SailNet Community banner
  • SailNet is a forum community dedicated to Sailing enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about sailing, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, repairs, reviews, maintenance, and more!

rammed:by the customs & border patrol

30K views 165 replies 57 participants last post by  canucksailorguy 
#1 ·
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...
 
See less See more
#50 ·
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. :)
 
#51 ·
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.
 
#55 ·
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.
 
#57 ·
(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)
 
#58 ·
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.
 
#110 ·
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.)
 
#59 ·
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.....
 
#60 ·
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.
 
#61 ·
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.
 
#63 ·
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
 
#64 ·
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...
 
#68 ·
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.
 
#67 ·
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:rolleyes:
Jimmy
 
#69 ·
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
 
#70 · (Edited)
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.
 
#72 · (Edited)
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.
 
#76 · (Edited by Moderator)
When I was in my 20's, and the cop's would come up to my boat, I'd say " What do you f@get'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.
 
#73 · (Edited)
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.
 
#74 ·
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.
 
#83 · (Edited)
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.

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.
 
#75 ·
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?????????
 
#79 ·
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...
 
#81 ·
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.
 
#82 ·
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.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top