I was boarded today

[OldDan1943]

Sounds like a police state to me.
I don't know what's more frightening, that or the fact that you seem to accept it as normal.

20-30 years ago, things were totally different. Sadly, things have changed and not for the good. USCG was moved to DHS after 9-11.
They are looking for drugs, illegals, and no doubt a number of other things. Yet these same people take time to pull our fat out of the fires.
I guess we just have to suck it up for now.

 

[localboy]

A”police state”? Puleez. That is ridiculous. Some people have no idea what a true “police state” encompasses.

 

[psneeld]

I was stationed in Miami in the early 80s iit was the wild west back then with the drug war really ramping up.

 

[diver dave]

I was stationed in Miami in the early 80s iit was the wild west back then with the drug war really ramping up.

Late ‘70’s i was living and working in Ft Lauderdale. Lots of aircraft skid marks on the western highways. Starting mid ‘80’s , was flying small planes to the islands. Some islands used dozers to clear runways from columbian wrecks. I was using heavy chain around my prop to prevent theft. Hawks nest and andros were interesting trips. Locked out of normans during this time.

Oh yeah; i had to hand apply 12” numbers on my rental aircraft to enable DEA id. Used duck tape. Great times.

 

[DDW]

Just a point of clarification, the case cited in this and many other discussions about LE boardings, UNITED STATES v. VILLAMONTE-MARQUEZ(1983), is actually a US Customs case concerning a 40 ft sailboat (which most would consider recreational size) that was anchored near Lake Charles, La. This case went to the Supreme Court and was upheld.
So anyone considering refusing a boarding or any other silly idea and then taking it to the Supreme Court should know that that question has already been asked AND answered by the highest court.

Have you read that decision? First of all, it depended on the waterway having ready access to the sea, so would not apply at some distance from the ocean or on a lake. Second, it was a split decision (6-3) with a well reasoned dissent, rendered almost 40 years ago, which itself reversed precedent. Third, the boat in question was foreign registered and crewed, and happened to have 5800 lbs of ganga on board. None of the justices who decided that case are still on the court (though the attorney who argued it, is). A heck of a lot of legal scholars believe the decision was flawed.

So saying that this has been finally decided is hardly the case. There is certainly a reasonable possibility that it might be reversed today, especially under different facts.

Now, I'm not going to refuse the boarding because defending that refusal would take a lot of time and money, and might not succeed. If I was wealth enough I would give it a go.

 

[Simi 60]

A”police state”? Puleez. That is ridiculous. Some people have no idea what a true “police state” encompasses.

So just because you are not as bad as the worlds worst examples makes it all good?

Sure glad we dont have to put up with that sort of crap here.

 

[GFC]

I'll stand by my original position in stating that I have no objection to being boarded by any law enforcement cops. I have zero to hide and not afraid of a boarding for safety equipment check, documentation check, etc.


Now, all that being said, if they boarded to do a safety check and started opening cupboards, drawers, etc., I would call bullsh!it on them and question their PC to do a search as opposed to their stated reason for the stop which was a safety equipment check.


Lacking any justification for a search vs safety check, I would ask to speak to their supervisor to ask his opinion.

 

[menzies]

Sounds like a police state to me.
I don't know what's more frightening, that or the fact that you seem to accept it as normal.

Who secures your waterways, and what powers do they have?

As I seem to remember, given Monday's date, and the movie Midway coming out, you used to rely on others.

 

[Simi 60]

Who secures your waterways, and what powers do they have?

Water Police, Border Force and the Navy.
None of which would board an Australian vessel, unannounced unless they have a very very good reason.

As I seem to remember, given Monday's date, and the movie Midway coming out, you used to rely on others

.

Australia had been fighting WW2 for several years before America came in and the only reason America did was because Pearl Harbour was bombed.

America came after the Japanese, who just happened to be playing silly buggers at the time on our side of the planet.
I daresay if the Japanese were attacking US ground Australia may never have seen US forces over here.

 

[menzies]

Water Police, Border Force and the Navy.
None of which would board an Australian vessel, unannounced unless they have a very very good reason.


.

Australia had been fighting WW2 for several years before America came in and the only reason America did was because Pearl Harbour was bombed.

America came after the Japanese, who just happened to be playing silly buggers at the time on our side of the planet.
I daresay if the Japanese were attacking US ground Australia may never have seen US forces over here.

