# rammed:by the customs & border patrol



## 2belize&back

In cruising,you are bound to be checked out by the authorities,and i did not mind at all.they are professionals doing the job of protecting the waters,infrastructure and other boaters, ect.. in my @4000 mile trip, i had 11 encounters.; 1-sheriff, 1-harbor police, 2-parks & wildlife, 3- coast guards, & 4- customs & border patrol zodiacs.sometimes a full search & records check is made,others just a welfare and to make sure all the required safety gear is on board.my last contact was in belize city with the coast guard.while docked there for a week,we became good friends,and was given a tour of their zodiac,"a gift" from the u.s.( $ 500.000.00) in u.s. dollars.anyways,the encounter, i will not soon forget, occurred on my way back through galveston. i was moving right along well heeled over on a reach,when a c & b patrol boat approached from astern;"we are going to board you" they yelled.i nodded my head in affirmative,gave them the "ok"sign, and waved my arm with a "come on" gesture.they came up to the highside starboard quarter and one guy jumped onto the c-22's bench seat.then their zodiac hit my corner and spun me 90 degrees to starboard instantly.a combination of the zodiacs momentum pushing on my beam,and my keel acting as a brake,made theirs ride up onto and roll mine over,so that a huge amount of water came over the port rail.the guy that had jumped into my boat was now scrambling back onto his bow,thinking that my boat was going down.just as quickly as this had happened,they got theirs off of mine and she righted herself and i got back on course and to speed,whilest the scuppers drained.and again they approached,"we are going to board you",i gestured and yelled " come to the portside,low side".they did,two guys jump on ,we shake hands and smile.they ask me to slow the boat down, i release the jib and the search was on...and then they were gone. 2 b cont...


----------



## chucklesR

So basically, you had no thought of making the boarding action safe by heaving too, dropping sail etc.. and yet you want to complain? 

That's like complaining when a cop is chasing you with his lights on, then rams you to get you off the road when you refuse to pull over.


----------



## MysticGringo

Why didn't you slow the boat?


----------



## deniseO30

I'd of assumed you were "running" because you didn't slow down or heave to.


----------



## Vasco

Usually when they board you they tell you to maintain speed and course.


----------



## Ninefingers

If they wanted him to drop sails I think they would have told him to do so.


----------



## lancelot9898

I have only been boarded once and they did request that I maintain speed and course. This brings up an episode where a friend of mine was partipating in an offshore race and had the helm at night when all of a sudden a zodiac approached from the pitch black of the night. He refused to grant them permission to board and wanted to see more ID. They then disappeard into the black of night only to return with some more ID. He was still not satisfied and even when they pointed to the zodiac with the coast guard markings he told them that meant nothing. He told them if they wanted to board that the mother ship would have to light up. It did, but then after all of this going on I expected him to tell me that they did a very detailed inspection after he granted them permission to board. However no inspection took place and they just let him continue with the race without even boarding.


----------



## bljones

Boarded ELEVEN TIMES in 4000 miles?
I'd be asking myself, why am i attracting unwanted attention and how do i stop doing it?


----------



## deltaten

I think this is 2BB's subsequent attempt at [fictional] prose, rather than an account of his wanderings. Whether based in fact and actual events or strictly from imagination is up to the reader.


----------



## smackdaddy

I don't really care. I just look forward to Part 2.


----------



## azguy

bljones said:


> Boarded ELEVEN TIMES in 4000 miles?
> I'd be asking myself, why am i attracting unwanted attention and how do i stop doing it?


I know, it seems even with bad luck that's a lot of boardings....


----------



## smackdaddy

The important part of this story that no one has picked up on is that 2B&B sailed a freakin' *CATALINA 22* 2B&B! 4000 miles!

Granted, maybe he shouldn't have named the boat "Cocaine Cowboy" - but that's some pretty impressive work out there.


----------



## deltaten

^^
**IF** the story is to be believed as fact!?


----------



## remetau

We've been boarded once while out, and were instructed to maintain course and speed. Another time we were boarded by the US Border Patrol without us being aboard according to our trusty neighbors.

Cocaine Cowboy. Gotta love that one. Maybe I should rename my boat Mary Jane and see if our boardings increase.


----------



## Brewgyver

smackdaddy said:


> I don't really care. I just look forward to Part 2.


Slow day, eh Smackdadddy?


----------



## Capt.aaron

I belive him. The boardings are a lot more frequent in border states, ie: Fla. Texas. It's hard for bay sailors in the middle states to fathom what it's like down here sometimes. It's a different world. And I get boarded frequently at night or at least aproached in the lower Key's, they alway's ask you to maintain course and speed, we were boarded 100 miles south of the Caymans in the middle of night by a coast guard group stationed on a navy destroyer, we still were asked to maintain course and speed. There are people actually out there traveling around in small sail boat's,I think 2bb should stand for 2 big balls, looking forward to part 2.


----------



## Cruisingdad

smackdaddy said:


> The important part of this story that no one has picked up on is that 2B&B sailed a freakin' *CATALINA 22* 2B&B! 4000 miles!
> 
> Granted, maybe he shouldn't have named the boat "Cocaine Cowboy" - but that's some pretty impressive work out there.


Good one smacker! Crazy nut.


----------



## MysticGringo

Vasco said:


> Usually when they board you they tell you to maintain speed and course.


I've never been boarded, so I made an assumption that you'd ease up atleast to level the boat some.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Capt.aaron said:


> I belive him. The boardings are a lot more frequent in border states, ie: Fla. Texas. It's hard for bay sailors in the middle states to fathom what it's like down here sometimes. It's a different world. And I get boarded frequently at night or at east aproached in the lower Key's, they alway's ask you to maintain course and speed, we were boarded 100 miles south of the Caymans in the middle of night by a coast guard group stationed on a is navy destroyer, we still were asked to maintain course and speed. There are people actually out there traveling around in small sail boat's,I think 2bb should stand for 2 big balls, looking forward to part 2.


Yeah, we'll, we have a lot more miles than that and hardly anything. It has nothing to do with kids hanging upside down from to boom begging them, "hey... Board us, please! Is that a real gun? Do you have a boating license? Hey, how fast does your boat go? Can I come aboard? Do you burn a lot of gas? Hey, wanna see my Lego project? Hey!!! Where are you going? Board us!!! Please!!!!!"


----------



## Dean101

Cruisingdad said:


> Yeah, we'll, we have a lot more miles than that and hardly anything. It has nothing to do with kids hanging upside down from to boom begging them, "hey... Board us, please! Is that a real gun? Do you have a boating license? Hey, how fast does your boat go? Can I come aboard? Do you burn a lot of gas? Hey, wanna see my Lego project? Hey!!! Where are you going? Board us!!! Please!!!!!"


The more I picture this in my mind, the harder I laugh! It gets even funnier when I imagine what the coasties must be thinking!! :laugher


----------



## Capt.aaron

The single handling dude is more suspect, especially right on the border, like the Marquesas, where the border patrol, DEA, coast Guard, marine patrol, sheriff and Home Land all have boat's and are on constant patrol. Same for South Texas. A single dude on a small barebones boat is more likely to have what they are looking for than a family on a nice Catalina. Come to think of it, it's a good cover Brian, I know a guy in Mexico if you need a little extra W.A.M. ( WALKING AROUND MONEY) wink wink just kidding......but it's true....not really....well.............no I don't know any one.


----------



## 2belize&back

well,you can "belize" it or not.it's a free country.i sailed for adventure,and i found it.for solitude & found,for nature and to get better at sailing.check.to chuckles:ie. "complaining"? i said in post, "i did not mind it at all". to bljo; ie "boarded 11 times"? i said "11 encounters" in fact,i was boarded 3 times.twice by the b&c and once by the cg.the cg was a welfare check and to make sure i had a noise making device,pfd & throw cushion.ie. to "atracting attention". i think that one is not used to seeing a 22' cruiser.also having a swing keel & kick up rudder,allows one to go into areas that a fixed keel cruiser can not. to cruisedad; i can't disagree on the "crazy" coment.i left tampa on a whim.i was getting tired of the icw, and had not got the big adventure yet.hence,belize."i think i can make it,let's go for it!'...oh,and so you don't extrapolate anymore out of my quotes, the "let's" means me, myself, and i, and the boat. untill the next thread...i've got a 2 maybe 3 more. ...2 b ...


----------



## Capt.aaron

2belize&back said:


> well,you can "belize" it or not.it's a free country.i sailed for adventure,and i found it.for solitude & found,for nature and to get better at sailing.check.to chuckles:ie. "complaining"? i said in post, "i did not mind it at all". to bljo; ie "boarded 11 times"? i said "11 encounters" in fact,i was boarded 3 times.twice by the b&c and once by the cg.the cg was a welfare check and to make sure i had a noise making device,pfd & throw cushion.ie. to "atracting attention". i think that one is not used to seeing a 22' cruiser.also having a swing keel & kick up rudder,allows one to go into areas that a fixed keel cruiser can not. to cruisedad; i can't disagree on the "crazy" coment.i left tampa on a whim.i was getting tired of the icw, and had not got the big adventure yet.hence,belize."i think i can make it,let's go for it!'...oh,and so you don't extrapolate anymore out of my quotes, the "let's" means me, myself, and i, and the boat. untill the next thread...i've got a 2 maybe 3 more. ...2 b ...


I Belize ya dude, I sailed a 28 foot centerboard sloop non-stop from Key Largo to Mexico and on down to Belize in 1990 when I was barley 20 years old. The Belize defense force boarded me, had a laugh and left, later they helped me un step and step my mast, and the U.S Coasties boarded me in the Harbour leaving Belize out by English Cay. Northern seasonal weekend sailors don't get it. Keep the stories coming man, I like 'em.


----------



## SloopJonB

What I'd like to know is - what is your COAST guard doing patrolling & boarding even American boats in Belize and the Caymans?

Did the USA extend is economic zone a tad while we weren't looking?


----------



## GeorgeB

LOL. Nothing like a five year old to hasten a safety inspection. Trust me on this, best insurance to have if your flares are expired IMHO. We’ve been boarded four times in the past forty years. All by the USCG and all either motoring or motor sailing. On time we were following a StFYC sail boat when returning from the Delta. As he got close to the Carquinez Bridge he quickly hoisted his sails and we thought “that was odd, there’s no wind”. Sure enough the local bridge troll zoomed out from behind a bridge pier, drove past the StFYC boat and boarded us. My friends tell me that teenage daughters are a magnet for boardings.

The USCG can board an American boat anytime, anywhere. The US has treaties with the Caribbean nations for drug enforcement giving them the authority to board pretty much everyone down there. With everyone fearful about piracy and the drug wars in Central America, It’s kind of nice to know that the Coasties are at hand if you should need them.


----------



## Capt.aaron

SloopJonB said:


> What I'd like to know is - what is your COAST guard doing patrolling & boarding even American boats in Belize and the Caymans?
> 
> Did the USA extend is economic zone a tad while we weren't looking?


They're there, omnipresent. First thing you see when you sail in to Cartegenia is a U.S. Navy Destroyer anchored in the middle of the harbour and A Coastie Launch Hanging on it's Davits. In the regan and then Bush senior years, they would swab your cabin top with q tip to look for weed rezin, in case you were smoking a doobee (sp?) in side. Possession. We had t_shirts made up that said "U.S. coast guard.. one seed is all they need to make you bleed. They were cutting peoples boat's up with chain saw's back then.


