U.S. Coast Guard boarding experience (not typical i dont think)

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Interesting link. Glaringly absent are Canada and Mexico.

Good to see. The "war on drugs" is a completely failed policy that has only benefitted the law enforcement & incarceration industries. Nice to see Canada has resisted handing over more of our sovereignty to our mighty neighbours.

... Although we're rapidly implementing the same "zero tolerance" and mandatory minimum sentences that has been part of this failed drug policy. I'm sure arbitrary pleasure craft searches are also being done as well.

Canadians: VOTE TODAY!

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by rognvald

Well said, Captain Bill! So, can someone please provide the logic for the CG to regularly board a US recreational vessel at sea with the pretense of a drug search when the amount of drugs to be potentially intercepted are an infinitesimal amount compared to those that enter through our US Southern border and by submarine into various areas along our coast? Aside from terrifying those aboard, what is the purpose? How is the safety of the crew or the citizens of the US affected by their actions? I believe Bill is correct that it is a money issue and with some serious lobbying(as with the NRA) and a test case it would not hold up constitutionally in Federal Court. I have a very difficult time trying to understand how some intelligent people so easily forgo their rights when there is no apparent logic to a government action. Can someone explain?

Then by all means....become a test case...let us know now that works out.

[blueboyou]

I have a question regarding the boarding and swabbing of crew. If you had smoked marijuana and they detected it, what would be the consequences. Your boat was outside of the 12-mile limit of the US even though I assume you are a US registered/flagged vessel. Just wondered if it would be considered illegal under US law? I remember reading that William F. Buckley sailed his boat beyond the 12-mile limit to try marijuana for the first time (possibly last).

[StuM]

Originally Posted by Olde Chief

With the electronic coms of today, between counties I am sure it would only take a couple of hours to get the necessary permits, to do almost anything.

First world countries maybe. I reckon I'd be the other side of the ocean before they could get an answer out of anyone in authority for my PNG registered vessel

[StuM]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Interesting link. Glaringly absent are Canada and Mexico.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

In that link is another link to
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1988_en.pdf

which is the UN Convention signed by 169 or so countries (including Canada and Mexico) relating to Illicit Drugs. Article 17 is the relevant one:

Article 17
ILLICIT TRAFFIC BY SEA
1. The Parties shall co-operate to the fullest extent possible to suppress illicit traffic by sea, in
conformity with the international law of the sea.

2. A Party which has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel flying its flag or not displaying a flag
or marks of registry is engaged in illicit traffic may request the assistance of other Parties in suppressing
its use for that purpose. The Parties so requested shall render such assistance within the means
available to them.

3. A Party which has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel exercising freedom of navigation in
accordance with international law, and flying the flag or displaying marks of registry of another Party is
engaged in illicit traffic may so notify the flag State, request confirmation of registry and, if confirmed,
request authorization from the flag State to take appropriate measures in regard to that vessel.

4. In accordance with paragraph 3 or in accordance with treaties in force between them or in
accordance with any agreement or arrangement otherwise reached between those Parties, the flag State
may authorize the requesting State to, inter aria:
a) Board the vessel;
b) Search the vessel;
c) If evidence of involvement in illicit traffic is found, take appropriate action with respect
to the vessel, persons and cargo on board.

5. Where action is taken pursuant to this
article, the Parties concerned shall take due account of the
need not to endanger the safety of life at sea, the security of the vessel and the cargo or to prejudice the
commercial and legal interests of the flag State or any other interested State.

6. The flag State may, consistent with its obligations in paragraph 1 of this article, subject its
authorization to conditions to be mutually agreed between it and the requesting Party, including
conditions relating to responsibility.

7. For the purposes of paragraphs 3 and 4 of this article, a Party shall respond expeditiously to a
request from another Party to determine whether a vessel that is flying its flag is entitled to do so, and to
requests for authorization made pursuant to paragraph 3. At the time of becoming a Party to this
Convention, each Party shall designate an authority or, when necessary, authorities to receive and
respond to such requests. Such designation shall be notified through the Secretary-General to all other
Parties within one month of the designation.

8. A Party which has taken any action in accordance with this article shall promptly inform the flag
State concerned of the results of that action.

9. The Parties shall consider entering into bilateral or regional agreements or arrangements to carry
out, or to enhance the effectiveness of, the provisions of this article.

10. Action pursuant to paragraph 4 of this article shall be carried out only by warships or military
aircraft, or other ships or aircraft clearly marked and identifiable as being on government service and
authorized to that effect.

11. Any action taken in accordance with this article shall take due account of the need not to interfere
with or affect the rights and obligations and the exercise of jurisdiction of coastal States in accordance
with the international law of the sea.