I'm British. See any of them over there during WW!!?

 

[Simi 60]

I'm British. See any of them over there during WW!!?

They were a bit late in coming but they got over here eventually

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/08/britain-forgotten-war-pacific-remembered-150815064556404.html

Apparently they had a bit on their plate at the time with their own country getting bombed daily by German forces.

Not that any of the above has anything to do with the post in question.

 

[menzies]

Not that any of the above has anything to do with the post in question.

The fact I am trying to make is that, as an Irishman, Brit, and American, I can recognize the fact that it doesn't really matter when the Americans came in, what brought them in, or what nationality on the Allied side they were defending - if they hadn't come in when they did, you would probably be speaking Japanese now. And eating things that were still alive.

 

[Simi 60]

if they hadn't come in when they did, you would probably be speaking Japanese now. And eating things that were still alive.

And strangely enough, 74 years after the fact it most likely wouldn't worry me in the slightest as Japanese cuisine is my 2nd favourite food type and Australia would at least have the desperately needed high speed rail.

 

[wwestman]

No we acknowledge that it is part of the law under which we live. Most other countries have similar laws as it relates to Customs officers searching for contraband.

 

[BruceK]

I enforce laws, so yeah, I kinda follow them. To say that the U.S. is a police state is not only ludicrous and laughable. It’s insulting. We have the most liberties and freedoms of any nation on the globe. Our founders created the 2nd and 4th to ensure those liberties and freedoms would never be infringed, removed, altered or eliminated....

The mechanisms may exist but viewed externally with disinterest (as defined),it resembles a dictatorship.

 

[78puget-trawler]

Well just catching up on this "interesting" thread! Some pure nonsense from some, smart stuff from others. Think I will decline from quoting others so as not to ruffle feathers, which I have been known to do on occasion!
While I recognize the unfortunate absolute right of the CG to board any vessel afloat on any whim, and that's exactly what it is, I still contend it should NOT be allowed without some reason beyond bogus safety checks.
I have not been boarded but if I am I will comply because I enjoy my freedom, but would still squeak pretty loudly if I was boarded at night or in a less than up front fashion, as there is no excuse for that type of BS for a "safety check".


And that stuff about yes sir, no sir? Well, as the Duke might say, "that'll be the day".

 

[ssobol]

...Imagine the outcome had previous owners left some pot on board in a place I head not thought to look.

When I worked for the USAF, if you bought a used car it was strongly suggested that you bring it to the base and have it searched by the MPs and their dogs. If you could show that you just bought it, they'd give you a pass if they found anything (they disposed of anything they found). After that or if you didn't have this search done and you got caught with illicit substances in one of the random searches they performed, you could be in deep sh!t if something was discovered.

They would probably do the same thing for boats if there was an on base boat storage or marina.

 

[menzies]

Can't say I have ever seen anything with LEOs involved on media that didn't have guns involved, I thought it was standard practice.
Also the whole thread mentions guns and bullets so forgive me if I was somehow mistaken.

Ah, the media.

Wouldn't they be showing criminal incidents - and no reason to show non-incidents (i.e. daily life)?

 

[RT Firefly]

Greetings,
Mr. m. "(i.e. daily life)" Indeed but it seems that there appears to be a larger number of incidences of LEO's overreacting or mistaking law abiding citizens for "the bad guys", sometimes with fatal results, in the US than in other countries. Yes, media but it can't be reported if it didn't happen. I don' think the media is making this stuff up.

Law enforcement is a thankless job where there is a potential in EVERY dealing with John Q Public that the LEO is harmed or killed due to unknowns. It's no wonder that some LEO's have taken upon themselves to act aggressively. Self preservation in all cases IMO.


Unfortunately, bad press or bad cops has caused LEO's to be painted with the broad "They're ALL bad" brush.

 

[psneeld]

There is a huge difference where LEOs make mistakes or there is a tiny fraction of cowbows and a police state where the Leo's have permission to disobey the law.

While it seems like a large number of incidents.......compared to the non-incident stops/arrests every day.... I think the number is tiny.

Just look at the vast number of USCG boardings reported as great or professional compared to the number of "incident" boardings.

 

[OldDan1943]

Humorous incident but not at the time.

