[theartfuldodger]

I was just reading Zac's blog as I do every day and found it very surprising he said he was boarded by US Coast guard 20 miles off of Mexico, what is the US doing in other countries waters boarding vessels, is there some law or right they have that the rest of the world does not have.

 

[ughmo2000]

The USCG can board a US flagged vessel anywhere in the world.

 

[denby]

Isn't 20 miles off a coast international waters?

 

[JHJensen]

USCG Right to Board at anytime, anywhere.

I was just reading Zac's blog as I do every day and found it very surprising he said he was boarded by US Coast guard 20 miles off of Mexico, what is the US doing in other countries waters boarding vessels, is there some law or right they have that the rest of the world does not have.

Denby and Dodger, I think the following will explain some.

One of the interesting parts of all of this is the penalies. The vessel itself can be held "liable in rem" for the offense in addtion to the owner, operator or master. It can as you can see get expensive.

CHAPTER 23 - OPERATION OF VESSELS GENERALLY
Sec. 2301. Application
Except as provided in section 2306 of this title, this chapter applies to a
vessel operated on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
(including the territorial sea of the United States as described in
Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988) and, for a vessel owned in the United States, on the high seas.

[CGD 88-002A, 56 FR 8880, Mar. 1, 1991]
PART 26--OPERATIONS--
Subpart 26.15--Boarding
Sec. 26.15-1 May board at any time.
(a) To facilitate the boarding of vessels by the commissioned, warrant,
and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard in the exercise of their
authority, every uninspected vessel, as defined in 46 U.S.C.
2101(43), if underway and upon being hailed by a Coast Guard vessel,
must stop immediately and lay to, or must maneuver in such a way to
permit the Coast Guard boarding officer to come aboard. Failure to
permit a Coast Guard boarding officer to board a vessel or refusal to
comply will subject the operator or owner of the vessel to the penalties
provided in law.
(b) Coast Guard boarding vessels will be identified by the display of
the Coast Guard ensign as a symbol of authority and the Coast Guard
personnel will be dressed in Coast Guard uniform. The Coast Guard
boarding officer upon boarding a vessel will identify himself to the
master, owner, or operator and explain his mission.

Sec. 177.09 Penalties.
An operator of a vessel who does not follow the directions of a Coast
Guard Boarding Officer prescribed in Sec. 177.05 is, in addition to any
other penalty prescribed by law, subject to--
(a) The criminal penalties of 46 U.S.C. 4311, which provides that a
person willfully operating a recreational vessel in violation of 46
U.S.C., Chapter 43 or regulations issued thereunder, shall be fined not
more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) (1) The civil penalties for violating 46 U.S.C. 4307(a)(1). (2) The
civil penalties of 46 U.S.C. 4311, which provides that a person
violating any other provision of 43 U.S.C., Chapter 43 or regulation
issued thereunder is liable to the United States Government for a civil
penalty, and, if the violation involves the operation of a vessel, the vessel is liable in rem for the penalty.
[CGD 96-052, 62 FR 16703, Apr. 8, 1997]

Hope this helps to explain,

John

NTSB Trained, Marine:Surveyor, Educator, ABYC Master Technician

 

[St Anna]

Our lot tell us they have the right to board our floating homes anywhere in OZ waters - that is hard enough to take but in international waters and a well known boat. As usual, its pure left brain aka no brain thinking. As to the US owned boats - they pick on Kiwi and Aust yachts as well and obviously other nationalities I am unaware of.
Is there anywhere we (cruisers) can mind our own business, have minimal impact on the environment and enjoy our own lives without being treated like criminals until they dont find anything!!! - yeah just rabbiting on about the usual. Have a nice days guys

 

[JHJensen]

Boardings by USCG and others

Our lot tell us they have the right to board our floating homes anywhere in OZ waters - that is hard enough to take but in international waters and a well known boat. As usual, its pure left brain aka no brain thinking. As to the US owned boats - they pick on Kiwi and Aust yachts as well and obviously other nationalities I am unaware of.
Is there anywhere we (cruisers) can mind our own business, have minimal impact on the environment and enjoy our own lives without being treated like criminals until they dont find anything!!! - yeah just rabbiting on about the usual. Have a nice days guys

St. Anna,
I can understand down in Oz where a boarding could be intrusive. We have had the same problems here in the US since 911. My experience with the USCG has been great. Local police are another story and can be a problem in some areas.

As to Zac getting boarded, he was off the coast of Mexico and there is a drug smuggling problem and the USCG and several other agencies have a high profile so I am not surprised he was boarded. I did not not look at his blog yet, so I don't know how he was treated.

Best ,

John

PS Just read Zacs blog and it looks like he got a routine boarding and was treated ok.
I would also add that just because his trip is big thing in some circles. I would not really expect the USCG field guys to be up on all the goings on unless they were notified to be on the look out for him. Cheers.

 

[St Anna]

JHJensen,

I appreciate you acceptance. In QLD we have Water Police, Customs, Fisheries, Parks & Wildlife, Coastal surveillance aircraft etc. A different group can check you out anytime - apparently unaware of what happened previously. We once had 5 days in a row where a different group wanted to see my safety equipment. They had a quota to fill and we looked like we would be an easy mark. I made the last lot(water police) look at every item of safety gear we had. We were left alone after that.

