You have just been boarded by the CG.

I see your point 78 and it was well said. Years ago I would have agreed with you, but in todays world to stop crazy, we have to adapt. At some point we have to decide how to protect our kids and it SUCKS that the old system doesn't work anymore, not due to us, but due to outside of us. Same reason we need to protect our rights to protect ourselves.

78, sooner or later, someone will agree with you 100%. Hang in, it will come.

While I tried to read all the "BLA,BLA,BLA" above here is what matters!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sorry I guess it been a long day!

Rossigal, no offense but you are just plain wrong. You are saying its OK to give up our rights for the greater good I guess and so the govt can take care of us. Adapt means surrender. But then you go on to say we have to defend our rights to defend ourselves, I assume you mean the 2nd Amendment. With this I totally agree, but you are willing to give up some of your rights, just not yet all of them? You know that old saying, little by little, the slippery slope etc. We have given up far too much already.

BruceK..you been talking to my wife?? LOL!

78puget-trawler said:

BruceK..you been talking to my wife?? LOL!

Click to expand...

Your wife and I were right, someone did!

I knew this would draw all kinds of comments. I'm not surprised. And my honest answer is YES, we have a right to defend ourselves from the government, 2nd. No issues, we all agree. Not willing to give up, no way, no how. BUT...since the government is letting everyone in...and boats is an easy way to get in...I home they are checking every boat....they don't know which of us are HELL YA and which of us are HELL NO. We are on the border. I can only stop so much. Board me. Who is making money letting them in vs. land security? It's just a diff world. I know it's not a perfect system by I don't want my kid wearing a burka! I only have so many shots

First-for Island15-the USCG power to board and inspect has been in the US Code since the early days of the country and has been upheld by the SCt. And that right does include the right to fully search your boat if they so choose. And that is not going to change in our lifetimes.

Second, for 78-yes the USCG can come on and do a full blown search if they choose. But they do not do so. The USCG has published guidelines on boardings that they follow. They will come on board, they will be armed. They will be polite. If at night, they may approach without running lights, but as they near, they will always shine a light on the CG insignia or the bow stripe on their boat. Obviously they will look at docs and safety gear for compliance. That is their chief concern. They normally will conduct a visual exam, and "plain sight" exam of your boat. They do not open cabinets, hatches and the like. They go further than that only, and only, if they see something in plain sight that gives them a "reasonable suspicion" that a further search is needed. For example, seeing a "roach" in an ashtray. If they find the need, they tell you, escort you to a spot on the boat, and sit you down with an armed minder. If they need anything from you, they will come and ask.

Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

I'm a firm believer in Constitutional Rights, and I know the USCG authority extends beyond border States, but exactly how is the CG supposed to police our borders if they don't have the authority to board vessels? Can they search cars at the CA-MX border?

Again, I understand that the CG boarding in Lake Mead is not that same as boarding a vessel in a border State, and so that's a different situation, but vessels are mobile, and the Courts have ruled several times that even for live-aboards where the boat is the castle, the right to search is upheld.

It appears as if the Courts are not considering boating a Right, but a privilege like driving a car, and are subjecting vessels to search to: "inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance."

Constitutional Law was written when recreational boating was pretty much unheard of. Boats were a conveyance, and the Coast Guard's only early mission was border patrol. This seems to have morphed into safety inspections, and just like when life jackets and flare kits became mandatory, it infringes on our Rights, but saves lives and millions of dollars in search costs.

Difficult Constitutional question, but I believe the argument moot regarding border States and perhaps with some merit inland. Should you be free to boat unsafely and perhaps endanger others? If it didn't impact my safety I would say yes, clean up the gene pool a little, being stupid is still legal and you can't fix it.

$0.02

First of all, because they are allowed to do all the above does't mean they can do all of them (search) on every boarding. Just because one part of the US Code uses the word search in it, my experience is that some other part of the administrative or judicial system severely limits or eliminates the warrantless search part.