----------



## 2belize&back

sloop,once again, extrapolation.i did not say the us coast guard boarded me in belize.but, when i was inbetween cuba & the yuc penisula, a small (maybe 80' to 100') came from behind and went by very close.i thought for sure they were gonna check me out.


----------



## davidpm

GeorgeB said:


> My friends tell me that teenage daughters are a magnet for boardings.


The girls could do worse yes?


----------



## smackdaddy

2belize&back said:


> i was getting tired of the icw, and had not got the big adventure yet.hence,belize."i think i can make it,let's go for it!'...


Screw the naysayers...you're my kind of guy 2B&B. I look forward to the next installment.


----------



## SloopJonB

2belize&back said:


> sloop,once again, extrapolation.i did not say the us coast guard boarded me in belize.but, when i was inbetween cuba & the yuc penisula, a small (maybe 80' to 100') came from behind and went by very close.i thought for sure they were gonna check me out.


I dunno, I kind of figured that the *COAST* guard would do exactly that and your Navy would patrol beyond your coastal economic zone. I guess what you actually have is two Navies, junior & senior.

Call me naive.


----------



## RichH

US Coast guard has agreements with most Caribbean and most S. American countries, and many 'overseas' countries. probably except Cuba and now Venez. 

The prime commission of the USCG is/was interdiction of smuggling of contraband and 'revenue' avoidance, only added lifesaving as a prime directive with the absorption and inclusion of the US Life Saving Service in ~1890s. 

USCG was under the Treasury Dept. until the recent change to administration by the Dept of Homeland Security. 
Can, or used to be, available to be 'transferred' to Defense Dept. (Navy) during war time. 

If US flagged, a vessel can be boarded 'anywhere' by Navy or USCG.


----------



## MarkSF

Capt.aaron said:


> I belive him. The boardings are a lot more frequent in border states, ie: Fla. Texas. It's hard for bay sailors in the middle states to fathom what it's like down here sometimes. It's a different world. And I get boarded frequently at night or at least aproached in the lower Key's, they alway's ask you to maintain course and speed, we were boarded 100 miles south of the Caymans in the middle of night by a coast guard group stationed on a navy destroyer, we still were asked to maintain course and speed. There are people actually out there traveling around in small sail boat's,I think 2bb should stand for 2 big balls, looking forward to part 2.


Are you sure it wasn't the punctuation patrol?


----------



## Capt.aaron

MarkSF said:


> Are you sure it wasn't the punctuation patrol?


Well, I'm on a tug boat. I run down and check sailnet, and run back up on deck to do something, run back down to the galley and have a look on the computer again when I get a chance. Sometimes my spelling and punctuation fall by the way side in my haste to post. I usually try and come back and edit later. In any case, I see The Mohawk and other Coast Gaurd Cutter's all over Central and South America, as well as U.S. Navy with a small Coast Gaurd Troop stationed on board. Most Times they just hail you, sometimes they come over and have a look. Writing in stream of conscious, gives me a little poetic freedom to puncuate the pauses of salty speak. I'll try to pay more attention in the future, so my point is not lost on the anal. It is possible Small boat lover's writitng style has rubbed off on me a little as well.


----------



## Sal Paradise

2b&b

Personally, I would love to hear about your trip to Belize. 

Sal Paradise


----------



## 2belize&back

sal par, i'll try to get her done 2day or 2moro.am going to be on the road after that,maybe have access to another puter.the next and final? thread will be titled ; warning: do not try this at home!


----------



## vega1860

bljones said:


> Boarded ELEVEN TIMES in 4000 miles?
> I'd be asking myself, why am i attracting unwanted attention and how do i stop doing it?


That's what I was thinking. We have never been boarded at sea.


----------



## Capt.aaron

vega1860 said:


> That's what I was thinking. We have never been boarded at sea.


Do you sail along heavy drug and human trafficing routes, in and out of seedy harbours on small single handed sailboat's with no engine at night? Do you sail in and out of Port Antonio Jamaica and Cartegenia? Do you sail through Angle Fish Creek in North Key Largo at night or along the South Texas coast? Or along the north coast of Cuba, riding the counter current just outside the reef,? If so, you've just been lucky.


----------



## vega1860

Capt.aaron said:


> Do you sail along heavy drug and human trafficing routes, in and out of seedy harbours on small single handed sailboat's with no engine at night? Do you sail in and out of Port Antonio Jamaica and Categenia? Do you sail through Angle Fish Creek in North Key Largo at night or along the South Texas coast? Or along the north coast of Cuba, riding the counter current just outside the reef,? If so, you've just been lucky.


No we don't. And why would we? We avoid areas where we know we will be hassled. We avoid big cities with high crime too. We live on an ocean going sailboat that can take us anywhere. Why on earth would we want to sail into an area like that? Given the choice, and we all have a choice, why would anyone?


----------



## Capt.aaron

Because that's where we live, The Key's, I have a House in Guanaja Honduras, and I deliver boats all over the Caribbean, Been living here my whole life, working commercial tug's, sailboat's, dive boat's. I work harbour tug's in and out of Miami the Bahama's. That's why I supose. Funny thing is your avitar is a happy pirate shooting a cartoon cannon.


----------



## hellosailor

JonB, there used to be some serious and longstanding inviolate separations between 'administrative agency" "police" and "military" in the US. I say used to be, because after the nonsense of 9/11, the so-called Patriot Act, the creation of DHS...what we've got now is a true disgrace that some ofus would call outright treasonous because of the way it tramples our laws.

As Rich said, the USCG used to be a unique "dual purpose" organization. They were an administrative agency in time of peace, and only after a formal Congressional Declaration of War could they be transferred to the USN to become a fifth military agency. 

Among other things, this allowed the USCG to perform domestic duties (as in after Katrina) when the US military forces were arguably banned from doing so, by law. Thta law was quietly (one might say furtively and secretly) modified in 2007 to the extent of being practically repealed. So once again...Aw, you don't really want to know what a *ing quagmire our leaders have made of things down here.

Short version of it? "US zero, Al-Queda Won."

Ain't the US of A anymore.


----------



## Cruisingdad

Capt.aaron said:


> Because that's where we live, The Key's, I have a House in Guanaja Honduras, and I deliver boats all over the Caribbean, Been living here my whole life, working commercial tug's, sailboat's, dive boat's. I work harbour tug's in and out of Miami the Bahama's. That's why I supose. Funny thing is your avitar is a happy pirate shooting a cartoon cannon.


Hey Aaron, for whatever it is worth, vega is one of the few on here I respect along with you. Good fella if that is worth anything from my opinion. Good sailor. You two would see things eye to eye.

Brian


----------



## Brent Swain

In Canada my boat is a private residence, and it is illegal for anyone to come aboard uninvited, without a search warrant. To get one they have to present some pretty convincing evidence to a judge,and that can be challenged. I would never allow anyone aboard . Offshore, some sharp things sticking out, take care of any uninvited inflatables. I once ripped open a US coastguard inflatable that way. The harbour security guard said they would be scrubbing toilets for a while, for that screw up.
I wouldn't cruise any country which allows a bunch of macho foreigners to enforce their own law in their country.


----------



## Capt.aaron

Cruisingdad said:


> Hey Aaron, for whatever it is worth, vega is one of the few on here I respect along with you. Good fella if that is worth anything from my opinion. Good sailor. You two would see things eye to eye.
> 
> Brian


Just josh'n with him, I'm sure he is. I couldn't help but think of this thread over the past hour as we moved a fuel barge to the other side of Miami harbour and saw the Border Patrol Board an incoming Cruiser with a yellow flag flying in Goverment Cut. Those of you who are'nt sailing right on the front lines of the game are'nt getting boarded and don't see it like those of us who are. I don't think a week goes by that I don't see boat's being boarded by one of the many agency's with boat's out here. And you know what, they are alway's the nicest guy's you'd want to meet. I've never had anything to hide and it usually end's up with them having a laugh and scooting on their way.


----------



## tomperanteau

We've been confronted a few times in the past few years. Law Enforcement seems to be more aggressive these days.


----------



## finding41

Can't believe it hasn't been put forth yet. Come on, 5 pages and no....
Water boarding anyone?


----------



## AKscooter

*That's what I was thinking. We have never been boarded at sea. *

You ain't young, you ain't purty, and you ain't a girl.........


----------



## mdi

Happens around Pensacola and the related Inland Waterways all the time, has been for the last 10 years, well before 9 Eleven


----------



## bljones

mdi said:


> Happens around Pensacola and the related Inland Waterways all the time, has been for the last 10 years, well before 9 Eleven


Math ain't your strong suit, huh?


----------



## mdi

bljones said:


> Math ain't your strong suit, huh?


Opps! 

You right about that one. I remember these boardings around here occurring regularly since at least 1995. It may be related to the large military presence in the area.


----------



## Minnewaska

LEO's all profile. They may throw in the random counter-profile boarding, so they aren't accused of it. Think about it, if you are boarded more than average for your area.

For example, you see a rag tag sloop in poor repair at max capacity of teenagers aboard and what do you think are the odds that it has proper safety gear? It may, but the odds are lower than the 100ft flag blue custom sloop with a professional captain at the helm and the missus sitting in the cockpit with a cucumber sparkling water.


----------



## mdi

Minnewaska said:


> LEO's all profile. They may throw in the random counter-profile boarding, so they aren't accused of it. Think about it, if you are boarded more than average for your area.
> 
> For example, you see a rag tag sloop in poor repair at max capacity of teenagers aboard and what do you think are the odds that it has proper safety gear? It may, but the odds are lower than the 100ft flag blue custom sloop with a professional captain at the helm and the missus sitting in the cockpit with a cucumber sparkling water.


Certainly I agree with the above but around here everyone pretty much is treated the same regardless of sail or power, 15' to 50'. One strategy we use is to start the new year with a request for courtesy safety inspection and get the decal that goes with it and prominently post it on the windshield.
This reduces the number of boardings.


----------



## wingNwing

mdi said:


> One strategy we use is to start the new year with a request for courtesy safety inspection and get the decal that goes with it and prominently post it on the windshield.
> This reduces the number of boardings.


This spring we were coming up Currituck Sound, a big sportfisher and 3 sailboats, ducklings in a row motoring up the channel in 20-25 knot crosswinds (i.e., rough conditions). The sportfisher requested to pass, they were very courteous on the VHF. One of the sailboats was kind of a jerk, the other was unremarkable. (and _of course_, I'm the consummate professional  thank you US Navy for the training). The Coast Guard came by in their red inflatable - obviously they'd heard the radio conversations or lack thereof - and started with the sportfisher "Captain, have you ever had a safety boarding at sea?" "Yes, about a year ago." And the CG said they were going to do it again, asked him to maintain course and speed. Maybe they just needed the rough weather boarding practice. Ten minutes later they were done.

Then the first of the sailboats; the guy who had been a jerk on the radio. Same drill from the Coast Guard, "Captain, have you ever had a safety boarding at sea?" "No." And the CG boarded him, again asking to maintain course and speed.

We were next. I'm hoping that having been professional on the VHF helped, but it didn't help the sportfisher. "Captain, have you ever had a safety boarding at sea?" "Yes, about 2 years ago in South Carolina, and just a few weeks ago we did the dockside courtesy check before we left Florida." Silence from the CG for a few minutes, then, "Thank you for taking the time to do that, have a pleasant voyage." They went on to board the other of the sailboats.

