# What are the Boarding/Inspection Laws and Procedures?



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

I've heard that a sailboat isn't protected from searches as would be a home. Which is to say, in the USA, any law-enforcement agency can board any vessel at any time.

So my question is, where can I find that in writing? What law is it? Does that law apply to all bodies of water, or are inland waterways under a different legal code?

I figure this is something that's been hashed out before, but I couldn't seem to dig up any threads on it when I searched around.

Thanks!


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

33 CFR 101.515 requires vessel, facility, and OCS facility owners and operators to permit law enforcement officials with the above mentioned identification to enter or board their property at any time, without delay or obstruction.

Title 46 of the U.S. Code. 

In local waters you will then have those local LEO to contend with and their authority stems from State and Local statutes, what is normal in their area, and quite honestly what they can get away with.

In areas near "Points of interest" as described by Homeland Security, you will have one (or more) of their 33 organizational units, or OE's or what ever the newest million dollar paperwork change is calling them...to contend with on top of the CG, which is one of the subordinate OE's they now manage.

Around DC and other targets, gets even murkier as to who is in charge..

Good luck figuring out where their Authority derives from...they often seem to make it up as they go.

As hashed on this site several times, you have but two choices...submit to the search with as best attitude you can muster...or become the poster child for a Supreme Court challenge that will still require you to submit, now with cuffs and a companion with a sidearm in your personal space.

YMMV as will the opinions you get..


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Check your 46 CFR Subpart 26.15
USCG can board your vessel at any time as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(43).


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

Very cool.. and now an even dumber question than the first one.. what waters do 33 CFR 101.515, Title 46 of the U.S. Code, and 46 CFR Subpart 26.15 govern? Could the local county sheriffs point to that code and use it to board and do a complete search of all areas of a boat?

For what it's worth, I don't take any offense to the above laws. They are what they are. I'm more interested in understanding them than worrying about them. But I'm not smart enough to stumble through the legalease and refer to subsection b part e(ii) with respect to paragraph 7 section 1a as it pertains to rule 41 section 3Ra(i), but not including section 4 or 6 section 3. So getting the bottom line from you guys.. that's handy to me


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

For the USCG all Naviable waters of the USA and territories.

If your vessel is used commercially or as a vacation or weekender then any LEO may come aboard. If it is a live aboard, it is your home and only the USCG can board without warrants. Anyway that is to my understanding and I could be mistaken here.
Anyway I don't argue with people who carry guns for a living. And seeing that I'm an old fuddy duddy (others opinion), I'm not worried about a search of my vessel... Nothing there to hide.


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

though, to be clear, it's also handy to have the actual written references, so at least I can begin to have the discussions with other people.. and maybe even eventually understand it myself. So keep it coming 

--Thanks again


----------



## rockDAWG (Sep 6, 2006)

I am with the old school. In the open sea or bay, I lay low and let the authority do what ever they want. Hope they are not the bad ones and leave me alone after they find out I pose no risk to them. I deal with my rights when I am on land.


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

Waters that are not federaly regulated will have state regulations, and federaly regulated waters within states will also have state regulations.

Depending in your state and municipality you may also have law enforcement from the state department of natural resources, fish and boat commissions, state and municipal marine police units,....

Document and safety inspection do not require probable cause.

Probable cause for boarding may include a child under 12 without PFD, open alchohol containers, funny smell, erratic behaviour,....

Read the information that comes with your state boat registration, it may includes regulations or information on the regulations.

Comply with the saftey regulations and documentation requirements, be polite to the officers, they have a hard enough job as it is, and it is for our own safety.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Please note that there is a difference between *SUBMITTING TO A SEARCH* and *GIVING PERMISSION FOR THEM TO SEARCH*. *Submitting to a search preserves your Constitutional Rights against unreasonable search and seizure, giving permission DOES NOT. *

*I would highly recommend that if you are boarded and they request to search your boat, that you clearly state that you are SUBMITTING TO THE SEARCH, but ARE NOT GIVING PERMISSION FOR THE SEARCH. *


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

sailingdog said:


> Please note that there is a difference between *SUBMITTING TO A SEARCH* and *GIVING PERMISSION FOR THEM TO SEARCH*. *Submitting to a search preserves your Constitutional Rights against unreasonable search and seizure, giving permission DOES NOT. *
> 
> *I would highly recommend that if you are boarded and they request to search your boat, that you clearly state that you are SUBMITTING TO THE SEARCH, but ARE NOT GIVING PERMISSION FOR THE SEARCH. *


You have mentioned this before, but I still can't figure how it is relevant to a boat boarding. The USCG does not need a warrant for a search. Since they don't have a warrant, and they don't have to specify what they are searching for, basically anything that they find is submissible in court. So whether you gave permission or not doesn't matter.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"it's also handy to have the actual written references,"
Then you'd want to start with 1770's period correspondence, regarding the intent of the Fourth Amendment, and subsequent case law, court decisions, and legislation ever since.
If the King's men aren't allowed to search your saddlebags or carriage, and they are only allowed to search your car (in modern times) under specific circumstances (that the US Supreme Court has modified from time to time) then how do you think the laws relate to boats?
Right, that's subject to change as well. Man with many teammates and guns says he's gona search your boat? You try telling him that's illegal.

It isn't just boats, "pat downs" of pedestrians for guns and other contraband have been the subject of lawsuits in recent years as well. "He fit the profile" may or may not constitute reasonable grounds for a search, depending on who you ask.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

It does matter.

If any LEO organization is searching the boat WITH your permission, and they find something illegal, getting it admitting into a court of law is much easier than if you submitted to the search but did not give permission. If you submitted, but did not give permission, the prosecution generally has to prove that the search and its results ARE ADMISSIBLE...with your permission, there is no requirement to do so as I understand it.

This same distinction has been argued in cases involving the NYC MTA Police and their random search of people using the subway system. The MTA Police also do not require a warrant.



remetau said:


> You have mentioned this before, but I still can't figure how it is relevant to a boat boarding. The USCG does not need a warrant for a search. Since they don't have a warrant, and they don't have to specify what they are searching for, basically anything that they find is submissible in court. So whether you gave permission or not doesn't matter.


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

Boasun said:


> Check your 46 CFR Subpart 26.15
> USCG can board your vessel at any time as defined in 46 U.S.C. 2101(43).


Boasun, I checked the code however it does not specify how far from the US Shore does the USCG have jurisdiction.

Jerry


----------



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

Jerry, I believe I read on wikipedia some time ago, when I was reading about the coast guard, that they have jurisdiction on all boats inside US waters and on all US-flagged boats anywhere in the world. I could be misremembering, IANAL, etc.


----------



## FSMike (Jan 15, 2010)

rmeador said:


> Jerry, I believe I read on wikipedia some time ago, when I was reading about the coast guard, that they have jurisdiction on all boats inside US waters and on all US-flagged boats anywhere in the world. I could be misremembering, IANAL, etc.


That is correct to the best of my knowledge.
That is also why you will occasionally find USCG personnel riding on other agencies/countries vessels.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

US waters, for the purposes of law enforcement, only extend 12 NM from shore IIRC.


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

A US flagged vessel and all US citizens and legal residents are subject to US laws anywhere, in addition to being subject to the laws of a host country.


----------



## dupek (Aug 6, 2010)

Someone mention open container, funny smell. If I live aboard then it is my home. When I am at home, I like to drink a beer. I am not breaking any law by drinking beer at home, but what about my boat?.


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

If your boat is underway, not moored, anchored or at dock, and law enforcement observes alcohol consumption, that is reasonable cause to board and check blood alcohol level.


----------



## redhead78 (Dec 7, 2009)

Warrant, or not I will fight them to the bitter end, to my last dying breath, there is no way those feds will set foot, or search the cockpit of my Sunfish.......Hee Hee..... Red


----------



## Ulladh (Jul 12, 2007)

No warrant needed, local law enforcement is either doing a safety and documentation inspection or has probable cause.
I sail under the flight path of aircraft taking off and landing at an international airport, I want law enforcement on the scene.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

I can understand the question from a general interest/academic standpoint. However, while a search/inspection of my boat may be inconvenient, I'm never going to knowingly do anything illegal, nor will I have any illegal item on the boat. So I figure they can do their job as quickly and as efficiently as possible with the least hassle.

