rammed:by the customs & border patrol

[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

[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]

Originally Posted by Ninefingers

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.