Drug interceptions on the high seas

[boatman61]

I've been checked over a few times.. French, US, Spanish and Italians.. no biggie really apart from once by the French where they escorted me into the nearest harbour and spent 5hrs going over the boat.. when I said I was hungry 2 escorted me to the nearest sandwich bar and back.. but they did arrange for a free berth as the tide had gone out and I could not leave when they'd finished around 2230.

[RPZ]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

I had to look up DILLIGAF, but once I did I agree. The only problem is being sure they are actual whatevers with the necessary authority, not pirates. Usually it is possible, even easy, thank goodness. I have vowed (to myself) to fight pirates if it should ever come to that. I have been stopped by both the US Coast Guard and the Mexican Navy while under sail. Neither was a problem. Likewise, no problems with port authorities upon entry or departure, although sometimes the process can be very trying. Polite really does help, although it is often not my initial feeling. Or even the second one.

I think on the whole what you say would be the case even with the Coastal and Naval crews of second and third world countries. Their boats will usually look like business even if they don't have deck mounted guns, will often have numbers painted on the hull or deck structure, be sporting mounted spotlights etc. Crews will usually be wearing some kind of common or similar uniforms and lifejackets. While they may not all be armed there will usually be some uniformity to small arms.

That is not to say that this is absolute, or that pirates can not run a convincing looking motor boat painted gun metal gray. But military folk usually have a recognizable demeanor and general appearance. They generally look healthy and are physically fit.

I would glass any vessel approaching and look for signs of a red flag. If I saw crew on deck, not wearing life jackets, dissimilar clothing, some wearing dissimilar footwear and a hodgepodge of guns - AKs, SKSs, AR-15s, shotguns etc - and even one RPG - I would be ready to put up a fight.

[Stumble]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Right. Thanks for clarifying that. My fumbled meaning was that anywhere in US territorial waters, or in the open seas, the USCG can board a US-flagged vessel with no reason at all — at least this is my understanding.

Now, here’s a question for the legal beagles: I accept that nations can have reciprocal arrangements to allow their water police to stop and board another nation’s vessels on the high seas. (In reality this mostly just means the US police can board other nation’s vessels). But.. (and here’s my question):

Does the USCG, which seems unique in its power to stop and board US-flagged vessels for no reason, have the same rights when applied to foreign flagged vessels in international waters where the foreign vessel is from a country that has signed reciprocal agreements with the US?It just depends on the agreement. Some countries may have extended to the USCG blanket permission to search all of their vessels, some may require specific permission, some countries may refuse permission without a warrant. My guess is that a country cannot authorize the USCG to do something the host countries CG couldn't do, but that's is probably the only limit. So if NZ CG requires a warrant to do a vessel inspection, then the USCG would require a NZ warrant to do the same.

(clear as mud ?)

What I’m asking is, can the USCG legally stop and board a Canadian vessel in the open ocean without probable cause. The USCG could do this with a US flagged vessel, and I assume Canada and the USA have reciprocal agreements on this matter. However, in Canada water cops must meet the minimal requirement of having ‘probable cause’ before stopping and boarding. My guess is that the USCG I should limited by Canadian law when dealing with a Canadian vessel on the open sea. The Great Lakes may have different requirements, like the need a Canadian officer onboard to do the boardin in Canadian waters.

I realize it’s not hard to generate this ‘probable cause,’ but it is at least a minimal hurdle for law enforcement to meet. The USCG has no such need, but I don’t think this power could be applied to foreign flagged vessels in open water even if the countries have reciprocal agreements in place.

(am I making any sense )

Here's the thing, as cruisers you want a simple rule that applies everywhere to all situations, but I think just doesn't work that way. Your home country has (or doesn't have)and agreement no with every country in the world that deals with the specifics requirments for jurisdiction. Layered on top of that are the agreements with the country whose waters' you are currently in (if any).

So what seems like a simple jurisdictional issue may implicate multiple international treaties that may be layered on top of each other. As an example assume the following:

1) A UK registered vessel
2) in the territorial waters of the Bahamas
3) being stopped by a USCG vessel

Issue: an inspection for drunk operation which is illegal in the Bahamas but the standard is .15bac in the Bahamas, .08 in the US, and .10 in the U.K.

1) first is the treaty between the US and the Bahamas which grants some rights and restricts others
2) then the treaty between the US and the U.K. which grants some rights and restricts others
3) Then the treaty between the U.K. and the Bahamas...

Under 1) the US is granted permission to do anything the Bahamas could do including safety stops w/o a warrant.
Under 2) the US is granted some permissions but no the the power to stop a vessel without PC of a violation (which U.K. law requires)
Under 3) the UK grants some permission to the Bahamas but not the power to stop a vessel without PC of a violation (which U.K. Law requires).

Result... on the high seas this vessel cannot be stopped because all parties are limited by the warrant requirement of the U.K. The moment she crosses into Bahamas water Bahamian law applies and the USCG can stop her under treaty #1 but not under #2 or #3, because the Bahamas is acting under its own powers regulating its territorial waters.

To make it even more complicated let's assume that the treaty between the US and the UK requires the USCG to have a UK law enforcements officer onboard any time it stops a U.K. vessel. But the U.K. - Bahamas treaty does not inside the territorial waters of the Bahamas.

In this case under #1 the US could still stop the UK vessel because it is using the power delegated to the Bahamas, which deputizes the USCG....

As you can see this can get very complicated very quickly because there may be compeating paths of legal enforceability. Which each path allowing different things, but having different requirements. it can getvery tricky very quickly, and there are rule books and I assume software programs to help keep it strait for the CG vessels.

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

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.