FWIW, I've only been boarded once. It was by the USCG in 20-25 knots of wind in a very uncomfortable chop. The guys were competent, professional, thorough, and polite. It didn't hurt that my 18 year old daughter was on board either. They were all strutting just a little after they saw her. 

Dave


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

Heh, yeah.. I guess if I were going to go all smuggler with my boat, I'd pick something faster than a 19' sailboat.. and I probably wouldn't go around posting questions about the laws on the local forums 

Seriously though, it's an interesting question. I mean, if I can't even figure out the laws in my home country, what the heck am I going to do when I get to another country?


----------



## dub420sailor (Mar 29, 2010)

I'm just curious, but what is the definition of boarding? Does that include entering cabins, etc.? I wouldn't let any law enforcement agency search any closed area or out of sight area without probable cause or a warrant. Not that I have anything to hide (especially on my 19 foot cabinless boat) but I'm a big believer in the 4th amendment.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

dub 

good luck with that...

About the boat - they WILL search what they want and when they want, your feelings for the 4th amendment aside. You don't get to choose or decide anything about their coming aboard and doing their job.

Their job is to go through every cabinet, cupboard, lazarrette, tool box, compartment, etc. And they are well trained to look in all the secret hiding places that most hold dear.

They are simply doing their job...I would strongly advise you to stand aside and do yours. 

YMMV


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

jerryrlitton said:


> Boasun, I checked the code however it does not specify how far from the US Shore does the USCG have jurisdiction.
> 
> Jerry


It really isn't that far off shore...
I was 90 NM east of Jamaca when USCG came aboard a vessel I was delivering for an inspection and drug check. That was south of Cuba. 
yup! Not far off the USA coast line.   

Basically anyplace you meet a USCG Cutter on open waters they can board.


----------



## jerryrlitton (Oct 14, 2002)

Thanks Boasun, I would have no problem being boarded as long as they were polite and professional. I know they have a job to do.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"the code however it does not specify how far from the US Shore does the USCG have jurisdiction. "
If you are on a US-flagged or US-state-registered vessel, the USCG has jurisdiction over it anywhere they can reach on "navigable waters". If they have an agreement with another sovereign, and are carrying agents of that sovereign on board, their reach goes even further, to subjects of that sovereign and to vessels in that sovereign's waters as well.

But you can also find obscure provisions in the USCode and other documents, for instance, if you are a documented vessel inbound carrying mail from another country's post office, you can thumb your nose at everyone and continue uninterrupted to make landfall and transfer that mail to the USPS. (Unless they've changed that very recently too.)


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

Boasun said:


> If [your vessel] is a live aboard, it is your home and only the USCG can board without warrants.


Minor correction. If it is a live aboard then only the USCG can LEGALLY board without warrants.

When men with guns tell you that they intend to board your boat it is best to let them. Arguing the legalities with them right then and there is a very good way to end up face-down, handcuffed, and on your way to a night in jail. You may be in the right, but you'll still spend the night in jail.

Of course, if you're willing to risk the consequences, then by all means give them all the "attitude" you can muster. Who knows? It might be fun!

(And by the way, Boasun, when I say "you" above I don't actually mean YOU! I mean the generic "you," as in anyone who is reading.)


----------



## remetau (Jan 27, 2009)

denverd0n said:


> Minor correction. If it is a live aboard then only the USCG can LEGALLY board without warrants.
> 
> When men with guns tell you that they intend to board your boat it is best to let them. Arguing the legalities with them right then and there is a very good way to end up face-down, handcuffed, and on your way to a night in jail. You may be in the right, but you'll still spend the night in jail.
> 
> ...


Is there any written proof of this? I know of a lot of liveaboards in Key West that are at anchor, and they have been boarded multiple times by the FWC on head check runs.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

Who ME?? I is innocent, I tell you! Innocent. 

Who put that there?? Weren't me!!


----------



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

What do you think of asking anyone who wants to board your boat if you are required to submit to the search? Would this upset them? Would they take it as resisting? I'd expect the USCG to say "yes, you have to let us on", and then you let them, nothing bad happens. I'd expect local police who know they don't have the authority to say "no, you don't have to let us", just like police searching your car when they pull you over. And I'd expect cops who either don't know better or who are being bullies to claim you have to let them on, and then you comply, but at least you have it on record that they demanded something unlawful. Thoughts?


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

I suppose trusting people to be honest is one approach... on the other hand, if I'm a thief and you ask me if I'm allowed to board, I know what I'm going to say!

I'd love to find a regulation or law that says "X group is allowed to board Y boats for Z reasons". If only lawyers made it that easy for us non-lawyers to understand... course then, we might not need lawyers


----------



## Loos1 (Jun 21, 2010)

When I went out on the ocean for the first time this year in a 28' sailboat (as a passenger), it was a rather quiet Thurs. late afternoon. Not much activity out there (off the Ocean City NJ inlet). We were approached on two occasions by a Coast Guard patrol boat (medium size and quick). They came to about 1/4 of a mile or so, clearly in our direction, lingered awhile, presumably training considerable optics on us to determine our activity. This happened twice during our 4 hr. cruise. Additionally, a Coast guard helicopter (and not a small one) made a pretty close pass, only 150 ft or so off the water, and maybe only 5-600 feet horizontally from us, circled, kinda buttonhooked and departed. Again, there was no one else around so they were clearly investigating us. We weren't doing anything to speak of, save perhaps drinking our lone beer of the trip so maybe that was it. All that to say this..

Is this normal? But more importantly for me, how often have some of you been boarded? Is it commonplace? While I am not guilty of anything, I take being searched by authorities in any situation very seriously and begrudgingly. I would love to hear some various stories from some of you on this matter. I killed a thread with this same post previously, so I hope that is not the case here. Are we all so afraid of our own government that we dare not even discuss what the rules are? Is it illegal for the PASSENGERS to have a beer while underway? Sorry, just trying to learn the rules, so I know if I am merely bending them or not. I do not as yet own a boat.


----------



## Boasun (Feb 10, 2007)

The USCG have the right to search without warrants... 
You as the Captain of the boat have the right to search the crews' baggage and any other package, whether they are coming or going. 
Why? Do you really want your boat seized because some idiot brought some illegal drugs on board??


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

"The USCG have the right to search without warrants... "
Sorry, Boasun, but I've got to suspend your voting privileges and place you under arrest for treason now.
The USCG has the power and authority to search without warrants, however, many of us would say they are operating "under color of law" meaning their actions are illegal even if the laws appear to support them.
FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment: Annotations pg. 1 of 6 is one of many discussions about what the fourth amednment means and how it came to be.
No immediate suspicion? No want or warrant, when there is all the time in the world to obtain one? Then the search is illegal, regardless of what court wrongly says otherwise.
"We the People" are the final arbiter in the US. We just haven't been tossing the bums out fast enough recently.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

I'd point out that while the USCG is generally recognized as having the right to board and search vessels pretty much at will, the results of the search are not necessarily legally acceptable in court due to the Fourth Amendment. If you have submitted to the search but DO NOT CONSENT, the USCG has to fight to get the results of any search admitted, since, by not consenting, you've effectively preserved your Fourth Amendment rights. * Conversely, IF YOU CONSENT TO THE SEARCH, and you are considered to be consenting if you do not SPECIFICALLY SAY YOU DO NOT CONSENT TO THE SEARCH BUT WILL SUMBIT TO A SEARCH IF REQUIRED TO DO SO, then anything they find can be used without any problem-since you CONSENTED. *


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

As a general rule, "don't talk to the police" applies to all of these scenarios.

Same goes for requests to search, enter, board, or anything else short of a direct order; just say no. Always. There is no reason to ever consent to any request from any law enforcement agent and every reason not to.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Even if it is a direct order, you do not have to CONSENT to a search. You would be wise to SUBMIT to such a request, but CONSENTING is unwise.


lydanynom said:


> As a general rule, "don't talk to the police" applies to all of these scenarios.
> 
> Same goes for requests to search, enter, board, or anything else short of a direct order; just say no. Always. There is no reason to consent to any request from any law enforcement agent and every reason not to.


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> Even if it is a direct order, you do not have to CONSENT to a search. You would be wise to SUBMIT to such a request, but CONSENTING is unwise.


