moved there that when driving in VA, avoiding a checkpoint is considered probable cause (probably because you break some other traffic law when doing so, like making an illegal U-turn). When the LEOs set up on the docks at the ramp, there is also a boat on patrol which I expect to go after boats that do a similar thing.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The problem is that if you tell the local LEO that he/she can't come aboard to do an inspection it's not like they're just going to say "Well ok then, we'll be off now."

Telling them no will cause things to downhill fast.

In my area, I've seen the local LEOs set up on the ramps of the local boat launches to do DUI checks. They board any boat they want to. I was told when I moved there that when driving in VA, avoiding a checkpoint is considered probable cause (probably because you break some other traffic law when doing so, like making an illegal U-turn). When the LEOs set up on the docks at the ramp, there is also a boat on patrol which I expect to go after boats that do a similar thing.

OK so I am assuming there is a state law on BUIs? So what about a marine safety check to try and gin up a probable cause?

 

[Benthic2]

Is it possible that since a boat is not a necessity, it is not afforded the same status as a house ? For example, driving a car is a privelege, not a right. Because of this you can lose your license for refusing a breathalyzer test, even if you are not convicted of DUI.
( At least you can in MA, DMV rules vary by state)

 

[localboy]

The latest true and accurate data. Beware of what “the media” reports. They have an obvious agenda. https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6406

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15_sum.pdf

 

[GFC]

So Mike what is the material difference between a "search" and a "safety check?"

One requires a search warrant from a court because I am going to open drawers and cabinets, while a "Safety Check" doesn't require a search warrant because I am not opening drawers? While doing a safety check I am pretty sure the LEO is looking for "something" out in plain sight, thus probable cause. So it isn't just a "safety check."

Now my argument above concerns LEO, not USCG or Boarder Patrol.

DDW addressed this quite clearly but from an LEO or USCG point of view, if they stop me for a documentation or safety check ask me for my registration and other papers I will have to go down below into the 2nd stateroom to get my files. It would be entirely appropriate for them to accompany me for their own safety, to ensure I didn't come up with a firearm.

It's also appropriate for them to do a quick walk through of the boat to determine who else is on board. Again, for their safety.

While doing the walk through or accompanying me while I get my papers, if they observe something illegal (crack pipe, other illegal contraband) that is in plain view they can seize it. The presence of contraband opens up the boat to more intrusive searches into closets, drawers, etc. in search of more illegal substances.

Courts all across the country have ruled that LEO's do not have to ignore illegal material (or what a "reasonable man" would determine is contraband) that is in plain view.

As to ASD's question, the safety check or document check does not, in itself, give them authority to look inside drawers, cabinets, etc. Only after plain view seizures of contraband can the safety check move to a search.

 

[ssobol]

Is it possible that since a boat is not a necessity, it is not afforded the same status as a house ? For example, driving a car is a privelege, not a right. Because of this you can lose your license for refusing a breathalyzer test, even if you are not convicted of DUI.
( At least you can in MA, DMV rules vary by state)

The Constitution requires that a police officer have probable cause for a traffic stop. But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the dangers from drunk driving outweigh the "degree of intrusion" of sobriety checkpoints and they are an exception to the search and seizure provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

Don't know application of this ruling has been tested for boats, but it might not be that big of a stretch to say it also applies to recreational boats. At least it seems to apply in my area.

 

[ssobol]

...
As to ASD's question, the safety check or document check does not, in itself, give them authority to look inside drawers, cabinets, etc. Only after plain view seizures of contraband can the safety check move to a search.

However, if you open a locker or drawer to say get your papers or show them where you stow the lifejackets and they see contraband in said locker or drawer then they now can search pretty much anything.

 

[OldDan1943]

Hmmm, you TELL them where the ship's papers are located. My ship's papers are on the bridge.
You TELL them where the guns and ammo are located.
You do not leave the helm unless instructed.
Restrain your animals and no one make any sudden moves.
You can make this easy or difficult. Your decision.
A safety inspection, to me, is when they inspect to see if the inspection has expired, the number of PFDs are enough for everyone on board.

 

[psneeld]

So you guys have a good point. I will concede that the USCG has jurisdiction on any navigable waterway. Out to 200nm?

My real concern is that local Sheriff or State cop who thinks they can board you in the same manner as the USCG: Anytime, anyplace. Using the "Safety Check" as an excuse to board you.

