Unwarranted search

[thinwater]

Originally Posted by Water Dragon

I heartily congratulate Fred for having the guts to challenge this in court. I've been a liveaboard for a few months now, and have not yet been boarded by the Coast Guard, but the whole idea of cops (no matter how polite they may be) walking into my *home* any time they feel like it, invading my privacy, perhaps catching me at an awkward moment (face half shaved, in the shower, etc), expecting me to answer to them, and looking for reasons to write me a ticket and/or arrest me, really gets me worked up.

PLEASE, everyone, let's stop just apathetically saying 'Oh well' when the police invade our privacy and trample our constitutional rights. Let's band together and force a change! I just sent an email to the ACLU asking if I can make a donation specifically to help with this case. I hope many will donate, and write their congressmen, and make their voices heard in any way they can.

(Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with the ACLU; in fact I disagree with a lot that they do. But in this case I support them 100%.)

If the Coast Guard decides to invite themselves into my home, they WILL be on camera, they WILL be on YouTube, and all they will hear me say is 'I will not answer questions except in the presence of a lawyer' (5th Amendment right).

Photographers' rights: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-right...ng-photographs

Laws on recording conversations in all 50 states: https://www.mwl-law.com/wp-content/u...IONS-CHART.pdf

Privacy Protection Act of 1980 (says 'notwithstanding any other law,' the police can't search or seize your camera or other 'documentary materials' that you intent to publish (i.e., post on the internet)): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/chapter-21A

On inland water there may be an argument to be made. But this case does NOT challenge USCG authority. I suggest you read up on the range of USCG authority.

Do not try what you suggest with the USCG. They will simply arrest you, impound your boat, and the courts will snicker. The USCG is NOT bound by the 4th amendment and the ACLU knows this.
https://mblb.com/admiralty-maritime/...s-coast-guard/
Simply being in coastal waters, like being in an immigration portal, is sufficient cause. I have been stopped. They will be as polite as your are. But they don't have to ask permission.

[Water Dragon]

thinwater, I'm quite aware of the range of USCG authority, and that under current law they're exempt from the 4th Amendment. My point is that the 5th Amendment still applies to ALL law enforcement, including US Customs, including at the border. This I know for a fact. Anything at all you say to the police, even if you're innocent, even if you tell the truth, can be used against you. Innocent people have been put in prison, because of something (truthful) that they said to the police, and only exonerated when new evidence comes up after being in prison 20 years.

[model 10]

[QUOTE=a64pilot;
While I have never been boarded, it’s my understanding that under no circumstances are you allowed below, you wait in the cockpit until they root through whatever they want to.[/QUOTE]


Well I was coming back to FL from the Bahamas about 10 miles offshore at about 3 AM and the USCG came aboard. We all went down below and talked, while the autopilot kept on. One pretty big guy had to root through a compartment below the V berth to check out my pistola. The other guy asked the questions. They were apalled that my flares were outdated by several years, I got a ticket for that. However when they departed, the driver lost it a little and snaged the FX-23 lashed to the stern. Without thinking I screamed you F-----A---'s. They came back and asked if it was OK, I said sure. I never did anything with the ticket.

[TJ D]

Interesting indeed. It has been my understanding that the 4th amendment has been decided by the SCOTUS not to apply to vessels already. This sucks for those of us for whom our boats are our homes, incidentally.
Maybe the ACLU will get somewhere with it.

[CSY Man]

. Going OT here a bit, I just was on a FB post that a boat that is Federally documented must have that documentation number permanently affixed to their boat (inside is fine) preceded by NO. Never heard of that and we don't think it's on our boat anywhere and every time we've been boarded, they've NEVER looked for it. Not sure what's up with that?

Pretty basic stuff about numbers and documentation.
Do a quick Google search and it will all fall into place.
Been that way for many years, not sure what the question is..?

