Boarded by NOAA

The friendliest place on the web for anyone who enjoys boating.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Subsistence permits? Gotta be kidding. I never even heard of a subsistence permit before this thread and now you're telling me that a few subsistence permits are all that are stopping "the end of the world" for halibut??? Sorry, but it sounds like hyperbole to me.

I saw an ad for charter fishing. Snapper down here in the gulf. $200/hr per person. Six people, six hours, $7200. Maybe the protectioni$m is making more $en$e.
If you never heard of subsistence fishing/hunting, it means you haven't been to Alaska.... :)


Especially haven't lived there as many live off the land even without the precious subsistence permits.
 
As I understood concerning Alaska, a resident can subsistence with nets, but is sport-fishing with a pole.
 
In thinking more about this, I think we are going to start scoring our halibut into our normal serving sizes-cutting through the meat but not the skin. We can then fold the quarter fish and fit it in our freezer and the skin will still be attached. It will make final processing easier when we head south as we will only have to cut through the attached skin before vacusealing.

Tator
 
Good morning from Coffman Cove Alaska. I was boarded by NOAA last year. He was nice enough and I passed the attitude test. There was no doubt in my mind that he would turn quickly if I gave him any lip.

My friend was fishing legitimately here on Clarence Straights last year. He would come back to town and clean an pack his fish every day. He loaded up to go back to Ketchikan and was stopped. All of the fish in his freezer was confiscated. The only way according to the officer is to freeze the fillets whole with skin on so they can count the fish. Four fillets equals one fish. Needless to say there were numerous discussions regarding NOAA and boarding boats.
True, except the whole skin thing. Each fellet must have a patch of skin still attached. The above was told to me by a NOAA officer.
 
Sure, do away with the permits. Then, in ten years, we won't have to worry about Pacific Halibut at all anymore. Just like Cod on the East Coast, almost non-existent.
Oh I could right volumes on this. The IPHC is run by State governments, to include B.C. and the commercial fishermen. Sport fishing has only one representative. The commercials are setting restrictive policies on sport fish.
 
I disagree with it, but it's been through the Supreme Court and clearly adjudicated. Even though your boat may be your home, you very definitely do NOT get the same constitutional protections onboard as you would in your home on land.
So why not? Dirt versus water....
 
My problem with the rule being enforced by NOAA is it was put in place by an international commission (the IPHC) without going through the traditional federal rulemaking process and was not subject to a public comment period. The rule's purpose would seem to be protecting the halibut resource, but its affect on the resource is not measurable as it only impacts fisherman on a boat with fishing tackle. 99% of the sport fishermen are not affected by this rule as they return to shore each day to process their catch. In the case of the person going from Coffman Cove back to Ketchikan, the only mistake was having fishing tackle on board. I wonder if NOAA would stop people leaving Coffman Cove or Thorne Bay with processed halibut on board a float plane with their fishing rods. Technically they are a boat when on the water so in violation. That's how ridiculous this rule can become. In the US the commissioners to the IPHC are appointed by the State Dept. I don't think the State Dept will take comments from someone in Wrangell or anywhere else when it comes to commissioners. One of the US commissioners is a charter captain and lodge owner. I don't know where he stands on this rule, but it might be possible to see what his thoughts are and why it was imposed.

Tom
It is actually an international treaty....
 
Only the US coast guard has a right to board your vessel in US waters. Other agencies like marine police, NOAA, local police, etc want you to believe they have the same right as the coast guard. The only way they can board your vessel is with permission or a signed search warrant. You are perfectly legal to deny them. Most people do not realize this when they see flashing blue lights.
 
Only the US coast guard has a right to board your vessel in US waters. Other agencies like marine police, NOAA, local police, etc want you to believe they have the same right as the coast guard. The only way they can board your vessel is with permission or a signed search warrant. You are perfectly legal to deny them. Most people do not realize this when they see flashing blue lights.


Maybe you could offer some support for that assertion? You may be correct, but I'll certainly not risk running afoul of law enforcement without some authoritative opinions.
 
I too would like to know.


Pretty sure some Fish & Game guys can seize all your assets on your hunting/fishing site with just probable cause....can't see how a warrant-less boarding of your boat would be much different....ya know... if they could seize it anyhow.


Now if its a tough case, they might just wait for a warrant, but if their probable cause is good enough, getting a quick warrant may not be all that tough.