They have jurisdiction over any US vessel in international waters worldwide, US waters and foreign waters if that government gives permission.

 

[GFC]

The Constitution requires that a police officer have probable cause for a traffic stop. But the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the dangers from drunk driving outweigh the "degree of intrusion" of sobriety checkpoints and they are an exception to the search and seizure provisions of the U.S. Constitution.

I'm not sure where you got your law degree but you should get a refund for whatever it cost you.


Nowhere does it say that cops must have probable cause for a traffic stop. All a cop has to do is see a traffic or other violation and he can make a stop.


The legal standard above that is "reasonable suspicion". That can be anything from a cop seeing a vehicle leaving a commercial area in the wee hours of the morning and he stops it to investigate what the vehicle was doing there. Reasonable Suspicion can be loosely defined as anything that a reasonable man would deem suspicious.


Probable cause is often developed over time. An example of that would be the LEO's stop your boat for a safety check. While on board they see your drug paraphernalia on the helm. That gives them the probable cause to investigate further to determine if other additional crimes (i.e., drug possession) might be being committed.


LEO's have no obligation to ignore illegal things occurring in front of them.

 

[BruceK]

We have random PCA(Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol) testing here. On the road, and I think on water too. No suspicion or "probable cause" required. As the adverts say "Every police car is a mobile breath testing station, you won`t know where or when..."
We`re down to sharing half a bottle of wine when we drive somewhere for dinner.

 

[78puget-trawler]

"Nowhere does it say that cops must have probable cause for a traffic stop. All a cop has to do is see a traffic or other violation and he can make a stop"


Is that not probable cause? The observation of an infraction?

 

[STB]

"Nowhere does it say that cops must have probable cause for a traffic stop. All a cop has to do is see a traffic or other violation and he can make a stop"


Is that not probable cause? The observation of an infraction?

Reasonable suspicion

Probably cause

Preponderance of evidence

Reasonable doubt

...different standards applicable under different circumstances.

Reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch, but less than probably cause. Probable cause is merely more likely than not.

 

[78puget-trawler]

OK, so yes, thanks.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

DDW addressed this quite clearly but from an LEO or USCG point of view, if they stop me for a documentation or safety check ask me for my registration and other papers I will have to go down below into the 2nd stateroom to get my files. It would be entirely appropriate for them to accompany me for their own safety, to ensure I didn't come up with a firearm.

It's also appropriate for them to do a quick walk through of the boat to determine who else is on board. Again, for their safety.

While doing the walk through or accompanying me while I get my papers, if they observe something illegal (crack pipe, other illegal contraband) that is in plain view they can seize it. The presence of contraband opens up the boat to more intrusive searches into closets, drawers, etc. in search of more illegal substances.

Courts all across the country have ruled that LEO's do not have to ignore illegal material (or what a "reasonable man" would determine is contraband) that is in plain view.

As to ASD's question, the safety check or document check does not, in itself, give them authority to look inside drawers, cabinets, etc. Only after plain view seizures of contraband can the safety check move to a search.

They have jurisdiction over any US vessel in international waters worldwide, US waters and foreign waters if that government gives permission.

I'm not sure where you got your law degree but you should get a refund for whatever it cost you.


Nowhere does it say that cops must have probable cause for a traffic stop. All a cop has to do is see a traffic or other violation and he can make a stop.


The legal standard above that is "reasonable suspicion". That can be anything from a cop seeing a vehicle leaving a commercial area in the wee hours of the morning and he stops it to investigate what the vehicle was doing there. Reasonable Suspicion can be loosely defined as anything that a reasonable man would deem suspicious.


Probable cause is often developed over time. An example of that would be the LEO's stop your boat for a safety check. While on board they see your drug paraphernalia on the helm. That gives them the probable cause to investigate further to determine if other additional crimes (i.e., drug possession) might be being committed.


LEO's have no obligation to ignore illegal things occurring in front of them.

OK so we have figured out PC. On a vehicle it could be a broken license plate light. At least that is what I was taught at the academy.


So now lets discuss the RIGHT to board. USCG has the absolute right, under law to board any boat at any time within United States territorial waters. Someone also mentioned the Navy. Navy can not make a legal stop of recreational vessels. This is why the USCG are normally on board escort ships. They have the legal power.

However, do State, County or City LEOs also have this ABSOLUTE right as the USCG to board a recreational vessel?

 

[Portage_Bay]

I mentioned the Navy in post #147. I said "Navy + USCG team".

