To board or not to board, that is the question

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Assuming there is no indication or suspicion that you crossed the border, it's totally wrong and against the constitution for them to go fishing but that doesn't help when the courts let them get away with it. If a cop pulled over a car for no reason and asked to go thru the trunk, the courts would toss any evidence they found in a heartbeat but for no good reason the courts don't take the same approach with the CG.

We see this all the time in these discussions.

Forget it. The analogy doesn't work.

The CG has the right to do so, and someone will cite chapter and verse to you if you wanna hear it.

Now, what gets me back up is when LEOs think they;re the CG. THAT my friend is truly wrong.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

There are many threads on this.
What it amount to is you are not free from unreasonable search and seizure, do not have the same privacy you have in your land based home, this is not new, it has always, or at least for the last 200 yrs or so been like this.............................................. ..

And to this add The Patriot (gag me) Act. No longer at home either.

[wayne.b]

Originally Posted by LLCoolDave

Last month I was crewing on a 42ft boat and we got boarded outside of Ft. Pierce, FL. As the coasties pulled up they asked when was the last time the boat had been boarded. The owners said the boat was new to them and it had never been boarded. It makes me wonder if they said "two months ago" if the coasties would have bothered.

===

They would probably have asked to see a copy of the "yellow sheet" which is the document you are given after a boarding/inspection. They will usually not reinspect if you're yellow sheet is less than 6 months old.

[tdoster]

Originally Posted by CarlF

The CG can board US vessels without probable cause anywhere in the world.

They can board vessels of any nation without probable cause: (a) in US waters (economic zone is 200 miles out) (b) if the US has an agreement with the foreign country (many), or (c) by making a quick call to the State Department to get permission from the country's embassy (which is unlikely to be denied for a law enforcement issue).

I also think the Federal law the CG uses violates the 4th Amendment for probable cause. Some day there will be another court case to look at it again. The CG (as the Revenue Service) was given broad inspection powers because customs duties on ships cargo coming into the US was the primary source of revenue for the new federal government. It wasn't drug interdiction. It wasn't safety - life jackets hadn't been invented.

I can see no reason that the CG shouldn't be required to have probable cause to board a vessel - except when the vessel is entering US waters from the high seas.

Personally, I have never had an issue with the CG boardings, but what is concerning since 9/11 after the CG was brought up under DHS, those powers have extended to many agencies under the Homeland Security umbrella.

The Coast Guard was formed in 1790 to collect revenue and protect from smuggling with the signing of the Tariff Act by President Washington.

In 1915 it was merged with the US Life-Saving Service and then included the duties of search and rescue.

In 1939, they were transferred the duties for aids to navigation

In 1946 the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation was transferred to them.

It all went to crap in 2002 when THEY were transferred to the DHS.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by tdoster

Personally, I have never had an issue with the CG boardings, but what is concerning since 9/11 after the CG was brought up under DHS, those powers have extended to many agencies under the Homeland Security umbrella.

The Coast Guard was formed in 1790 to collect revenue and protect from smuggling with the signing of the Tariff Act by President Washington.

In 1915 it was merged with the US Life-Saving Service and then included the duties of search and rescue.

In 1939, they were transferred the duties for aids to navigation

In 1946 the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation was transferred to them.

It all went to crap in 2002 when THEY were transferred to the DHS.

At least they had money when part of Revenue.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

We see this all the time in these discussions.

Forget it. The analogy doesn't work.

The CG has the right to do so, and someone will cite chapter and verse to you if you wanna hear it.

Now, what gets me back up is when LEOs think they;re the CG. THAT my friend is truly wrong.

The analogy works perfectly. Any law that conflicts with the Constitution is supposed to be tossed out, so they can cite any law they want. If they don't have reasonable cause, it's still fall under your right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

Assuming there isn't a border crossing involved, 99% of the time the CG is acting as a LEO and should have no special rights (so it's very odd that it steams your shorts when a non-CG LEO violates your rights but for some reason it's OK when a CG LEO violates your rights).