4 boats, 3 boardings, 1 courtesy sticker. I'm convinced!


----------



## zedboy

Brent Swain said:


> In Canada my boat is a private residence, and it is illegal for anyone to come aboard uninvited, without a search warrant.


Don't test that while underway - you're only a residence when the hook is dropped or you're tied up (dropping for lunch and having a beer doesn't count either - has to be you're parked for the night).

Under way you're a vehicle and they can board & inspect.


----------



## chucklesR

Brent Swain said:


> In Canada my boat is a private residence, and it is illegal for anyone to come aboard uninvited, without a search warrant. To get one they have to present some pretty convincing evidence to a judge,and that can be challenged. I would never allow anyone aboard . Offshore, some sharp things sticking out, take care of any uninvited inflatables. I once ripped open a US coastguard inflatable that way. The harbour security guard said they would be scrubbing toilets for a while, for that screw up.
> I wouldn't cruise any country which allows a bunch of macho foreigners to enforce their own law in their country.


We've had this discussion before on sail net and elsewhere. Canadian laws are indeed different - and in my opinion better for the citizen's protection when it comes to searches.
However, your claims are quaint, but not quiet true. 
You can indeed prevent a boarding, however you can also be fined up to 300k for doing so. 
The Advocate - Informing Marine Engineers about legal matters

As the article says, it's better to let them on, then make them spell out what they are looking for, and stick to looking just for that.

In both the U.S. and Canada denying a search can be grounds enough for a search warrant, especially in vehicles. 
I think under Admiralty law anchored vessels are not homes, they are vehicles in transit (which is why you have the right to anchor). It's only a residence if it can't move (e.g. a RV parked is a RV).

Of course if you stray over the invisible boarder you could also get a couple of 50 cal rounds through your 1/4 steel hull just to make you a little more compliant.


----------



## hellosailor

It is interesting that the US's Fourth Amendment was specifically written so that the King's own men could not search treasonous rebel carriages on the King's own highways. Personal carriages, carriages used intrade, for hire, whatever. "Effects" could not be unreasonably or randomly searched.

And in the 1970's some automotive search cases were held to be illegal in the US on the same grounds, then a few years later the USSC reversed itself when the states came up with the clever idea that your license was only issued IF you consented to waive your rights. Which you legally can't be asked or required to do, either.

Watercops, federal commerce clause, police powers, public safety...all very nice but unsound and illegal excuses for illegal searches these days. The Fourth Amendment is dog simple, the letters and publications written at the time it was being discussed are dog simple. No want, no warrant? No legal search, period.

Doesn't matter how the courts support the men in office or the men with guns, the searches are still illegal. Damned shame there's nothing to be done about it. Except, perhaps, to put Alice's Restaurant on the PA and then consume as much of their time as you possibly can, knowing that will prevent them from bothering anyone else while so occupied.


----------



## Capt.aaron

Capt.aaron said:


> Because that's where we live, The Key's, I have a House in Guanaja Honduras, and I deliver boats all over the Caribbean, Been living here my whole life, working commercial tug's, sailboat's, dive boat's. I work harbour tug's in and out of Miami the Bahama's. That's why I supose. Funny thing is your avitar is a happy pirate shooting a cartoon cannon.


I'm quoting my own post to clear the air. I understand Chuck "Vega" is a seagoing salt and I am Impressed with his accomplishments. Two sailnetters have alerted me to who he and has wife are. His question as to why anyone would cruise the Caribbean or S.W. fla. prompted my response, I meant no dis-respect , and as I was writing took note of his avitar and had a little chuckle, I would have said the same thing to him with a pat on the back and a smile over a pint in a pub.


----------



## Brewgyver

hellosailor said:


> (snip)And in the 1970's some automotive search cases were held to be illegal in the US on the same grounds, then a few years later the USSC reversed itself when the states came up with the clever idea that your license was only issued IF you consented to waive your rights. Which you legally can't be asked or required to do, either.


Hellosailor, could you cite that decision for us? AKAIK, police still cannot search vehicles without permission unless the have a warrant. There are exceptions, driving into some designated locations that are posted "Vehicles subject to search", just as persons entering courtrooms, some other governemnt building and airports are).

The only implied consent law regarding vehicles that I know of is to submit to testing for operating under the influence (DUI).

(not really a thread hijack - germaine to the thread topic)


----------



## chucklesR

Brew,

I can't come to the rescue and cite the law, but I can say that (as I said earlier) refusal of a request to search is indeed all the probable cause (when coupled to the reasons the officer wanted to do the search e.g. shifty eyes, reefer smell, etc..) that is necessary for a warrant. I work for a police agency - in the five years I've done so not one request has been denied.


----------



## AKscooter

*in the five years I've done so not one request has been denied. *

Therein lies the problem, cops infallible???? Not a effin chance.....The judges who sign the BS warrants need to be jacked hard.

Your home is your home...moving or not. In the US it is the 4th amendment...but ACLU is not looking for _that_ kind of fight.

Frankly, I think all your email, bank records, medical, dental, juvenile, records and etcetera should be made public...you know....for the terrorists.....


----------



## cherev

Probably not fiction. Ever since September 2001, the various 'enforcement' arms of USA governments have become exceedingly arrogant. The ancient human right of innocent passage is no longer honored, and sailors are confronted today with very well-equipped but usually-polite pirates.

The real troublemakers are the power-boaters, especially the go-fast types. When they're not ramming docks, pilings and nav aids, running up everybody's insurance rates, then they're smuggling stuff. Liquored up, with powder on their top lip. If the LEOs had any sense, they'd ignore Joe Sailor and look for Mr. Many Gold Chains.

Few sailors think that any vessel that may go max 7 knots (when the wind is just right) is the way to carry anything more interesting than a couple of long-guns, some bottles of rum, a box of Cuban cigars, and maybe an ill-clad honey or two.


----------



## yossarian

> in both the u.s. And canada denying a search can be grounds enough for a search warrant, especially in vehicles.





> and in the 1970's some automotive search cases were held to be illegal in the us on the same grounds, then a few years later the ussc reversed itself when the states came up with the clever idea that your license was only issued if you consented to waive your rights. Which you legally can't be asked or required to do, either.





> hellosailor, could you cite that decision for us? Akaik, police still cannot search vehicles without permission unless the have a warrant.





> refusal of a request to search is indeed all the probable cause (when coupled to the reasons the officer wanted to do the search e.g. Shifty eyes, reefer smell, etc..) that is necessary for a warrant.


For the record - none of this is accurate.

1) There is an "automobile exception" to the fourth amendment's warrant requirement, but it is not an exception from the probable cause requirement. So the police may search a vehicle without a warrant, but not without probable cause. Some states (Vermont, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, and others) have held that there is no automobile exception to the warrant requirement of their state constitution thus requiring a warrant for all automobile searches.

2) Denying a request to search does not constitute probable cause to search (or to get a search warrant) and does not factor into the probable cause analysis. It's a right you get to invoke without penalty.

3) The automobile exception doesn't come from implied waiver by consent, it comes from the exigency exception. The logic is that automobiles are inherently mobile and that any time the police want to search a car, there is a risk that the car will leave, so they need the right to search without a warrant (but with probable cause) in order to preserve whatever evidence is in the car.

/your friendly sailnet defense attorney.


----------



## chef2sail

> Writing in stream of conscious, gives me a little poetic freedom to puncuate the pauses of salty speak. I'll try to pay more attention in the future, so my point is not lost on the anal.CaptAaron


I second that emoticon:laugher:laugher


----------



## chef2sail

Who cares if they search me or do a courtesy inspection....If they catch someone sneaking a dirty bomb in the US through it or 1 ton of cocaine its a small price to pay.

Note: I did not say carte blanche eliminatuion of the fourth amendment 

Dave


----------



## Azzarac

By "ill-clad honey" I have to assume you are reffering to the 1970's polyester green pant suits... Yeah, not on my boat buddy LOL! Since I've had my other boat topped out at 54 knots I'm going to straddle the fence on cherev's comment and propose that instead of pushing the troubles off on the powerboat groups maybe we should unite and voice our issues uppon the lawmakers to get something changed. If that should fail, we can face them down with our huge civilian armada. Sending the powerboaters out first of course...


----------



## patrickbryant

Ninefingers said:


> If they wanted him to drop sails I think they would have told him to do so.


I agree. I asked a Coast Guard friend of mine, who's done hundreds of boardings, and his reply was : if the Coasties want you to change anything about your speed and course, they will say so -- don't try to help them until you're given instructions. It's safer for everybody that way, and any quick maneuvers could be misinterpreted as evasion.

He also told me that they used to hail: "Come about and heave to." But they so frequently got quizzical stares from the modern crop of racers ("heave to? how do ya do _that_?") that they gave up on those instructions.


----------



## Brent Swain

They have a harassment quota for the minimum number of people they are required to harass on any give day, regardless of how innocent they may be. That and the rise of the fear industry, may be the source of the problem.


----------



## Jimmy E

Almost got boarded once by the US Coast Gaurd. I say almost because on this specific day we were crossing Erie in a 26' Grampian / 4 knot winds / wing on wing, in following seas. We watched the Coast Gaurd travel back and forth for more than hour waiting for us to cross the border.....I am assuming they got board waiting, and eventually disappeared on the horizon.
There's a moral in here somewhere
Jimmy


----------



## patrickbryant

Brent Swain said:


> They have a harassment quota for the minimum number of people they are required to harass on any give day, regardless of how innocent they may be. That and the rise of the fear industry, may be the source of the problem.


As long as they're polite and don't damage anything, I don't mind being boarded. I've heard and seen the Coast Guard save a lot of boaters from certain death in the cold brine - that I feel it's a small price to pay for having them around. What upsets me is the vast amount of US Taxpayer dollars that go into rescuing people who have no clue about seamanship.


----------



## chef2sail

> What upsets me is the vast amount of US Taxpayer dollars that go into rescuing people who have no clue about seamanship. Patrickbryant


Do you have any metric to support this? How much was CG money was actually spent on rescuing people?? What is the alternative..let them drown? How do you prevent this? So should the CG rescue the people who work the commercial fishing boats on the Bering Sea? That seems like a suicide mission we taxpayers are supporting if you ask me. I dont care if I eat another opelio crab again.

Dave


----------



## Andrew Burton

I'm surprised that so many seem to accept US authorities just boarding us for no reason other than they want to. What I'm talking about is the 4th Amendment, which says, 

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Yes, customs has always had the right to board vessels approaching from foreign waters, but that doesn't explain how the USCG and local police have assumed the right to board vessels in domestic waters.


----------



## Andrew Burton

If I was in the coast guard I would be very embarrassed to carry out the random boarding part of the job. The coasties are much better suited to being heroes than that.


----------



## Capt.aaron

When I was in my 20's, and the cop's would come up to my boat, I'd say " What do you dip 
sh!t's want" and it never went over all that well, usually end up with a ticket I'd never pay and end up in jail a year later for a warrant. Now I just play nice, and it goes smooth. path of least resistance. I still mumble the same thing under my breath as they approach.