[Suijin]

Originally Posted by CaptsWife

Going OT here a bit, I just was on a FB post that a boat that is Federally documented must have that documentation number permanently affixed to their boat (inside is fine) preceded by NO. Never heard of that and we don't think it's on our boat anywhere and every time we've been boarded, they've NEVER looked for it. Not sure what's up with that?

As mentioned it's always been the case. If you're not aware of this requirement then there may be others for documented vessels that you're not aware of either. Here is a link to the USCG FAQ, and here is the specific requirment:

HOW DO I MARK MY VESSEL?
The official number assigned to documented vessels, preceded by the abbreviation "NO." must be marked in block-type Arabic numerals at least three inches high on some clearly visible interior structural part of the hull. The number must be permanently affixed so that alteration, removal, or replacement would be obvious and cause some scarring or damage to the surrounding hull area.

There are various rational for this requirement, the primary being that it specifically identifies a vessel with it's documentation number, which follows the boat throughout it's life even if it changes hands, even if documentation has lapsed for years and the documentation is renewed. Ergo the stipulation that it be "permanently affixed" You can have a plaque engraved and glue/epoxy it to a bulkhead, or stencil the numbers in the bilge and overcoat them.

[zboss]

Originally Posted by JPA Cate

It helps to look at it from their point of view. They have no way of knowing whether or not you have firearms aboard; the safer thing for them is to assume you do; therefore, keeping you in the cockpit along with whoever else is on your boat at the time, to them, is a simple safety issue.

That's true for a house too (probably much much more likely) and yet they just can't enter your property and search.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Jd1

It will indeed be interesting how this develops.
Up here in Canada, the authorities do conduct random stops to verify safety equipment but I have never heard of a situation where they would turn your boat inside out unless they had good cause.
For a safety check, they come on board, ask you to present relevant papers and then they have a checklist of all the items they expect to see. In this case, they would ask for the skipper to present flotation devices for every person on board - they would not go searching through the boat for flotation devices.
It's stories like these that make me think three times before entering US territory on land or sea.
I must admit though, I have never been mistreated in any of my US (limited as they are) trips.

Even this burns my britches, and I don’t think we in Canada (nor anywhere else that claims to be a free society) should simply accept this.

I know, I know … it’s been tested in court — at least the roadside stops have. Not sure if the boating “safety check” has in Canada. And I know the law as written grants broad authority for police to make these kinds of “safety check” stops. But it still seems like an unreasonable over-reach to me.

I’m perfectly fine with police stopping boats where there is some sort of reasonable grounds to suspect there may be a violation. But I am totally against random stops. This seems an unwarranted and unnecessary breach.

I’d love to see the evidence or data that shows this actually has a positive impact on accident rates, morbidity or mortality.

[Captain Bill]

Just when you think it can't get any worse it does. While the USCG and Customs and border patrol can board and search a US flagged boat virtually anywhere, this has not been true of state law enforcement agencies. The state of Florida, in keeping with it's well established principle of limited government, has given itself unlimited jurisdiction on "any Voyage that begins or ends in Florida". The FWC can now enforce FL laws on any boat that meets this condition no matter how far from shore. They also fail to define Voyage. So does a voyage end at ones next port of call after leaving Florida or if one is going to Maine and has several intermediate ports of call, can the FWC enforce Florida laws anywhere along the east coast? It is illegal to dump raw sewage in FL waters. Does this now apply to federal and international waters if the "Voyage" starts or ends in Florida? This law seems to be a totally unwarranted power grab by the Fl state government and should provide the ACLU with new challenges. The fact of the matter is that many if not most FWC officers were "deputized" by the USCG as a result of the "Patriot Act" passed after 9/11 and could board you, the new twist is applying Florida laws beyond state waters.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