Found this...


https://www.uslawshield.com/fwc-officers-florida-need-know/

FWC Officers and Stop-and-Board Powers

FWC Officers also have the authority to stop and board vessels which are not being used for fishing. Just being on the water gives an FWC Officer a right to stop you, without cause, to conduct a safety inspection. Further, Florida Statute 379.334 gives the FWC Officers the authority to board any vessel boat or vehicle or to enter any fish house or warehouse or other building exclusive of residence in which game, hides, fur-bearing animals, fish, or fish nets are kept and to search for and seize any such game, hides, fur-bearing animals, fish, or fish nets had or held there in violation of the law without a warrant if the officer has probable cause to believe that the fishing or hunting laws have been broken.
FWC-Badge08-transparent.png
 
Last edited:
Also US Customs can board you in any coastal waters and any waters that have connections to the coast. You can ask nicely but you will never get to see a warrant. They may get a good chuckle from you telling them you want a warrant.
 
Quote from an Article from the American Boating Association, written by a USCG Auxillary person:

Well, if you took a safe boating course in the last several years, some of the information you got about stopping, and boarding a vessel has changed. In years gone by, the only agency that could stop your vessel and board it, without a search warrant was the Coast Guard. Well, this isn't exactly so anymore.

Several states have signed compacts with the Coast Guard in this post 9/11 environment, whereas the Coast Guard has delegated some of their Federal powers to the state. Specifically, they now allow state law enforcement (and those state powers flow down to the local law enforcement officers) to board vessels


Source: American Boating Association:pulled Over.
 
Notwithstanding the above opinions, but a boat with blue lights, Glocks and badges pulls up and wants to board you. You may say 'what's your authority?' or 'show me a warrant'. You say he needs one, he says he doesn't . As a practical matter, where does that leave you? Now it's a game of chicken and he's holding all the cards. Maybe now he's pissed and and tells you to follow him to his dock while he gets a warrant. And then rips your boat apart. I'm wondering if the principle is important enough to justify the consequences when butting heads with law enforcement.
 
Last edited:
If all these folks want to climb onboard to inspect my boat, I am going to need a bigger boat or they are all going to have to stand real close to each other.
 
I don't know for sure, but it is my understanding that police can't do warrant less searches of your person, car, or home, but they can on your boat. WA State makes it clear that any LEO can enforce state and federal laws and you have to comply with their instructions. Now, I'm not sure that non-USCG can search your boat without probable cause, but they certainly can board your boat..


I have almost always had good interactions with LEOs. I've been boarded by the USCG and by municipal police auxiliary (they have limited police powers). If any LEO or federal agent asks to board, I will endeavor to make it as convenient and painless for them, as well as myself.
 
Customs and border issues are different, you are entering the USA and such the rules are different. Once they have cleared you then you would come under the protection of US law. Police always have the right for probable cause. So if you have a crab pot sitting on your back deck, fish & game has probable cause to search you for illegal fishing.

Where this all gets tricky is NOAA’s right to stop a boat showing no fishing gear and not obviously breaking any other laws. Unless there is a Coastie on board then the Coastie does have the right to stop and search for any reason.

I wish we had more complete facts on the NOAA boardings.
 
Try this :). Don`t refuse the NOAA search, but tell them you don`t consent to it. Then, if (shock horror :eek:)they find skinless fish and prosecute, defend on the basis the search and gaining of evidence was illegal. Your boat may be highlighted for search evermore, but you might win the case.
 
Try this :). Don`t refuse the NOAA search, but tell them you don`t consent to it. Then, if (shock horror :eek:)they find skinless fish and prosecute, defend on the basis the search and gaining of evidence was illegal. Your boat may be highlighted for search evermore, but you might win the case.
Good point.....
 
Never been boarded/inspected by law enforcement. Just appear innocent (no fishing gear) and don't arrive from open seas.
 

Attachments

  • raccoon strait south.jpg
    raccoon strait south.jpg
    74.1 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
Try this :). Don`t refuse the NOAA search, but tell them you don`t consent to it.

I've been reading this thread and wondering when this would come up.

In my first life I spent a few misguided years in the Military Police. We were trained to enter a house by saying "may I come in" while actually starting to enter the house. If the person backed up and allowed it, it was considered implied consent and treated the same as if they invited you in. I was caught off guard one day when someone said "Are you asking to come in or are you ordering me to allow you in? Because I'll certainly cooperate if it's an order." Well crap...now what?

I always figured I'd ask any non-USCG who requested to board if they were requesting permission to board. If they are asking permission, then no thank you, but maybe I can help you from here - what's up, sir? If they say no, were not asking we're telling. Then certainly, what heading and speed would you like me to maintain?