They are NOT allowed to look in closets or drawers or cabinets, or briefcases, or backpacks (so you ARE) secure in you personal belongings at least underthe USCG own policy.

They ARE allowed to look into places that they have safety or environmental jurisdiction over.....usually only man sized spaces can be entered, and places li,e the bilge they look for excessive water, fuel or oil.

Every boarding that I monitored from the mother ship, once there was probable cause to conduct a "search".....the boarding was halted and an authorization to escalate was radioed into a district attorney and if stateless or foriegn, through the state department.

That meant some boarding in the old days of crappy HF radio patching, some boarding lasted days. Who here thinks and USCG team covered in all that gear wants to hang around for days without the comforts of home just to wreck someone's 4the ammendment rights?

Comprehend the difference between a safety inspection and a search.

A safety inspection is what the division of motor vehicles does to your car....check brakes, wipers, emissions, etc..etc

A seach of your car is where the DEA uses a bunch of mechanics to remove doors, panels, fuel tanks, whatever. This usually takes a warrant.

Which one does the USCG do till it gets legal authorization?

The real difference is that people try to compare their homes and boats....doesn't quite work that way...and I am a full time liveaboard and understand my lifestyle wasn't really mentioned in the Constitution. Frustrating as it can be to handle the "proof" necessary to establish residency for all kinds of government documents such as licenses....

We have been boarded by the CG at least a half a dozen times and never have they asked us to do anything that was not easily accomplished. On all these occasions I have always found them to be professional and accommodating and got us on our way within a fairly short period of time. Their initial questions were just about always that same asking if we had any drugs , guns or explosives onboard they should know about before they began their inspection.
Never an issue and certainly glad they are out there doing their job.

Went to a government auction in Florida and saw pictures of the inside of a 50 foot sailboat where the owners had illegal drugs on board, so I was told they were suspected of being drug transporters. The entire inside of the boat had been smashed open for the USCG to view into every possible interior concealed space of the boat. And It was pretty devastating to the boat structure. Imagine what sledgehammers, crowbars and saws can do to a boat and that was it.

Does the USCG bring onboard drug sniffing - explosive trained dogs to a boat?

Yes to dogs...but never on initial or even most boardings.

Electronics has taken most of the job away from dogs.

I am not sure about swiping of electronics for drugs...after my time. But I am guessing they either have to ask permission or probable cause.

Usually destructive searches are done by or for other agencies being involved somehow and the probable cause has to be pretty strong.

We were boarded in '05 heading into Miami on returning from the Bahamas. We were live-a-boards so I had every piece of paper from the time we bought the boat. They kept insisting there was a "problem". Never told is what the problem was. Made us go into the CG station, get off the boat and go behind a building so we could not see what they were doing. This after making me and my wife climb up the side of the concrete pier. After about an hour, and after it was already dark, they turn us loose. After repeatedly asking for an explanation they finally came up with the story that our boat had been involved in some drug activity in '99. This was complete BS since the boat at that time was in a marina in TX and pretty well torn up while we were working on it. After numerous letters up the chain of command with no reasonable explanation I finally gave up. The CG has been on my sh*t list ever since.

78puget-trawler said:

Rossigal, no offense but you are just plain wrong. You are saying its OK to give up our rights for the greater good I guess and so the govt can take care of us. Adapt means surrender. But then you go on to say we have to defend our rights to defend ourselves, I assume you mean the 2nd Amendment. With this I totally agree, but you are willing to give up some of your rights, just not yet all of them? You know that old saying, little by little, the slippery slope etc. We have given up far too much already.

Click to expand...

What he said.

Although the I don't think our founding fathers ever envisioned that the average person would need a 30 round assault weapon. While fun to play with, there is no real need for the average citizen to own one.

Capt.Bill11 said:

What he said.

Although the I don't think our founding fathers ever envisioned that the average person would need a 30 round assault weapon. While fun to play with, there is no real need for the average citizen to own one.

