Penn State LEO Boarding Case

I know we have talked about this in another thread. Saw this article from Soundings.

I wish this guy luck. About time the ACLU represents a good case!

https://www.soundingsonline.com/video/suspicionless-searches

Read this one this morning as well. Have to agree, boarding without cause is like the police or fire department entering your home on demand, for no reason to check your gas lines, fire extinguishers and ensure you've changed your CO detector batteries.

That said, I'm also surprised the average state registration process doesn't require a vessel equipment/safety inspection.

The article was quoted mentioning the number of state laws that allow safety inspections without cause. Anyone know where a list of those state could be found?

Perhaps that will be the resolution to this issue. Here in MA we have to have our car inspected every year for safety and emissions compliance at cost of $30( i think ). If boats are required to get a sticker, it would ensure equipment was on the boat, and provide the revenue that the state wants. Boaters will resent the fee, and police will resent having their authority checked...sometimes "lose-lose" is the best solution for both sides.

Airstream345 said:

That said, I'm also surprised the average state registration process doesn't require a vessel equipment/safety inspection.

Click to expand...

S-H-H-H-H-H-H-H. If you speak too loudly about that Governor Tax-and-Spend will hear you and implement that program, and naturally would charge a healthy fee for it.

A few things. We're talking state, not federal, laws here. I think it'll be a long time before you see the feds reverse their right to board and inspect.

And what was that crap about the LEO's not accepting a type 2 PFD? It's hard to believe they're that poorly trained. If true, that would be the easier case to fight. What was the motivation to go after the legality of the boarding? There may be more to the story.

I must agree that not excepting a legal Type 2 PDF was the fault LEO. I think that there must be more to this story... Why did his friends refuse to go boating with him again?

I think he chose to fight the boarding rather than the PFD because that's the bigger constitutional issue. Whether the LEO or the Boater was mistaken, whether the PFD was acceptible is an easily determined case and of minor importance. Whether the state needs to change its boarding process is a very big deal.

I'm not too familiar with inflatables, but don't they have to actually be worn, where as a traditional PFD can just be "easily accessible" ?

Also, the article mentions the packaging for the life jacket. If it was still in the package, it would be considered "not wearable". However, the boater said he had more life jackets, so even if that one was not legitimate, why not pull out another one ?

I agree on more to the story. Find it interesting that the guy isn't fighting the legitimacy of the charge but wants to fight the right to search. That's typically the approach when one is guilty of the charge itself. I have no sympathy at all with the guy.

GFC said:

S-H-H-H-H-H-H-H. If you speak too loudly about that Governor Tax-and-Spend will hear you and implement that program, and naturally would charge a healthy fee for it.

Click to expand...

so true!

I'm not too familiar with inflatables, but don't they have to actually be worn, where as a traditional PFD can just be "easily accessible" ?

Click to expand...

We have six inflatable PFDs. All are type 2 for recreational use. Bought them specifically for the rating.

A few inflatables dont have to be worn to count...its on the tag.

Type IIs should be acceptable for passengers, but are not for certain watercraft or watersport activity.

Yes some LEOs are pretty poorly trained, as even some Coasties and USCGAUX dont know the intricacies of MSDs regulations, types of placards, other requirements for vessels above 12M.

BandB said:

I agree on more to the story. Find it interesting that the guy isn't fighting the legitimacy of the charge but wants to fight the right to search. That's typically the approach when one is guilty of the charge itself. I have no sympathy at all with the guy.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily. Fighting the search is fighting the charge. If the evidence from the search is suppressed, the case is over.

Group9 said:

Not necessarily. Fighting the search is fighting the charge. If the evidence from the search is suppressed, the case is over.

Click to expand...

But one resorts to fighting the search, only when they know they can't fight the charge on it's on merits. Good legal tactic, but also makes it clear they were not in compliance.

Here, and I hope over there,there is a presumption of innocence until found guilty. Unless a defence is clearly hopeless, many defend on all issues.The prosecution can surprisingly fail to prove an element of an offence, if so that`s an end to it.

If evidence relied on was improperly obtained,such as in an illegal search, the evidence should be excluded and the prosecution may fail, never reaching the merits of the charge issue. It`s a perfectly proper approach,and requires a plea of 'not guilty".

It is possible to get "ramped" by the FAA etc. on an airport where you must allow an inspector or a law-enforcement person to look at your airplane and all your documents. They can also require the pilot to pee in a bottle or have a blood test. This is common in my old industry, even with private planes, its not much of a stretch to apply this to boats. I don't like it though, its like those barriers in Crappy Tire, they assume you are a thief until you can prove you are not and the Coast Guard takes the same attitude.

Xsbank said:

its like those barriers in Crappy Tire, they assume you are a thief until you can prove you are not .

Click to expand...

Barriers in Crappy Tire? Can you please translate for those of us who have no idea what you're talking about?

BandB said:

I agree on more to the story. Find it interesting that the guy isn't fighting the legitimacy of the charge but wants to fight the right to search. That's typically the approach when one is guilty of the charge itself. I have no sympathy at all with the guy.

Click to expand...

If you beat the charge on another basis, I.e. Compliance, you lose your opportunity to challenge the search. So, if you want to test the search you challenge it. That's just the way it works.

