Seattle Anchoring Law Legal ?

[chris5977]

Originally Posted by senormechanico

Hah ! Try arguing with the water cop who tells you to move and you'll find out.

OK, I found it. There are a handful of laws that are crimes, such as boating while drunk. All of the rest of the Habor Code code would be a civil infraction, meaning a fine only.

SMC 16.64.040 Violation -- Penalty.

Except as provided in this title, failure to perform any act required or the
performance of any act prohibited by this title is designated as a civil
infraction and may not be classified as a criminal offense. The provisions
of the Seattle Municipal Code Sections 11.31.020 through 11.31.070 shall
apply to the disposition of such civil infractions.

[Flipper]

Sure would be nice to explore the ordinance while land based. Better than trying to argue with someone on the water. Florida state regulators took anchoring out of local municipal control. All you need to say is FL statute 327.41 and all the Florida locals leave you alone. Big ataboy to Florida Fish and Wildlife and the Florida legislature. They understand what boating friendly realy means.

[chris5977]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Yeah, it's a common thing. I remember when Seattle added the water cops.... maybe 20 years ago now? I couldnt figure out whey they did so , but supposedly did to help with crime from coming from the water. Of course what really happened is they had little to do, so harrassed the people trying to enjoy the water, and still do. I'd sure like to see the statistics and see if the crime rate went down since they've been there. maybe a big budget savings is in order... :>)

Seattle has had a harbor patrol unit since time immemorial. Attached is a 1966 newspaper mentioning them. At some point in the distant past there was a separate Harbor Patrol Department that merged with the police, but there has always been law enforcement on the water.

I'd be curious to hear the story of how a Seattle Harbor Patrol officer "harassed" you. I've never seen them be anything but polite and courteous. Are you sure you're not thinking of the Coast Guard?

The City has an obligation to provide law enforcement services in its jurisdiction. Do you seriously think it should be anarchy on the waters of the biggest city in the state?

[Cheechako]

Maybe I'm thinking of when they added them to Lake Union. All I know is once that was done, they seemed to be continually stopping boats just passing through the lake checking for life jackets etc.
I know some people probably think this is great, but I dont. In theory they cant stop your car without cause, it should be the same on the water.
Right now the PD/sherrif is trying to hire more cops ( a year ago there was the big flap over laying off) due to the murder rate on the streets in Belltown and south Seattle. maintaining an on the water fleet has got to a pretty low bang for the buck in my opinion.

[chris5977]

Originally Posted by Cheechako

Maybe I'm thinking of when they added them to Lake Union. All I know is once that was done, they seemed to be continually stopping boats just passing through the lake checking for life jackets etc.
I know some people probably think this is great, but I dont. In theory they cant stop your car without cause, it should be the same on the water.
Right now the PD/sherrif is trying to hire more cops ( a year ago there was the big flap over laying off) due to the murder rate on the streets in Belltown and south Seattle. maintaining an on the water fleet has got to a pretty low bang for the buck in my opinion.

That's fine if you don't like boating safety rules, but the law is the law. I don't think you should castigate the police for doing their job. Maybe joining the libertarian party and working to change the laws would be more constructive. According to the RCW, the state patrol CAN just pull you over for a vehicle inspection, though I've never seen it done.

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — Authorized — Powers additional.

To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or to submit the motor vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. No criminal citation shall be issued for a period of ten days after giving a warning ticket pointing out the defect.

Again, you're stating that at one point in its past, one of the largest cities in the United States had no law enforcement on its waters. I'm highly skeptical this could be true. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

And I don't see what the murder rate or police staffing has to do with anything. Seattle Police have not laid off an officer since I've lived here in 1992. There were only 20 murders in Seattle in 2011, which is astonishing low for the city of this size.

[chris5977]

I did some research and found that it is an $87 fine to anchor outside of a designated moorage in Seattle.

Municipal Court of Seattle - Violations

[Cheechako]

Again, you're stating that at one point in its past, one of the largest cities in the United States had no law enforcement on its waters. I'm highly skeptical this could be true. Do you have any evidence to back this up?

I made no such statement.
If you like being harassed, so be it. Seattle Murder rate is “only” half that of New York. You might see that as a glass half full, I see it as half empty.

“The city violent crime rate for Seattle in 2010 was higher than the national violent crime rate average by 40.41% and the city property crime rate in Seattle was higher than the national property crime rate average by 81.89%.

In 2010 the city violent crime rate in Seattle was higher than the violent crime rate in Washington by 80.62% and the city property crime rate in Seattle was higher than the property crime rate in Washington by 44.36%.”

Obviously you are one of those people who dont believe in the constitution, I doubt that the Seattle RCW you quoted would pass an appropriate lawsuit test.