Really no need to put such a fine point on it. "I do not consent to any searches" is all you need to say in any situation. If the LEO believes he does not require consent then you will find out pretty quickly. The only other words that ought to come out of your mouth are "I want my lawyer."


----------



## Loos1 (Jun 21, 2010)

This link has quite a bit of comprehensive answers to some of what is being discussed in rather concise format. Not directly to boating, but worth the read-

Police Searches and Police Traffic Stops-Know your Rights!


----------



## AE28 (Jun 20, 2008)

Boasun said:


> You as the Captain of the boat have the right to search the crews' baggage and any other package, whether they are coming or going.


WOW!!!


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

AE28 said:


> WOW!!!


What are you wowing at? He's just restating private property rights in a puffed-up and overblown way.

Technically it is not correct to say that "you have the right to search" rather than "you have the right to require a search as a condition of employment/entrance/passage" since the crew/passenger/whatever can (and probably should) tell you to piss off and go do something else, but most likely they won't and the end result is effectively the same.

You could change "the Captain" in his sentence to read "the Employer" or "the Homeowner" and it would still be as accurate.


----------



## AE28 (Jun 20, 2008)

Guess if I held the crew coming aboard our boat (or guest entering our home) in such low regard, I wouldn't have invited them to begin with.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

I LOVE watching this thread.

Being a cop who does the occasional boat boarding, watching this thread is almost like watching people play Marco Polo.

There's some good information here; there's also some very bad information here. I'd advise anyone who is really worried about boat boardings to do your research and not trust anyone else's opinions/ideas/misgivings. That way if you get caught with whatever on your boat, you'll have no one to blame but yourself.

Well, that goes after what should already be the obvious advice - don't keep illegal stuff/do illegal things on your boat.

Peace,

Sixpoint


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

Hard to find stronger support for the wisdom of "never talk to law enforcement and always refuse any request" than that.


----------



## estopa (Aug 17, 2010)

LEO here in my corner of Long Island Sound board powerboats IMO. I never seen them board a sailboat.


----------



## ffiill (Jul 15, 2010)

Once got boarded by UK Customs and Excise-what a laugh.
I was having a great sail in my old 27ft classic taking a short cut across what at low tide are mud flats.There was quite a swell and the boat was well heeling.
Suddenly a load roar and a Customs Rib with as I recall six armed Customs officers appeared along side. They matched our speed and one of the officers boarded us.
We were out day sailing at the time so no problem. But for several days afterwards we became aware that the Marina was under surveilence-clearly expecting some drug runners.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

lydanynom said:


> Hard to find stronger support for the wisdom of "never talk to law enforcement and always refuse any request" than that.


On the contrary - as least as far as the officers I know are concerned.

You see, we're just people. If you act suspiciously, it's going to come off to us as...well...suspicious.

On the other hand, if you smile and wave, the first human impulse is to assume harmlessness and smile and wave back.

Now, I can't speak for the USCG, and I won't pretend to. I don't know how to advise you if approached by them. I will tell you that they have a bigger, more complex, and somewhat more flexible rulebook than your average local LEO.

Now let me tell you the motivation that most (I do say *most* and I'll get back to that in a minute), most LEO's have for boarding a watercraft.

First is the safety of the people on board. This goes double if we can see that you have kids on board. Where I'm from, a vessel underway requires people under 12 years old to be wearing a PFD. So, PFD's is one of the main things I want to see when I board. Also the usual (and required) safety equipment.

Second is booze. Not that alcohol is, in itself, illegal on a vessel. It just lets me know (especially if it's in a powerboat) that the operators bear watching if they're in my area. (I guess you could file that under "safety of others.")

Last, for any number of reasons, is narcotics. I suppose I need to elaborate, lest people flame me for putting that last. It's last because 1) it's the most uncommon thing to find on boats. 2) It's the easiest to hide; this is only a problem because if you go looking for it and you're wrong, you've just ruined someone's afternoon and given them a negative impression of LEO for no reason. 3) If it's just a small, personal-use amount, especially when it's marijuana, then I could not care less if you have it on your boat. Period.

Now, if you're running several kilos of drugs, whatever kind they may be, my interests and motivations change quite a bit. But then, I figure you'll in some way set off my spidey-sense. 

Again, this is the way *most* LEO feel. Now let me elaborate on the other 1%, since that's apparently who most of the public seems to deal with, judging from their attitude towards LEO.

There is however, a small group of officers that are...we'll say different. Some of them are guilty of nothing but being young. Some of them are not young anymore, but still have something to prove, or are trying to "make a reputation." (They're making a reputation, alright, as someone no one wants to work with.) And then, some of them are just plain...well, I don't know another way to say it, some of them are just a$$holes.

But again, these people make up a VERY small percentage of LEO, and usually weed themselves out within a few years.

The vast majority of us, and especially those of use who have pursued careers in search/rescue/wilderness/water areas, are there because we love to help people and we want to be the ones who come running if you ever need help out there. And though we pray you never do need help out there, we want to be the ones to do it because we don't trust anyone else to be there for you, no matter what.

Or maybe that's just me.

But if you ever find yourself in my neck of the woods and I smile and wave, by all means, smile and wave back. And teach your kids that if they need help, to run TO me, not FROM me.

Peace,

Sixpoint


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

Sixpoint said:


> You see, we're just people. If you act suspiciously, it's going to come off to us as...well...suspicious.


That's precisely the problem.


----------



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

lydanynom said:


> That's precisely the problem.


Agreed. The 4th and 5th Amendments exist for a reason. Refusing a search or refusing to talk to a LEO should not be regarded as suspicious. And I think the LEOs have a moral, though perhaps not legal, obligation not to press the issue when someone has invoked those rights.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

lydanynom said:


> That's precisely the problem.


I don't understand.

You just go around acting suspiciously?

Let me define suspicious, and again, this is just me talking, I can't speak for every LEO out there.

Suspicious: running near/after dark w/ no running lights; adamantly and obviously refusing to make eye contact, or even look towards the LEO boat; seeing an LEO boat and immediately changing course - "running" from us.

Basically, acting differently than you would if you saw John or Jane Q. Public on his/her private boat.

We're not "out to get" someone...unless, of course, they need to get got. 

I mean, there are thousands of kilos of every kind of drug that come into and move around in this country on the water, because of the relative lack of LEO patrol. I can't think that anyone thinks that's a good thing, right?

Also, if someone has had a few too many and is standing at the helm of that 21' boat with the 230hp engine...you want him coming at you broadside, throttle wide open?

Seriously, if you're not hurting anything and you are not in distress, _we don't care one whit what you're up to._

And to address another post - if we've received reliable information that illegal activity is going to take place on X day at X time, then yeah, we may board you or just make contact alongside, just to determine that you're not who we're looking for. Unfortunately, that's about the only way to _get_ the people we are looking for. Would you rather we ignored the bad guys just to keep from inconveniencing the good guys for five minutes?


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

rmeador said:


> Agreed. The 4th and 5th Amendments exist for a reason. Refusing a search or refusing to talk to a LEO should not be regarded as suspicious. And I think the LEOs have a moral, though perhaps not legal, obligation not to press the issue when someone has invoked those rights.


Any educated/experienced LEO will absolutely respect those rights.

I do believe that law enforcement in general suffers from the whole "few bad apples" thing. Just takes a couple to give thousands of a bad name.

Of course, to play the devil's advocate, let me propose a scenario: You and some fellow boaters observe another boater behaving dangerously. Running through a swimming area near a beach under power, etc. You see him flinging beer bottles into the water. Then you see him pull up to another boat and actually *see* a drug transaction go down. So someone calls the police, and a LE boat comes out. The LE boat gets alongside the suspect boat. You see them talk to the boat owner for a few minutes, then drive away. That LEO, who just respected the very rights we're discussing, will have to catch all kinds of trouble from the people who call and complain that he *didn't do anything!!!*

So, which is it? We're not psychic.

Mind you, the LEO did not see any violations. One could argue that the LEO has probable cause to board based on the complaints...but that's a whole different probable cause argument. 

Peace


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

Sixpoint said:


> I don't understand.
> 
> You just go around acting suspiciously?


