Boarded by NOAA

[dhays]

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.

Well, when you do get stopped by a non-USCG law enforcement agency and they board your boat, let us know how it goes and what boat you buy with your law suit proceeds.

 

[wwestman]

I have always found it amusing when people who had no clue tried to tell me how to do my job and thought they knew the law better than I did. Usually did not go the way they thought it would. I could write a book about the times people spouted BS about their rights while being completely in the wrong.

 

[psneeld]

I have always found it amusing when people who had no clue tried to tell me how to do my job and thought they knew the law better than I did. Usually did not go the way they thought it would. I could write a book about the times people spouted BS about their rights while being completely in the wrong.

LEO background?


Heck, even with multiple, reliable links people will dispute the points you made.


Doesn't matter your background....your experience may or may not carry an ounce of credibility....iit may but only if they agree with you.

 

[Northern Spy]

For US boaters in Canada, here is who can board your boat while in Canadian waters:

Enforcement officers and inspectors may inspect a pleasure craft to ensure that it meets Transport Canada’s regulations and requirements.

An enforcement officer can be any of the following:

A member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

A member of any harbour or river police force

A member of any provincial, county, or municipal police force

Any person the Minister of Transport designates as an enforcement officer

Officers and inspectors may:

Stop or board the pleasure craft at any reasonable time.

Direct any person to operate or stop operating any machinery or equipment on the craft.

Direct that an inspection must be completed before the craft can be moved.

Direct any person to move the craft to a safe place if the officer or inspector has reason to believe that the craft does not meet Transport Canada’s regulations and requirements or exposes any person to serious danger. The officer or inspector also may direct that the craft not be operated until it meets those requirements or no longer exposes any person to serious danger.

The owner or person in charge of a pleasure craft and every person on board must:

Enable an officer or inspector to carry out an inspection.

Provide any documents and information that the officer or inspector may require as part of an inspection.

 

[markpierce]

Canadians don't have a Bill of Rights as opposed to US citizens in USA? Regardless, the difference in rules don't seem far apart.

 

[Northern Spy]

There is a nuance in the interpretation of 8 of the Canadian Charter for the unreasonable search and seizure and right to privacy.

An officer can board to inspect your boat, but may not necessarily search your boat, without a warrant, unless it is impractical to obtain a warrant and the conditions for obtaining a warrant exist.

Which, is actually pretty reasonable. Courts have found that evidence found outside of these conditions are inadmissible.

Think about it. If you are participating and benefiting from a regulated fishery, then an inspection isn't untoward.

Generally speaking, Conservation Officers and RCMP in Canada are very professional, know the law well, and have probably been observing you and have documented this observation prior to boarding. Generally speaking, they have a legal basis for boarding you; which seems quite a bit different than the States.

The Canadian Coast Guard doesn't have law enforcement duties, but sometimes supports the RCMP or the CBSA in law enforcement, but only as a platform to conduct operation.

Canadians don't have a Bill of Rights as opposed to US citizens in USA? Regardless, the difference in rules don't seem far apart.

 

[markpierce]

Don't fish or have fishing gear aboard. Obtain your fish from Safeway. Personally, I prefer eating fish at a good restaurant.

 

[psneeld]

Northern Spy, the clause about search versus inspect is also USCG policy.



The usual random boarding and safety inspection can be only in man sized spaces..... no containers, drawers, closets, etc.

 

[Boat]

Canadians don't have a Bill of Rights as opposed to US citizens in USA? Regardless, the difference in rules don't seem far apart.

Be nice to Canada. Canada has been good to me.

The Queen gave them the right to change their constitution in 1982. It took the courts a while to agree but they got their Bill of Rights worked out in a few years.


Fish aren't everything.

 

[Ken E.]

Generally speaking, Conservation Officers and RCMP in Canada are very professional....

I agree with NS. I was boarded twice in Canada last summer, once by Customs near Nanaimo and again by RCMP near Bella Bella. There seemed to be an acute interest about guns on US boats, and I had none. Both boardings were business-like and professional, certainly not threatening. They asked questions, filled out a form and were gone.

 

[SoWhat]

The usual random boarding and safety inspection can be only in man sized spaces..... no containers, drawers, closets, etc.

A USCG basic safety boarding can only check for potential safety hazards and seaworthiness. They can check bilges and machinery spaces. They can not ordinarily search private areas of a vessel unless they have reasonable suspicion that something is wrong based upon their experience and training. (Nervous captain, shifty eyes, oil sheen behind boat, etc.) At that point they can conduct an extended investigation looking for weapons or other safety hazards that may threaten the safety of the boarding team.

