Coast Guard Detains Uncooperative Boater After Chase On SF Bay

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by ryon

"The legal doctrine of federal laws superseding state laws is called preemption. When a law passed by Congress plainly states that it is intended to preempt state laws, courts have little difficulty applying this express preemption."

Everywhere? Within a state, outside of federal territorial/contractual jurisdiction?

Tell me how that works.

I have a problem with a lot of what has been "taught" in public school. What you describe is a universal authority to make and execute "law". How convieeeenient for getting things done!

Now, if we can get the media to help us along with our plan...

Read my para 3...no..federal jurisdiction doesn't necessarily apply everywhere and neither do all federal laws. But the USCG has the authority to do as it is tasked by US CODE on California waters except for some landlocked streams and lakes. No simpler than that.

I don't need to tell you how it works...I'm sure the USCG boarding officer will.... when he boards your boat he/she will be glad to "splain it" to you...

[ryon]

Originally Posted by psneeld

Read my para 3...no..federal jurisdiction doesn't necessarily apply everywhere and neither do all federal laws. But the USCG has the authority to do as it is tasked by US CODE on California waters except for some landlocked streams and lakes. No simpler than that.

I don't need to tell you how it works...I'm sure the USCG boarding officer will.... when he boards your boat he/she will be glad to "splain it" to you...

You caught me between edits.

The weakness in your position is that our uncooperative boater was assumed to be engaged in international/interstate commerce, upon federal navigable waters, while tied to a dock.

[psneeld]

As an aside...for the first time in 50 years of boating have I been boarded by the USCG...even in very high areas of USCG operations.

They came aboard my vessel while underway before I even knew it. I felt a bump and the next thing I knew was there was 2 persons walking down my side deck towards the door.

It was the ICW just south of Charleston, SC.

They were wth the local Sheriff's dept and on their boat but obviously were taking the lead.

They did the normal safety inspection but didn't ask for or look into "personal spaces".

I have no problem with this and had no problems with them. My girlfriend was shocked but amazed at how smooth and professional the whole ordeal was...even asked to take their pics for our blog. She is a retired parole officer so she "knows a few things" about the law, the system, big brother, cough, gag and is a raging Democrat. She had no problem with all of it...even though the nighly news makes here sick about "the government".

So I don't get it...why the big brother fear? Breaking the law? Doing something you aren't supposed to? Erosion of freedoms? None of that is happening...at least not in my full time boating world. Worry and spout off if you like....most people I know just giggle and move on.

[Liam Wald]

Originally Posted by ryon

I have a problem with a lot of what has been "taught" in public school. What you describe is a universal authority to make and execute "law". How convieeeenient for getting things done!

Now, if we can get the media to help us along with our plan...

What do you mean... "our plan"?
Please count me out.
I want no part of your little conspiracy.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by ryon

You caught me between edits.

The weakness in your position is that our uncooperative boater was assumed to be engaged in international/interstate commerce, upon federal navigable waters, while tied to a dock.

I have no position...just the facts....look them up...but I think I'm assuming a losing battle there.

He doesn't HAVE to be engaged in commerce...just on waters subject to that jurisdiction which Sausalito obviously (at least to mariners) is. As long as he is "afloat" upon these waters, he is subject to the jurisdiction of the USCG per the US CODE.

[SVNeko]

Don't get hung up on the interstate commerce thing. The US Supreme Court has basically done away with that jurisdictional element, twisting itself into knots to find an effect on commerce everywhere. It has even said that growing pot for one's own use is somehow interstate commerce.

[ryon]

Originally Posted by psneeld

I have no position...just the facts....look them up...but I think I'm assuming a losing battle there.

He doesn't HAVE to be engaged in commerce...just on waters subject to that jurisdiction which Sausalito obviously (at least to mariners) is. As long as he is "afloat" upon these waters, he is subject to the jurisdiction of the USCG per the US CODE.

A tautology. He has to be subject to the jurisdiction to be subject to Title 14, and since Title 14 defines the jurisdiction he is therefore subject. --The "everybody knows" law.

Let's go sailing sometime!

[ryon]

Originally Posted by SVNeko

Don't get hung up on the interstate commerce thing. The US Supreme Court has basically done away with that jurisdictional element, twisting itself into knots to find an effect on commerce everywhere. It has even said that growing pot for one's own use is somehow interstate commerce.

The interstate commerce 'thing" is how the feds gain jurisdiction over just about everything in our lives, and counter to what we've learned about the Constitution. I'd like to recommend that all Americans read U.S. v. Lopez, the definitive case on the limits of federal power. It's legal, it's technical, it has a syllabus and six separate opinions to read, but I find it inspiring.