Boardings for safety inspections are different than boardings for probable cause that a crime has been committed. I'm sure every agency (actually, every court) views probable cause differently. But in my experience it's not an easy thing to just say you have probable cause and tear up someone's boat/car/house. Rather, it's easy to say you have probable cause at the time, but prosecuting based on what you find may be a little more difficult. And if LEO says they have probable cause - you must cooperate or you'll be face down in flexcuffs.

Using what they find in court might be a different story - I'd like to believe in my state (Virginia), if State or local LEO boarded under the authority to conduct a safety inspection and with no further probable cause started looking in nooks and crannies for a doob or a fish filet - then anything they found would be problematic to introduce as evidence. It does depend on the specific agency and their authority and the court's view.

Of course, I tend not to commit crimes so I'm not really concerned about a boarding other than on principal and I certainly won't be a jerk to a boarding officer just to make a point. But since I spent over 20 years defending the Constitution, I don't really want to see it trampled on.
 
Of course, I tend not to commit crimes so I'm not really concerned about a boarding other than on principal and I certainly won't be a jerk to a boarding officer just to make a point. But since I spent over 20 years defending the Constitution, I don't really want to see it trampled on.

Well said.
 
Just because you cleared Customs does not exempt you from further search or being stopped. As long as you are on waters that have a connection to the high seas, Customs has the authority to board the vessel and search it. That has been up held by the Supreme Court for over 200 years. US law, regulations and international law are on their side no matter how much you want to dispute that fact.
 
No one except the US Coast Guard has the right to board a US flag vessel without probable cause, period. The US Supreme Court ruled that New York cops can't even stop and search the cell phone of a known drug dealer without probable cause. "Probable cause" means you have been observed as having violated the law, like swigging a beer while at the helm, or loading cocaine onto you boat for the party later.

You state registered and foreign flag vessels, well, I guess it sucks to be you. You cowardly Americans who never stand up for your constitutional rights, I guess you get what you deserve.

The draconian measures undertaken by water cops and other junior G-men don't stand up when they are taken to court.
 
Blue lights and guns, "Permission granted to board my boat."
 
And then you sued them for a few hundred grand for violating your rights, right?

?? And have my boat name spread far and wide, known as a jerk and needs to be inspected every time they see it? LOL I dont think so.

Granted the money sounds nice but after the trial and state and federal taxes and the various attorney fees, I just might have enough left to buy fuel for a cruise out of there.
 
No one except the US Coast Guard has the right to board a US flag vessel without probable cause, period.

Unless the Supreme Court case cited below has been overturned, this is misleading.

From Justia:

Vessel Searches

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.

ANNOTATIONS

Vessel Searches.—Not only is the warrant requirement inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are necessary predicates to stops of vessels. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez,311 the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. The boarding was authorized by statute derived from an act of the First Congress,312 and hence had “an impressive historical pedigree” carrying with it a presumption of constitutionality. Moreover, “important factual differences between vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and automobiles on principal thoroughfares in the border area” justify application of a less restrictive rule for vessel searches. The reason why random stops of vehicles have been held impermissible under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained, is that stops at fixed checkpoints or roadblocks are both feasible and less subject to abuse of discretion by authorities. “But no reasonable claim can be made that permanent checkpoints would be practical on waters such as these where vessels can move in any direction at any time and need not follow established ‘avenues’ as automobiles must do.”313 Because there is a “substantial” governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, “especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,” the Court found the “limited” but not “minimal” intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable.314 Dissenting Justice Brennan argued that the Court for the first time was approving “a completely random seizure and detention of persons and an entry onto private, noncommercial premises by police officers, without any limitations whatever on the officers’ discretion or any safeguards against abuse.”315

311 462 U.S. 579 (1983).

312 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a), derived from § 31 of the Act of Aug. 4, 1790, ch. 35, 1 Stat. 164.

313 462 U.S. at 589. Justice Brennan’s dissent argued that a fixed checkpoint was feasible in this case, involving a ship channel in an inland waterway. Id. at 608 n.10. The fact that the Court’s rationale was geared to the difficulties of law enforcement in the open seas suggests a reluctance to make exceptions to the general rule. Note as well the Court’s later reference to this case as among those “reflect[ing] longstanding concern for the protection of the integrity of the border.” United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 (1985).

314 462 U.S. at 593.

315 462 U.S. at 598. Justice Brennan contended that all previous cases had required some “discretion-limiting” feature such as a requirement of probable cause, reasonable suspicion, fixed checkpoints instead of roving patrols, and limitation of border searches to border areas, and that these principles set forth in Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979), should govern. Id. at 599, 601.



 
"No one except the US Coast Guard has the right to board a US flag vessel without probable cause, period.'


I believe the produce police and bug police do have the authority.
 
Back
Top Bottom