Note that DEA, EPA, Customs, Fisheries, local law enforcement may have a different set of criteria for boarding and searching.

 

[psneeld]

A USCG basic safety boarding can only check for potential safety hazards and seaworthiness. They can check bilges and machinery spaces. They can not ordinarily search private areas of a vessel unless they have reasonable suspicion that something is wrong based upon their experience and training. (Nervous captain, shifty eyes, oil sheen behind boat, etc.) At that point they can conduct an extended investigation looking for weapons or other safety hazards that may threaten the safety of the boarding team.

Note that DEA, EPA, Customs, Fisheries, local law enforcement may have a different set of criteria for boarding and searching.

True, but a bit overly simplified in actual execution.


Size and layout of vessels, especially in most boats owned here, makes "private spaces" up for debate if there is bilge or machinery spaces only accessible through them.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

So I talked to a Coastie regarding this. LEO may be allowed to board, but they not allowed to search below without your permission.

 

[Ken E.]

Tom - Where are you headed after Wrangell?

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Tom - Where are you headed after Wrangell?

K-Town tomorrow then Tuesday looks like a good Dixon Entrance crossing

 

[ProMaritime]

You will not get a definitive "take-it-to-the bank" answer out of any US Coast Guard personnel. They are prohibited by regulation from rendering legal advice.

The bottom line is that only the US Coast Guard has the authority to board any vessel in US waters or any US flag vessel anywhere in the world without probably cause. The USCG can board and search foreign vessels on the high seas by simply placing a request with, and receiving an approval from that vessel's flag country. This they can do electronically in about 15 seconds flat.

Local law enforcement, including the various forms "water cops" like NOAA, Land and Natural Recourses, Harbor Division and the like, can only board and can only search with probably cause the a crime is being, or has been committed. Snooping and fishing expeditions do not amount to probably cause.

 

[Ken E.]

K-Town tomorrow then Tuesday looks like a good Dixon Entrance crossing

In your Dixon crossing, you might try for salmon around the north end of Dundas island. We've done well there in past years. With Kay's fishing luck, you'll probably score.

 

[OldDan1943]

AND a current passport for everyone on the boat is a fantastic idea, especially of they were born in a different country.
IE, Canadian waters, I was born in the states, I carry my passport on board.

 

[SoWhat]

Local law enforcement, including the various forms "water cops" like NOAA, Land and Natural Recourses, Harbor Division and the like, can only board and can only search with probably cause the a crime is being, or has been committed. Snooping and fishing expeditions do not amount to probably cause.

Next time DLNR stops your boat tell them they can't come aboard. Let me know how it works out for you.

(In Hawai`i, officers of DLNR’S Division of Conservation and Resources Enforcement(DOCARE) have the authority to stop, halt or inspect vessels to enforce State and Federal boating laws on all State waters (HRS 199-3, 4, 7))

States have a variety of laws. Some require reasonable suspicion, many don't. Read Law Review article "FREEDOM TO FLOAT: REQUIRING REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR BOATING STOPS ON IDAHO WATERWAYS" for an interesting analysis.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Read Law Review article "FREEDOM TO FLOAT: REQUIRING REASONABLE SUSPICION FOR BOATING STOPS ON IDAHO WATERWAYS" for an interesting analysis.

Link?

 

[psneeld]

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


This link was in post 70 and discusses the rights of Florida LEOs to stop and board for a safety inspection....but need probable cause for a search...


Now couple that with the posts concerning legal probable cause for stopping vessels....and what does one come up with?


This is much the same way the USCG views it.

 

[OldDan1943]

Let's face it, very few of us can outrun the USCG, LEO, NASA, Game and fish nor any fish in the ocean.
If they have guns and flashing lights, "Welcome aboard." I dont know of one RIB that has a head, maybe they NEED to inspect the head. LOL
You may be correct on who can board your boat without a warrant or suspicion. They will gladly escort you the a dock and detain you while getting a warrant.
I will welcome them, a brief inspection and then they will head off to the next boat. I'll wave at you while you are tied to the dock.

 

[OldDan1943]

Behold, this should answer some questions on who can board your boat.
Of course, I would not argue with a guy with a gun and badge either.

https://mblb.com/admiralty-maritime...rding-power-of-the-united-states-coast-guard/

 

[SailorGreg]

Behold, this should answer some questions on who can board your boat.