----------



## patrickbryant

I don't see any mention in the 4th amendment about boats. Boats have been a major vehicle of smuggling for centuries, and that hasn't changed. The 4th amendment only protects us from unreasonable searches. Considering the scope and extent of the risks, being boarded so the CG can have a look around isn't unreasonable. Especially since anyone can operate a recreational vessel. Those of us with CG licenses have had to undergo fingerprinting and pass a background check. The risk of a vessel being exploited for a terrorist attack is very real, and the impact to our economy would be immeasurable. 

Try imagining what would happen to our economy if all inbound container ships were forbidden from approaching our coasts due to the practical impossibility of searching inside all those stacked containers -- after something bad came out of one of them shoreside. It's a real risk. I'm as Libertarian as anyone, but I also believe the US has a right to protect its borders, intercept terrorists, and curtail smuggling. Now imagine: along comes someone in their recreational boat, no license, no background check, no way for the Coast Guard to know if the people aboard are even sane: and the Coast Guard wanting to take a look at what's going on inside that boat seems reasonable to me.

I assure you that, if you get boarded, when they ask you for your ID ... and you hand them your Merchant Mariner Credential and your TSA background check card, they will treat you differently. Otherwise, they have no idea who you are and what you're up to out there. Want to be treated differently? Go get licensed.

It's a matter of balance - something that's in short supply in our culture. Compromise and moderation seem to be dead virtues, as I'm sure the flames I'm going to get will demonstrate.


----------



## AKscooter

*I don't see any mention in the 4th amendment about boats.* 
My home is my home it is unreasonable without a signed warrant.

* Boats have been a major vehicle of smuggling for centuries*
Other than the long historical perspective, so have planes, cars, backpacks/purses and pockets. So what is your point????

* inbound container ships * Yes hassle a six knot vessel but not a 20+knot cargo ship that their load is only what ??? at what fraction of a percent is actually inspected? Brokers cleared my last shipment.......guess what was NOT inspected?

*Otherwise, they have no idea who you are and what you're up to out there.*
It is my right not to tell them what I am doing or where I am going. It is not their business. I do not talk to cops other than the basic hi and by. Not rude, just to the point and brief. That is another "right" you would love to give away.

*if the people aboard are even sane:* A license, credential or TSA background check card is not assurance of sanity or safety.

*I'm sure the flames I'm going to get will demonstrate.* Yes, you are in such danger you are willing to live in a police state that cannot possibly protect you. To the point of facilitating the repression of people who have no interest in acts of terrorism. Flames not really, just amusing to see an intelligent being pretending that the house that is burning is a sound structure.

* I'm as Libertarian as anyone* You are not even on the same planet as a libertarian.

Sailing a boat is not a terrorist act.


----------



## AKscooter

Just to let people know I am not * against* the idea of a safe and sound country.

1. Boat inspections can be done at dockside. I cannot out run a MV.
2. Most sailboats tend to go in circles...some smaller and some bigger, then dockside .
3. Real "bad boy" types are not gonna use the average joe six pack special.
4. If the cops want you they can and will find something to bust your balls with.
5. I really appreciate the coasties when they do rescue our/my ignorant ass/es.
6. But seriously, how many boaters do you know/heard of or even read about are into things other than fun boating activities?????????


----------



## MysticGringo

Capt.aaron said:


> When I was in my 20's, and the cop's would come up to my boat, I'd say " What do you [email protected]'s want" and it never went over all that well, usually end up with a ticket I'd never pay and end up in jail a year later for a warrant. Now I just play nice, and it goes smooth. path of least resistance. I still mumble the same thing under my breath as they approach.
> ( disclaimer, I live in Key West and have a lot of gay freinds so I can say that word)


(EDIT BY CD - personal attack)

This is meant as a half joke, I'm sure you're not an idiot, but being friends with a group of people does not excuse the prejudiced nature of your words. I would have thought if you had a bunch of gay friends that you would steer away from using any gay terms derogatorily.

In terms of letting the coast guard board me... why wouldn't I? I'm all legal, and have nothing to hide... and being friendly goes further than being a jerk to them. Remember, these might be the same guys and girls who are picking you out of the water some day after something bad or stupid happens.


----------



## Capt.aaron

MysticGringo said:


> (edited by cd - personal attack)
> 
> This is meant as a half joke, I'm sure you're not an idiot, but being friends with a group of people does not excuse the prejudiced nature of your words. I would have thought if you had a bunch of gay friends that you would steer away from using any gay terms derogatorily.
> 
> In terms of letting the coast guard board me... why wouldn't I? I'm all legal, and have nothing to hide... and being friendly goes further than being a jerk to them. Remember, these might be the same guys and girls who are picking you out of the water some day after something bad or stupid happens.


Yes indeed I am an idiot. It wasn't untill I embraced my inner idiot that I started to overcome it. I changed the phrase to the other term that pop's in my head when I see the orange dinghy. I alway's go a little far don't I? I set up my life raft in a way that I can most likely get my self to the nearest down wind piece of land, I hope I never need those guy's. I do appriciate them for the lives they have saved.


----------



## Minnewaska

If the authorities didn't find so many rules being broken during the boarding process, I am convinced the taxpayer would stop paying to have it done.


----------



## LooseDiamond

There is a recent 3 part article on Coast Guard boardings and your Fourth Amendment rights from sailfeed.com. It is very informative, as well as links to other writings on the subject.

If you wish to skip the reading, I will summarize it for you:

You don't have any Fourth Amendment rights on the water, and haven't since 1790.



> "There are two main ways to board a vessel-either with permission, or without."


Had to delete link. Only had 9 posts and I need 10. See if I can post it next...


----------



## LooseDiamond

Here you go:

Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1 | Sail Feed


----------



## chucklesR

LooseDiamond said:


> Here you go:
> 
> Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1 | Sail Feed


As I said earlier -

Folks, get the facts, not a defense lawyer's view point. They have the commitment of the chicken in a ham and egg breakfast, you are the ham. They make money from you, you lose and go to jail.

Follow the law and you have no fears.


----------



## sd1953

I've never been boarded by the Coasties, but when lobstering in the Florida Keys we have been regularly "inspected" by the "Grouper Troopers" (Florida Fish and Game). They have always been polite and professional. They have an enormous responsibility and deal with people all day who are lots less than professional or even polite (and some are drunk too). The stories I hear from folks about getting around the bag limits and the things they do to our natural resources always makes me offer the officers a cold water and my warm regards. As long as there is a percentage of the population who will abuse our shared natural resources to the point that they will destroy it, we as a community have to police them. But we cannot police them without allowing the police to watch us as well.


----------



## patrickbryant

AKscooter said:


> * Boats have been a major vehicle of smuggling for centuries*
> Other than the long historical perspective, so have planes, cars, backpacks/purses and pockets. So what is your point????


My point is: warrantless searches of boats have been going on since long before you were ever born. There's nothing new about it. It's an ancient practice. Probably the first day someone hollowed out a log to make the first boat, there was someone in authority wanting to look inside it. It's just part of the rich and ancient traditions of boating. You chose to engage in an activity that includes the likelihood of being boarded by the Coast Guard. That's your right. And it's also your right to complain about it. But you are only "baying at the moon" -- it's not going to change. You might as well complain about the sun's habit of rising in the east. If it really bugs you, you might want to consider doing something else that doesn't include a long tradition of warrantless searches. It'd be better for your blood pressure.

To quote an old Viking song: "Vem kan segla förutan vind?" -- who can sail without the wind? You're wanting to go out on the water free from warrantless searches is as whimsical as trying to sail without the wind. Good luck.

From a constitutional standpoint: there are only nine people in the United Stares who can decide whether the practice is constitutional. I encourage you to take it up with them, but ironically, the most conservative members of that body are the least likely to side with your position. You might want to read this case that came before the Supreme Court to appreciate what you're up against: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/579/. Quoting the first sentence of that decision: "Title 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a) authorizes customs officers to board any vessel at any time and at any place in the United States to examine the vessel's manifest and other documents." I'll let the lawyers among us explain the Court's past decisions on the topic.



AKscooter said:


> Sailing a boat is not a terrorist act.


Neither is flying an airplane. But as pithy as it may be, you can't sum up the whole situation in one sentence. Real life is messier than that. We pilots have had to operate under a microscope ever since 9/11. Would you propose we stop doing background checks on foreign flight students? It's very inconvenient for them. They have to wait weeks before they can start instruction... The world has changed. Get over it.


----------



## tomperanteau

Step aboard and you do lose all your rights. Why? Because they have "policies" that circumvent the Bill of Rights. That is why the politicians invented policies and regulations. They can steal your rights and money and there is nothing you can do about it.


----------



## zedboy

tomperanteau said:


> Step aboard and you do lose all your rights. Why? Because they have "policies" that circumvent the Bill of Rights. That is why the politicians invented policies and regulations. They can steal your rights and money and there is nothing you can do about it.


Interestingly, you don't even need to step aboard to have fun with Customs: the usual rules don't apply when going crossing a border. They can search & seize without probable cause (which is the limiting factor for the highway patrolman, who has no right to search your car - he can look at what he can see through the window, and act based on that alone).


----------



## patrickbryant

Well, you could write your congressman ;-)

Here're the laws on Customs boarding/searching/seizing: 19 USC § 1581 - Boarding vessels | LII / Legal Information Institute

The laws have been on the books for a long time. Probably before many readers here were born. And the laws really just codify what Customs has always had the power to do. Those are the rules of the road. Don't like it? Don't get on a boat. Or get the laws changed.

I would not go so far as to say "you lose ALL your rights." That's an extreme perspective. And I do deeply sympathize with people whose boats are their homes.

But the Supreme Court settled this argument 29 years ago:

"In 1790, ... the First Congress clearly authorized the suspicionless boarding of vessels by Government officers, reflecting its view that such boardings are not contrary to the Fourth Amendment, which was promulgated by the same Congress."

[United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 (1983)]

I hate to break it to you guys who're screaming about the 4th amendment but, the SAME congress that originally passed the 4th Amendment to the constitution also said that government agents could board vessels without any suspicion!

It's amazing how these old arguments get rehashed over and over, usually by newly-minted ill-informed self-appointed constitutionalists, when the congress that wrote the 4th amendment settled the issue way back in 1790.

What we need is an explicit constitutional right of privacy. Do a text search of the US constitution some time for the word "privacy" and see how many times it appears (zero). The ninth and tenth amendments sorta, kinda, indirectly, give you the vague impression that there might be such a thing as a right to privacy; but in today's era -- we need something explicit. Constitutional scholars argue that since the government isn't explicitly allowed to violate your privacy, then that means you have a right to privacy (a bad case of circular logic in my opinion). But here we have it: all it takes is government legislation that grants the power to invade your privacy -- and that right dissolves into thin air. Legislation like what Congress passed, in 1790. Privacy is a very "soft" right in this county that can be easily brushed aside because it isn't explicitly granted in our constitution.

I lived in Sweden for two years (great sailing!), and studied their constitution. Sweden has a very explicit right-to-privacy, and Sweden is the "gold standard" for privacy laws today. The Europeans have recent painful memories of Big Brother snooping through people's stuff (WWII, Nazis, and Stalinists). But the neo-pseudo-conservatives in this country will have nothin' to do with none of them there Socialist privacy laws. How else are they going to ruin people's lives over what they do in their bedrooms? So, until attitudes change, we're stuck.