Just when you think it can't get any worse it does. While the USCG and Customs and border patrol can board and search a US flagged boat virtually anywhere, this has not been true of state law enforcement agencies. The state of Florida, in keeping with it's well established principle of limited government, has given itself unlimited jurisdiction on "any Voyage that begins or ends in Florida". The FWC can now enforce FL laws on any boat that meets this condition no matter how far from shore. They also fail to define Voyage. So does a voyage end at ones next port of call after leaving Florida or if one is going to Maine and has several intermediate ports of call, can the FWC enforce Florida laws anywhere along the east coast? It is illegal to dump raw sewage in FL waters. Does this now apply to federal and international waters if the "Voyage" starts or ends in Florida? This law seems to be a totally unwarranted power grab by the Fl state government and should provide the ACLU with new challenges. The fact of the matter is that many if not most FWC officers were "deputized" by the USCG as a result of the "Patriot Act" passed after 9/11 and could board you, the new twist is applying Florida laws beyond state waters.

FL also has some interesting history/definitions of territorial waters.

[Water Dragon]

Hello thinwater,

In your response (to which I made an admittedly hasty reply) to my first post, you made some statements implying that recording videos of the Coast Guard, uploading those videos to YouTube, and/or refusing to answer questions from the Coast Guard are crimes. You didn’t offer any facts or references to back up your statements. If you have any such facts or references, please share them. In the meantime, I don’t want people to be erroneously led to believe that those actions are illegal; therefore, I offer the following facts as a counter-argument.

First, let me say that I’ve never had any actual official contact with the Coast Guard. However, I’ve had fairly extensive contact with US Customs, and for the purposes of my argument, I think I can treat them as more-or-less equal; for the CG and CBP (Customs and Border Protection) are both part of the Department of Homeland Security, and they both have nearly unlimited authority to detain and search people and their belongings. I said “nearly”; I’ll get back to that in a minute.

Is it a crime to record the CG or CBP on camera? CBP certainly takes a dim view on it, and in fact, a person can be detained for taking pictures on CBP Port of Entry property; see Askins and Ramirez v. Department of Homeland Security. CBP officers detained Mr. Askins for “approximately 25-35 minutes” and Mr. Ramirez was detained for “approximately ten to 15 minutes” (stated in the Complaint filed by the ACLU on behalf of Askins and Ramirez) for taking pictures on CBP property. The pertinent point is that neither of these men were arrested or charged with any crime, for CBP’s rule against taking pictures is simply that: a rule. Not a law. The CBP officers did not confiscate either man’s camera or phone, and I think I can safely say that no CBP, CG, or any other officer can legally confiscate someone’s boat just for taking pictures of the police.

Is it a crime to post photos or videos of Homeland Security policemen on the internet? Of course not. This is 1st Amendment freedom of speech and of the press. Look on YouTube: you’ll see many videos of the CG on somebody’s boat, of Border Patrol officers at checkpoints and elsewhere, and other policemen, all recorded by ordinary citizens. One fellow set up a camera outside the gate at a CG base.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFxQzmzjCW4

The woman at the gate yelled at him and called the police, but when the police arrived they confirmed that since the cameraman was on public property, he had the right to be there, and the right to take pictures.

Which brings up another important point: when you’re at a CBP Port of Entry, you’re on their property, and they can make up pretty much any rule they want. When you’re on your own boat on public waters, the police (including CG) have no authority to make you stop taking pictures. See the references in my first post.

You stated that the courts would “snicker” at anyone who challenges the CG in court. In fact, to the best of my knowledge, the only people with sufficient time, motivation and financial wherewithal to do so have been those busted for drugs. It’s no wonder the courts don’t have much sympathy for those people! What would happen if it’s just someone, like Fred, whose only crime is not having enough PFD’s aboard? Even with those drug dealers, the courts have NOT exclusively ruled that all CG boardings are reasonable and Constitutional; see US v. Piner.