Of course, I would not argue with a guy with a gun and badge either.



https://mblb.com/admiralty-maritime...rding-power-of-the-united-states-coast-guard/

NOAA office of law enforcement internal policies clearly authorize boarding of any fishing vessel. And their definition of a fishing vessel is quite broad. I couldn’t find the source law that provides that authority, but it likely exists. Smile and nod and welcome them aboard.

 

[Bkay]

You may be correct on who can board your boat without a warrant or suspicion. They will gladly escort you the a dock and detain you while getting a warrant.

Not trying to put too fine of a point on things - but that's really what this thread is all about. My understanding is that for LEO to conduct a "search", they generally need probable cause or a warrant. If they don't have probable cause to conduct the search on the spot, then it's legally problematic for them to escort you out of your way and detain you while they get a warrant because the warrant will still require probable cause. An exception might be for an extreme case where they have probable cause and choose to stop a search so they can get a warrant that will allow destructive removal of portions of the vessel. I've only seen that in drug interdictions, but I'm sure the legal precedence applies to other crimes as well.

If they are conducting a safety stop, they are allowed to look at areas that contain safety equipment. For example, Virginia Marine Police will say "show me two fire extinguishers" and you will need to open the compartment where they are located so they can see they are properly mounted. But for life jackets they can't open compartments to look for them, you simply need to produce one for each person on board. I've not seen this first hand, but some states allow wildlife officials inspect areas where "game" is generally located. That might include a fish well or a freezer. It won't necessarily include a head compartment or engine space. Again, it depends on the LEO and their respective authority.

At any point, if an officer is conducting a legal inspection and sees something in plain sight (I seem to recall this has a catchy legal name, like The Plain Sight Rule) then that can provide probable cause for further search.

The classic example is State Marine Police conducting a safety inspection and they open the head door and see a trash can full of empty beer containers and say that is probable cause to blow the Captain for BUI. The results of that breathalyzer may not be valid if there was no legal basis for LEO to enter the head. The USCG might have legal basis for entering the head compartment "to look for undeclared persons on board - subsequent to that search the Boarding Officer found a trash can full of what appeared to be recently emptied beer bottles in plain sight". In that case, the breathalyzer results are more likely to stick.

In any case, no one is allowed to refuse the lawful order of any law enforcement officer acting within the scope of their duty. If they tell you they are searching your boat - you must cooperate since you don't know that probable cause they may have. If they exceed the legal scope of their authority, you can sort that out in court if it's worth the effort.

Having said all of that, you are at a disadvantage when dealing with LEO. I've seen officers lie about things that they claim gave them probable cause for a search and I have seen officers lie about being invited to search when they weren't. It's impossible to know how often this happens, but I hope not very often. Your best hope when dealing with them is the presence of other officers. The more LEO on board, the greater the chance that men and women of character will ensure the law is applied appropriately. Also your witnesses are important - an unpleasant statistical fact is that it helps when your witnesses are white and/or wealthy. Finally, recording devices can be your friend if they are used unobtrusively. If you use them obtrusively they can really piss people off.

Disclaimer: Only a fool gets legal advice from the internet and only a self-important jerk spends time giving it.

 

[tpbrady]

I have read all the comments on this post, and there seems to be a general consensus is don't give NOAA or any other LEO a reason to be unreasonable. My whole problem with NOAA in this case or any other agency like NOAA, is the effectiveness of the regulatory process that results in a rule that fails the basic logic test of achieving any of the goals of the agency in protecting halibut stocks in any meaningful way. With a combined Canadian US halibut quota in 2019 of 38.61 million pounds, creating and enforcing a rule to prevent sport fishermen (or subsistence fishermen) from having more than the possession limit of halibut on board a vessel with fishing tackle seems like a tremendous waste of time and money if the same rule does not apply to all fishermen wherever they are. If the combined liveaboards in Canada and Alaska caught and stored 100,000 lbs of frozen halibut on board their boats, that would amount to less than .3% of the 2019 quota.

It's not the LEO's fault, it's what they have been asked to do. The regulatory process is broken if it makes rules that on their face don't work and are marginally effective and requires agencies to spend money to enforce them.

 

[Bkay]

...a general consensus is don't give NOAA or any other LEO a reason to be unreasonable...It's not the LEO's fault, it's what they have been asked to do...

Both very fair points!