To expand on that, the team was off of a CG vessel. The CG officer seemed to be in charge. This happened while passing a Navy base shortly after 9/11.

I also said all but one of the boardings I mentioned were not on pleasure vessels. To be clear on that one it was the boarding by combined US and Canadian on the US side of the Straits of Juan de Fuca.

I will point out that in my 31 yes on the water prior to 9/11 I had never been boarded. It's all changed since then. Like it or not, and I don't, it's the world we now live in.

OK so we have figured out PC. On a vehicle it could be a broken license plate light. At least that is what I was taught at the academy.


So now lets discuss the RIGHT to board. USCG has the absolute right, under law to board any boat at any time within United States territorial waters. Someone also mentioned the Navy. Navy can not make a legal stop of recreational vessels. This is why the USCG are normally on board escort ships. They have the legal power.

However, do State, County or City LEOs also have this ABSOLUTE right as the USCG to board a recreational vessel?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I mentioned the Navy in post #147. I said "Navy + USCG team".

To expand on that, the team was off of a CG vessel. The CG officer seemed to be in charge. This happened while passing a Navy base shortly after 9/11.

I also said all but one of the boardings I mentioned were not on pleasure vessels. To be clear on that one it was the boarding by combined US and Canadian on the US side of the Straits of Juan de Fuca.

I will point out that in my 31 yes on the water prior to 9/11 I had never been boarded. It's all changed since then. Like it or not, and I don't, it's the world we now live in.

No worries. My intent was not to question your post. 9/11 has changed everything. Too many Americans have forgotten.....

Back to Absolute right to board.....

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Pretty appropriate to this topic...

 

[psneeld]

The absolute right to board and putting USCG on Navy vessels goes way back before 9/11.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

The absolute right to board and putting USCG on Navy vessels goes way back before 9/11.

Yes they do. I agree.

So does that absolute right to board extend out to State and Local LE?

 

[DDW]

I don't think local LEOs have the same power, which stems from the Federal regulations going back to the revenue cutter act which was specifically to enforce tax law - import duties being pretty much the sole source of taxes for the Feds back then. This is one of the reasons I say the context of the law is obsolete. Locals may claim the same power if on the same mission, but I'd contest it.

The idea that all suspicionless searches are illegal and long ago been abandon. A great deal of verbiage in these decisions though, is expended on hand wringing about weighing the intrusiveness of the search against the greater public good. So stops for DUI checks are seen as not a very intrusive and with large contribution to public good. In vehicles in most states, there is the doctrine of "implied consent", basically you accepted a drivers license in trade for the agreement to be stopped. No such doctrine exists for boats.

The intrusiveness of a search of your boat, which is your temporary residence, is far greater, and more dangerous, than getting stopped in your car. The officers must come aboard, and are bound to see more than looking in the window of your car. The saying is "the eyes can't trespass" for example looking over a fence or through a car window. But if the boots are trespassing, the eyes are too. There is some probability of damage from the boarding boat and party that does not exist in a car stop. It is hard to see that the public good is served to a greater extent.

It would be nice to see this tested again in a modern Supreme Court, on grounds other than suppression of evidence during a clearly illegal act, and solely on the merits of Article IV.

 

[psneeld]

Ki

Yes they do. I agree.

So does that absolute right to board extend out to State and Local LE?

If the states give them that right.

Some state give broad powers and some states have actually pulled them back.

Some LEOs have limited boarding rights or none...others give Fish and Game some pretty broad powers...less if you are not fishing, very broad if you are.

 

[psneeld]

I don't think local LEOs have the same power, which stems from the Federal regulations going back to the revenue cutter act which was specifically to enforce tax law - import duties being pretty much the sole source of taxes for the Feds back then. This is one of the reasons I say the context of the law is obsolete. Locals may claim the same power if on the same mission, but I'd contest it.

The idea that all suspicionless searches are illegal and long ago been abandon. A great deal of verbiage in these decisions though, is expended on hand wringing about weighing the intrusiveness of the search against the greater public good. So stops for DUI checks are seen as not a very intrusive and with large contribution to public good. In vehicles in most states, there is the doctrine of "implied consent", basically you accepted a drivers license in trade for the agreement to be stopped. No such doctrine exists for boats.