"Acting suspiciously" is subjective, Sixpoint, and that's the point. I'm not trying to imply anything sinister here; no conspiracy or malice. It's just human nature, as you have already pointed out. Mistakes and bias are just facts of life.

You are doing your job and I've got no problem with that, but when you have your enforcement hat on it is not in anyone's best interest to interact with you more than absolutely required, or at all if that is possible, _especially _if they are not doing anything wrong.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

Well

In Northport we have the

Eatons Neck CG station

Suffolk Marine Police unit

Northport Harbor master/police

Centerport Harbor master/police 

Lloyd Harbor Harbormaster/police

Huntington Harbormaster/police

All on patrol at the same time in the same fairly small area ( 5 miles) and needing to justify there budget  

And i might of missed one


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

lydanynom said:


> "Acting suspiciously" is subjective, Sixpoint, and that's the point. I'm not trying to imply anything sinister here; no conspiracy or malice. It's just human nature, as you have already pointed out. Mistakes and bias are just facts of life.
> 
> You are doing your job and I've got no problem with that, but when you have your enforcement hat on it is not in anyone's best interest to interact with you more than absolutely required, or at all if that is possible, _especially _if they are not doing anything wrong.


That's saddening news to me. But so be it, I suppose. I mean seriously, we're just trying to help.

Peace


----------



## rmeador (Jan 16, 2010)

lydanynom said:


> it is not in anyone's best interest to interact with you more than absolutely required, or at all if that is possible, _especially _if they are not doing anything wrong.


Exactly. If you don't believe you're doing anything wrong, an interaction with an LEO can end in one of two possible ways:

1) You have a friendly encounter and go on your way.
2) They nail you for some real or imagined infraction you didn't know you were committing.

Option 1 is fairly benign, we'll say it's neutral. Option 2 is obviously bad. You'll note there is no good outcome, only neutral or bad. This means that even if Option 2 is very unlikely (and I believe that is the case), a prudent individual who weighs the outcomes will still always conclude that an encounter with a LEO has some small chance of being bad. Thus they are best avoided.


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

Sixpoint said:


> That's saddening news to me. But so be it, I suppose. I mean seriously, we're just trying to help.
> 
> Peace


Of course you are, but when you are mistaken or mislead there are serious consequences for the other people involved. Do you think they should happily take that risk just because you have good intentions?

What is saddening to _me_ is how many law enforcement professionals allow this sort of prudent, rational behavior -- behavior that is fundamental to the design of our justice system -- to become a divisive personal issue.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

lydanynom said:


> Of course you are, but when you are mistaken or mislead there are serious consequences for the other people involved. Do you think they should happily take that risk just because you have good intentions?
> 
> What is saddening to _me_ is how many law enforcement professionals allow this sort of prudent, rational behavior -- behavior that is fundamental to the design of our justice system -- to become a divisive personal issue.


Well, it's not really a divisive personal issue for me...I spend hours just gabbing with people when I'm on duty. Not only good PR, but if I didn't like people I wouldn't do this job.

And I don't understand - and I mean just what I say, I'm wanting to understand - how it has serious consequences for someone to shoot the bull with me when my law enforcement hat is on?


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

Sixpoint said:


> And I don't understand - and I mean just what I say, I'm wanting to understand - how it has serious consequences for someone to shoot the bull with me when my law enforcement hat is on?


What I said was, "when you are mistaken or mislead there are serious consequences for the other people involved."


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

Hmm...again, I don't see how that makes any sense. Again, from a personal perspective.

You see, if I think that there's a 0.001% chance that I'm not 100% correct, I don't pursue whatever I think might be going on. Because anytime I pursue anything that puts another person's rights in jeopardy - and by that I mean any enforcement action - I know that eventually I'll have to defend my actions in court. But even that is a slight consideration for me. The main thing that gives me pause in a situation like that is the fact that I will have to go home and go to sleep with what I have done or not done, and I will have to look at myself in the mirror when I shave.

I guess what I'm trying to get at is that I don't take any action lightly or in an ill-considered or hasty manner. The consequences for that, as you pointed out, are just too high.

Peace


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

Sixpoint said:


> Hmm...again, I don't see how that makes any sense. Again, from a personal perspective.
> 
> You see, if I think that there's a 0.001% chance that I'm not 100% correct, I don't pursue whatever I think might be going on. Because anytime I pursue anything that puts another person's rights in jeopardy - and by that I mean any enforcement action - I know that eventually I'll have to defend my actions in court. But even that is a slight consideration for me. The main thing that gives me pause in a situation like that is the fact that I will have to go home and go to sleep with what I have done or not done, and I will have to look at myself in the mirror when I shave.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your integrity, but you don't seem to want to recognize that the problem arises when you _don't_ think there might be a 0.001% chance that you're not 100% correct but are incorrect just the same. None of us are infallible.

Further, even if you personally were infallible you have already noted that a small minority of others may be not only fallible but careless or corrupt. If a 0.001% chance that you are mistaken is too much risk for you to pursue a suspicion, why would you want me to take a greater risk by voluntarily interacting with a LEO who may be one of the above?

You wield far too much power over me to blithely assume the best about you. It is not personal, just prudent.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

lydanynom said:


> I appreciate your integrity, but you don't seem to want to recognize that the problem arises when you _don't_ think there might be a 0.001% chance that you're not 100% correct but are incorrect just the same. None of us are infallible.
> 
> Further, even if you personally were infallible you have already noted that a small minority of others may be not only fallible but careless or corrupt. If a 0.001% chance that you are mistaken is too much risk for you to pursue a suspicion, why would you want me to take a greater risk by voluntarily interacting with a LEO who may be one of the above?
> 
> You wield far too much power over me to blithely assume the best about you. It is not personal, just prudent.


I've been trying to avoid this, but I suppose I have to go ahead and play this card: it's only prudent if you're doing something illegal. *sigh*

But, I'm not really up for debate anymore. I suppose we have to agree - not to disagree, precisely...let's say we agree to be wary of one another, eh?

Peace,

Sixpoint


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

Sixpoint said:


> I've been trying to avoid this, but I suppose I have to go ahead and play this card: it's only prudent if you're doing something illegal. *sigh*


No, that's not correct. You are now contradicting yourself and implying that you can not possibly make a mistake, nor can any of your colleagues. That is not a rational position to take.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

Okay...and again, I'm asking because I really want to know, and not for the sake of impudence: if a person wasn't doing anything illegal, how could a mistake on the part of an LEO make it appear that they were?

And I SWEAR I'm just curious, not confrontational.


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

Sixpoint said:


> Okay...and again, I'm asking because I really want to know, and not for the sake of impudence: if a person wasn't doing anything illegal, how could a mistake on the part of an LEO make it appear that they were?


Your questions are starting to seem a bit disingenuous to me.

Did you watch the video I linked earlier in this thread?


----------



## IslanderGuy (Apr 26, 2008)

Sixpoint - Thank you for your service, and thank you to all your fellow LEOs out there, patrolling our land and waterways helping to keep us all safe. I do truly appropriate it and always smile and wave or say hi to the local LEOs when I see them on the water.

I have always taken this attitude, and it has always served me well. Of course it helps that I try to stay within the law, but occasionally I have strayed outside and gotten caught. However, I feel this attitude has gotten me off with warnings for minor infractions much more then any other attitude would have saved me. Of course, I am going to be smart and not admit something I did wrong if I do not have to, but if they know, there's no point fighting it.

In college, I was pulled over A LOT for acting "suspicious". Once a week I delivered frozen food to peoples homes for a research project. The rest of the week, I have a truck bed full of empty coolers, until I could drop them off the next week. I also worked another job late at night, and often drove home around midnight - 2am. A teen age kid out past midnight with an old pickup truck full of coolers? Yep, I looked suspicious all right. I got pulled over at least once every week or two. But I never complained, just realized they where doing their jobs. I was always kind and curtious and explained the situation. In return, I almost always got a smile and nod and a "have a good night." Only one guy was kind of a jerk and pushed the issue until I was not pleased.

Many people said I should not have to put up with this, that it was harassment, and that I should complain. My view however is that 98% of teenagers driving around in the middle of the night with a truck load of coolers are up to no good which will probably result in irresponsible underage drinking, driving, crashing possibly with a side of killing and dieing. I was more then happy to take the 5 minutes out of my night to explain the situation to the police, and let them keep doing what they need to to keep people safe. If I had complained, it is likely they would have had to stop checking out the other 98% who where up to no good to. I think it is reasonable to understand when you are legal, but suspicious and be understanding if you get checked out. 