United States v. Lopez

I've gone way over my limit on this thread, so bye, and let's go sailing!

[CaptFrankM]

Actually, this has nothing to do with interstate commerce and has everything to do with regular commerce. The simple fact is that most of the underlying law that the Coast Guard is using is based on the idea that before the mid 40s, there was very little "recreational" boating in the coastal aters of the United States, which is where the Coast Guard originally had jurisdiction. Because of that, the presumption was - and continues to be - that any vessel afloat IS involved in trade. Because of that, the Coast Guard has the authority to stop and do a "safety and document" inspection at any time.

In addition, in earlier times, it was considered impossible for a Coast Guard vessel to get a warrant every time it wanted to stop a vessel, because there was no way to prevent the vessel from moving while the Coast Guard cutter went to get a warrant.
The Supreme Court has upheld this principle up to the recent past. Just as an aside, the justices of the Supreme Court are the only people in America who can legitmately say whether or not a law is "constitutional." Everyone else may have an opinion, but unless the Supremes declare something unconstitutional, it is the law of the land.

It also has to be remembered that the reason the Coast Guard originally started doing stops was because they were tasked with stopping smuggling into and out of America. So, it would be hard to argue that only "commercial" vessels should be stopped, since if someone were going to smuggle something into the country (drugs or bombs, for example), they could just as easily use a 55 foot Hatteras.

It is POSSIBLE that someone could take a case to the Supreme Court and argue that, given that the percentage of recreational vessels to non-recreational vessels is so much higher now than it was in the days that the original laws were written, the Fourth Amendment right should be presumed. It is also possible that a majority of the justices would agree that the presumption should shift away from the current policy to one that actually requires the Coast Guard to consult with a judge before boarding a vessel, at least within the coastal area.

But the only way that is going to happen is if someone deliberately prevents a Coast Guard officer from boarding by asserting a Fourth Amendment right, and then by fighting the case all the way to the SCOTUS. That's a long way to haul and it would take a chunk of change.

[captain58sailin]

"What do you want to do tonight Brain? The Same thing we do every night Pinky; take over the world!".

[CaptFrankM]

One other thought -

If someone does decide to try to fight this up to the Supreme Court and loses, there is also the distinct possibility that he or she would spend sometime in a Federal jail. The ACLU or the ACLJ or some other "support the Fourth Amendment" group might be willing to pay the lawyers' fees - but the person who started the fight is the one whose liberty is actually on the line.

I suspect that if you show up in a Federal jail and, when asked what you are in for, you answer that you were deliberately protesting against unreasonable search and seizure, you are not going to have a lot of "street cred."

[bill352]

Originally Posted by psneeld

So I don't get it...why the big brother fear? Breaking the law? Doing something you aren't supposed to? Erosion of freedoms? None of that is happening...at least not in my full time boating world. Worry and spout off if you like....most people I know just giggle and move on.

I don't get it either. After all, the innocent have nothing to fear.

Giggle.

*moving on*

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by bill352

I don't get it either. After all, the innocent have nothing to fear.

Giggle.

*moving on*

My point is that getting a warrant isn't going to stop bad law enforcement...and I sure am not going to live in a world without law enforcement.

Name a handful of cases where the USCG abused their power and I would be impressed.

It was an often discussed topic among senior USCG officers about the amount of power given to us and the importance of restraint.

There are a lot greater thing to fear in this country other than the USCG...if your gonna make wave...the USCG should be way down your list.

I'm more pissed at them for suggesting mandatory life jacket wear than I am about their boarding policy....

[captain58sailin]

All of my interactions with the USCG have been completely professional. Which began back in 1968. They have always been a friend and aid to me. I deal with the USCG on a fairly regular basis on a professional level; at sea and shore side, they have always been respectful and considerate, and a well font of information that they willingly share with anyone who cares to ask. I am not thrilled with the centralization of the licensing program, but that is admin, not operations. They risk their lives on an almost daily basis in Alaska for mariners and they are our heroes.

[psneeld]

Originally Posted by captain58sailin

All of my interactions with the USCG have been completely professional. Which began back in 1968. They have always been a friend and aid to me. I deal with the USCG on a fairly regular basis on a professional level; at sea and shore side, they have always been respectful and considerate, and a well font of information that they willingly share with anyone who cares to ask. I am not thrilled with the centralization of the licensing program, but that is admin, not operations. They risk their lives on an almost daily basis in Alaska for mariners and they are our heroes.

They certainly don't do it for the money...just appreciation like this.

For the active duty guys and the ones that have gone before...thank you for the kind words...