Click to expand...

I agree...heck... any decent boarding officer...maybe even a retired helo pilot can put way more than 30 double ought rounds down range in not much more time if they practice combat loading of that stainless remingtom.

But the total amount of intrusion in peoples lives for what the USCG does in boardings is all but insignificant. The total time I have wasted on the phone with government inspectors about home modifications or buying smoke detectors or fire extinguishers for an upcoming sale is mind boggling. Hell....in NJ you are taxed for moving out of state.....

Anyone who thinks the USCGs authority which is sparingly used at best, under vigilant judicial review and public view is out of line...it's pales in comparison to our daily intrusions.

Plus...any cop can conduct a warrantless search any time they want...they usually have the gun and the backup. Its just tossed evidence under poison fruit legalese....but they still can do it....and that is why the USCG doesn't do that...they do their safety inspection and wait for a warrant before a real search.

I really haven't heard or have witnessed much change in the USCG boarding policy since becoming Homeland security...even with all the addition legislation that arose to control terrorism. If there was this big erosion of rights...it isn't happening on the water through the fault of the USCG.

Capt.Bill11 said:

What he said.

Although the I don't think our founding fathers ever envisioned that the average person would need a 30 round assault weapon. While fun to play with, there is no real need for the average citizen to own one.

Click to expand...

The Founders probably didn't envision TV, radio, the internet and a few other things that are still given full Constitutional protection though right? We should not cherry pick our rights. The assault weapon of their day was a musket. Its a whole 'nother argument but the term assault weapon is a misnomer to begin with. AR15's as sold in America are not now and never have been assault weapons. A military M16 such as the CG might have on board is an assault weapon as it has full auto capability, civilian sold AR15's do not. Assault weapon is a coined term that is only meant to do one thing, and that is vilify a class of firearm, by calling them black rifles, only meant to kill people quickly etc. Remember the Clinton "assault weapons" ban of 1994 that expired 10 years later? The net result according to FBI crime statistics was zilch. Meaningless pap for the masses.

Island15 said:

While I tried to read all the "BLA,BLA,BLA" above here is what matters!

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Sorry I guess it been a long day!

Click to expand...

78...there is the reprint of the 4th...it says "against unreasonable searches and seizures"

the courts have determined the USCG inspections to not be "unreasonable"...so who is cherry picking what?


plus the limits to what they did list to be protected isn't all inclusive....the fathers could have left all specifics out or listed a few more like land (not just houses) in general, wagons, boats...etc

Keep in mind who USCG is a sub-agency of - DHS. Same with TSA. The Supreme Court ruled this week that warrentless breathalizer tests are legal. Government gone wild...

Having said that, the USCG folks are generally all very nice and decent people. If you a-hole them, they will a-hole you right back, and can tie you up for a very long time if they want.

My cherry picking comment was not about the CG issue. I recognize the CG has a special exemption and accept it. My comment was more towards the idea that no one "needs" a so called assault weapon. Its not about need, its a right.


And how many years were you in the Coast Guard?

78puget-trawler said:

My cherry picking comment was not about the CG issue. I recognize the CG has a special exemption and accept it. My comment was more towards the idea that no one "needs" a so called assault weapon. Its not about need, its a right.


And how many years were you in the Coast Guard?

Click to expand...

23...but that doesn't matter as much as what your experience was in...mine was pretty broad stroked, deploying to sea a lot and pretty high up in a major group. Law Enforcement and Security Officer at 2 major Air Stations.


I was the second pilot to go though the USCG's Maritime Law Enforcement School where my real initiation to this whole discussion's essence came from.

Greetings,
Mr. 78. It is my understanding that CG officials have the same powers to search as customs and border officials. Ever go through an airport? Warrant less search to be sure but all legal.

By the way, when your vessel is not underway, it can be considered your residence.

psneeld said:

23...but that doesn't matter as much as what your experience was in...mine was pretty broad stroked, deploying to sea a lot and pretty high up in a major group. Law Enforcement and Security Officer at 2 major Air Stations.


