Larry were both your days on a weekend?
Monk I really think your dreaming but who knows
Maybe I am but it seems to me when I'm in Puget Sound 70 miles from the Canadian Border they should need a reason to come into my home and go through my stuff.
For example, CBP Regs say any place within 100 miles of a border is a "border zone" where they can make random stops and searches to secure our borders from evil. The state of Washington is about 350 miles west to East and 200 miles north to south, less on the coast. Draw those lines on a map and you will see they cover all of Western Washington (about 70% of the population) and the northern 100 miles of the Eastern part of the state. ASD' hide out is probably not safe under those rules.
Now they don't use that Reg to its limit and if get community pushback tend to back off (you don't want to push a bunch of former loggers in Forks, they have attitude). But they could and frankly, if they did I think it's very likely a federal judge would tell them there Reg was unconstitutionally over broad and unenforceable. That's what federal courts do, hold the government accountable to the people.
So, if I'm cruising my 8 knots up the sound they might stop me - has never happened in forty years of doing it - and ask to inspect. And when I nicely ask if there is anything special they feel a need to inspect they'll likely say something about safety and documents. At that point I'll tell them we have PDFs (unless in the cabin we wear approved inflatables and point to the current state sticker and the letters and numbers on the bow.
Really can't imagine them pushing more, but if they did they would probably nicely be told that they are conducting an unlawful search and seizure under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S Constitution( Fourteenth is for the state guy they have riding with them). And if they continued I would tell the PO2 or 3 in charge that I was not consenting to boarding, search or seizure,
And later would be the letter to the District Commandant and Regional Counsel explains why they should counsel their guys to tone it done and back off. Sometimes General Counsel wants to bluster and push the were right your a dip **** approach but usually they have enough important (accountable to the boss) stuff to do so that they also want people behaving reasonably.
Of course it can go sideways and if someone wants to cuff up a nice 68 year old boat owner and his 69'year old wife, they will be required to explain there training, education and all the whys and wherefore a of why they did something so clearly unnecessary such that the General Counsel now faces spinning out a law enforcement imperative justifying their behavior for a skeptical federal judge.
So maybe I. Dreaming but I'm not a jailhouse lawyer and I have typically found that I can express myself to others Ina way that is non-threatening but makes it clear they should rethink what they had thought before.
And if they did it when we were at anchor sleeping, no judge will think they're other than earnest well meaning Coasties who being young need far better training and supervision.
So, I think in the circumstances I describe the statute they rely on is unconstitutionally over broad. And if they're boarding the same boats multiple days in the Miami River, upon request, there is a congressman who upon request from his/her supporter swill ask the honcho Coasties in DC about the problem and that **** will then run downhill to region, district, station, boat and watch and will be real stinky turds by the time they arrive.
The problem is rarely the law, although there are some here that are pretty suspect. It's always the minions who are told someone's interpretation of what someone else may have been told, etc, and then act like its the gospel. But, then that's just how most things work. Why do you think lawyers can charge so much.