To bring it back to the water, I will personally happily comply with LEO's on the water. If they find I am doing something unsafe/illegal, I will (and have) pay the fine if there is one, correct the issue, and be glad they pointed out an issue which could have resulted in much worse consequences had they not found it first. 

I also understand and respect peoples rights to not talk to LEOs if they do not want / are not required to. To each his own, I just find my attitude as served me well. Perhaps I am lucky and we have an unusual amount of nice and reasonable LEOs around here.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

lydanynom said:


> Your questions are starting to seem a bit disingenuous to me.
> 
> Did you watch the video I linked earlier in this thread?


Naive, maybe. But I promise you, I don't have a disingenuous bone in my body. It's just not how I'm made.

Oh, and no, I didn't watch the video. I will though. I didn't even realize it was a link until you said that; I thought this forum had done the auto-link thing it sometimes does when you mention certain things, like line.

I'd love to continue this discussion; not only this branch of it, there are a few other things I'd like to respond to. I will probably rejoin it in the morning. In the meantime, I'm about to leave to take my wife out to celebrate her birthday. 

Peace,

Sixpoint


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

Sixpoint said:


> Naive, maybe. But I promise you, I don't have a disingenuous bone in my body. It's just not how I'm made.
> 
> Oh, and no, I didn't watch the video. I will though. I didn't even realize it was a link until you said that; I thought this forum had done the auto-link thing it sometimes does when you mention certain things, like line.
> 
> ...


Okay then, take a look at the vid, they address the most salient points pretty well. (That lawyer is admittedly damned annoying, but what can you do?)

To give you my own answer: At a minimum you can seriously stress me out by requiring me to spend time demonstrating my innocence of whatever it is you suspect, and at a worst case you can wind up placing me under arrest either as a continuation of the mistake/misunderstanding or for something I wasn't aware I was doing that broke a law.

Have fun with the wife.


----------



## AE28 (Jun 20, 2008)

Sixpoint...
Thanks for your post #49!!!
Paul


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

@ AE28 - @ IslanderGuy - you're welcome.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

lydanynom said:


> You are doing your job and I've got no problem with that, but when you have your enforcement hat on *it is not in anyone's best interest to interact with you more than absolutely required*, or at all if that is possible, _especially _if they are not doing anything wrong.


Really?!

What about the smooth operation of a community? If I cooperate with a LEO in the course of doing their job, I help get them on their way doing something else more quickly. This helps everyone in the community.

If I am stopped for suspicion of something by an LEO, let's say I resemble a suspect in a recent crime, I can cooperate with them, resolve the confusion and get both the LEO and myself on our way as quickly and quietly as possible. OTOH, if I refuse to cooperate, don't speak to the LEO, don't give them any information, then I've just made their job more difficult, take up more of their time, wasted my community's resources, all just to "protect my rights"? Stupid, and in some situations not a little bit dangerous.

If you find an LEO that is abusing their power, actually infringing on your rights as a citizen, then you certainly are justified in filing a complaint and taking legal action. However, to just be non-cooperative on general principle is just being a jerk.

For those of us who obey the law, there should not be an adversarial relationship between us and LEOs. Just as we would like them to assume the best of us, we should assume the best of them.

I could be wrong however.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

dhays -

Generally speaking, thank you for letting me know that there is some sanity left in the world.

Specifically however, I would like to call attention to this part of your post:


dhays said:


> If you find an LEO that is abusing their power, actually infringing on your rights as a citizen, then you certainly are justified in filing a complaint and taking legal action.


To which I can only say AMEN. Furthermore, I'd say you are OBLIGATED to file a complaint, to save someone else having to suffer this idiot further down the road.

People, if your local authorities are abusing you to the point that it's made you this fearful, then it's your own fault. You absolutely DO have rights, and contrary to some opinions, I am sworn to PROTECT those rights, and I take that oath very seriously.

lydanynom - I did watch the video, and I heartily agreed with most of it. By all means, if the police approach you about a murder investigation, don't say a word, other than to ask for your lawyer. Why would a cop say that? Because if you're innocent, I don't want you muddying up the waters of my investigation with some ill-timed or mistaken statement that may seem culpatory at first. If you start blabbing away and make me do all the work it takes to figure out it wasn't you, then the real killer has more time to slip away from us.

But it seems to me that murder investigations and boarding one's boat to see if you have PFD's on board are worlds apart...but then I guess we all do different things with our boats.  (That's totally good natured ribbing, by the way, I am in no way implying that you have killed someone on your boat. Lighten up.)

Peace,

Sixpoint


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

You guys are not thinking it through.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

I've been thinking it through 40+ hours a week for twelve years.

On the video you posted, did you hear the trick to stop getting speeding tickets?


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

I'm posting from my mobile and it is difficult to go into much detail, but there are several irrational leaps in the arguments you are making. Just go over it again carefully and you ought to see it if you are trying. Remember that I have no way of knowing in advance anything about you or what you want.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

Sixpoint said:


> I've been thinking it through 40+ hours a week for twelve years.


I believe that.

Thank you Sixpoint for reminding me what I really liked about being a prosecutor (way back when!). You remind me of the best cops I had the pleasure to work with. Those men and women were not only intelligent, but they viewed being a police officer as a calling. My experience seems to match yours: most of the officers I worked with were good people trying to do a good job under difficult circumstances (this was Brooklyn, NY in the mid to late '80s). There were a few who looked at it as just a job, fewer who just couldn't have cared less, and a precious sliver who were no better than the bad guys.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, DO NOT TAKE LEGAL ADVICE FROM ANYONE OVER THE INTERNET. Much of what is stated in this thread is in absolutes; there really are very few absolutes in the law, and that goes for search and seizure law as well. If a LEO wants to board your vessel, they will. If they want to search your vessel, they will, regardless of whether you "consent" or only "submit" or some combination of those two (btw, I understand the difference and the point one previous poster was making about that difference, but as a practical matter, in my experience of evidentiary supression hearings, it will make little difference in determining the admissability into evidence of whatever is found. No judge in state or federal court that I ever dealt with would hold an ordinary citizen in the heat of the moment to appreciating the difference).

While I understand the position that we take risks when we engage with LEO's when we don't legally have to, I completely disagree with the idea that it is the right thing to do. Hey, I'm a lawyer; no one knows his rights better than I do, and I could certainly see myself getting into an argument with a jerk cop who gets his jollies by yanking my chain. However, I couldn't agree more with Sixpoint: the best way to handle all LEOs is to assume that they are reasonable (because chances are that they are), and the surest way to turn a reasonable cop into a jerk is to be a jerk yourself. Best case scenario in that instance: the smart, reasonable cop that you have turned into a jerk knows exactly how far he can yank you around without violating your rights and does so. No recourse for you in that case, Buster. You might ask: "why should I have to compromise my rights to placate a boneheaded jerk?" Good question. You shouldn't have to. You don't. Just be prepared to accept the consequences, which aren't necessarily going to end up being fair.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

I've been in law enforcement for 25 years now and I would pass on to my friends and relatives the same advice that sailingdog gave about "submitting" to searches rather than "consenting" to them and lydanynom's advice on not talking to LEOs while their investigative hat is on and it's pointing in my direction. Easier said than done, because I think most folks want to be helpful.


----------



## sailingdog (Mar 19, 2006)

Thanks ERPS... I find it odd that Sixpoint didn't even comment on the difference between submitting to a search and consenting to one... and the impact that doing one versus the other can have on your rights.

At no point do I advocate being RUDE or INCONSIDERATE to any LEO personnel...



erps said:


> I've been in law enforcement for 25 years now and I would pass on to my friends and relatives the same advice that sailingdog gave about "submitting" to searches rather than "consenting" to them and lydanynom's advice on not talking to LEOs while their investigative hat is on and it's pointing in my direction. Easier said than done, because I think most folks want to be helpful.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

sailingdog said:


> Thanks ERPS... I find it odd that Sixpoint didn't even comment on the difference between submitting to a search and consenting to one... and the impact that doing one versus the other can have on your rights.
> 
> At no point do I advocate being RUDE or INCONSIDERATE to any LEO personnel...


