Drug interceptions on the high seas

[Kelkara]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

However, in Canada water cops must meet the minimal requirement of having ‘probable cause’ before stopping and boarding.

Is that really true? I got boarded by a USCG vessel on my Canadian boat while in Canadian waters ... the only reason they gave me was that there was an RCMP officer on board who would do all the talking. It was all very polite and professional, and I ended up with a caution for expired flares.

The very next day I got stopped by the RCMP in exactly the same place ... also with no reason given. Only this time there were no big boots, body-armour, and hands on weapons. Never been stopped anywhere else.

But whatever they do, wherever they do it ... you can be sure that it will be "by the book" for the jurisdiction they intend to prosecute in, they don't want your lawyer making fools of them.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Kelkara

Is that really true? I got boarded by a USCG vessel on my Canadian boat while in Canadian waters ... the only reason they gave me was that there was an RCMP officer on board who would do all the talking. It was all very polite and professional, and I ended up with a caution for expired flares.

The very next day I got stopped by the RCMP in exactly the same place ... also with no reason given. Only this time there were no big boots, body-armour, and hands on weapons. Never been stopped anywhere else.

But whatever they do, wherever they do it ... you can be sure that it will be "by the book" for the jurisdiction they intend to prosecute in, they don't want your lawyer making fools of them.

My understanding of the law is that there must be some sort of probable cause for Canadian cops to demand that you stop and be searched. They can always ask to come aboard, which is what they usually do. But in theory you can say no. Of course, at that point they can usually generate “probable cause” by not seeing all the necessary safety equipment in sight, or being suspicious about your head, or whatever … If they want to come aboard, they will find a way.

However, the USCG (as I understand it) has no such limitation. It can stop and board US-flagged vessels anywhere, or any boat in US waters, with no probable cause requirement. It seems to be a historical quirk of their law (at least, that’s my foreign, non-technical perspective of the explanations I’ve read).

[Kelkara]

I don't remember explicitly giving consent to an obvious request to board either time ... of course I made no move to stop them. They may have muttered something I don't remember like "may I come onboard here?" as they stepped over the lifelines, and in the absence of a "No" considered it implicit consent.

Of course the second time they had plenty of probable cause to believe that I was still sailing with expired flares.

[robbievardon]

The Terrorists as I recall were in fact French secret service personnel subsequently caught and sent to prison. Their motive Official business, as the French Government objected to Greenpeace disrupting their (I think) nuclear testing.

[leftbrainstuff]

Australia also aggressively patrols it's northern borders. The government even sent in the SAS to seize a Norwegian flagged vessel that was demanding to land rescued boat people (media term). The Norwegians saw this as a step too far.

The patrolling of Australias northern borders and waterways is now run by the military using customs, border patrol, coastwatch and military forces.

If they want to board you they will. If you refuse they'll board anyway. Maritime law and enforcement often seems little changed from the 1700s. The rights you have, or think you have, in your home country are mostly irrelevant on the water.

Best practice seems to be acting professional, communicating with nearby vessels and generally being seen as a good citizen of the sea.

It seems that a cruiser minding their own business is perceived as having a similar 'signature' as undesirables.

[Jd1]

Who knew that a simple question would turn out so 'not simple' and generate such a long discussion. Still, I find it quite interesting.
Just for the record, I have been boarded in Canadian waters (actually similar area) twice, in each case a Canadian officer was on board a US boat. They always were polite and I always permitted them to board. They checked papers, made sure all the safety stuff was on board and current etc etc. Never a problem. On the other hand, when in international waters, I would prefer to decline permission for any non Canadian officer to board my boat ... mostly out of principle. Just like when a police officer comes to your door, you never invite him/her in and instead conduct your business outside, the same applies (IMHO) to an officer on the water. It just makes sense to not give them an opportunity to see anything they don't like.
No I don't carry non prescription drugs (or for that matter alcohol) on my boat but who knows what possible little detail an officer may trip over that then gives them cause to turn your boat inside out even if you have nothing to hide (you thought).

[captmikem]

Originally Posted by robbievardon

The Terrorists as I recall were in fact French secret service personnel subsequently caught and sent to prison. Their motive Official business, as the French Government objected to Greenpeace disrupting their (I think) nuclear testing.

They spent about two years on the island of Hao in the Tuamotus and were then freed, I have been to Hao, nice place. If I had to pick a place to "go to prision", or vacation, Hao would be near the top of the list.

M

[hafa]

Originally Posted by leftbrainstuff

If they want to board you they will. If you refuse they'll board anyway. Maritime law and enforcement often seems little changed from the 1700s. The rights you have, or think you have, in your home country are mostly irrelevant on the water.

Best practice seems to be acting professional, communicating with nearby vessels and generally being seen as a good citizen of the sea.

It seems that a cruiser minding their own business is perceived as having a similar 'signature' as undesirables.

QFT

Originally Posted by Jd1

...a Canadian officer was on board a US boat. They always were polite...

Of course they were polite; they were Canadian!

[Browning]

Originally Posted by Ann T. Cate

Jd1,

(...)if you're not in the trade, you're outta the loop(...)