I was the second pilot to go though the USCG's Maritime Law Enforcement School where my real initiation to this whole discussion's essence came from.

Click to expand...

As you may have seen in other threads, I too have some fair amount of seafaring experience and was once licensed by the CG to operate Tugboats up to 200 tons and 200 miles offshore. I started working on and around boats at 10 years old as my dad was an independent tugboat operator starting after WWII. Made my first trip to Alaska from Seattle on an old wood tug at age 12 in 1966, and retired from tugs in 1992 as I did not want to be an absentee dad to my kids, which is what going to sea essentially amounts to if you have some. My wife just found my long lost Z card the other day, dated 1971.

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. 78. It is my understanding that CG officials have the same powers to search as customs and border officials. Ever go through an airport? Warrant less search to be sure but all legal.

By the way, when your vessel is not underway, it can be considered your residence.

Click to expand...

Very true...even the USCG ensign is essentially the customs flag with USCG emblem on it..

BUT...they really cant exercise those customs issues without direction or reasonable cause....because the whole idea of how "customs are cleared".

Sure if intel says you are smuggling televisions, the USCG under guidance from Customs can do a seizure...same with immigration smuggling.

This is where this get really muddies with federal code and legal issues...it takes dozens of on watch experts all conferring whether or not some dinky boarding team has the legal right to board and "search" based on probable cause from say an informant. Just the separate CFRs giving authorities to all government agencies aren't truly stand alone in the real world...but without each one spelling out possible authority...it would forever be questioned in court.

RT Firefly said:

Greetings,
Mr. 78. It is my understanding that CG officials have the same powers to search as customs and border officials. Ever go through an airport? Warrant less search to be sure but all legal.

By the way, when your vessel is not underway, it can be considered your residence.

Click to expand...

True but the airport thing is a fairly modern iteration of this whole thing. I mean it is what it is, doesn't mean we have to like it or even accept it at least on some level. Many wrongs don't make a right.

That is entirely the point...


Some "opinions" don't make it right or wrong...it is the perception that it is for the greater good and how it got that way through government might be debatable...but it did go through.


The courts uphold it.


So who is to determine whether it is right or wrong?


I find it "reasonable" all things considered so I'll keep plugging for the OK to do it camp.


If it gets worse than it is....then I will certainly be the first to switch.


But reality...my monthly pay from the USCG is lower now than it was in 2006 (came across an old stub the other day)....why? I think even though I have no dependents in my health care (which was promised to be free for life if I did my duty)...it has gone up that much and cost of living raises haven't even made up for any of it.


So if I think the ONE USCG boarding I have had in 50 years of boating is an issue compared to my retired pay....wow....I would be only fooling myself.


Of ll the issues out there...as I posted before...USCG boardings haven't even climbed into my plus column yet.

Much ado about nothing... I don't see a single post here where an inspection was unreasonable and I have never found them to be unreasonable when boarded or otherwise. I would wait until I had something to complain about before I made an issue of being inspected.

I suppose my attitude about that is because up here, with no smuggling going on, every boarding I know of is a safety and compliance inspection. Not a search for contraband,
and I might feel differently about it if I lived and boated in an area where smuggling was prevalent.

Remember that my original post was about what ones obligations were (after) being boarded. This thread then morphed into the constitutional argument question which I had not posed. I had not anticipated a hot debate on the merits of the CG authority.

I may have missed something small...but I think post #13 was the first to mention something about the constitution and rights...

psneeld said:

I may have missed something small...but I think post #13 was the first to mention something about the constitution and rights...

Click to expand...

Well you got me there all right! In defense that was coupled to my reply about being a sea lawyer. It was not my intention as the OP to get into a big discussion as to the merits or lack thereof, of the CG's position relating to the BoR's. I had thought it might be an interesting discussion and in that I guess I should not be too disappointed.