Actually, I was going to comment on that, SD. Thing is, my time at the keyboard has been really limited these last few days, and before I could comment, mstern beat me to it.

My comment, had I gotten to it, would have been much like mstern's, but probably not as articulate. That is, I've never seen the defendant's statements at the time of a search make much difference once it made it to court - barring some extreme examples, because as mstern astutely observed, there are no absolutes in law, at least as far as I've seen.

So I'll revise and make my official answer that it would be unlikely to affect your case one way or the other - provided that the cop making the search knew his business, that is. If a cop hears your objections to a search and goes ahead with it, you can almost guarantee that he knows his decision will stand up in court. On the flipside of that, if his decision doesn't hold up in court, then you have some serious ammo for a lawsuit. If the cop knows what he's doing, he doesn't want to look like an ass when he takes a losing case to court, and he doesn't want to go around handing out excuses for people to sue him out of his career.

Have to run now - more soon.

Peace,

Sixpoint


----------



## ffiill (Jul 15, 2010)

As an outside observer of this discussion just one point.Wherever in the world you might be if someone with due authority wishes to board your vessel it is common practise to let them.
Its your problem if you are loaded with illegal drugs;so drunk you cannot stand up;or knowingly breaking local rules and regulations.
Equally I believe that not wearing a lifejacket is foolish and if its a child for whom you are responsible it amounts to gross irresponsibility.
There again I operate in a remote area so am never bothered by officialdom.
Also to date in the UK other than on the River Thames the Police have not taken to the water and our rules and regulations are still pretty sparse.


----------



## AE28 (Jun 20, 2008)

mstern said:


> the best way to handle all LEOs is to assume that they are reasonable (because chances are that they are)/QUOTE]
> 
> Great post - THANKS!!!
> 
> ...


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

> the best way to handle strange dogs is to assume they are friendly (because chances are that they are)


Just stick your hand right in there. I suppose there really are people who would recommend that, too. The surprising thing in all of this is to see these sorts of ideas coming from a group (sailors) that is ostensibly self-selected for proficiency in making cost/benefit judgments and rationally evaluating risk.

*shrug* At any rate, there's nothing more I can add in the face of that sort of willful suspension of disbelief. We'll just have to add this topic to the list of irrational behaviors like praying to gods or playing the lotto and chalk it up to a lifestyle choice.


----------



## dhays (Jul 9, 2010)

When you start to equate LEO's with "strange dogs", it is clear that you and I have entirely different views of the world. You can call me irrational if you like, but I don't think I would like living in your world.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> I suppose there really are people who would recommend that, too. The surprising thing in all of this is to see these sorts of ideas coming from a group (sailors) that is ostensibly self-selected for proficiency in making cost/benefit judgments and rationally evaluating risk.


I don't find it surprising at all. One's view often depends on where one is standing. I rarely find that folks with views that differ from mine are irrational. They usually just have different priorities than me. That's kind of a personal choice.


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

So essentially there is no clear written law on this, then? Until somebody lawyers up big enough to get to the supreme court and a ruling is made, we just trust in the benevolence of whichever agency decides to board?

Not that I have a problem with that, of course. I was just curious about whether it's written down. Speeding (in my area), for instance, is addressed in Idaho statute, chapter 15, section ... 14, i think. There is no actual code (law or regulation) addressing, say, 'no wake' zones though... or searching/boarding my sailboat if it is afloat. 

Generally, if a state doesn't address something, then the federal law would apply. But it looks like there is no specific federal law in this area, though? 

Unless I'm wrong.. ?


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

Well, I can't answer your question in specifics, but I can tell you where to look, generally speaking.

If you are looking for the law in offshore U.S. waters, the obvious answer in the USCG. If you are looking for waters that would fall under state/county/municipal jurisdictions, then look for Enforcement agents for Idaho Fish and Game. If you've already tried reading/research in that venue, ask an agent.

Where I'm from, (Louisiana) the laws specifically regarding boat actions are scattered about in different Titles, seemingly at random. To be honest, I don't know how anyone who doesn't do this for a living could keep up with it all.

So, to answer your question as well as I can - their is clearly written law (if you speak legalese) - but where I'm from there's no concise document to point people at if they have questions. As a result, I answer a LOT of questions regarding boating/sporting law. For the questions I can't answer, I direct people to a Game Warden.

Let me do some more specific research and I'll see what I can dig up for Idaho.

Peace,

Sixpoint


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

Sixpoint, Louisiana is, very seriously, not considered typical of the United States in any legal terms. Because it was purchased "intact" from France and the existing statues and common law were all based on the Napoleonic Code rather than English law, pretty much everything in Louisiana is different from eveyrthing in every other state. 

Except where some damned Yankees have rammed through some of the uniform codes and such.

Anyplace else have Parishes instead of Counties? 

I'm not calling it any better or worse--just saying that when you mention laws, there's 49 states that often all do things in a very similar way, and then there's Louisiana, where all bets are off.


----------



## CapTim (Aug 18, 2009)

Ironically, I'm hoping to call Louisiana 'home' in about 6 months, if I can successfully extract myself from the dirt life and get aboard a floating piece of happiness. I used Idaho because that's where I am now, and I understand the local law. 

But I'm thinking more in terms of federal regs... and in reviewing the USCG regs, I haven't come across anything that says the coast guard can't board, search, detain, and confiscate an entire boat and all cargo simply on a whim. 

Which is to say, there's no reason - based on anything I've read - to suggest the USCG (and by extension, any local law enforcement agency) can't take a boat and any property therein simply because they don't like the color of your shirt. *shrug* 

I'd love to know where it's written that this isn't the case.. ?

Not that I have a problem with the whole arrangement... I don't plan on having the kind of boat that would be worth impounding. I just find it somewhat surprising.


----------



## Sixpoint (Jun 25, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> Sixpoint, Louisiana is, very seriously, not considered typical of the United States in any legal terms. Because it was purchased "intact" from France and the existing statues and common law were all based on the Napoleonic Code rather than English law, pretty much everything in Louisiana is different from eveyrthing in every other state.
> 
> Except where some damned Yankees have rammed through some of the uniform codes and such.
> 
> ...


I know - actually I love Napoleonic Code. I am an LEO for a living. That's why I offered to look around and see what I could dig up about Idaho for him, because I know that little (very little) from here is likely to apply there.

Interestingly enough (or not, I suppose, based on your interests) Orleans Parish is like an entity unto itself, regarding statutes. I won't bore you with specifics, but man...some of it is amazing, straight out of the 1700's, it seems.


----------



## AE28 (Jun 20, 2008)

erps said:


> I don't find it surprising at all. One's view often depends on where one is standing. I rarely find that folks with views that differ from mine are irrational. They usually just have different priorities than me. That's kind of a personal choice.


Ray:
Well put and great attitude!
Paul


----------



## AE28 (Jun 20, 2008)

CapTim said:


> So essentially there is no clear written law on this, then? Until somebody lawyers up big enough to get to the supreme court and a ruling is made, we just trust in the benevolence of whichever agency decides to board?


Tim:
In my opinion, "rulings" made by the US Supreme Court rarely, if ever, clear things up!
 
Paul


----------



## vadimgo (Feb 23, 2007)

First, an observation.
Some people would not mind if LEO bothers them if it would help to get the bad guy. Others rather prefer to see some criminals get away but their feeling of freedom intact (or, that is my impression). The difference is on some very deep level, hey I even read it is genetic! 

On the matter of boating, it seems to me, it is a legal mess we do not like, but we would have to tolerate it. It is "a violation of a basic constitutional right", most likely, to be boarded, and it looks like anybody with a badge and a gun has it in their job description. And we just hope that in almost all cases it is for a reason or/and will not bring any furhter issues (thats, the first assumption is we are all law abiding, good folks).
I would like to know, is it illegal to pee from the rail?
And has anybody been boarded for visible crew holding beer cans?
Both are the things that I saw peopel to be warned not to do when returning from Wend. night race.


----------



## Loos1 (Jun 21, 2010)

What I want to know is, how commonplace is it to be boarded by Law enforcement of any stripe?

Does it happen more often while underway, or at the dock?