BandB said:

Barriers in Crappy Tire? Can you please translate for those of us who have no idea what you're talking about?

Click to expand...

He's speaking Canadian. Crappy Tires is Canadian Tires, a big chain store.

BandB said:

But one resorts to fighting the search, only when they know they can't fight the charge on it's on merits. Good legal tactic, but also makes it clear they were not in compliance.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of any legal jurisdiction where challenging a search and asking for suppression of evidence is allowed to be viewed as a defendant's admission of fact, or taken as being despositive of his guilt, by the trier of fact.

Even in an attempt to suppress a confession for being involuntary ( where the defendant is required to admit that he made the confession to proceed), the trier of fact is not allowed to consider any admission made in the pleadings in determining guilt (unless impeachment issues arise later).

You'll have to cite me some cases on that.

It is only a matter of time before someone dresses up their RIB and wear dark color clothes to look like USCG, board and steal the boat, perhaps killing all those on board.
Perhaps it is time to grab the VHF, report your vessel name, # of souls, and position, quickly.
IF they aren't LEO or USCG, maybe they will veer off??
It is common practice, at night in your car, to drive to a will lite area, if there is any doubt.
Of course LEO really dont like folks broadcasting a speed check over the radio. Maybe the USCG and LEO wont like hearing their location reported over the VHF. Tell them, you did it because you 'were in fear of your life.'

BandB said:

I agree on more to the story. Find it interesting that the guy isn't fighting the legitimacy of the charge but wants to fight the right to search. That's typically the approach when one is guilty of the charge itself. I have no sympathy at all with the guy.

Click to expand...

When fighting this, or any other infraction or criminal offense, you most often argue every or any legitimate point you have, factual or legal. You certainly can't infer anything from that. More to the point, the first reaction that tons of people have when confronted by the law is to think "Well that can't be legal." To them, being legal translates to constitutional. So that's what they want to challenge. It could also be something as simple as they guy called a lawyer and was told that arguing the constitutional issue was his only shot at "making a point". Who knows. I just wouldn't infer guilt.

toni

so, as an aside...and a bit of humor...

many years ago when I was a public defender, I was appointed to represent this knucklehead who had tangled with a local sheriff's office on a boating/boarding issue. Seems he was pulled over for an inspection. He was pretty tanked so you knew it was not going to go well. He was in a little 14' runabout and each time the sheriff asked for certain pieces of equipment, his response was "don't need it...not long enough." this went on for several questions until the sheriff asked "OK bud, just how long is it?" The guy stood up and dropped his shorts to his ankles, pointed to his equipment and said "About that long."
That led to a trip to the clink and to me being appointed. Can't fix stupid.

toni

I found the statement about annual revenues for the Fish and Game from such stops would stop and this was also a big concern to the LEO department. Seems like it all comes down to money in the end.

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

I Seems like it all comes down to money in the end.

Click to expand...

It always does.

I’m curious - although this may indeed just be a legal strategy (albeit one with a terrible ROI) does he have a point? Is this unreasonable search?

A word of caution IMO, dont smart off the the LEO nor the USCG. Given enough time, 'they' will find a reason to detain you and your boat.
Comply as best you can, be polite.
If you get a ticket, if you wish, you will have your day in court to argue your case.
Of course, you can also go to court to thank the LEO and or the USCG for their professionalism and for pointing out your errors, assuring the court these have been corrected.
Both the LEO and the USCG have a long memory.

Airstream,

I think the Court decision will answer that question.

For myself, I agree the USCG has a federal statute authority to board my boat. The federal law would have to be challenged or the law changed.

I do not agree that a state LEO has right to enter my home (read livaboard) unless invited or due to a search warrant.

I am not an attorney, I just play one on TF...........

Alaskan Sea-Duction said:

Airstream,

I think the Court decision will answer that question.

For myself, I agree the USCG has a federal statute authority to board my boat. The federal law would have to be challenged or the law changed.

I do not agree that a state LEO has right to enter my home (read livaboard) unless invited or due to a search warrant.

I am not an attorney, I just play one on TF...........

Click to expand...

One late afternoon at this marina, I noticed a local LEO walking the docks. I invited him onboard, showed him around my boat, we talked and walked for over 30 minutes. He was impressed especially with the two IR cameras. Seems their boats do not have IR cameras.
Said he would come back, never did. I guess I talked his ears off.

I kinda do the same thing as OldDan. I call the local LEO water cops and invite them to come to my boat at the dock to do their inspection. They've told me that most of the time they inspect boats in the 20'-36' range and seldom get to do one in my size range.


They use it as a training setup for the new guys so they can see what the differences are in lighting, documentation number posting, equipment, etc.


I get my sticker, they drink a bottle of water while they're on board if they want and the whole thing goes smoothly. The best part is they recognize the boat and I get a free pass when out on the water.

This guy isn't trying to get out of the ticket for the PFD violation. He's spending much more than 75 bucks on this fight. His issue isn't the ticket....its whether a warrantless search is constitutional. I'm sure this guy would have still fought this even if he didn't get a citation for anything. The search violates his principles and he's taking a stand. I have to admire him for that.