 

[Camasonian]

In my past life I spent 15 years working for NOAA in Alaska out of the Juneau office but also in Kodak and the Bering Sea. I was in the fisheries management branch doing commercial fishing regulations, not the law enforcement branch but I pretty much know how they work. Generally speaking, sportfishing and commercial fishing within 3 miles of land and the inside waters are regulated by the state so you’ll more likely see Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game boats doing enforcement. The exception is Halibut which is under Federal jurisdiction everywhere due to management treaties with Canada. There are a LOT of complex regulations around halibut because the quotas are split 4-ways between commercial, sport, charter, and subsistence. Subsistence fishing is mainly Alaska natives and other rural Alaskan residents fishing for personal use and community use so operates under somewhat different regulations than sportfishing. For example, a subsistence fishermen could fish for a small village and distribute subsistence caught fish to elderly ladies and such who can’t fish for themselves in trade which wouldn’t be legal for sportfishing.

Anyway, NOAA Fisheries enforcement agents are most definitely armed Federal agents. In Alaska the Halibut sportfishing stuff is probably 5% of what they do. Most of it is really dealing with big time commercial fisheries enforcement on the Bering Sea and Gulf of Alaska. I was involved in some really big multi-million dollar fine cases of illegal fishing in the late 90s and early 2000s by pirate fishing vessels on the Bering Sea. Pirate Russian and Chinese vessels that were seized. That’s more what they do. NOAA fisheries enforcement is also big on the Gulf Coast where they inspect things like whether shrimp fishermen are using sea turtle excluder devices or taking to much fin fish bycatch. They also I think just busted a multi-million dollar illegal fishing operation for striped bass out of North Carolina.

 

[Camasonian]

I have read all the comments on this post, and there seems to be a general consensus is don't give NOAA or any other LEO a reason to be unreasonable. My whole problem with NOAA in this case or any other agency like NOAA, is the effectiveness of the regulatory process that results in a rule that fails the basic logic test of achieving any of the goals of the agency in protecting halibut stocks in any meaningful way. With a combined Canadian US halibut quota in 2019 of 38.61 million pounds, creating and enforcing a rule to prevent sport fishermen (or subsistence fishermen) from having more than the possession limit of halibut on board a vessel with fishing tackle seems like a tremendous waste of time and money if the same rule does not apply to all fishermen wherever they are. If the combined liveaboards in Canada and Alaska caught and stored 100,000 lbs of frozen halibut on board their boats, that would amount to less than .3% of the 2019 quota.

It's not the LEO's fault, it's what they have been asked to do. The regulatory process is broken if it makes rules that on their face don't work and are marginally effective and requires agencies to spend money to enforce them.

They probably spend a LOT more time boarding commercial and charter boat operations to make sure they have the proper IFQ and permits on board. But for commercial halibut it is generally easier to monitor catch at the dock. If you board a commercial vessel that has 50,000 lb of halibut on board, how do you know and measure it to make sure they have 50,000 lb of IFQ on board? You can’t. So you monitor their landings at the processing plant where all the fish are weighed on state certified scales and documented.

The problem of overfishing is really only going to be an issue around population centers like Juneau where there are so many small sport boats that if they didn’t tightly control halibut fishing, all the grounds within 50 miles of Juneau would be completely fished out.

 

[Camasonian]

Behold, this should answer some questions on who can board your boat.
Of course, I would not argue with a guy with a gun and badge either.

https://mblb.com/admiralty-maritime...rding-power-of-the-united-states-coast-guard/

That’s for the Coast Guard. NOAA has the authority to board and inspect vessels under the Magnuson-Stevens Act which is the main fisheries management law in the US. If you want the citation it is found at 16 U.S.C. 1857. The relevant authority for NOAA to board and inspect vessels reads:

It is prohibited to....

(D) to refuse to permit any officer authorized to enforce the provisions of this Act (as provided for in section 311) to board a fishing vessel subject to such person's control for the purposes of conducting any search or inspection in connection with the enforcement of this Act or any regulation, permit, or agreement referred to in subparagraph (A) or (C);
(E) to forcibly assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate, or interfere with any such authorized officer in the conduct of any search or inspection described in subparagraph (D);
(F) to resist a lawful arrest for any act prohibited by this section;
(G) to ship, transport, offer for sale, sell, purchase, import, export, or have custody, control, or possession of, any fish taken or retained in violation of this Act or any regulation, permit, or agreement referred to in subparagraph (A) or (C);
(H) to interfere with, delay, or prevent, by any means, the apprehension or arrest of another person, knowing that such other person has committed any act prohibited by this section;