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

CapTim-
Probably because "boats" in the US were never traditonal housing, but were the heart and soul of commerce, the US pretty much doesn't recognize that boats sometimes ARE homes. Aside from the IRS, who don't set legal precedent for anything outside of themselves, although there's probably an argument to be made there.
The USCG is, no offense intended, a bastard agency compounded from the Lifesaving Service, the Revenue Cutter Service, and a half dozen other "inshore" and coastal functions that politicians have muddled together over the years. They are either an adminstrative agency (and administrative law is conveniently neither civil nor criminal no military) or a military force, depending on whether the US is at war or not. And these days, most of DC thinks we are at war even though somehow, Congress never decalred it and no one else is authorized to do so.
Which makes a lot of very dedicated Coasties just as upset as some of the rest of us. They bust hump with SAR...and get stuck on "meter maid" duty with no budget or resources at the same time. Depending on whether you get a Gung Ho or something better....there are very few controls on "administrative agents" in the US.

Sixpoint-
Aha, that would be your tin? Amazing, yes, that is one word that sometimes can be applied to Napoleonic Code. Well, at least it wasn't written by Torquemada.<G>


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

Loos1 said:


> What I want to know is, how commonplace is it to be boarded by Law enforcement of any stripe?
> 
> Does it happen more often while underway, or at the dock?


In the Puget Sound it's typically the Coast Guard and it's typically while you're underway. I've not been boarded in 25 years of boating. I have had the local sheriff's office cruise by while we were anchored. The first time I went out and spoke with them and showed them that we had life jackets on board. The second time I didn't go up to speak with them. We both just stayed below reading our books. They circled around a couple of times and then left. Our Washington Constitution protects our privacy to a further extent than the U.S. Constitution. While I am aware that LEO have statutory authority in Washington to conduct safety checks of vessels underway, their authority to do so is not so clear while a vessel is anchored and I don't think State LEO's would push it. It's my understanding that past case law with the Coast Guard gives them pretty much unlimited authority to conduct safety inspections.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

> I would like to know, is it illegal to pee from the rail?


In Washington State, it's my understanding that it's unlawful to pee in a receptacle and then discharge the receptacle into coastal waters but it's not unlawful to pee directly over board as far as discharge laws go. It might be some kind of an indecent exposure depending on what you're pointing it at though and if you're the boat operator, it can be used as a partial evidence to reach reasonable suspicion of operating under the influence of alcohol.


----------



## lydanynom (May 26, 2010)

vadimgo said:


> I would like to know, is it illegal to pee from the rail?


This is the land of the Puritans, man. AFAIK, there is nowhere in or around the US where public urination is not either specifically illegal or prosecutable as littering, dumping, disturbing the peace, indecent exposure, etc.


----------



## erps (Aug 2, 2006)

Regarding Washington State LEO's enforcing boating statutes, here's the text:



> RCW 79A.60.100
> Enforcement - Chapter to supplement federal law.
> 
> (1) Every law enforcement officer of this state and its political subdivisions has the authority to enforce this chapter. Law enforcement officers may enforce recreational boating rules adopted by the commission. Such law enforcement officers include, but are not limited to, county sheriffs, officers of other local law enforcement entities, fish and wildlife officers, through the director, the state patrol, and state park rangers. *In the exercise of this responsibility, all such officers may stop and board any vessel and direct it to a suitable pier or anchorage to enforce this chapter.*
> ...


I would point out that in order to stop a boat to enforce the safety regulations, the boat would have to be underway. Also, under the section for PFD's, the State law says that no one shall operate a vessel without the required PFD's. While a vessel is anchored, I personally don't think it's being operated.

Chapter 79A.60 RCW: Regulation of recreational vessels


----------



## WIUPgamer (Jun 23, 2010)

Sixpoint said:


> The LE boat gets alongside the suspect boat. You see them talk to the boat owner for a few minutes, then drive away. That LEO, who just respected the very rights we're discussing, will have to catch all kinds of trouble from the people who call and complain that he *didn't do anything!!!*


I'd say KUDO's to the Cops if they left. As long as no one is in immediate danger I'd rather see some "drug" runners get away then have to forfeit my rights to any LEO. In your scenario I'm sure the LEO's would "hang" around long enough to ensure any unsafe behavior is curtailed. More likely then not they would have observed the area from a "concealed" location first in an attempt to "catch" the perps in the act, especially if they had been called and advised of what illegal activity they were looking for.

I know this is off subject, but the whole Drug War thing is a joke. No I don't use drugs, anymore. Neither do I drink. I quit because I discovered I can't have just one and it took over my life. I didn't quit because the Gov. said I should. But some plp can handle "using", be it pot, beer, wine, or liquor. Although I personally don't think plp should use any of these substances I have a stronger belief in the rights of individuals. Quite frankly, most of the "drugs" out there are no more "dangerous" to the general public then alcohol is. Of course I know some are, but the U.S. spends a lot of time and money on policing substances which are no more harmful then alcohol is. The U.S. should learn something from countries like Sweden and not sweat the "small" stuff.

It was stated in this thread by someone whom claimed to be a LEO that most don't really care if someone has a small amount for personal use. From my experience I agree with them completely. But it is a very hypocritical line of thought. Just where do they think that small amount comes from. Just like at Walmart, you may have only one toaster at home, but they had to bring a whole truckload of toasters in so there are enough for everyone whom wants one to buy one.

Now to get back on track. "All we like sheep have gone astray". Yah I know I'm taking this totally out of context, but it sounds good with the point I want to make. We will only continue to have rights so long as we keep them. Cower like sheep and you'll have none in the end. Yes a sovereign nation has rights inside its coastal waters and common sense tells you the guy with the biggest stick is always right, but that doesn't mean one can't object. I'm not advocating being a jerk, or even antagonistic, just that we, as Americans, honor those whom have come before us, and given their lives for our freedoms, by having a backbone and standing up for our rights. I don't condone doing anything illegal so I won't be resisting arrest either. But if I don't want someone on my boat I'll tell them so.

There is a long standing maritime tradition of the right of a captain to refuse permission to board his vessel. Of course his words sometimes fell on deaf ears, especially if the boarders were able to do so by force. This doesn't abolish the captain's rights though. So as stated earlier in this thread, it is important, as captain of your vessel, to inform any Boarders, LEO's or otherwise, of your objection to their actions. This has nothing what-so-ever to do with the presence or absence of illegal activity. It is all about the rights of the individual. If I feel like letting someone on board, fine, if not, fine. My RIGHT, my CHOICE. So if you want to let some LEO onboard, go for it. But if you don't, then stand up and say NO!

This brings up another old maritime tradition, which is very rarely acted upon anymore. Of coarse this would probably not hold up in courts anymore, at least not if you are within the nations coastal waters. If by chance the crew of the Boarder were repelled by the crew of the Boarded, and the crew of the Boarded were able to take control of the Boarder's ship then the Captain of the Boarded ship could now take possession of the Boarded ship. Of course this is muddled if both ships are flying under the same nation's flag. You'd, by rights, have to divvy it up amongst the crew though. This of course would cover you boarding any ship flying the Jolly Rogers too, since flying it on the "high seas" is in itself an act of piracy. And we all know the price for Piracy is death by hanging. After the "crown" gets its share, the Captain and crew of the ship which captured said "pirates" is entitled to their share of the plunder. This is all well documented in antiquity, although not recently tested in the courts as far as I have been able to determine.

But I digress, at any rate, the point I wish to make is one should not blindly submit to any infringement of basic rights. One of the primary basic rights as provided by the Constitutional Bill of Rights of the U.S.A. is the right to not be unreasonably searched, or have property seized without a judicially sanctioned warrant supported by probable cause. No law, Federal nor State, can legally, or morally supersede this unless the 4th Amendment is changed and ratified by the proper legal process. I don't care which president thinks he can do what. A Presidential order does NOT trump the Constitution. I don't think it does now, and neither did my ancestors fighting in the trenches at Valley Forge believe it ever would. The only way it ever can is if We the People allow it to.

So if it means I spend the night in jail, so be it. I just hope they aren't serving lime Jell-o. By the way, if they do arrest you, don't give your wallet to your wife or significant other. Most times for simple arrests you can post bail with cash or a credit card right after they book you. But if your significant other has your stuff you're stuck till they get there.