Ann

Phantastic. Tell this to the guy whose appartment was forcifully entered in the middle of the night, and he was thrown onto the floor, beaten badly, and his back was broken... everything due to the fact that the SWAT team missed the floors.

The call was real, the bad guys were one floor above, and they departed in the next morning because they took the action as a warning.

The guy in question is a class #1 invalide till the end of his days and has not received more than "we are sorry" from the authorities.

Happened in the middle of Europe a couple of months ago.

[leftbrainstuff]

Originally Posted by captmikem

They spent about two years on the island of Hao in the Tuamotus and were then freed, I have been to Hao, nice place. If I had to pick a place to "go to prision", or vacation, Hao would be near the top of the list.

M

New Zealanders also get a much better Schengen deal as a result of the Rainbow Warrior incident.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by tomfl

PRC did both ratify and sign the LOS; my bad.

While the US did not ratify or sign the LOS the US has been involved in discussions and in general has agreed with everything in the LOS treaties with the exception of Part XI, which mainly relates to deep sea mining, sharing profits from deep sea mining with all LOS member countries, and mandatory sharing of deep sea mining technology. Realistically the provisions related to deep sea mining are almost moot due to economic realities related to the price of the metals that could be mined. In addition to economic factors related to metal prices the break up of the communist block, the source of the push for sharing profits and technology, added to making Part XI moot.

The PRC's claim to the Spratly Islands has been rejected but that has not changed the PRC's actions in building military bases there. Other countries do seem to have better claims to the Spratly Islands, in great part because they are hundreds of miles closer to the Spratly Islands. I suspect the real problem for PRC's military bases will be when a typhoon hits the area.

No question China has a real gripe about GB selling drugs there in the past. But as a rule China, and a lot of other countries, have much harsher laws than the US concerning drugs; often even simple possession can result in capital punishment. In fact there is almost no disagreement among any LOS party concerning smuggling drugs; they are all against it.

The OP was asking about "Drug interceptions on the high seas" and this seems to be something all parties to the LOS, and non parties like the US, agree on. While there are a few countries who don't automatically grant US permission to interdict realistically the US is free to interdict anywhere on the high seas. There are also a few other countries who infrequently interdict on the high seas, and again do so almost with impunity. Another consideration is that if you decline to allow LEOs to interdict, especially US interdiction, you almost certainly will be subject to a long and detailed visit by customs when you enter port.

Bottom line for me is the best course of action is to cooperate with LEOs early on to avoid problems later on.

The posting party states UNLOS Treaty Part XI pertaining to deep sea mining, shared profits, and mandatory shared technology, is "almost" moot due to economic realities. Apparently it is unrecognized that economic and technologic realities can, and often do change very quickly. Some of you may recall Glomar Explorer, a ship supposedly designed and intended to mine the seabed for manganese spheres or balls that were found in profuse numbers on the deep seabed in some places. It turned out to be a cover story because the vessel was for another purpose (recovery of a Soviet submarine) by the U.S. I never did find out if the story was actually plausible or if the manganese deposits existed, but I sure would hate to be forced to share the technology with, say North Korea, or even South Korea or Japan, etc. if the economics made the endeavor worthwhile. Treaties seem to outlast both the technology and economic realities of a given date. Soon I will look into the real issue, searching vessels of other nations on the high seas, although I suspect one of, or maybe more of the previous posters pretty much nailed it.

[Alastair A]

Originally Posted by ZULU40

Submarines havent carried deck guns in 70 years

My visiting sub had well over a dozen sailors all with military weapons and a rapid deploy tender. Some weapons were clearly designed and aimed for damage below water level.
No mucking about from me. Cheers All.

[buzzstar]

From the link in the #64 post:

The U.S. Coast Guard Boarding Policy:
"Title 14 section 89 of the United States Code authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to board vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, anytime, any place upon the high seas and upon any waterway over which the United States has jurisdiction, to make inquires, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests. The U.S. Coast Guard does not require a warrant to conduct search, seizures, arrests over any United States Waterway or high seas. The U.S. Coast Guard also have full legal law enforcement power on any land under the control of the United States, as needed to complete any mission."

OK, if you are on a US vessel, you have no constitutional protection from the 4th Amendment as to boardings, searches, or seizure, at least according to the U.S..Code. I have not yet even attempted to determine if there has been any limitation via court decisions, or as to vessels of other nationals in international waters, or perhaps US vessels operating in the territorial waters of other nations incidentally or intentionally occupied/patrolled, through agreement or otherwise by the US Coast Guard or by US Navy vessels. this is merely step one, so do not become impatient, I have other tasks.

[Alastair A]

Ps to #88 above. It was not a USA sub.
The fire power was no-doubt real. What would you do for your crew?
Cheers A.

[markpierce]

Earlier this month I observed USCGC Alert and HMCS Saskatoon docked next to each other at Manzanillo, Mexico.

The Alert is a medium endurance cutter armed with 1 25 mm and 2 50-caliber machine guns. Has a top speed of 18 knots and also carried a helicopter.

The Saskatoon is a mine sweeper and coastal defense vessel armed with 2 50-caliber machine guns. A 40 mm Bofor gun is missing from its mount. Has a top speed of 15 knots.

Possibly they were pausing from drug interdiction activities.