"The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution authorizes police to make an arrest as long as they have "probable cause". The Fourth Amendment states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The idea behind probable cause is to prevent the sort of police states that exist in other countries, where officials can simply round up people they don't like as "undesirables" or "threats" without any justification. This standard is deliberately vague, but over time the interpretation of what constitutes probable cause has become fairly solidified:

• Probable cause is established through factual evidence, and not just suspicions or hunches.
• Probable cause can be established through observation alone (sight, smell, sound, etc), and includes observations that create suspicion based on a familiar pattern of criminal activity, such as when an officer sees a car circling around an area repeatedly or when someone is flashing their headlights.
• Probable cause can be based on information derived from witnesses, victims and informants.
• Probable cause can be based on police expertise, such as recognition of gang signs, detection of tools appropriate for committing certain crimes, or knowledge of movements and gestures that indicate criminal activity.
• Probable cause can be based on circumstantial evidence that only indirectly indicates that a crime has occurred, such as a broken window."

Four members of my family have been/are in Law Enforcement. It's definitely a tough job. In many instances they have autonomy on what to act on and what not to act on. There are currently so many crimes on the books that they could make arrests easily all day long. Unfortunately things have changed a lot. Yesterday an unarmed man in Western Washingon was shot to death for "charging" an officer. By today's rules that's just fine. By yesterday's rules a night stick would suffice.
What if that occurred to some cruiser who drank too much and was shot to death in say the D.R.? We'd probably all be bitching about it....

[GordMay]

... Seattle Murder rate is “only” half that of New York. You might see that as a glass half full, I see it as half empty ...

I see it as a glass too large.

[Jammer Six]

If someone brings the fourth amendment up to a cop on patrol, that tells me everything I need to know about that person.

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

If someone brings the fourth amendment up to a cop on patrol, that tells me everything I need to know about that person.

Well, when a cop starts hassling you based on his mis-perception of you you may change your tune.

I am 'migrating' to a liveaboard while I refit my boat, so I live in a small airstream-like silver trailer, it's old and simple but I like it. And it's pulled by a cheap panel van I got from the Navy.

Driving down the road, a cop pulls over in front of me, when I pass he turned on his lights then made a U-turn and then immediately pulled me over for having a broken brake light. I was in a school zone going 20 mph up-hill... Literally never hit the brakes.

Few Days later I'm pulling out of my mailbox driveway and a cop nearly got whiplash as his head turned as he passed while he sized me up. He stops in an empty lot at the end of the block and waits. I have to pass him he immediately falls in behind me, and pulls me over because I have expired registration. (it's not, I just didn't put the sticker on yet)

Boy lemme tell ya, that cop had good vision because the trailer blocks direct view of the plate, it's on the right side recessed behind the window and he was on the left side of his car and to the left of me viewing the plate at about a 20 degree angle, and yet he claims he was able to see the black colored 1/4" high part that says the month on the tag that was 25' away on an unlit plate at night in a torrential rain, wile driving on Pac-highway at 50 Mph.

I was cited both times for having no proof of insurance (couldn't find it) I should note that both of these police reports, are PERJURY. But whatever.

Few days after that, I'm parked in SODO/Georgetown which is a commercial/industrial part of seattle, with a few older homes as well. I'm parked across the street from a county maintenance garage, but the side I was on had houses. The County has free public WiFi. Bout 10 PM Seattle PD knocks on the door and says I need to move to a street with 'fewer houses.' Literally across the street is a beater van with someone obviously living in it, and on the cross-street there are ELEVEN semi-trucks with sleeper cabs. But my van with the couple grand worth of solar and the $6,000 dirt bike visible in the back, that looks like 'trouble.'

It gets old after a while. It's only a matter of time before I start spouting off about the constitution as well.

[Jammer Six]

It's always best to understand the law before one spouts off about the constitution.

I'm constantly amazed at the misinterpretations, misunderstandings and flat out ignorance what the constitution actually does is subjected to.

Bring it up with a cop on patrol, and he will put you in a room with other constitutional scholars, and you can all discuss it together until you make bail.

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by Jammer Six

It's always best to understand the law before one spouts off about the constitution.

I'm constantly amazed at the misinterpretations, misunderstandings and flat out ignorance what the constitution actually does is subjected to.

Bring it up with a cop on patrol, and he will put you in a room with other constitutional scholars, and you can all discuss it together until you make bail.

And I'm always surprised when people are so dismissive of what it does, actually say & actually mean:

"Seattle does have problems," Stearns says. "Anytime you've got the officers, you know, routinely — 20 percent of the time — violating our constitutional rights, that's a huge problem."

"That 20 percent figure comes from the Justice Department. U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan explained that figure at a news conference in December: "We found in the cases that we reviewed that when officers used force, it was done in an unconstitutional and excessive manner nearly 20 percent of the time."