Without probable cause, they shouldn't be allowed to search your boat without your permission (and failure to give permission is not probable cause).

That's the law. What happens in real life is something else. I'm going to be polite and not kick up a fuss because the courts have sided against the Constitution and it's going to cause me a whole lot more problem being belligerent. The fact that they've gotten away with it for a century or more doesn't mean it's right.

[Stu Jackson]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The analogy works perfectly.
That's the law.

Yeah, but it doesn't and it's not.

CG Boarding deniers have been around since forever.

The LEO stuff spikes me because they aren't the CG and act like they are. Perhaps you saw my post about the PA?

[sailorboy1]

People with assault guns can board you anytime.

I was anchored across from the CG station in Gloucester MA earlier this year and was pulling up anchor as the Coasties were going out to start their day. By the time we got out of the outer harbor we had watched them board 3 boats. But they didn't board us and we have never gotten inspected so I wonder what triggers their attention and how so many forum members get pulled over over and over.

[tdoster]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

The analogy works perfectly. Any law that conflicts with the Constitution is supposed to be tossed out, so they can cite any law they want. If they don't have reasonable cause, it's still fall under your right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

The road to hell is paved with well intended laws when they were passed. Once a law is enacted at the Federal level, it almost never gets over-turned by the courts regardless of how it is impedes the Constitution, or in this case, the Bill of Rights. Maritime law is outdated and makes little sense in some cases, but will not be changed in our lifetime.

The fact that after 9/11, the US Government formed the Department of Homeland Security, gave it all kinds of rights to violate the Constitution via Act and Law and tosses it all under the umbrella of "Homeland Protection" both trumps the rights of citizens as well as makes it near impossible to challenge.

Common sense logic should state that a liveaboard boat moored on private property where the ground rights are owned by the boat owner and liveaboard should be extended the same rights of any other home on American soil. Even though the property is owned, the navigable water it now contains is under full control of the Federal Government and the EPA has reached long and far on their definition of Federally Controlled water, which if you read verbatim includes the puddle in a back yard in Iowa. That means, once you launch your boat from dry land to any waterway, it no longer affords the rights of unreasonable search and seizure.

You would think with common sense logic this should be easy to fight up to the Supreme Court, but not so much...

[Shrew]

Originally Posted by fgd3

I don't think anyone finds it unreasonable that they removed the magazine from the gun. But when they hid the two pieces in different places that goes beyond basic gun safety.

Fabbian

Apologies for thread drift..

Let me google that for you

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Stu Jackson

Yeah, but it doesn't and it's not.

CG Boarding deniers have been around since forever.

The LEO stuff spikes me because they aren't the CG and act like they are. Perhaps you saw my post about the PA?

Who's denying that they get away with illegal search and seizure? I readily admit they do it, they have the guns to let them do it and the courts support their illegal actions.

Until you show me the clause in the Constitution where I says "except for the CG", it's illegal to conduct a search without reasonable cause.

[Cadence]

The condemnation of the Coasties and LEOs seems plan ass stupid. If you are in compliance with the law what is your bitch. Both are probably under paid, and don't want to give you any **** more than you want some. Yep, I guess Constitutionality could be argued. I hope if you need them they worry about that. JMHO

[Cottontop]

In 1790, the first Congress, the same one that adopted the 4th Amendment, passed the first law allowing suspicionless boarding of vessels, deciding that that was not the type of unreasonable search prohibited by the Amendment.

This determination has been upheld by the Supreme Court a number of times. See United States v. Villamonte-Marquez for a good discussion.

[Cadence]

Originally Posted by Cottontop

In 1790, the first Congress, the same one that adopted the 4th Amendment, passed the first law allowing suspicionless boarding of vessels, deciding that that was not the type of unreasonable search prohibited by the Amendment.

This determination has been upheld by the Supreme Court a number of times. See United States v. Villamonte-Marquez for a good discussion.

Thanks for the research.

[belizesailor]

Had a rather confrontational friend who used to answer "no" to that courtesy question...for some reason his boardings never went well...and he seemed to get boarded a lot more often than most...maybe got him on their sh!t list.