I was boarded today

[Benthic2]

Now, they can detain you while they obtain a warrant or a someone who does have the authority to board. I would absolutely ask a State or Municipal LE 'why' they want to board.

I think this is circular logic. I assume ( and hope ) they can't get a warrant without a reason. If they have a reason to get a warrant, then they have probable cause, and don't need a warrant and can board your boat.

 

[SoWhat]

So you are saying the State or County LEO has an absolute right to board your vessel?

You seem to be really struggling with the concept of law enforcement.
It's simple. States can enact regulations to enhance public safety, protect the environment, or whatever else they deem important.

In MA, LEOs have absolute right to board vessel per MGL Chapter 90B.

"Enforcement officers may board any recreational boat at any time to check equipment, registration, and positively ID the boat operator"

"Enforcement authority is given to MEP officers, harbormasters, police officers assigned to harbor patrol, fish and game wardens, and state police officers. Town police and harbormasters can also enforce local recreational boating laws"

If LEO has reasonable suspicion based upon his judgment and experience that something illegal is occurring he can conduct a search. He can also do a search to ensure his safety. He then enters the probable cause domain.

Check the laws of your own state. A boating forum won't provide you with much guidance on legal matters

 

[SteveK]

So you are saying the State or County LEO has an absolute right to board your vessel?

Not sure where you are headed with this question. I remember both Canada and US land authority ended at city/county lines and if the bad guy crossed LE stopped chasing. Hope that is behind us.
Aside from wrongful stops (get lawyer) whether land or water LE should have the same authority. If routine stops, probable cause, safety check is allowed then any LE should be able to stop and board.
Or they can ask you to step out of your vehicle. I think coming aboard your boat would keep down the lawsuits of asking you to board their boat and experience injury doing so.
IF a local jurisdiction is out on the water then someone gave them the authority, respect that since maybe they will apprehend actual criminals in the process.

 

[ssobol]

So you are saying the State or County LEO has an absolute right to board your vessel?

It's not a question about rights. It's a question about the reality of the situation. If some LEO shows up either via land (i.e. at a dock) or via a boat and asks to board are you actually going to tell them "No"?

How do you think that will turn out?

Plenty of people standing on their rights have had things go south, sometimes with very negative outcomes. Eventually they (or their heirs) may be vindicated in the courts, but at the time of the occurrence, arguing about what your rights are may not be the best course of action.

 

[Bigsfish]

The expression in the LEO community is “you may avoid the time but not the ride”. The time to argue is after the fact.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I am a true lives board, my 3 Rd time, everything I own is on my boat and why don't I feel the same way?

So am I. I am a full time cruiser. (Livaboard). So as such does the Constitution see our boats in the same way as homes/residence?

The rights of the CG do not extend to State and Municipal Law Enforcement, and they know it too. They can ask, but at best they are riding on probable cause.

Now, they can detain you while they obtain a warrant or a someone who does have the authority to board. I would absolutely ask a State or Municipal LE 'why' they want to board.

Good point.

The USCG authorities come from federal law and/or regulations. The Sheriff's authorities would come from State and/or other local laws and regulations.

The federal agency that I work for, often commissions some of our state counterparts in order to share information with them and to contract some of our agency's work to them. We also credential (but do not badge) some of our state colleagues so they can do some of our inspections under our federal authorities.

I would be interested to hear if the USCG has any type of commissioning/credentialing for any state or other officials to use their authorities?

Jim

So based on Shrew and Jim's posts it would be fair to say the authorities are not the same. USCG has full authority to board for what ever reason. No PC required.

However, it appears based on the conversation that the LEOs lack that authority.

So for LEO's it all breaks down to "Probable Cause?"

With all things equal, a "Safety Check" can be performed at any time or place by the USCG. This same "Safety Check" would require additional steps. In another word, the local LEO would need to establish PC for the stop/boarding (excluding things like imminent danger etc).