----------



## Brent Swain

chucklesR said:


> As I said earlier -
> 
> Folks, get the facts, not a defense lawyer's view point. They have the commitment of the chicken in a ham and egg breakfast, you are the ham. They make money from you, you lose and go to jail.
> 
> Follow the law and you have no fears.


Insist they follow the law and law breaking on their part is less likely to become standard procedure. To do that you have an obligation to know the law. Allowing oneself to be bullied encourages them to bully others, making you an accomplice, the kind of person we have to thank for our loss of freedom and civil rights.
Neville Chamberlain was no hero!


----------



## patrickbryant

> Insist they follow the law and law breaking on their part is less likely to become standard procedure. To do that you have an obligation to know the law. Allowing oneself to be bullied encourages them to bully others, making you an accomplice, the kind of person we have to thank for our loss of freedom and civil rights.
> Neville Chamberlain was no hero!


I couldn't agree more. Well said!


----------



## JSL3

I hope the OP gets back soon. Or did I miss part 2 already?


----------



## CalebD

chucklesR said:


> As I said earlier -
> 
> Folks, get the facts, not a defense lawyer's view point. They have the commitment of the chicken in a ham and egg breakfast, you are the ham. They make money from you, you lose and go to jail.
> 
> Follow the law and you have no fears.


Are you calling me a ham, Chuckles?
Or are you saying don't eat eggs in front of an angry hen?
I am all scrambled by your analogy, but I like it!

I suppose you mean that there is really no chicken in a ham and egg breakfast. An egg could become a chicken though!
Mmmmh! Ham!


----------



## therapy23

LooseDiamond said:


> Here you go:
> 
> Coast Guard Boardings and Your Fourth Amendment Rights, Part 1 | Sail Feed


Great link, thanks.

But they are the only agency that can do that.................?

My understanding is that other agencies (maybe not DEA but I think they too) need a warrant. Sheriff, city police, fish and game etc.


----------



## Minnewaska

Can you imagine, as part of your job, you have to enter a strangers boat? As time passes, you learn that many of those strangers actually have something to hide. Most are probably lack of PFDs, but you'll find contraband, etc, in your career. Can you imagine getting up in the morning and wondering if today will be the day that one of those boarding results in the crew firing shots? Will it appear more likely from the crew that is mouthing off and angry?

We can debate whether they should have the authority to do so, but the boarding officers are doing what they are told, not what they decided on a whim. How much would you need to be paid to risk your life at your job? Pretty brave in my book.


----------



## AKscooter

*many of those strangers actually have something to hide.* Please cite your source number of boardings and percentages of contraband found.

*Pretty brave in my book*. Lets see what an average boarding party carries as far as weapons at the ready. Not forgetting to include the yahoo in the bow with a machine gun pointed at the "suspects" Now lets see what the "suspects" are packing...... Brave my arse...... Coast Guard aren't victims, they choose their job as do any other law enforcement groups. If they want to board I doubt anyone is gonna stop them.......ever......Although I would love to see them board a foreign trawler in the Aleutian region. Naw...that is not gonna happen.....lol Since I am a citizen of the US and somewhere there is this document saying that they do not have the right...then yea...I will say something.......


----------



## Minnewaska

Do I really need to go find a citing that the USCG finds contraband? That's just stubborn.

I have a good friend whose daughter is currently applying to the Coast Guard academy. I'm sure, in her career, she will be asked to do boardings. I am also absolutely certain that this lovely young lady, who is a great student and loves the water, has no intent to be the bully she will be characterized as by the stubborn. She will have to do her job.

Also, before one throws a stone at the bravery of someone who enters a room, without knowing what or who is waiting for them, I would like to know they've had the ball$ to try it. Armed or not. 

Consider this. Over your entire career, there is going to be just one single day that you are going to walk into your cozy office and there is going to be someone in there with a gun that knows he needs to get past you to stay out of jail. Just one day and you don't know which it will be. You keeping the job? You can take a gun with you, if you think it changes anything.


----------



## Capt.aaron

Minnewaska said:


> Do I really need to go find a citing that the USCG finds contraband? That's just stubborn.
> 
> I have a good friend whose daughter is currently applying to the Coast Guard academy. I'm sure, in her career, she will be asked to do boardings. I am also absolutely certain that this lovely young lady, who is a great student and loves the water, has no intent to be the bully she will be characterized as by the stubborn. She will have to do her job.
> 
> Also, before one throws a stone at the bravery of someone who enters a room, without knowing what or who is waiting for them, I would like to know they've had the ball$ to try it. Armed or not.
> 
> Consider this. Over your entire career, there is going to be just one single day that you are going to walk into your cozy office and there is going to be someone in there with a gun that knows he needs to get past you to stay out of jail. Just one day and you don't know which it will be. You keeping the job? You can take a gun with you, if you think it changes anything.


The poor girl, My heart goes out to her. Just out of curiosity, where did she grow up and what do you think prompted her interest in the Coast Guard? I've been doing a personal survey/ research. I alway's ask Coasties where they are from and why they joined. They alway's join with the best of intensions and usually they end up disapointed with how it actually is. 
I'd like to know how many coast gaurdsman have died at the hands of an agressor in the situation of a boarding. I'm betting close to none. They do fall in the line of Rescue which is the highest form of selfless sacrifice and should be honored to the highest degree. The boarding crew's are a different troup than the Rescue. The rescue crew's are like the elite or special force. We've all seen the swimmer movie with Kevin and Ashton. We need a Coast Guard, no doubt, and their boarding procedures, once you've gone through them, are mild. They don't bully or intimidate. When off shore it's almost commical the green faced, wide eyed kid's they send over in the orange dinghy, It is usually me showing them some compassion because they usually want to be there even less than I want them. They're just doing what they are told. In some cases I know more about what's going on than they do, it's seem's like most boardings I've been through are some sort of training excersize.


----------



## Minnewaska

Capt.aaron said:


> Just out of curiosity, where did she grow up and what do you think prompted her interest in the Coast Guard.


She grew up on the Finger Lakes and Lake Ontario. Can't speak to her motivation.



> .....they usually want to be there even less than I want them. They're just doing what they are told.....


That's my point for sure.


----------



## Sal Paradise

*Re: brave*

Brave is sailing a Cat 22 to Belize. Alone. Man that does take some cuhones. I'd like to hear the tale for sure, with pictures.


----------



## aeventyr60

That's my point for sure.[/QUOTE]

And she accepts the risks without question.


----------



## patrickbryant

AKscooter said:


> *many of those strangers actually have something to hide.* Please cite your source number of boardings and percentages of contraband found.


I realize you are just saying: "show me your facts and numbers" but, you are demanding that posters here become accountants and statisticians. If you really want exact numbers, I suggest you file a Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Coast Guard - which any US citizen has the right to do - and once you obtain those numbers, come back here to refute any inaccurate statements.

Demanding those exact numbers up front, when honest people are exercising common sense and expressing those facts in good faith, is unreasonable. We can't possibly carry on a dialog if we need every number down to the penny before we express an opinion.


----------



## cherev

"We can debate whether they should have the authority to do so, but the boarding officers are doing what they are told, not what they decided on a whim. How much would you need to be paid to risk your life at your job? Pretty brave in my book."

There's no 'debate'; USCG boarding a vessel, moored or in motion, while wielding M-16s is an armed home invasion if you live aboard. If there's no probable cause, they've committed a criminal act. No bravery involved when an elderly sailing couple is sitting in their cockpit and wondering what the heck is going on.

If you don't set out to daily harass and molest passersby, then no risk is incurred.

As for "doing what they're told", isn't that the 'defense' made at Nuremberg by some Nazis?

No, the USA is in a very bad way, for it's evident that the Soviets and Nazis actually won the war, ideologically and practically, and those lives expended in the "defense of freedom" were ultimately wasted. Red Dawn is thus become a documentary, with daily episodes videoed by police dashboard and intersection surveillance cameras. Except the children must shoot each other.


----------



## MysticGringo

cherev said:


> There's no 'debate'; USCG boarding a vessel, moored or in motion, while wielding M-16s is an armed home invasion if you live aboard. If there's no probable cause, they've committed a criminal act. No bravery involved when an elderly sailing couple is sitting in their cockpit and wondering what the heck is going on.


So how do they know you're a liveaboard? Should live aboard have a special flag? What if I'm a drug runner / live aboard?

You paint a scene of an elderly couple in rocking chairs on their porch when SWAT come flying up. It's not exactly like that.



> If you don't set out to daily harass and molest passersby, then no risk is incurred.


Not really sure you could call it harassment... and definitely not a molestation. I've never heard an account of inappropriate touching by the Coast Guard.



> As for "doing what they're told", isn't that the 'defense' made at Nuremberg by some Nazis?


This holds a little water, it is the same defense... but you've blown it out of proportion! They are not killing, torturing nor even hurting anybody really. Be sure to remind them that you called them nazis when they are plucking from freezing water while your boat breaks up.



> No, the USA is in a very bad way, for it's evident that the Soviets and Nazis actually won the war, ideologically and practically, and those lives expended in the "defense of freedom" were ultimately wasted. Red Dawn is thus become a documentary, with daily episodes videoed by police dashboard and intersection surveillance cameras. Except the children must shoot each other.


That's pretty sensationalist. Obviously your thoughts on this have become extremely polarized, and open discussion about it is likely not possible.

Let's say they get rid of USCG, and YOU have a company and are given the task of rescuing people on the sea. Cool, look at these neat helicopters the government gave you. First little while you are a hero... saving people is cool.

Then you save some jackass that didn't even have a lifejacket on his boat! Then you get called to save a guy who tried to get to south America in a 13' guppy! Then some other dude who never sailed before, boat a 34' boat and took off without knowing how to use his gps, and without checking the weather.

All of this is $ out of your pocket. You can't buy the upgrades to equipment you need... you're having a hard time keeping up your end of the contracted area for your rescues.

Now they add to your contract that you have to catch drug runners... but they aren't paying you more.

How do you solve that? Inspections... that's how. Offer volunteer inspections, give them a sticker... but you're still needing to be sure that some idiot isn't trying to signal you with an expired flare that doesn't work.

It's not a nazi thing... it's due diligence.


----------



## Minnewaska

Arguing with someone that has a chip on their shoulder isn't worth the time. If you can quote the criminal law that makes an armed boarding illegal, we're listening.


----------



## hellosailor

"If you can quote the criminal law that makes an armed boarding illegal, we're listening. "
Is that a trick question? An armed boarding is only illegal under certain circumstances, trick question #1, it is not *always* illegal.
And the first level law that makes boardings illegal in many situations, regardless of whether they are armed or not, is of course not a criminal code, but the Fourth Amendment. Trick #2 of the question.

As for the rash of other state and federal laws that might apply, even the simple act of "brandishing" a weapon is a criminal violation in most venues. If your boarding party is pointing their M16s at anything they don't plan to shoot--that's brandishing.

Now let's come back to "boarding officers". If they are USCG they probably are not "officers" . There might be one or two _officers _on the boat. The rest of the boarding party? Might be gentlemen but rarely officers. 
Or, they might be "Peace Officers" under state law, not military officers. In which case, really guys, you should see the psych profiles for the average LEO compared to the average thug and bully. Or maybe no one else has heaerd of hazing, harassment, occasional deaths and injuries at police academies, military academies, and similar issues? Thugs and bullies, a fine line to draw when you need macho dogs of war.

