Boarded by NOAA

[dhays]

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.

Welcome Kent. Nice to hear from someone who speaks from relevant knowledge and experience.

Although, I admit that I rarely let the lack of either deter me from offering my opinion. ;-)

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

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[/COLOR] 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;

.

Welcome!! Thanks for posting.

If you read the "plain text" which I have highlighted, it would appear that the enforcement is for "boarding a fishing vessel" not yachts and cruisers to see how many fish they have.

The Feds have over reached in the past and the U.S. Supreme Court has shot down the feds enforcement. Remember the hoover craft on the Yukon/Charlie River incident.

But who has that kind of money to challenge this? it doesn't matter how right you are but, do you have the millions of dollars it would take to run this through the system.

 

[tpbrady]

I looked at the basic law and the definition of terms is so broad, somebody on a paddleboard with a handline is basically a fishing vessel.

Tom

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I looked at the basic law and the definition of terms is so broad, somebody on a paddleboard with a handline is basically a fishing vessel.

Tom

You are correct until someone challenges it to limit the broadness, like in the above case.

 

[Camasonian]

Welcome!! Thanks for posting.

If you read the "plain text" which I have highlighted, it would appear that the enforcement is for "boarding a fishing vessel" not yachts and cruisers to see how many fish they have.

The Feds have over reached in the past and the U.S. Supreme Court has shot down the feds enforcement. Remember the hoover craft on the Yukon/Charlie River incident.

But who has that kind of money to challenge this? it doesn't matter how right you are but, do you have the millions of dollars it would take to run this through the system.

I don't think in this instance they are limiting the definition of fishing vessel to commercial fishing vessels. Sportfishing also falls under the Federal jurisdiction for Halibut. So to legally claim there is no Federal authority for NOAA to board a yacht you'd probably need to make sure there is no sportfishing gear on board. If you have rods, or even rod holders on board they might reasonably argue in court that it is a sportfishing vessel.

In any event, you still have a host of other agencies such as the Coast Guard and the state fish and game agents to deal with. And remember, in a place like Alaska these folks all know and talk to each other. Sure you can get pissy with a NOAA enforcement agent but do you really want to paint a massive target on your stern for every other agency to show up and put your boat under the microscope? Because you can pretty much be guaranteed that word of some "problematic" yacht will spread around. And it's not like there is any place to hide. Maybe that's not fair or just. But I'm guessing it is the reality in which we live.

 

[sdowney717]

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.

Add recording DashCam to list for the boat now.