Drug interceptions on the high seas

[Scotty Kiwi]

Originally Posted by PommyDave

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.

Yes that is fairly much correct. Alain Marfart was one agent's name. The intergovernmental negotiation took months or years and coincided with the period during which Britain was joining the EEC (predecessor to EU) . The French made it clear that they would resist NZ's trade access ((for meat products) to the EEC (including the traditional UK market) unless M. Marfart was released from NZ jail into French custody. The French "imprisoned" him on one of their Pacific Islands.

[Scotty Kiwi]

So, whilst entirely unworried about drug interception, as a NZ person on an NZ flagged yacht:
1. - in international waters, if any vessel hailed me to stop and be boarded, I would initially refuse for reasons of time deadline/safety/weather concerns as appropriate, and if they pressed, ask them their reasons for requiring boarding. If their reasons were those stated in post #2 by StuM, then I'd stop.
2. - in international waters, if a NZ vessel (or one manned by an NZ official) identified itself and hailed me to stop and be boarded, I would initially refuse for reasons of time safety deadline, and if pressed ask them their reasons. If their given reasons were those stated in post #2, and/or if they suspected a breach if NZ law, I'd stop. (But I am still not sure about this one as a NZ flag/NZ citizen. Would apply to US flag/US citizen though).
3. - in the national waters of a country other than NZ, and if I did not intend to go to that country, when hailed I'd do the same, but also explain my destination was not that country and claim "right of innocent passage". The reasons for stopping would be as per 2. and/or a suspected breach of local country laws?
4. - In the national waters of NZ, I'd do what I was told without much hesitation.
5. - If any vessel identifies itself as a Naval of CG vessel and threatens force, do what they say after an initial refusal for given reasons. (There is no need to give reasons, but it is always good practice).

Does this cover it as any of the properly informed experts here understand it?

It seems that drug interdiction is not a reason to stop your foreign flag vessel in international waters. The episode (referred to in this thread) in the Western Indian Ocean (close to Africa) where the NZ navy stopped a vessel and seized drugs but let the crew go. I Recall at the time the NZ press stated piracy concerns, or more specifically (I am pretty sure) that the intell was that the drug smuggling was to finance piracy or terror operations. To me this means the authorities were able to claim compliance with the summary given by Stu in post #2.

The only actual experience I have had of anything close to this was a bit north of Lord Howe (mid Tasman) en route NZ to Queensland going NNW. Around 2 am the radar showed I was being shadowed by two vessels 8 miles astern about a mile apart. I hailed them on 16 as "unidentified vessels", giving my vessel name NZ call sign, departure port and destination, stating as per the trip plan I had already reported, and asking them to state their intentions as to course (risk of collision). They did not respond at all, but after ten minutes or so turned due west at speed.

Then there are sometimes planes when approaching NZ from the south pac.

I think I would adopt the tactics of hailing any vessel in any waters, only excepting any where there is strong piracy risk and we were a boat alone (which ain't gonna happen either). Be proactive.

Do people think that is still best practice?

[Maker42]

These days in Canada and USA (maybe others), due to the civil asset forfeiture laws, the modern day pirates have badges, guns, and the full force of the government cartel behind them. They are known to target people who they suspect are travelling with lots of cash and/or valuables. If you're not familiar with this, I'll leave it to you to do the research.

Therefore it behooves all open water travelers to NOT keep things of great value in your vessel.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by Scotty Kiwi

The New Zealand official whose job it is to give permission was busy looking after his sick kids that day. <grin>. Or maybe he was asleep due to the time difference.

The boat in the story was also apparently travelling southbound, not the direction of drug smuggling, so perhaps the Navy boat got bored.

[Schooner Chandlery]

Originally Posted by Aquadome

That's a lovely story .... now consider this one. A elderly couple (US citizens on US flagged MY) pushing 70 on a 48' liveaboard heading back to FL after a delightful day on the water are boarded by the coasties. They are commanded to stay up in the flybridge and not to come down while the boys spent over 2 hours going through every nook and cranny, emptied every single drawer and cabinets contents on the beds and floors and basically trashed the boat. They found nothing obviously and when they were done they left a mess which took a couple days to clean up.



I was speechless when they told me and lost any respect I had for the boys.

Stories are stories and not necessarily true. Where did you hear or read this one? It doesn't pass the smell test IMO and I'd like to know the source. Thanks.

[buzzstar]

Originally Posted by Schooner Chandlery

Stories are stories and not necessarily true. Where did you hear or read this one? It doesn't pass the smell test IMO and I'd like to know the source. Thanks.

Stories such as this were common not too many years ago. Enough so that they, at least enough, to be effectively noticed, were believed, and probably true. Many the stories related to significant structural damage to the vessel, not just failure to clean up. There was a fairly substantial public out cry about the USCG trashing boats, and the fact that there was no avenue of recovery for the innocent. The same thing would occur at the border crossings with cars. I do not recall any detail, but I believe there was a policy change, act least involving the USCG, perhaps at the borders as well, that resulted in more careful and less destructive search methods. I wish I could remember if the U.S. law was changed to allow damage claims against the agency involved.

[LLizzard]

Originally Posted by buzzstar

Stories such as this were common not too many years ago. Enough so that they, at least enough, to be effectively noticed, were believed, and probably true. Many the stories related to significant structural damage to the vessel, not just failure to clean up. There was a fairly substantial public out cry about the USCG trashing boats, and the fact that there was no avenue of recovery for the innocent. The same thing would occur at the border crossings with cars. I do not recall any detail, but I believe there was a policy change, act least involving the USCG, perhaps at the borders as well, that resulted in more careful and less destructive search methods. I wish I could remember if the U.S. law was changed to allow damage claims against the agency involved.

Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!

[svHyLyte]

Originally Posted by svlamorocha

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.

I believe you mistake the purpose of my comment. It was in response to Factor's comment, #63, pertaining to the right of the USCG to board a US Flagged vessel at any time. His comment indicated it was his understanding that the USCG could not do so if the US Flagged vessel was within the territorial waters of another country. That is not so as the US Flagged vessel is considered US territory, similar to a US Embassy, by the US, hence US law prevails as to that vessel and the USCG may board regardless of its location. My comment was not with respect to occupants of the US Flagged vessel being exempt from the local laws of the country where they are situated which is specifically not the case. While certain staff and employees of a county's Embassy may enjoy "Diplomatic Immunity" from prosecution by a host country, a privilege that has been hugely abused in many cases--particularly by foreign "diplomats" in the US--in such cases they are commonly "deported" post haste, that, of course, is not the case with US citizens aboard a US Flagged yacht who are specifically subject to the laws of the host country, regardless of US law. (E.g. one cannot assert one's 2nd Amendment rights in a foreign country where firearms are prohibited.)

FWIW...