In Canada, any law-enforcement agency (coast guard, RCMP or provincial/local police) can board and inspect to ensure compliance with safety regulations (flares, lifejackets etc). This is enshrined somewhere in the law, maybe Small Vessel regs. That said, they can not take apart your boat looking for drugs or other contraband, without due cause and/or a warrant.

Something that has not been mentioned is "Port State Control" - you can google it. It was originally intended to ensure safety and environmental standards through the world's commercial fleets, but there is nothing keeping a state from applying it to recreational vessels. IIRC, New Zealand has in the past, stopped foreign vessels from putting to sea if they find them unsuitable.

[Macblaze]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Courtesy calls by Naval vessels are quite common in foreign ports all over the globe. Every port is foreign to all but the Navy of the country where the port is located. Maybe they were just looking for Bo Derek at Las Hadas, [for you younger non-buffs, this was a reference to the now-dated film, "10") which is in Manzanillo. Refueling and/or a little R&R from drug interdiction is also possible. I can guarantee they would not be there at all if the Mexican government had any objections.

They were probably wrapping up their drug operation/cocaine bust...

HMCS Saskatoon helps U.S. Coast Guard with huge cocaine bust - British Columbia - CBC News

[Lodesman]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

This is enshrined somewhere in the law, maybe Small Vessel regs.

Found it in the CSA under part 10 Pleasure craft:

Canada Shipping Act, 2001

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Lodesman

Found it in the CSA under part 10 Pleasure craft:

Canada Shipping Act, 2001

Thanks for this … now I know .

[RPZ]

I'd like to know where this "pleasure craft" became universal terminology for all private yachts and boats. It is like defining anything other than a commercial motor vehicle a "pleasure car".

Trivia? I don't think so. Terminology - definitions - tends to have a great impact on the legal standing and views of any issue. Yes, words are important.

[sailorcherry]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

My understanding of the law (from reading and discussions like this in the past), is that the USCG can board a US-flagged vessel anytime, anywhere, with no reason at all. Other water cops require some sort of “probable cause,” although this seems easy to generate. The same goes for Canadian enforcement (which is the police, not the Canadian Coast Guard, although they usually work together); they need to meet the minimal standard of 'probable cause' before they can demand to board a Canadian flagged vessel. Of course, they can always ask. And as has been pointed out, it’s hard to say no to authorities.

The whole drug thing might get very interesting in Canadian/US territorial waters pretty soon. Our federal government is apparently set to follow through on its promise to legalize (not just decriminalize) recreational pot use. Since this is federal, it should affect boaters rights to carry pot. I wonder how this is going to work out with our US neighbour who seem to be going the other way (at least federally) on pot and other drug use.

Spent years on two end ties in the Oakland estuary, including during the 2013 AC. Coast Guard Island down the way. Every day I saw the coastie ribs dock in earshot to refuel or use the bathroom. So, being in California where medical marijuana has been legal since the 90s I went and talked to them a few of times about the issue. I cited the Zero Tolerance Law. That if a friend comes aboard with mj and I am boarded and they find it can they confiscate the boat? I said I understand the state law but once on the water it is federal territory.

Both officers I asked, different years, said no. The worse they would do is confiscate the weed and if it is an amount they don't like arrest that person.

I have seen vessels, of all shapes n sizes pulled over almost daily on the estuary. Word on the street was because there was a ton of rookie training. During AC was the height and they said they were doing anti-terrorism work and training a lot too (homeland security).

I had my coast guard aux 5 star sticks on the mast. Never been boarded. If I were I wouldn't be worried either. Follow the rules out there and no problemo.

#1 thing the coasties have said they are worried about and pull people over for is drunks behind the helm.

[Adelie]

Originally Posted by Jim Cate

Hmmm... seems a lot of race boats might fall under the "slave ship" definition!

Jim

That's very dry Jim. I like it.

But, if it's voluntary is it really slavery or just the image of slavery?

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by tomfl

The UN and the LOS are basically powerless and both the US and China have not signed it. So what is "legal" to the UN and LOS countries has been ignored by both the US and China.

I am told you are mixing two separate things. The received wisdom is that even though the USA has not signed UNCLOS, it still complies with what is said in UNCLOS because a) it recognizes the text of UNCLOS as "codification of customary international law" and b) much of UNCLOS is for practical purposes copied-and-pasted into USA laws and regs.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by Alan Mighty

And the US did not for good reason - the US makes claims over the sea that UNCLOS does not .

Could you kindly provide some backup for that statament?

[PommyDave]

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.

That's right, and since one member of the ship's crew was trapped on the sinking vessel and drowned, the authorities had to take the incident very seriously. As I recall the two French agents did a short spell in NZ pokey and were then shipped home.

[RPZ]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

I am told you are mixing two separate things. The received wisdom is that even though the USA has not signed UNCLOS, it still complies with what is said in UNCLOS because a) it recognizes the text of UNCLOS as "codification of customary international law" and b) much of UNCLOS is for practical purposes copied-and-pasted into USA laws and regs.

If the U.S. had any intention of universal compliance it would have signed on. The fact that it did not really implies that we wanted to pick and choose what we enforced. But enforcing somehing that we are not signed to by agreement makes any enforcement legally implausible.

[svlamorocha]

Originally Posted by svHyLyte

Ah... Wrongo... A US flagged ship/yacht is, by definition, "US Territory" no less so than the grounds of a US Embassy situated in another country. The crew of the ship/yacht may be subject to the laws of another country while within its territory but they are not relieved of US law and particularly, in the case of a ship/yacht, the right of the USCG to board on demand.

The expert tells me that a US flagged vessel is "less" US territory that a US Embassy abroad. The Embassy will not be subject to compliance with many local rules and local police will not go in under almost any circumstance. A US flagged boat abroad will only be exempt from a few local rules and local police will go in as if the boat was a local boat.