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

You seem to be really struggling with the concept of law enforcement.
It's simple. States can enact regulations to enhance public safety, protect the environment, or whatever else they deem important.

In MA, LEOs have absolute right to board vessel per MGL Chapter 90B.

"Enforcement officers may board any recreational boat at any time to check equipment, registration, and positively ID the boat operator"

"Enforcement authority is given to MEP officers, harbormasters, police officers assigned to harbor patrol, fish and game wardens, and state police officers. Town police and harbormasters can also enforce local recreational boating laws"

If LEO has reasonable suspicion based upon his judgment and experience that something illegal is occurring he can conduct a search. He can also do a search to ensure his safety. He then enters the probable cause domain.

Check the laws of your own state. A boating forum won't provide you with much guidance on legal matters

I have no issues with law enforcement. I have many friends who are LEOs.

I also agree that TF is not a legal source. I am not in need of legal advice. I am asking about the actions of USCG and LEOs given the situation is equal. In this case boarding to perform safety checks.

Good conversation so far.

It's not a question about rights. It's a question about the reality of the situation. If some LEO shows up either via land (i.e. at a dock) or via a boat and asks to board are you actually going to tell them "No"?

How do you think that will turn out?

Plenty of people standing on their rights have had things go south, sometimes with very negative outcomes. Eventually they (or their heirs) may be vindicated in the courts, but at the time of the occurrence, arguing about what your rights are may not be the best course of action.

It all depends on how you react to the request. There is nothing wrong with asking "why" an LEO is requesting a boarding.

The expression in the LEO community is “you may avoid the time but not the ride”. The time to argue is after the fact.

And to a large degree I concur.

 

[DDW]

It's simple. States can enact regulations to enhance public safety, protect the environment, or whatever else they deem important.

They can, but when these regulations are found to be in violation of the state or US constitution, they are thrown out. This has happened countless times. LEOs and FEOs overstep the bounds of their authority frequently. That is not to say that most of them do, but it happens enough to keep lawyers and the courts busy.

 

[ssobol]

They can, but when these regulations are found to be in violation of the state or US constitution, they are thrown out. This has happened countless times. LEOs and FEOs overstep the bounds of their authority frequently. That is not to say that most of them do, but it happens enough to keep lawyers and the courts busy.

But it can take years and multiple lawsuits to get the authority of the LEO overturned.

 

[BandB]

Two points.

1. I see all of you debating the rights of state and local LEO's. That would be hundreds of discussions as they have different rights in every state plus any separate local rules. Some of the rules are vastly different by state.

2. As to what I would do if any LEO boarded my boat or asked to do so is be as polite as possible, film and record if possible, and deal with anything I felt was improper after. I'm not going to argue over their rights to do so initially as I have nothing to hide and I don't want to prolong or worsen the event. There is a time and place to protest, but that's not it.

I do believe LEO officers sometimes overstate their power. I do believe that some small percentage of them are on power-kicks and think they can do anything they want. I've witnessed it.

If you believe it's a police state, which I don't, you don't fix a police state by fighting the police, you must start much further up the chain.

 

[JLD]

It gets a little bit tricky in that while an officer/agent can't exceed their authority, this doesn't prevent them for asking your permission for something. It then can become a personal decision on what one may voluntary consent to.

I would also suggest that if anyone has less than a satisfactory interaction with a local, state, or federal official, there is a recourse to follow-up with the management of whomever he/she work for. Almost everyone is accountable to someone higher up in their organization.

Jim

 

[ctjstr]

all this reminds me of a funny.
Years ago I was appointed as a public defender to defend this knucklehead in a boating related case. This fellow was pretty drunk and pretty obnoxious. He and some friends were sitting in his boat (which was a 14' runabout) drinking beer and hooting and hollering at the cute girls passing by. Finally a Sheriff Deputy Boat pulls up, ostensibly to do a safety check. Questions went something like:
Let me see your flares.
Dont' need them...not long enough.
Let me see and hear your horn.
Don't need them,..not long enough.
Let me see the throwable PFD
same answer.