While the military & PDs have professed to try screening these guys out in recent decades, they still aren't doing a perfect job of it. A stranger with a gun is a stranger with a gun, in or out of uniform. That cuts both ways.

If a man needs a gun to feel comfortable and safe around me--he'd damn well better have a want and warrant, and a specific reason to have that weapon out. In this country, under what remains of this constitution, "SOP" is not a valid reason to draw your weapon for a routine safety inspection.

When a street cop walks into a restaurant, orders dinner, walks out without paying because it is "on the cuff", that's the same crime. A thug who has bullied someone out of a meal. These men are supposed to be civil servants--not sovereigns. And the good ones, the ones that earn my respect, damn well know that.


----------



## patrickbryant

hellosailor said:


> "If you can quote the criminal law that makes an armed boarding illegal, we're listening. "
> Is that a trick question? An armed boarding is only illegal under certain circumstances, trick question #1, it is not *always* illegal.
> And the first level law that makes boardings illegal in many situations, regardless of whether they are armed or not, is of course not a criminal code, but the Fourth Amendment.


Have you read the posts in this thread? The SAME people who wrote the 4th amendment also granted government officers the power to board vessels without any kind of suspicion - let alone a warrant.

I wish you could go back 222 years and explain to them that some people far in the future will live on their boats, you might have gotten them to limit that power to merchant vessels. But it's too late. Now, you'll have to get the law changed.


----------



## Minnewaska

Hasn't the Supreme Court held that marine boardings are not protected by the fourth amendment? Their job is to interpret the constitution. p.s. the constitution is, in fact, law.

An armed boarding is armed, not necessary drawn and pointed at you. Threatening, belligerent, mouthy captains should be shot on sight. They give the rest of us a bad name.


----------



## hellosailor

Patrick, the same folks who wrote the charter for the Confederacy, which failed and was replaced by our current Federal Republic, also decided that only some 20% of the citizens should be allowed to vote and direct the nation. If we can modify that, it doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to figure out which vessel is also a personal effect, and needs to be given the same sanction as a any other carriage or conveyance. Searching incoming merchantmen from overseas, one thing. Searching the home boys...not quite the same.


----------



## AKscooter

The pseudo-patriots in this thread would have supported the British in eliminating the colonists in their pursuit of freedom.

How much pain do you want before you say enough?


----------



## NaviGsr

bljones said:


> Boarded ELEVEN TIMES in 4000 miles?
> I'd be asking myself, why am i attracting unwanted attention and how do i stop doing it?


----------



## patrickbryant

You might try installing an AIS transponder. If you were a smuggler, it isn't likely that you'd be sailing around broadcasting your identity and position on AIS.


----------



## Brewgyver

chucklesR said:


> Brew,
> 
> I can't come to the rescue and cite the law, but I can say that (as I said earlier) refusal of a request to search is indeed all the probable cause (when coupled to the reasons the officer wanted to do the search e.g. shifty eyes, reefer smell, etc..) that is necessary for a warrant. I work for a police agency - in the five years I've done so not one request has been denied.


In that case, I would expect any evidence gleaned from such a search to be excluded, usually at a prelim, and the case never make it to trial. Granted, it's been 30 since I was a reserve officer, but that much has not changed since then. Any judge signing a warrant because the subject had "shifty eyes" and declined to grant permission to search would wind up getting overturned left and right. PC has to be legitimate and reasonable.
(Sorry if this has already been covered by an LEO or attorney, catching up on thread.)


----------



## FSMike

Minnewaska said:


> Hasn't the Supreme Court held that marine boardings are not protected by the fourth amendment? ---


Not to my knowledge. Can you cite a case?


----------



## hellosailor

Apparently there are some legal opinions out there that sayif you specifically give permission to a boarding party, whatever they find is admissible evidence because you have, like a vampire, invited them in.

On the other hand if you make it clear that you will not obstruct them but you are not giving them permission to board, what they can search for and how they can search is much more limited. For instance, a USCG "Safety Equipment Inspection" would have a hard time explaining why they were looking through your bags or in your fridge, because there's nothing there that has anything to do with mandated safety equipment. Few gung-ho's from any agency have any idea just how much gets thrown out as "tainted fruit" by the courts.


----------



## Brewgyver

tomperanteau said:


> Step aboard and you do lose all your rights. Why? Because they have "policies" that circumvent the Bill of Rights. That is why the politicians invented policies and regulations. They can steal your rights and money and there is nothing you can do about it.


Policies? Boarding and searching vessels has ALWAYS been LEGAL by definition in the U.S. The law making it legal PREDATES the 4th amendment.

Don't want to subject yourself to search? Don't try to enter ANY governemnt building. Don't buy a plane ticket to anywhere. Don't try to drive, fly or walk to any other country.

Oh, and don't get on a boat that's in any Federal jurisdiction waters, or CONNECTS to any said waters (Rules out most major rivers).

Saying that it's unconstitutional is simple-minded, besides being untrue. Hell, owning other humans was constitutional for the first 89 years of U.S. History.


----------



## Brewgyver

cherev said:


> "We can debate whether they should have the authority to do so, but the boarding officers are doing what they are told, not what they decided on a whim. How much would you need to be paid to risk your life at your job? Pretty brave in my book."
> 
> There's no 'debate'; USCG boarding a vessel, moored or in motion, while wielding M-16s is an armed home invasion if you live aboard. If there's no probable cause, they've committed a criminal act.


This post portrays ignorance that is just mind-boggling. You seriously need to bone up on the ACTUAL law. Not what you believe, not what your buddy told you, not what you've read somewhere in a blog or forum. It's not difficult at all. The law was cited here in this forum, well before your post.


----------



## hellosailor

"Boarding and searching vessels has ALWAYS been LEGAL by definition in the U.S. The law making it legal PREDATES the 4th amendment."
And, as you haven't noticed, some of us think the 4th Amendment was supposed to _end _that behavior, the same way that slavery was _ended_.

It isn't supposed to totally end searches or seizures, it just raises the bar as to performing them without _cause_.

The New Jersey State Police went through that some time ago on the subject of "driving while black" and the NYPD more recently on the subject of "walking while black". NYPD said that young black males with baggy pants were more likely to be carrying drugs and guns.

There was nothing in the fourth amendment that said "except by administrative agencies" last time I read it.


----------



## Capt.aaron

It seem's like the people posting about a boarding experience being like a swat team repelling into your boat with agression and pointing automatic weapons have'nt actually been through a boarding. It's more like a cordial social visit by some polite young people with an orange inflatable and by complying you are helping in the fight against terrorism and drug trafiicing. My buddy tried to smuggle some Russian couple to the key's from the Bahama's, he got caught by the border patrol and they were nothing but polite to him. He's in trouble, but they we're polite and comical about his stupidity. I was boarded by them around the same area one night and we had a long discussion about the book I was reading at the time because the agent was half way through the same book. They ask permission to board politlely, they ask some rudementry questions and go on their way. Unless you are running PLO dudes into the country or have 600 pounds of weed like a guy I know doing life in Cuba, what's the problem. And this coming from me who really does'nt care for the coast scouts and the cop's and sh!t. a boarding is just part of the game, your either in it or not. I'm guessing everyone @#!*% 'n has probably never crossed a border with their boat or been boarded whilst doing so. If you had than you'd know it's really no big deal, most times they just hail you and don't even come on board.


----------



## Brewgyver

> _And, as you haven't noticed, some of us think the 4th Amendment was supposed to end that behavior, the same way that slavery was ended._


I have, indeed, noticed what you think, I have read what you wrote, I was merely pointing out that what you think is in error.

As has been said before, several times, the 4th amendment says nothing about vessels. The Constitution is refered to in law as a living entity, as it evolves via amendments AND case law.

Obviously, motor vehicles (the land based kind) were not around when the 4th amendment was written. Case laws which uphold our 4th amendment protection against "unreasonable" searches of such vehicles came about as the result of arrests based on evidence uncovered during searches of said vehicles which were eventually held to be "unreasonable" by individual State Supreme Courts, Federal District Appellate Courts and/or the U.S. Supreme Court. There are many, many other examples (flying, entering a Courthouse and other government buildings and/or properties) of the Supremes holding that searches, even of your person ARE reasonable, and therefor not "unconstitutional"

As to the post about "poisonous fruit", it really doesn't apply to the CG and 
Customs.

If you read the case cited earlier by Patrick, you'll see that the Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of a couple of drug smugglers with a 40 foot sailboat ful off pot, holding that the Customs boarding was "unreasonable". The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Court, upholding the lower court conviction, and cited the Title 19 U.S.C. § 1581(a), and specifically refered to it as being descended from the 1790 Revenue Cutter Act, and spcifically mentioned:


> _the First Congress clearly authorized the suspicionless boarding of vessels by Government officers, reflecting its view that such boardings are not contrary to the Fourth Amendment, which was promulgated by the same Congress_.


Yes, evidence obtained from warrantless police searches on land gets excluded, but not as often as you might think. Most agencies are training their cops better in that respect. But evidence from CG, Customs and Border Patrol doesn't get tossed.


----------



## NaviGsr

My understanding is that the CG is tasked to enforce compliance with Federal laws. They are empowered to search to determine only compliance with these laws (e.g. safety and environmental for recreational vessels, species catches and licensing for commercial fishing vessels, etc.)

There is some very smart language in the CG notice to mariners regarding boardings. It points out that the only way they can possibly enforce the Federal laws is by inspecting vessels underway (see below).

_COAST GUARD BOARDING POLICY

To enforce these laws, the Coast Guard is empowered to
board and inspect vessels. Many of the laws can be
successfully enforced only by boarding a vessel while it is
underway. Boardings are not necessarily based on
suspicion that a violation already exists aboard the vessel.
Their purpose is to prevent violations. The courts have
consistently upheld this authority. All Coast Guard officers
and petty officers are Federal law enforcement officers and
they may board any United States vessel anywhere.

The Coast Guard boarding team is armed. Although most
mariners that are boarded are engaged in legitimate
recreational or commercial pursuits, even a seemingly
innocent pleasure boat boarding sometimes turns into a
dangerous confrontation.

The Coast Guard follows a standard procedure before
boarding. Coast Guard personnel will always properly
identify themselves, will always be in uniform, coveralls, or
survival suit displaying Coast Guard insignia, and will
always operate from a marked Coast Guard or Navy vessel
flying the Coast Guard Ensign.

Coast Guard vessels may have their running
lights extinguished at night while conducting law
enforcement operations. Running lights, if off,
will be turned on prior to boarding, and light will
usually be directed at the Coast Guard Ensign flying from the mast and red "racing stripe" on the bow so that the Coast Guard vessel is easily
recognized.

Once aboard the vessel, the boarding party will check for
compliance with federal laws. If, during the inspection, a
reasonable suspicion develops that the vessel has been
engaged in criminal activity, the boarding officer may
investigate further. Coast Guard boarding officers are
trained to be courteous to the public.

The Coast Guard strives for a proper balance between
avoiding intrusions into the activities of law-abiding
individuals and conducting effective law enforcement._

If you think about it, this makes a great deal of sense. Consider the analogy of a car safety and emissions inspection on the State level. Many states require annual inspections and testing of vehicles to ensure compliance with their laws. If you have an out of date inspection sticker, you will be stopped and cited by the police.

There is no annual inspection for recreational vessels in the US, but there are laws that they must comply with. That compliance can only be determined by an interior inspection, hence the CGs power to search them.