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

Local laws and codes are all irrelevant. This is solely a Constitutional question. If the Constitution allows it, then they don't need a law or code enabling them to board. If the Constitution does not allow it, then all the codes or laws in the world can not give them permission to board. 

The real issue comes down to what they have gotten away with, is likely to be what you will have to submit to, regardless of if it is legal or not. I would always contend that you should never grant permission, but let them know you will not interfere. This will technically limit their activity to what is a typical length stop - particularly with LEO - they are well trained in how to trick you into granting permission to be more nosey than their legal right. They are professionals at it.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Daveinet said:


> Local laws and codes are all irrelevant. This is solely a Constitutional question. If the Constitution allows it, then they don't need a law or code enabling them to board. If the Constitution does not allow it, then all the codes or laws in the world can not give them permission to board.


 This is worthy of a new thread.


----------



## scubaaz2001 (Jan 26, 2003)

Since the USCG is under the directive of Homeland Security they now have the power to search under anything they deam as reasonable cause. This even includes, say, you turned your vessel quickly in a direction they deamed as suspicious.


----------



## hellosailor (Apr 11, 2006)

gamer, some of what you "know" just ain't quite up to date.

"And we all know the price for Piracy is death by hanging. " Uh, no, last time I looked around, I think it was 10 USC that dealt with these things and I was surprised to see at that time (changes annually) that "aliens" would be hung but US nationals were fined fairly lightly, something like $5-10,000 instead.

As for denying permission to board, deny away. That would be immediate grounds for arrest on a felony count of "interfering with a law enforcement officer in the course of his duty" and after you were arrested and your boat seized, it would get searched anyway.

There are laws and there are laws, and there's way too much done illegally "under colour of law" and done because of illegal court decisions as well. But really, these days? Too many gung-hos with no sense of humor out there. I'll be glad to ask them to either take off their boots or put on these pretty pink shoe covers to keep my decks scuff-free but you'd better know how to read faces (ever play poker?) before you start saying "NO" to suits with guns and their buddies.

By all means, do say no. Just read up a bit more on the laws and your rights first, quoting the obsolete, incorrect, or incomplete ones is gonna get you free room and board. And free medical care. Odd how we only provide that to select groups, isn't it?


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

hellosailor said:


> As for denying permission to board, deny away. That would be immediate grounds for arrest on a felony count of "interfering with a law enforcement officer in the course of his duty" and after you were arrested and your boat seized, it would get searched anyway.


No, not granting permission is entirely different from attempting to prevent. I have been involved in a completely different situation with our local Secretary of State Police. They wanted to do something with my vehicle. I told them that I did not grant them permission, but clearly stated I would not make any attempt to interfere. There was no problem, as I was not attempting to prevent or interfere. We both were very amiable. No you will not be arrested, as there would be no basis.


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Daveinet, what LEO can and will do with your motor vehicle has no bearing on what they can and are allowed to do on your boat. If you are going to be an internet lawyer, you'd better study up on the case law, because you are comparing apples and oranges, no matter how solid you think your grasp of the constitution is.


----------



## kd3pc (Oct 19, 2006)

"We both were very amiable. No you will not be arrested, as there would be no basis."..

there really does not have to be a "basis" for your arrest..the LEO needs nothing more than a bad day to "arrest" you and take you down to be booked, processed and jailed.

Now it may not stand up, when you get before the court..but MANY are arrested ...spend a few hours in jail and released..

You really should be more careful with your observations...before someone actually believes your talk...and THEY end up arrested ..

it is best to NOT poke the cat in the eye...


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

SO you are saying I give the officers too much credit for not being immature jerks?


----------



## bljones (Oct 13, 2008)

Daveinet said:


> SO you are saying I give the officers too much credit for not being immature jerks?


Beware the generalizations- while you are painting LEO with a very wide brush, they are doing the same thing to you. When LEO approaches my boat- I ask "How do you take your coffee?" It really throws 'em off.

Or you can go on splitting hairs, discussing whether you consented to the search, whether it was legal, whether Thomas Jefferson would approve, yadda yadda yadda. Nobody has ever talked themselves out of a righteous ticket, but waaaaaayyy too many citizens have talked themselves into more trouble. Save the argument for the courtroom.


----------



## denverd0n (Jun 20, 2008)

bljones said:


> Save the argument for the courtroom.


This is really the bottom line to all of these discussions. When men with guns tell you that they are going to board your boat, it is best not to try to stop them. Not unless you are prepared to engage in an all-out gunfight!

Yes, you can say things like "I won't interfere with whatever you do, but I do not consent to you boarding or searching my vessel." Maybe that will be a bit to your benefit in court, or maybe not. Maybe it will sound just enough like a smart-aleck lawyer-wannabe to annoy an LEO who is having a bad day. Or maybe it will make them realize that you know your rights and are going to pursue them later. Who knows?

When push comes to shove, though, the best thing to do is say "yes sir" and "no sir" and "thank you sir", and call your lawyer later. Otherwise you are likely to end up face down with your hands cuffed behind your back, and you'll be calling your lawyer from a jail cell.


----------



## tommays (Sep 9, 2008)

If you get a ticket

Most likely you will be doing a plea with and ADA whose job it is to keep the Judges time free 

You might get a bench hearing with a Judge BUT be ready to take the MAX because the ADA and the Judge are not about to throw a LEO under the bus


----------



## Argyle38 (Oct 28, 2010)

In a related question, do Coasties or LEO's still say "Heave-to and prepare to be boarded"? 

If so, as sailors, has anyone actually hove-to in this situation? Would the Coasties (more likely, IMO) or the LEO's (less likely) actually realize that you were hove-to, or do they really want you to strike sails and lie a-hull?


----------



## Sabretooth (Nov 8, 2010)

bljones said:


> This is worthy of a new thread.


I think Benjamin Franklin put it best: _They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety_


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

Argyle38 said:


> In a related question, do Coasties or LEO's still say "Heave-to and prepare to be boarded"?
> 
> If so, as sailors, has anyone actually hove-to in this situation? Would the Coasties (more likely, IMO) or the LEO's (less likely) actually realize that you were hove-to, or do they really want you to strike sails and lie a-hull?


Why wouldn't they just depower the sails and coast. Who cares if you are still moving at a few knots. As long as you are both moving, one should be able to maintain control. I have been in a power boat that was stopped - I was NOT driving. Two officers, one did the asking questions, the other ones responsibility was to keep control of the direction of drift. I hung on to the patrol boat. Seams their power boats have enough power to maintain the direction and control of any sailing rig in inland waters. I also have to think half the skippers out there on smaller inland lakes probably don't know how to heave to anyway.

Incidentally, we were never boarded. My brother got his hand slapped - he was driving, not me.


----------



## mstern (May 26, 2002)

denverd0n said:


> This is really the bottom line to all of these discussions. When men with guns tell you that they are going to board your boat, it is best not to try to stop them. Not unless you are prepared to engage in an all-out gunfight!
> 
> Yes, you can say things like "I won't interfere with whatever you do, but I do not consent to you boarding or searching my vessel." Maybe that will be a bit to your benefit in court, or maybe not. Maybe it will sound just enough like a smart-aleck lawyer-wannabe to annoy an LEO who is having a bad day. Or maybe it will make them realize that you know your rights and are going to pursue them later. Who knows?
> 
> When push comes to shove, though, the best thing to do is say "yes sir" and "no sir" and "thank you sir", and call your lawyer later. Otherwise you are likely to end up face down with your hands cuffed behind your back, and you'll be calling your lawyer from a jail cell.


Well said, sir. Amen. As the old saying goes, "the lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client;" I would add to that anyone who takes legal advice from someone on the internet. As a former prosecutor and practicing attorney for twenty five years, I can't begin to tell you how dead wrong most of the "advice" given on this and other similar threads has been. I used to jump in and try to correct people, but I have learned that I should never argue with people whose views on what the law should be conflicts with what the law actually is, both in theory and in practice. To each his own, and may you never need to worry about this problem!


----------



## Daveinet (Jun 10, 2010)

Although I never understood from a Constitutional stand point the difference between a car and a boat. The laws seem to be different, but all laws would be subject to the Constitution regardless of if it floats or has wheels. When you look at case law, you see quite a few limitations for entrance into ones car.


----------