This went on for a bit and finally the sheriff had enough and said something like. "well, you keep saying its not long enough, exactly how long is it?

Knucklehead stands up and drops his trunks down to his ankles and replies
"About this long."

Quick trip to the clink and I get appointed to defend him on his indecent exposure case.

Can't fix stupid, no matter how hard you try.

 

[Simi 60]

Safety checks I have had done here is as simple as boat pulls up behind us, person at front of boat cheerfully asks is they can sight flares, lifejacket for each person and epirb.

No one comes aboard.
No one even attaches to the vessel.
Happened twice in 30+ years on the water.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

Safety checks I have had done here is as simple as boat pulls up behind us, person at front of boat cheerfully asks is they can sight flares, lifejacket for each person and epirb.

No one comes aboard.
No one even attaches to the vessel.
Happened twice in 30+ years on the water.

EPIRB?

Down Under thing?

 

[BruceK]

EPIRB?

Down Under thing?

"Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon".

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

"Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacon".

Yes I know. My question is an EPIRB required in Australia.

 

[Shrew]

I think this is circular logic. I assume ( and hope ) they can't get a warrant without a reason. If they have a reason to get a warrant, then they have probable cause, and don't need a warrant and can board your boat.

It would be equally circular to then assume that any reason to get a warrant constitutes probably cause and therefore no warrant is necessary. The warrant process introduces a set of checks and balances to ensure civil liberties are somewhat maintained.

Your logic is why a number of cases get dismissed due to improper search and seizures.

 

[BandB]

It would be equally circular to then assume that any reason to get a warrant constitutes probably cause and therefore no warrant is necessary. The warrant process introduces a set of checks and balances to ensure civil liberties are somewhat maintained.

Your logic is why a number of cases get dismissed due to improper search and seizures.

Getting warrants is easy. That doesn't mean they're valid and will hold up in court.

Same thing with the entire issue of probable cause. Claiming one has probable cause is easy, but that doesn't mean it will hold up in court either.

Now the issue is that there's no judge when you're confronted with a LEO. No one to rule on your rights, so you best cooperate and wait to argue your case.

Some states have fairly high thresholds for probable cause. Others are pretty much a free for all. A couple of states where a burned out tail light is cause for a complete search.

Then so much remains that those with money can get the searches overturned and those without will not. I've heard lawyers who specialize in DUI's and in drug possession cases talk about all the ways and you look at the success rates of some of them and they're amazing, but all they depend on is the smallest mistake. Now, having everything on camera is helping tremendously toward fairness.

 

[DDW]

I am a true lives board, my 3 Rd time, everything I own is on my boat and why don't I feel the same way?

I am genuinely curious about the thinking of people who would so easily give up their rights. Let's suppose this happened on land. The scenario is like this:

You are awakened at 2 AM by sounds in your living room, investigating you discover 4 uniformed Army recruits in flak jackets and carrying automatic weapons. They politely explain they are here on an administrative search, and would like to see that all the code required fire alarms and smoke detectors are in order, that there are no overloaded extension cords in use, and that your tax bill has been properly paid. They explain that they knocked but got no response, but in any case are not required to ask or announce. They troupe through the kitchen, bath, and bedrooms to observe these items (and anything else their eyes might fall upon). The check only takes about 45 minutes, after which they politely say all is in order and have a nice night.

Would you be happy with this, supposing it occurred only once a year or so?

Change "living room" to "cockpit" and "Army recruits" to "CG recruits" and a few very minor details and you have a CG boarding.

The legal rationalizations argued for the CG boardings are even more applicable to houses: the intrusiveness of the search is no different, the likelihood of finding regulation infractions at least as great or greater, the costs less, and the greater public good therefore better served. Further, the frequency of discovery of probable cause for further investigation from this suspicionless search would be higher in houses, you are likely to uncover drugs, illegal aliens, terrorist cells etc. warranting further investigation at a much greater rate.