[AiniA]

Two differences I have noted between the USCG and CGC:
1. The US coast guard is part of the military, the Canadian one isn't. This is reflected in how they dress and act and the relative use and appearance of weapons. I was in Rochester, NY harbour a number of years ago and there was a RIB with a machine gun mounted in the bow patrolling up and down the river. I could not imagine what the purpose and effectiveness of this patrol might be.

2. Most members of the Canadian Coast Guard seem to be careerists and are often in their 30s or 40s or older. A majority of those in the USCG seem to be kids. Relatively few people seem to stay because you don't many of older people in the job.

[dschultz]

They are law enforcement officers first and foremost.

My understanding is that if you're in a boat, the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply. A US flagged boat can be boarded anywhere in the world. There was legislation passed to this effect by the First Congress. The courts decided that, while, not in the Constitution, this was done by the the same group, so it is given similar weight...

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by blueboyou

I have a question regarding the boarding and swabbing of crew. If you had smoked marijuana and they detected it, what would be the consequences. Your boat was outside of the 12-mile limit of the US even though I assume you are a US registered/flagged vessel. Just wondered if it would be considered illegal under US law? I remember reading that William F. Buckley sailed his boat beyond the 12-mile limit to try marijuana for the first time (possibly last).

I doubt a positive swab is an offence. Just an indication that the person swabbed has had contact with an illicit substance. Not even necessarily an unlawful contact.

And I'm not sure, but I doubt smoking a joint outside the US is even considered illegal. Trafficking cannabis even outside the US may well be.

In Australia there are some laws now that if you commit those offences outside Australia, such as child abuse, once you have completed your sentence overseas where you got caught, you will be charged again when you re-enter Australia for the same offence.

[FamilyVan]

Originally Posted by StuM

In that link is another link to
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/convention_1988_en.pdf

which is the UN Convention signed by 169 or so countries (including Canada and Mexico) relating to Illicit Drugs. Article 17 is the relevant one:

Interesting, so in summary, if I'm reading this right, they can call the flag state and request permission from the designated flag state to board a vessel from that country if they have reasonable grounds to believe the vessel is engaged in illegal traffic.

This is a long way from the right to arbitrarily board, search and seize. A looong way.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by FamilyVan

Interesting, so in summary, if I'm reading this right, they can call the flag state and request permission from the designated flag state to board a vessel from that country if they have reasonable grounds to believe the vessel is engaged in illegal traffic.

This is a long way from the right to arbitrarily board, search and seize. A looong way.

Sent from my XP7700 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

Exactly FamilyVan that's been my point.

But, no one seems to have any knowledge around this apart from the occasionally the USCG can do what they like.

But it seems to me that they can't do 'random' boardings, let alone drug testing on Foreign Vessels in International waters.

My question on from this, was for the OP, and that is what is the authority for Coast Guard to do 'random' drug testing on US vessels, whether in International Waters or not? And YES, I accept the US authorities can arbotarily board any US flagged Vessel anywhere in the world. BUT, can they lawfully board and do 'drug testing' without a suspicion or probable cause?

[Seaman gagging]

Sailing six miles of of ft.laud. Spinnaker up. Coast guard large zodiac approached fast. Came along side and asked if we had an epirb and wanted the number from it. Went to retrieve the Epirb from below as I was coming back on deck there helmsman gunned the dingy (by accident) and rammed the side of my boat. A piece of there rub rail was left behind on my cleat other than that no damage and very embarrassed coasties. They lost interest in my epirb and pulled away after explaining it was a mechanical problem with there boat.




Sent from my iPad using Cruisers Sailing Forum

[rognvald]

Originally Posted by belizesailor

Then by all means....become a test case...let us know now that works out.

Belize,
The Fourth Amendment has been circumvented by Title 14 Section 89 of the US Code dealing with regulation and law enforcement of the USCG for boarding US vessels. For those of you who are familiar with American jurisprudence and the legislation of laws, Congress proposes and passes a bill which is ultimately signed into law by the president . . . by doing so, they have written a law which in my opinion contravenes the 4th Amendment. I believe if it is challenged and there is sufficient money to stay the course, it would be repealed at the highest level(Supreme Court). But then again, what real American would ever believe the Patriot Act could be passed? The times they are a changin' . . . .

[dschultz]

The USCG works for BP, dontcha know.

Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1 | Sailfeed

[markpierce]

Board me. Please board me. I'm so guilty, looking so guilty.



Yet they still keeping passing me by.

[Rustic Charm]

Originally Posted by markpierce

Board me. Please board me. I'm so guilty, looking so guilty.



Yet they still keeping passing me by.

Was that humour?