Faith In Seattle Police 'Shaken' By DOJ Investigation : NPR


All I can tell you is that in the last month I've been stopped/talked to 3 times, before that I think the last time I was stopped for ANYTHING was about 10 years ago. And in 2 of those three cases the police outright lied on something insignificant. You'll not convince me they wouldn't also lie if the stakes were higher.

And the 3rd case those two officers just pulled it completely out of their @$$ when they told me to move my RV at 10 pm from an industrial area.
http://www.seattle.gov/transportatio...king72hour.htm


"“Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.” -Albert Einstein

[SVNeko]

I don't know what jammer6 is talking about. There is plenty of 4th amendment caselaw supporting the idea that states can't bless illegal searches and seizures with inspection, licensing or other regulatory requirements. Some busybody lawyer will have that statute tossed out one day.

[Nicholson58]

Originally Posted by sdowney717

are signs posted saying no anchoring?
If I owned that property, I might put one out there, perhaps several signs.
Nothing worse than coming out to the backyard and seeing some offending boat anchored in your water. I think people must feel they own the water and rights not to see unwanted boats anchored. Land owners also think those people may come ashore on my land or make loud noises, raft up with other party boats, get drunk, be a nuisance. And you will see people moving around on the boats, just an unwanted presence, an intrusion from a private land point of view.

This is like being irritated that your neighbor has the gaul to sit on his deck where you can see him move. God forbid they talk.

Riparian water rights in Michigan gives the landowners the bottom of the lake towards the center as it naturally meets the other land owners claims. Other laws, however, give the right to anyone to trespass from the water's edge to the 100 year high water mark. This lets anyone walk the entire beach at the water's edge. Further, you may not restrict the temporary use of the beach where hazzard or danger is involved. I can't think of any place where any land owner on our inland lakes would make a stink about anchoring, fishing, trolling etc. The general limit is 100 feet off structure or beach. When things look nuts, the old adage is "follow the money". Somebody or some city, marina thinks they can force you to pay them with laws in their favor.

An interesting alternative to this confrontational system is practised at Little Current, Ontario in the North Channel. The city marina is entirely free including water, showers, toilets and power as long as you leave the dock by 9:30 PM. The bennefit to the local economy, Booze, restaurants, fuel, pump-out, provisions is worth way more than the real cost of dockage. Stay overnight and pay a reasonalble fee. If you are not held hostage for steep dockage people spend a lot more and keep smiling. Lots of places nearby to drop the hook.

A look at the charts for the greater Seatle area shows a lot of designated sea ways where you would not even consider anchoring. It is also rediculously deep over most of the inlet, even right up to the beach. Such terrain (mountainous) is usually not good holding either. It is surprising, however, that there is no 'designated anchoage' zone defined in the obvous looking areas. I noticed designated anchorage at Blake Island and it appears there are a lot of contorted bays outside of the main fairways. Is anchoing not permited in these more remote areas?

[xymotic]

Originally Posted by Nicholson58

This is like being irritated that your neighbor has the gaul to sit on his deck where you can see him move. God forbid they talk.

Riparian water rights in Michigan gives the landowners the bottom of the lake towards the center as it naturally meets the other land owners claims. Other laws, however, give the right to anyone to trespass from the water's edge to the 100 year high water mark. This lets anyone walk the entire beach at the water's edge. Further, you may not restrict the temporary use of the beach where hazzard or danger is involved. I can't think of any place where any land owner on our inland lakes would make a stink about anchoring, fishing, trolling etc. The general limit is 100 feet off structure or beach. When things look nuts, the old adage is "follow the money". Somebody or some city, marina thinks they can force you to pay them with laws in their favor.

An interesting alternative to this confrontational system is practised at Little Current, Ontario in the North Channel. The city marina is entirely free including water, showers, toilets and power as long as you leave the dock by 9:30 PM. The bennefit to the local economy, Booze, restaurants, fuel, pump-out, provisions is worth way more than the real cost of dockage. Stay overnight and pay a reasonalble fee. If you are not held hostage for steep dockage people spend a lot more and keep smiling. Lots of places nearby to drop the hook.

A look at the charts for the greater Seatle area shows a lot of designated sea ways where you would not even consider anchoring. It is also rediculously deep over most of the inlet, even right up to the beach. Such terrain (mountainous) is usually not good holding either. It is surprising, however, that there is no 'designated anchoage' zone defined in the obvous looking areas. I noticed designated anchorage at Blake Island and it appears there are a lot of contorted bays outside of the main fairways. Is anchoing not permited in these more remote areas?

Yes but blake island is actually a park and *I think* has mooring buoys, it's way outside city limits. Really it's just lake washington, lake union and the Duwamish river that people are talking about that are actually 'in' Seattle, and the areas you can anchor are legitimately just about the only place you'd want for the same reasons you cited.

Nautical Chart Viewer: Lake Washington Ship Canal and Lake Washington