This is what Article IV was meant to prevent, due to recent memory of it happening at the time. It was not what the revenue cutter act was meant to allow, regardless of how it has become twisted today. That act was meant to collect taxes from commercial shipping crossing boarders.

 

[DDW]

The problem with saying "Yes sir, welcome aboard sir" to any LEO, is that now you have voluntarily consented to be searched. Much harder to later claim a violation of rights. Under those circumstances you don't need to be belligerent or uncivil, just ask "do I have a choice?" with a smile. If the answer is "yes", you can go either way, if the answer is "no" then you have not voluntarily consented to the search when it proceeds anyway.

 

[psneeld]

I am genuinely curious about the thinking of people who would so easily give up their rights. Let's suppose this happened on land. The scenario is like this:

You are awakened at 2 AM by sounds in your living room, investigating you discover 4 uniformed Army recruits in flak jackets and carrying automatic weapons. They politely explain they are here on an administrative search, and would like to see that all the code required fire alarms and smoke detectors are in order, that there are no overloaded extension cords in use, and that your tax bill has been properly paid. They explain that they knocked but got no response, but in any case are not required to ask or announce. They troupe through the kitchen, bath, and bedrooms to observe these items (and anything else their eyes might fall upon). The check only takes about 45 minutes, after which they politely say all is in order and have a nice night.

Would you be happy with this, supposing it occurred only once a year or so?

Change "living room" to "cockpit" and "Army recruits" to "CG recruits" and a few very minor details and you have a CG boarding.

The legal rationalizations argued for the CG boardings are even more applicable to houses: the intrusiveness of the search is no different, the likelihood of finding regulation infractions at least as great or greater, the costs less, and the greater public good therefore better served. Further, the frequency of discovery of probable cause for further investigation from this suspicionless search would be higher in houses, you are likely to uncover drugs, illegal aliens, terrorist cells etc. warranting further investigation at a much greater rate.

This is what Article IV was meant to prevent, due to recent memory of it happening at the time. It was not what the revenue cutter act was meant to allow, regardless of how it has become twisted today. That act was meant to collect taxes from commercial shipping crossing boarders.

That is your definition of Articlle IV....not mine or probably many others so don't bother to keep quoting it in any response or question to me.

As to current search, safety stop procedures.......roots might go back to the revenue cutter days, but they have been reviewed many times on both sides of the discussion.

As to my house being "invaded" versus my boat...sure I see a difference. As to either being good? Either is only going to happen with probable cause/warrant almost all of the time.

I have met a lot of people in my life...and an extraordinary few has had it happen to them or ever mentioned it.

The few that have been boarded at night for various reasons and the only ones boarded without warning had probable cause such as no answer to radio calls.

So I don't see the current legal language and boardings ias unreasonable, no system is perfect and has mistakes possible, and no worries about an entry unless they shoot me.

 

[Alaskan Sea-Duction]

I am genuinely curious about the thinking of people who would so easily give up their rights. Let's suppose this happened on land. The scenario is like this:

You are awakened at 2 AM by sounds in your living room, investigating you discover 4 uniformed Army recruits in flak jackets and carrying automatic weapons. They politely explain they are here on an administrative search, and would like to see that all the code required fire alarms and smoke detectors are in order, that there are no overloaded extension cords in use, and that your tax bill has been properly paid. They explain that they knocked but got no response, but in any case are not required to ask or announce. They troupe through the kitchen, bath, and bedrooms to observe these items (and anything else their eyes might fall upon). The check only takes about 45 minutes, after which they politely say all is in order and have a nice night.

Would you be happy with this, supposing it occurred only once a year or so?

Change "living room" to "cockpit" and "Army recruits" to "CG recruits" and a few very minor details and you have a CG boarding.