One way to avoid being subject to boarding by the CG is to submit your boat to a free voluntary safety inspection by your local CG Auxiliary every year. They give you a sticker to display on the outside of your boat showing your compliance. Unless you are in known smuggling waters, it's not likely you would be searched.


----------



## hellosailor

"My understanding is that the CG is tasked to enforce compliance with Federal laws."
Over the long history of the MANY very different services that have been Borged into the USCG of today, there have been many different roles, ranging from "life saving service" to "revenue service".

Out of which comes the motto "Semper Gumby!" because sometimes, they are expected to flex in every possible way to satisfy every possible master.

"Once aboard the vessel, the boarding party will check for
compliance with federal laws."
Good thing that explanation was written by the folks it is serving. they'll check for compliance with certain specific federal laws, but not all federal laws, and there are certain ones they specifically will not check for, either.

Anybody else remember when you had to have an excise tax stamp on the neck of each liquor bottle? One less thing to enforce now.<G>


----------



## NaviGsr

hellosailor said:


> Apparently there are some legal opinions out there that sayif you specifically give permission to a boarding party, whatever they find is admissible evidence because you have, like a vampire, invited them in.
> 
> On the other hand if you make it clear that you will not obstruct them but you are not giving them permission to board, what they can search for and how they can search is much more limited. For instance, a USCG "Safety Equipment Inspection" would have a hard time explaining why they were looking through your bags or in your fridge, because there's nothing there that has anything to do with mandated safety equipment. Few gung-ho's from any agency have any idea just how much gets thrown out as "tainted fruit" by the courts.


It seems "reasonable suspicion" still applies, just like a traffic stop. I guess the moral is don't stash your pipe next to the Y valve


----------



## hellosailor

Yes, and sometimes the courts shown enough self-restraint to say that "suspicion" has to be documented per a standard list of "suspicious" behavior. The debate has been going on for more than a couple hundred years, it is unlikely to be decided this week or next.


----------



## ovb

I was with a group of friends in the San Juans and we were 1st boarded by the CG and searched while they checked our IDs these guys were very through a professional almost to the point of being jerks and the next day we were boarded by the Border Patrol and these guys it was most like a social visit they told us a story of catching a fugitive trying to slip into Canada..and on the 3rd day the same CG boat hailed us and came along side they counted us and left...fun trip....


----------



## cherev

There's no 'debate'; USCG boarding a vessel, moored or in motion, while wielding M-16s is an armed home invasion if you live aboard. If there's no probable cause, they've committed a criminal act.



Brewgyver said:


> This post portrays ignorance that is just mind-boggling. You seriously need to bone up on the ACTUAL law. Not what you believe, not what your buddy told you, not what you've read somewhere in a blog or forum. It's not difficult at all. The law was cited here in this forum, well before your post.


Don't give a damn what your faux 'law' says. I didn't help write that fake 'law', didn't agree to that 'law', didn't elect the corrupt creeps who 'enacted' that 'law', and their agents are almost all armed criminals ready to do murder at the drop of a hat.

We may allow them their crimes due to force majure, but we don't need to ever excuse their abuses.

Either the Bill of Rights actually means what is written in it, or it's just toilet paper for the creeps with tax-funded weapons and equipment. That's a horrific situation you describe, wherein victims pay taxes so that thugs are fully-equipped to oppress them.

A private sailing vessel in which folk live is an abode, not an industrial plant nor a commercial office. Natural persons have human rights, and to pretend otherwise is to line up as an apologist for evil, as a minion of a national-socialist or totalitarian-socialist State.



Capt. Gary Randall said:


> WHY COPS FEAR-SHTF - YouTube


Rather, your tax dollars at work.


----------



## Minnewaska

Run for office, win and propose a change in the law. The law is pretty clear, like it or not. Every human makes a mistake, but you can't condemn the entire bushel for a bad apple.

You can rant all you like on the internet, but that won't change anything. Probably doesn't even make you feel better.


----------



## Capt.aaron

I've never felt threatend when the coasties come around, I've never seen any m-16. They have side arm's. Often they ask permision to board and chose not to. They are polite and unabtrusive, They respect my privacy and normally are just checking flares and life Jacket's registration and they run your name. It's the way of the High Sea's. If you don't like it, don't go to sea. People like Cherev, usually have an imaginary idea of what a boarding is like. I don't particulary care for the Coast Scout's administratve or law enforcement branch, But I understand the rules of the sea, and also the age we live in, with drugs and people smuggl'n, so I allow them to carry out their duties and go on their way.


----------



## hellosailor

I think the most scary thing I've seen with the USCG and their weapons was some years ago, way pre-9/11, when a 44(?) went flying up NY's East River past us, near the UN. With the machine gun on the port side MANNED and UNCOVERED. 

I don't care if it was Martians, narcoterrorists, of the whole damned Soviet Army they were anticipating, there is simply no safe way to discharge machine guns when the background is Manhattan Island downrange of the muzzles.

So, strangers with guns? Uniforms are nice, but I don't like seeing fingers near triggers when I don't know who they are or what they're up to.

Of course it doesn't help that the NYPD enjoyed a reputation for some of the worst firearms discipline in the nation...ask any gunsmith why Glock offers an "NYPD trigger job" on their pistols now. After nine NYPD managed to literally shoot their own feet while drawing their weapons some years ago.


----------



## Capt.aaron

I see the Coast Gaurd all day every day zooming past our tug in Miami Harbour with a kid on the bow manning the big machine gun. They escort the Cruise Ships. It makes us feel safe, sitting there on a loaded fuel barge, they are the first line of defense out here. iIve never been boarded by a boat with that gun on the bow. Travel around Central America, and the guy pumping gas has a pistol grip shot gun, the guy delivering pepsi has the same. The guy standing near the atm has an m-16 with duck tape on the magazine, You don't see this so much in the suburb, non border states so I guess it's shocking for some when they venture out of the safe confines of Americaville and get out on the front lines.


----------



## hellosailor

"an m-16 with duck tape on the magazine"
That would be, Duck® Brand Duct Tape on the magazine. I didn't know they exported to the overseas market. (G)
I don't remember if it is the Uzi or the Galil that actually has a bottle opener built into it. Aren't we fortunate that pop-top cans have made that obsolete.

In some places, sure, guns are normal. Fingers on the trigger, not so normal. 

Of course, my swiss army knife managed to travel all over the world without hijacking any aircraft. Don't know how that happened, everyone tells me they're SO dangerous now.


----------



## sailortjk1

Minnewaska said:


> Run for office, win and propose a change in the law. The law is pretty clear, like it or not. Every human makes a mistake, but you can't condemn the entire bushel for a bad apple.
> 
> You can rant all you like on the internet, but that won't change anything. Probably doesn't even make you feel better.


This is the line I find humorous...


> didn't agree to that 'law'


I guess if we don't agree to the law we just ignore them.


----------



## AKscooter

_I guess if we don't agree to the law we just ignore them. _

Especially when it comes to dumping head waste overboard......


----------



## dnf777

I have only been boarded once by a wildlife officer while duck hunting in a motor boat. Not nice, but professional in all other regards. I can't imagine being boarded while underway in a sailboat heeled over?? Why in the world would BOTH parties not prefer to drop sails, and safely board? A ship underway, ok....a small sailboat heeled over? WTF?


----------



## gathhill

_More popcorn please...._


----------



## SayGudday

bljones said:


> Boarded ELEVEN TIMES in 4000 miles?
> I'd be asking myself, why am i attracting unwanted attention and how do i stop doing it?


Funny you should say that. I was thinking to myself "What's the name of his boat?" On a tour of a boat impound yard I noticed that a significant number of the boats had names like "Weed Bandit" and other such names that might not be so wise.


----------



## Brent Swain

Sharp fish hooks hanging around the stern deflates the egos, etc of those in zodiacs. Watching where they are going is their responsibility.


----------



## AKscooter

_Funny you should say that. I was thinking to myself "What's the name of his boat?" On a tour of a boat impound yard I noticed that a significant number of the boats had names like "Weed Bandit" and other such names that might not be so wise. _

Real suppliers do not advertise. CG just hassling to justify their lives/budgets.

_Sharp fish hooks hanging around the stern deflates the egos, etc of those in zodiacs. Watching where they are going is their responsibility.

_

?????? What are you trying to say???


----------



## Brent Swain

In Canada, everyone needs a search warrant to enter a boat. Sure glad I live in a freer country, and not the US!
Those who don't want to impose themselves on others, wouldn't join a police organization, on a matter of principle. So who does that leave?


----------



## Enigma0

>Those who don't want to impose themselves on others, wouldn't join a police organization, on a matter of principle. So who does that leave?<

Amin. However, in Second and Third World countries, the only way to both defend one's family from violent 'authority' and also have access to 'confiscated' wealth is to join the thugs. Regardless of the country, some may join simply because their father and uncles were in a police force, and they're just following a 'family career' that may be easier for them to enter.


----------



## Minnewaska

Brent Swain said:


> In Canada, everyone needs a search warrant to enter a boat. Sure glad I live in a freer country, and not the US!


Yup, you guys are freer. Fully hands off. Congratulations. These interviews took place a few months prior to 9/11.

Is Canada A Safe Haven For Terrorists? | PBS - Trail Of A Terrorist | FRONTLINE | PBS



> Those who don't want to impose themselves on others, wouldn't join a police organization, on a matter of principle. So who does that leave?


I only have a problem with the perceived tone that LEOs are, therefore, all joining in order to impose themselves on others. I fully disagree, at least in the US. Most are joining to protect, not impose. There are bad apples everywhere, even on sailboats. I do agree that you can't do the job as an LEO, unless you are willing to impose. Just like you can't be a school teacher either. You must be willing to tell Johnny to sit in his seat and listen, whether he wants to or not. But, that's not why you took the job.


----------



## H3LlIoN

14 pages of banter. No part 2. Sad panda is sad. o___o


----------



## Enigma0

H3L|IoN - Haven't I seen you around someplace? Like CruisingOutpost.com?

And the hate speech hereabouts hardly qualifies for banter, since the least infraction may get some -but only some- banned for 'life'.


----------



## H3LlIoN

Hey I know you!

Banter or no banter, I just wanna' hear about the little cal that could!


----------



## H3LlIoN

MysticGringo said:


> What if I'm a drug runner / live aboard?


Then you'd be the most ineffective drug runner in history.

Everybody knows liveaboard boats don't move.


----------



## Enigma0

H3LlIoN said:


> Hey I know you!
> 
> Banter or no banter, I just wanna' hear about the little cal that could!


Cal? Gal?

And nobody 'knows' me, for I'm the original Enigma of old. Like the Sphinx, time and the desert fear me, and seek to bury me.


----------



## sailortjk1

> Like the Sphinx, time and the desert fear me, and seek to bury me.


You think way too much of yourself if you believe time fears you or is trying to bury you.
If you were to ask me, I believe time simply wants to ignore you, than again I can't speak for time like you can, I can only speak for myself.


----------



## H3LlIoN

Enigma0 said:


> Cal? Gal?
> 
> And nobody 'knows' me, for I'm the original Enigma of old. Like the Sphinx, time and the desert fear me, and seek to bury me.


See? It's been so long I didn't even remember the boat. It was a Cat 22.