The intrusiveness of a search of your boat, which is your temporary residence, is far greater, and more dangerous, than getting stopped in your car. The officers must come aboard, and are bound to see more than looking in the window of your car. The saying is "the eyes can't trespass" for example looking over a fence or through a car window. But if the boots are trespassing, the eyes are too. There is some probability of damage from the boarding boat and party that does not exist in a car stop. It is hard to see that the public good is served to a greater extent.

It would be nice to see this tested again in a modern Supreme Court, on grounds other than suppression of evidence during a clearly illegal act, and solely on the merits of Article IV.

Again only your veiwpoint, not everyones's.... and so far a mixed bag in courts depending on the circumstances.

I am a true lives board, my 3 Rd time, everything I own is on my boat and why don't I feel the same way?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I don't think local LEOs have the same power, which stems from the Federal regulations going back to the revenue cutter act which was specifically to enforce tax law - import duties being pretty much the sole source of taxes for the Feds back then. This is one of the reasons I say the context of the law is obsolete. Locals may claim the same power if on the same mission, but I'd contest it.

The idea that all suspicionless searches are illegal and long ago been abandon. A great deal of verbiage in these decisions though, is expended on hand wringing about weighing the intrusiveness of the search against the greater public good. So stops for DUI checks are seen as not a very intrusive and with large contribution to public good. In vehicles in most states, there is the doctrine of "implied consent", basically you accepted a drivers license in trade for the agreement to be stopped. No such doctrine exists for boats.

The intrusiveness of a search of your boat, which is your temporary residence, is far greater, and more dangerous, than getting stopped in your car. The officers must come aboard, and are bound to see more than looking in the window of your car. The saying is "the eyes can't trespass" for example looking over a fence or through a car window. But if the boots are trespassing, the eyes are too. There is some probability of damage from the boarding boat and party that does not exist in a car stop. It is hard to see that the public good is served to a greater extent.

It would be nice to see this tested again in a modern Supreme Court, on grounds other than suppression of evidence during a clearly illegal act, and solely on the merits of Article IV.

Good post, but lets expand. If the State or County has a LAW on the books for BUI, then they have a right to board you if you are showing signs of said BUI. Probable Cause. The difficult part is when you compare vehicle type of actions versus water craft. To me, you can't draw the same line for cars and boats in most actions.

I know this is simplified, but this is what it is all about.

Scenario:

So you are cruising in Puget Sound in San Juan County, Washington USA. You are hailed by two boats. Both on your stern. One is a USCG and the other is San Juan County Sheriff.

We know the USCG boat can board you under ANY circumstances.

Apply the above to the Sheriff's boat. Does the Sheriff have an absolute right to board your boat, even for a "Safety Check?"

 

[Shrew]

Want to get your boarding done quickly and courteously? "Yes Sir, No Sir."

I'm beyond the age of calling people 'sir', when most of these kids are 20-30 years younger than I am. However, I will answer them directly, concisely and with respect.

 

[ssobol]

...Apply the above to the Sheriff's boat. Does the Sheriff have an absolute right to board your boat, even for a "Safety Check?"

Again, if the Sheriff's boat shows up and wants to board you for a safety check (or any other reason), are you really going to say "No"?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Again, if the Sheriff's boat shows up and wants to board you for a safety check (or any other reason), are you really going to say "No"?

So you are saying the State or County LEO has an absolute right to board your vessel?

 

[Shrew]

Again, if the Sheriff's boat shows up and wants to board you for a safety check (or any other reason), are you really going to say "No"?

The rights of the CG do not extend to State and Municipal Law Enforcement, and they know it too. They can ask, but at best they are riding on probable cause.

Now, they can detain you while they obtain a warrant or a someone who does have the authority to board. I would absolutely ask a State or Municipal LE 'why' they want to board.

 

[JLD]

Scenario:

So you are cruising in Puget Sound in San Juan County, Washington USA. You are hailed by two boats. Both on your stern. One is a USCG and the other is San Juan County Sheriff.

We know the USCG boat can board you under ANY circumstances.

Apply the above to the Sheriff's boat. Does the Sheriff have an absolute right to board your boat, even for a "Safety Check?"

The USCG authorities come from federal law and/or regulations. The Sheriff's authorities would come from State and/or other local laws and regulations.

The federal agency that I work for, often commissions some of our state counterparts in order to share information with them and to contract some of our agency's work to them. We also credential (but do not badge) some of our state colleagues so they can do some of our inspections under our federal authorities.

I would be interested to hear if the USCG has any type of commissioning/credentialing for any state or other officials to use their authorities?

Jim