I was boarded six times one day returning from the Bahamas more than once by the same agencies. First attempt was about 20 miles offshore was a CG boat about 80 feet in 8 foot seas. Radioed they wanted to board me, I politely refused stating it was dangerous to the boat and those of us on board. I told them I has headed to government cut and once there it would be safe to board. They agreed and that was the first boarding. Five more after that in the course of 6 or 7 miles. Yeah I was pissed.

Is boat named "Training Aid"??

Or perhaps it was "THE" day for new crews to practice.

Govt Cut has always been an active area for dope and illegal smuggling

 

[Mako]

For those of us on this thread who aren't millennials, we can see how our country changed after 2001. In fact you might say that Osama actually won the war, because the permanent changes to society have been significant. It shows itself in heightened awareness and security levels, which sometimes do seem to border on paranoia.

That's a sad state of affairs, but we are nowhere near being an actual police state. I spent a couple years and had assignments in Syria and that place is about as close to experiencing what Nazi Germany was like. I still recall the body language, stiffness and smell of fear that overcame people when we were just driving by certain buildings in town. I don't think Lebanon was a police state, and Beirut was rather free and fun, but when you run into a group of Hezbollah and see the military presence, you realize that just below the surface are some serious issues.

Not sure where I'm going with this, but I would say that we should try to appreciate what we have here in western countries, but at the same time there is no reason to "bend at the knee" when any authority seems to be over-reaching itself, whether in our homes or on our boats.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Have you read that decision? First of all, it depended on the waterway having ready access to the sea, so would not apply at some distance from the ocean or on a lake. Second, it was a split decision (6-3) with a well reasoned dissent, rendered almost 40 years ago, which itself reversed precedent. Third, the boat in question was foreign registered and crewed, and happened to have 5800 lbs of ganga on board. None of the justices who decided that case are still on the court (though the attorney who argued it, is). A heck of a lot of legal scholars believe the decision was flawed.

So saying that this has been finally decided is hardly the case. There is certainly a reasonable possibility that it might be reversed today, especially under different facts.

Now, I'm not going to refuse the boarding because defending that refusal would take a lot of time and money, and might not succeed. If I was wealth enough I would give it a go.

All you need is about $2 million to process your case. A hunter in Alaska took his case, twice to the Supreme Court. Simple retired hunter. Final cost $1.6 million. The only reason he could proceed was due to donations. This is the REAL crime. Our legal system is $$$ for lawyers. It rarely out of justice.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I'll stand by my original position in stating that I have no objection to being boarded by any law enforcement cops. I have zero to hide and not afraid of a boarding for safety equipment check, documentation check, etc.


Now, all that being said, if they boarded to do a safety check and started opening cupboards, drawers, etc., I would call bullsh!it on them and question their PC to do a search as opposed to their stated reason for the stop which was a safety equipment check.


Lacking any justification for a search vs safety check, I would ask to speak to their supervisor to ask his opinion.

So Mike what is the material difference between a "search" and a "safety check?"

One requires a search warrant from a court because I am going to open drawers and cabinets, while a "Safety Check" doesn't require a search warrant because I am not opening drawers? While doing a safety check I am pretty sure the LEO is looking for "something" out in plain sight, thus probable cause. So it isn't just a "safety check."

Now my argument above concerns LEO, not USCG or Boarder Patrol.

 

[78puget-trawler]

I look at this way. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Is it worth spending a million dollars to fight it? Only if you have several millions to play with, I don't.
Other thing is this.
We should not have to waive our 4th Amendment freedoms when stepping aboard our privately owned pleasure boats to engage in legal activity and be at the relative mercy of any LE, CG folks that like to buzz around in fast boats "honing" their drug interdiction skills.
I probably will be boarded some day, and I will comply and try to be as meek as some seem to think is required, but doesn't mean I have to like it or kiss up to anybody. Sure as hell aint gonna make freaking breakfast for them!
I have no problem with the CG performing its prime function, saving lives. My late uncle Mark Freeman, was a Coastie and saved quite a few lives on the WA coast and was commended for it.
My dad also had his bacon saved once by the CG when his tugs engine quit in Dixon Entrance during nasty weather and tug and tow may have been on the rocks but for the 40 footer that came out from Ketchikan and held him off until he could sort out the problem, which he did. That was in about 1967.
So its nothing personal against them or any LE.
But this idea, and here I agree with our friends from OZ, that we should just be happy as little lambsy sheeples to be boarded for no reason other than "safety checks" by any LE or CG without cause is baloney, and the law needs to be set aside insofar as pleasure boats are concerned at least. No obvious probable cause, no boardie. Just like in your home, and we should expect no less.