Finally: regarding refusal to answer questions. As I stated before, this is a 5th Amendment right, and is in no way a crime. I personally have sometimes invoked my right to be silent at CBP Ports of Entry. Sometimes they detain me and search me; sometimes they don’t. Which is exactly what happens when I DO answer questions and try my best to be polite and cooperative. (That’s just the problem with this kind of broad, discretionary police power: any stupid, innocent little thing—say, being naturally soft-spoken—can make them suspicious of you and get you the whole nine yards. That’s why I don’t accept the reasoning of people who say to just smile and cooperate and get it over with.) Look on YouTube, and you’ll see many, many videos of people at Border Patrol checkpoints (the Border Patrol is part of CBP) refusing to answer questions. No one gets arrested, no one gets his car confiscated, just for keeping his mouth shut.

Oh, and when you do answer their questions, anything you say is likely to end up in CBP’s computer database; this is a well-documented fact, and you can find examples of innocent travelers’ police files, copies of which these innocent travelers have obtained through Freedom of Information and posted on the internet. I’m willing to bet the CG has a similar database.

Maybe you think it’s perfectly all right for the CG to keep on boarding private boats that people live on without cause. In that case, I respect your right to your opinion. Just keep in mind that the opinion of others, including myself, differs. Recording the police on camera, exercising our 5th Amendment rights, and posting videos and stories on the internet for the benefit of others who may wish to do the same, is our way of peacefully resisting what we believe to be government abuse of power. Please do not claim that our actions are illegal unless you can back your statements up with solid facts.

[Jd1]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’d love to see the evidence or data that shows this actually has a positive impact on accident rates, morbidity or mortality.

Well I don't dare cast off without valid flares even though I have about 20 or so (outdated) on board. So I guess one could argue that it helps convince people to have all the right equipment lest they be pulled over and ticketed.

[toddster8]

A while back, I got rid of an old ratty diesel Suburban I had, because the cops just hated it. I got pulled over half a dozen times, for no reason. Anyway, I didn’t have any cameras going, but the cops sure did, and it became obvious that the whole time, they were play-acting for the cameras. I’ll spare you the line-by-line, but it was like a bad joke.
BTW, I am pretty sure that south of the border, you are absolutely not allowed to photograph navy or police. I would certainly ask them politely, first.

Someone above mentioned AIS - the first time I turned on the AIS on this section of river, the Sheriff’s boat immediately made a high-speed run directly at me from five miles away. Probably the first one they’d ever seen, besides the tugboats. Maybe they thought it was a distress beacon? That was a little unnerving, but the Sheriff isn’t particularly scary.

[denverd0n]

First off, when a bunch of men with guns and badges tell you that they are going to board your boat, it is an INCREDIBLY stupid thing to give them attitude and try to tell them what they can, and cannot, do. The fact is that they can do anything they damn please, at that moment. The time to argue the issue is afterwards, probably in a court of law.

That last sentence is why I am very glad that this fellow and the ACLU are fighting his $75 ticket. There is absolutely no reasonable justification for boats to be treated any differently under the Fourth Amendment than a car, or a house. This case focuses on whether or not state agencies can ignore the Fourth Amendment just like the USCG is allowed to, or whether they are bound by it. I can only hope that in the end they are bound by it. I can only hope that, once a court sees that the Fourth Amendment should apply on boats, the USCG will also be reigned in, in this regard.

Searches conducted without probable cause really need to end, but arguing the issue with the officers on the scene, at the time of the stop is simply IDIOTIC. Smile, be polite, cooperate, and then -- afterwards -- find a pitbull of an attorney to do your arguing for you.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

First off, when a bunch of men with guns and badges tell you that they are going to board your boat, it is an INCREDIBLY stupid thing to give them attitude and try to tell them what they can, and cannot, do. The fact is that they can do anything they damn please, at that moment. The time to argue the issue is afterwards, probably in a court of law. ...

I agree with you in principle (and in practice), but ain’t it sad that the exact same advice is usually given for dealing with pirates or other criminals; Be compliant, don’t give them attitude. Acquiesce in the moment to fight another day.

Sad our so-called “free” societies have come to this .