----------



## Capt.aaron

I think it was a Cal-22. He wasn't boarded 14 times, he encounterd, that means passed by or saw, which is average in the water he was sailing. I see the boarder patrol, coast gaurd, miami-dade, and FWC, that many times an hour in Miami harbour.


----------



## H3LlIoN

Capt.aaron said:


> I think it was a Cal-22. He wasn't boarded 14 times, he encounterd, that means passed by or saw, which is average in the water he was sailing. I see the boarder patrol, coast gaurd, miami-dade, and FWC, that many times an hour in Miami harbour.


Oh I know. I read all the posts last night...Just looking for part 2.


----------



## Capt.aaron

H3LlIoN said:


> Oh I know. I read all the posts last night...Just looking for part 2.


I know me to, Maybe "Belize and Back" was either arrested by the boarder parol or pirated and had no legal but leathal form of self defense. he hasn't been around since he started this thread that I know of.


----------



## H3LlIoN

He came back in the first couple of pages and made some clarifications before promising a part 2 and hinting at a part 3, and then nothing. I was thinking maybe he got to Belize and decided not to come back. :laugher


----------



## Capt.aaron

Usually the younger cruiser's don't go beyond the range of their internet or cell phone provider so surley he can drop us an update now and again.


----------



## sailortjk1

H3LlIoN said:


> He came back in the first couple of pages and made some clarifications before promising a part 2 and hinting at a part 3, and then nothing. I was thinking maybe he got to Belize and decided not to come back. :laugher


Umm, guys. He had 7 threads started "Do Not Try This at Home"

http://www.sailnet.com/forums/cruising-liveaboard-forum/94467-warning-do-not-try-home-part-7-a.html#post953589

Each one sounded more dangerous than the previous one.
It actually is good for any one that wants to go out on an ill prepared boat in an ill prepared manner. Just my opinion.


----------



## H3LlIoN

sailortjk1 said:


> Umm, guys. He had 7 threads started "Do Not Try This at Home"
> 
> Each one sounded more dangerous than the previous one.
> It actually is good for any one that wants to go out on an ill prepared boat in an ill prepared manner. Just my opinion.


Thanks for that. Should give me something to do after I get done trying to navigate the inner workings of siriusXM's marine service.


----------



## Enigma0

sailortjk1 said:


> You think way too much of yourself if you believe time fears you or is trying to bury you. If you were to ask me, I believe time simply wants to ignore you, than again I can't speak for time like you can, I can only speak for myself.


Time seeks to bury us all. It is as inexorable as Gravity.

But I was merely being allusively playful with what Egyptian Arabs say about the pyramid complex at Giza. "Man fears Time, but Time fears the Pyramids."

It was indeed time, heh, for the thread to return to the OP and his fate.


----------



## Brent Swain

Minnewaska said:


> Yup, you guys are freer. Fully hands off. Congratulations. These interviews took place a few months prior to 9/11.
> 
> Is Canada A Safe Haven For Terrorists? | PBS - Trail Of A Terrorist | FRONTLINE | PBS
> 
> I only have a problem with the perceived tone that LEOs are, therefore, all joining in order to impose themselves on others. I fully disagree, at least in the US. Most are joining to protect, not impose. There are bad apples everywhere, even on sailboats. I do agree that you can't do the job as an LEO, unless you are willing to impose. Just like you can't be a school teacher either. You must be willing to tell Johnny to sit in his seat and listen, whether he wants to or not. But, that's not why you took the job.


The 911 terrorists didn't need Canada, they got their training and everything else they needed in the US. Rassam could have easily crossed the border and acquired everything he needed to make his explosives ,in the US.
The US, with automatic weapons and military hardware so easily available, is a far safer haven for terrorists. What Uncle Sam is saying, when he calls Canada a "Safe haven for terrorists" is he doesn't want an example to how much more freedom and respect for human rights one can have, so close and easily accessible to Usanians, for fear they may end up demanding the same. He wants us to lower our standards to theirs, so theirs will be more readily accepted .

Laws governing Mounties ( commissioner's standing orders) and no doubt other police forces, make it illegal for a cop not to back up another cop, no matter how sleazy the other cop is being. Thus they make honest cops carry the dishonest ones like millstones on their backs, in terms of reduced public support and credibility.
" NO Sergeant Renfrew, altho he is your colleague and partner , he is definitely not your friend."


----------



## hellosailor

"What Uncle Sam is saying, when he calls Canada a "Safe haven for terrorists" is he doesn't want an example to how much more freedom and"
Nonsense. Unless Canada has tightened up the borders, the reference to it being a safe haven for terrorists comes from the way Canada would allow anyone to walk off a plane and say "I'm a refugee!" and then let them go off and disappear. 
That's got nothing to do with weapons or human rights. Whether someone is or isn't a genuine refugee and in fear of their life, you don't just let a stranger in with no ID check and no way to see where they fall off the radar.
Here in the US, we make them swim or hike through the open spaces, so they have to _sneak _in. No easy airline trips right into the big city.
Which isn't a whole lot more impressive, is it?


----------



## Brent Swain

Seems thousands of them have no problem swimming or crossing open spaces into the US every year. With the US having caused many a refugee problem in Central America by supporting mass murderous, genocidal regimes, it's high time they started paying for such crimes, in terms of supporting their innocent victims. 
Refugees often don't have the option of having ID. The US is a state of the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrat, by the bureaucrats. No wonder they tell refugees "Kiss the ass of your bureaucrats, or die."
The US campaign of disinformation about our health care system was an example of how worried they are about having a better way of doing things on display, right next door, and how much money they are willing to spend to undermine it..


----------



## hellosailor

The US is spending gobs of money to undermine the Canadian helath system? Oh boy, do enlighten us! Don't start till I get my popcorn.


----------



## Brent Swain

hellosailor said:


> The US is spending gobs of money to undermine the Canadian helath system? Oh boy, do enlighten us! Don't start till I get my popcorn.


When Clinton tried to give you health care, a steady stream of ******** disinformation and anti public health care propaganda was put put out by your media, crossing the border in US media programing. They still fund advertising against the maintenance of our public health care system, with well paid for disinformation campaigns, and insisted on the extension of drug patent laws as a pre condition of NAFTA, which continue to undermine the affordability of our public health care system.


----------



## hellosailor

So some nebulous claims about media and advertising and patent rights become an attack on your helathcare system? Um, no, Canadians include some big boys who can make up their own minds. And the major Canadian pharmaceutical houses can make all the drugs you need. Patent laws treat everyone the same, if you don't like the prices you have to pay for drugs owned by US pharmacies, either withdraw from the patent conventions, or spend your own money on other drugs. That's what everyone else has to do, that's not "undermining" anything in Canada.
Undermining would mean our government was literally attacking your healthcare system. that's what you said, that we're spending money on destroying your system. We could do that, we could easily send in people to set fire to your clinics, or buy out all the drugs from the pharmacy shelves. That would be undermining.
But complaining about international licensing terms and advertising? Put on the bigboy pants.


----------



## Brent Swain

Just like the US we have a lot of people gullible enough to buy the misinformation campaigns .You're an example of that. Public health care is dependent on public support. They wouldn't spend mega bucks on advertising if it didn't work.
Go change your diapers.


----------



## Minnewaska

Brent Swain said:


> The 911 terrorists didn't need Canada


That's not the point and you know it. You claimed to be freer than the US, but you have your own cross to bear in harboring terrorists as the result of your freedoms.



> What Uncle Sam is saying, when he calls Canada a "Safe haven for terrorists"


Evidence of your cynical and biased attitude. It was your officials that were condemning your system in the interviews, not the publisher.


----------



## AKscooter

The sheeps of US...funny how they link economics and freedom......If you want economic power gotta sacrifice your freedom....ya 'bout that...bite me.....

As far as I am concerned the only reason for the increased police state tactics of the US is only about money...economics....simple as that......If you cannot see that in order to justify their existence they need to hassle even those who in spirit try and follow the law get screwed. Papers/blogs are full of stories of where the po po exceed their authorized duties. Now that the legislative branch of the government has given broader non-constituitional power (backed by the supremes who think corporations are people) well...guess what??? Peeps are gonna start to make waves and become "terrorists" You want to know how easy it is to get on the "no fly" list?? For oppositional/difference of opinion reasons only?? 
America is only about the money, has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with any ideal other than economic supremacy. So yes, the C.G. is gonna stop Joe under 40 footer riding the waves but I have yet to see them stop anybody bigger than a 50 footer......

The US is a senile country undergoing decline. With enough money, you can "break" any law with in the US. It is always about the benjies......At least the poor people of the US are not even so stupid or deluded to believe otherwise.


----------



## benesailor

"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." Benjamin Franklin



> The US is a senile country undergoing decline. With enough money, you can "break" any law with in the US. It is always about the benjies......At least the poor people of the US are not even so stupid or deluded to believe otherwise.


Yes, the poor people of the US are that stupid and are the demise of this nation. They finally wield the power to run this country into the ground.


----------



## bljones

hellosailor said:


> "What Uncle Sam is saying, when he calls Canada a "Safe haven for terrorists" is he doesn't want an example to how much more freedom and"
> Nonsense. Unless Canada has tightened up the borders, the reference to it being a safe haven for terrorists comes from the way Canada would allow anyone to walk off a plane and say "I'm a refugee!" and then let them go off and disappear.
> That's got nothing to do with weapons or human rights. Whether someone is or isn't a genuine refugee and in fear of their life, you don't just let a stranger in with no ID check and no way to see where they fall off the radar.
> Here in the US, we make them swim or hike through the open spaces, so they have to _sneak _in. No easy airline trips right into the big city.
> Which isn't a whole lot more impressive, is it?


Not a single successful terrorist attack on the United States has originated in Canada.
Not one.
For example, both WTC attacks, OKC, were perpetrated by US citizens or legal resident aliens. In fact, they received their training via the US military (McVeigh) and US flight schools (9/11 gang).

(Okay, there was also the would-be "millenium bomber", who didn't have much of a plan and even less English, who was promptly caught by US Customs at the border, who provided much of the information on Al Qaeda that the US intelligence services had until Sept., 2001, and didn't act on.)

yes, Canada has tightened it's immigration regs- it is not as easy to make a refugee claim as it was 10 years ago, in part thanks to the embarassment of the millenium bomber fiasco. More still needs to be done. It is a disgrace. We have our own terrorist black marks- the Air India bombing, which occurred in large part because our RCMP made numerous mistakes handling intel. That was the last major terrorist attack based in Canada...
and that was in 1985.

That doesn't change the fact that Canada is not a "terrorist threat" to the US.
Looking at recent experience, you are your own worst enemy, when it comes to accomodating and training terrorists.


----------



## Irideon

I have done alot of boardings in a previous life and it is normal for the vessel being boarded to maintain a course and speed that is most safe for the crew of both vessels. If there are seas of any mention, coming to a full stop is not usually the best option.


----------



## canucksailorguy

Jimmy E said:


> Almost got boarded once by the US Coast Gaurd. I say almost because on this specific day we were crossing Erie in a 26' Grampian / 4 knot winds / wing on wing, in following seas. We watched the Coast Gaurd travel back and forth for more than hour waiting for us to cross the border.....I am assuming they got board waiting, and eventually disappeared on the horizon.
> There's a moral in here somewhere
> Jimmy


There is - sail a faster boat...


----------