 

[psneeld]

I am neither lambsy or a sheeple...heck I was in the outfit and probably tossed out earlier than I wanted because I argued the good fight on many topics....

BUT...just because one thinks an LEO stop is unconstitutional doesn't make it so.

The term "unreasonable" is used in the Constitution SO it can be determined by justice...and so far it has.

PS...more than just SAR saves lives so the USCG is happy to continue to do all of its mission categories...not just saving lives.

 

[Portage_Bay]

I agree. It seems that since 9/11 we've given up much of our freedoms and privacy. I've been boarded many times. USCG, CBP, US Navy + USCG team, CCG, RCMP, Canadian border patrol even First Nations in Canada. The strangest being a mixed team of US and Canadian officials on the US side of the Straits of Juan de Fuca. I've been stopped by CBP as I walk up the dock away from the boat. I always handle it the same way. Treat them with respect in a civil manner. I don't resist but I'm not welcoming or overly friendly. I show them my and the ship's documents and answer their questions as briefly as possible. When they give me conflicting instructions I sternly ask for clarification.

Edit: I should make it clear the above boardings with one exception were not while running a private pleasure craft.

I look at this way. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Is it worth spending a million dollars to fight it? Only if you have several millions to play with, I don't.
Other thing is this.
We should not have to waive our 4th Amendment freedoms when stepping aboard our privately owned pleasure boats to engage in legal activity and be at the relative mercy of any LE, CG folks that like to buzz around in fast boats "honing" their drug interdiction skills.
I probably will be boarded some day, and I will comply and try to be as meek as some seem to think is required, but doesn't mean I have to like it or kiss up to anybody. Sure as hell aint gonna make freaking breakfast for them!
I have no problem with the CG performing its prime function, saving lives. My late uncle Mark Freeman, was a Coastie and saved quite a few lives on the WA coast and was commended for it.
My dad also had his bacon saved once by the CG when his tugs engine quit in Dixon Entrance during nasty weather and tug and tow may have been on the rocks but for the 40 footer that came out from Ketchikan and held him off until he could sort out the problem, which he did. That was in about 1967.
So its nothing personal against them or any LE.
But this idea, and here I agree with our friends from OZ, that we should just be happy as little lambsy sheeples to be boarded for no reason other than "safety checks" by any LE or CG without cause is baloney, and the law needs to be set aside insofar as pleasure boats are concerned at least. No obvious probable cause, no boardie. Just like in your home, and we should expect no less.

 

[DDW]

So Mike what is the material difference between a "search" and a "safety check?"

The courts have been more clear about this. The type of search the CG does is called an administrative search, and is allowed only to ensure compliance with safety, documentation, and revenue regulations. If during that search they see something "in plain sight" that arouses reasonable suspicion, then they can go further. The CG has sometimes interpreted safety compliance to require going through your underwear drawer and pockets. This has not held up in some court decisions and may not in the future.

The sticky question is: when does it become a 'pretextual' search, that is the real motivation is to find contraband but the pretext of the search is to check registration and life jackets? A fair amount of these court decisions is devoted to sorting this issue.

The general public, driving their RV down the highway, would not stand for armed military officers randomly stopping them, entering the vehicle and searching through the drawers, under the floor, on their persons, etc., nor will the courts. The excuse given for vessels is the ancient revue cutter act, and the fact that boats may have access to the open sea and foreign countries without a border stop. Certainly for pleasure boats operating on inland waters the distinction is weak or vanishing. The context in which the revenue cutter act was passed is obsolete, and has been for some time.

 

[Bigsfish]

Meekly giving up your rights provided by the Constitution weakens it for everyone but at the moment your contacted is not the time to fight, voice your opinion certainly but control yourself. You may win in the long term but getting nasty and physical will just get you a ride and probably a night or two in jail until a hearing. More and more agencies are going to body cams which should provide a true picture but remember the authorities may walk you into a trap as the know the camera is on.

 

[diver dave]

...When they give me conflicting instructions I sternly ask for clarification.

..

U guys are bringing up bad memories. While trying in vain to silence an alarm system, in a commercial warehouse, LEO show up, guns at me thru a locked glass door. One is yelling freeze, the other is yelling open the door. I’m flat on the carpet and manage a quick turn of the head and squeak out a “which is it”.