The legal rationalizations argued for the CG boardings are even more applicable to houses: the intrusiveness of the search is no different, the likelihood of finding regulation infractions at least as great or greater, the costs less, and the greater public good therefore better served. Further, the frequency of discovery of probable cause for further investigation from this suspicionless search would be higher in houses, you are likely to uncover drugs, illegal aliens, terrorist cells etc. warranting further investigation at a much greater rate.

This is what Article IV was meant to prevent, due to recent memory of it happening at the time. It was not what the revenue cutter act was meant to allow, regardless of how it has become twisted today. That act was meant to collect taxes from commercial shipping crossing boarders.

That is your definition of Articlle IV....not mine or probably many others so don't bother to keep quoting it in any response or question to me.

As to current search, safety stop procedures.......roots might go back to the revenue cutter days, but they have been reviewed many times on both sides of the discussion.

As to my house being "invaded" versus my boat...sure I see a difference. As to either being good? Either is only going to happen with probable cause/warrant almost all of the time.

I have met a lot of people in my life...and an extraordinary few has had it happen to them or ever mentioned it.

The few that have been boarded at night for various reasons and the only ones boarded without warning had probable cause such as no answer to radio calls.

So I don't see the current legal language and boardings ias unreasonable, no system is perfect and has mistakes possible, and no worries about an entry unless they shoot me.

So there is one thing you you all are forgetting.

Money.

If you have the means to fight in court (money) then you are more likely to win your case. For the average recreational boater without $2 million to fight such a case, yes sir, no sir maybe the only way.

I also agree that if you are asked to be boarded and you nod your head or say "Sure come on board!" You may have just agreed with an involuntary search.

 

[psneeld]

No forgetting it....not worried that they will find anything wrong or it will be that hard to get out of.



I would be more worried if in foreign waters where I don't even know what is right or wrong or what permissions the police really have.


Plus there are defense options when you can make a good case....part of that is knowing the process and possible outcomes and what you do along the way.


Just because you are boarded and taken into custody (if even that) doesn't mean you will be charged.


You know how many drug smugglers, which were illegal aliens and caught red handed that I bought a coke for and watched them shipped back to S. America in basically less than a day or two?


What? Me worry....

 

[BruceK]

Yes I know. My question is an EPIRB required in Australia.

They are compulsory in my State(NSW) if 2 miles or more offshore.

 

[STB]

I don't really want to get too involved in this discussion, because I mostly view it as a religious debate.

I believe that we all have the right to our own religions and opinions and to debate them, even if I choose not to take part. Having said that, the fact picture is a bit different.

If you happen to believe that a warrant issued based upon a false premise, and/or the findings and/or the consequential findings are readily thrown out, I would recommend reading U.S. v. Leon (1984). The case law may be different than you expect:

-- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/468/897
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Leon

 

[ssobol]

...I would be more worried if in foreign waters where I don't even know what is right or wrong or what permissions the police really have....

So saying no to a boarding request in some foreign land could turn out even worse for you than in the US.

IMO, standing by your understanding of your rights at the time you receive a boarding request is probably not worth the long term hassle and expense of possibly being able to say "I told you so" to the LEO sometime in the future.

The sooner they board and search, the sooner they leave.

 

[Benthic2]

In this situation there are 2 people ( boater and officer ) and 2 possibilities for each of them. That gives us 4 possible outcomes. My graphic arts skills are limited, but I think you'll get the idea.

 

[STB]

Actually, now, thinking more about my last post, I might also suggest that those interested read Maryland v. Garrison, 480 U.S. 79 (1986), which teaches the handling of evidence derived from searches in such cases as law enforcement, in good faith, misinterprets a search warrant:

-- https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/480/79.html
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maryland_v._Garrison

 

[Benthic2]

Oh my god!! Garrison got totally railroaded !!!! That is a frightening thing to read!!

 

[Simi 60]

They are compulsory in my State(NSW) if 2 miles or more offshore.

QLD as well.
Probably all of Oz.

Don't know why people wouldn't have such an essential lifesaving bit of gear onboard, cheap as chips in the scheme of things.