You obviously know your own rules/regs. Knowing the rules and knowing your rights - would you arc up if you felt they were over stepping the mark?
All the best
David

 

[JHJensen]

JHJensen,

I appreciate you acceptance. In QLD we have Water Police, Customs, Fisheries, Parks & Wildlife, Coastal surveillance aircraft etc. A different group can check you out anytime - apparently unaware of what happened previously. We once had 5 days in a row where a different group wanted to see my safety equipment. They had a quota to fill and we looked like we would be an easy mark. I made the last lot(water police) look at every item of safety gear we had. We were left alone after that.

You obviously know your own rules/regs. Knowing the rules and knowing your rights - would you arc up if you felt they were over stepping the mark?
All the best
David

David,
I like your term "arc up". To answer your question Yes I would. Sounds like your agencies need to be talking to each other. Left hand maybe should know what the right hand has already done.

John

 

[kjango]

I guess the term " unreasonable search " as written in no less a document then THE CONSTITUTION , has very little meaning in the U.S. today . I resent any & all government intervention in my life . Our government is peopled by the worst kind of whores.....whores that don't know or believe they're whores . Anyone who believes they are " safe & secure in their home & possessions " , also words from the Constitution , is delusional . At 60 years old & always having been peaceful & law abiding , I now regard any dealings with government on any level as under duress . Freedom & rights in this country have now become no more then a thinly veiled aura projected by the same aforementioned empty words . The founding fathers would be appalled & ashamed of the perversion we we have let the government make of the sacred ideals of freedom & liberty . Furthermore , were I in need of assistance , given my feelings for present government entities , The Coast Guard would be the last people I would call & yes ....the courage of that stated conviction has been been tested more then once .

 

[SSBN506]

I guess the term " unreasonable search " as written in no less a document then THE CONSTITUTION , has very little meaning in the U.S. today . I resent any & all government intervention in my life . Our government is peopled by the worst kind of whores.....whores that don't know or believe they're whores . Anyone who believes they are " safe & secure in their home & possessions " , also words from the Constitution , is delusional . At 60 years old & always having been peaceful & law abiding , I now regard any dealings with government on any level as under duress . Freedom & rights in this country have now become no more then a thinly veiled aura projected by the same aforementioned empty words . The founding fathers would be appalled & ashamed of the perversion we we have let the government make of the sacred ideals of freedom & liberty . Furthermore , were I in need of assistance , given my feelings for present government entities , The Coast Guard would be the last people I would call & yes ....the courage of that stated conviction has been been tested more then once .

"Those who are ready to sacrifice freedom for security ultimately will lose both."
--Abraham Lincoln

"Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither."
--Ben Franklin

 

[imagine2frolic]

I was boarded by the Mexican Navy heading north in the mid 90's. This is a time when drug smuggling was probably at, or close to it's high. They were looking for people being smuggled. They didn't look through a cabinet, locker, or lift a cushion.

As far as Zac. I think they were hoping him to be home 2 weeks ago. I like this kid's style. I am hoping he makes him home safely, and can hang onto the record for a while at least.......i2f

 

[gafred99]

Denby and Dodger, I think the following will explain some.

One of the interesting parts of all of this is the penalies. The vessel itself can be held "liable in rem" for the offense in addtion to the owner, operator or master. It can as you can see get expensive.

CHAPTER 23 - OPERATION OF VESSELS GENERALLY
Sec. 2301. Application
Except as provided in section 2306 of this title, this chapter applies to a
vessel operated on waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
(including the territorial sea of the United States as described in
Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988) and, for a vessel owned in the United States, on the high seas.

[CGD 88-002A, 56 FR 8880, Mar. 1, 1991]
PART 26--OPERATIONS--
Subpart 26.15--Boarding
Sec. 26.15-1 May board at any time.
(a) To facilitate the boarding of vessels by the commissioned, warrant,
and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard in the exercise of their
authority, every uninspected vessel, as defined in 46 U.S.C.
2101(43), if underway and upon being hailed by a Coast Guard vessel,
must stop immediately and lay to, or must maneuver in such a way to
permit the Coast Guard boarding officer to come aboard. Failure to
permit a Coast Guard boarding officer to board a vessel or refusal to
comply will subject the operator or owner of the vessel to the penalties
provided in law.
(b) Coast Guard boarding vessels will be identified by the display of
the Coast Guard ensign as a symbol of authority and the Coast Guard
personnel will be dressed in Coast Guard uniform. The Coast Guard
boarding officer upon boarding a vessel will identify himself to the
master, owner, or operator and explain his mission.

Sec. 177.09 Penalties.
An operator of a vessel who does not follow the directions of a Coast
Guard Boarding Officer prescribed in Sec. 177.05 is, in addition to any
other penalty prescribed by law, subject to--
(a) The criminal penalties of 46 U.S.C. 4311, which provides that a
person willfully operating a recreational vessel in violation of 46
U.S.C., Chapter 43 or regulations issued thereunder, shall be fined not
more than $5,000, imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(b) (1) The civil penalties for violating 46 U.S.C. 4307(a)(1). (2) The
civil penalties of 46 U.S.C. 4311, which provides that a person
violating any other provision of 43 U.S.C., Chapter 43 or regulation
issued thereunder is liable to the United States Government for a civil
penalty, and, if the violation involves the operation of a vessel, the vessel is liable in rem for the penalty.
[CGD 96-052, 62 FR 16703, Apr. 8, 1997]

Hope this helps to explain,

John

NTSB Trained, Marine:Surveyor, Educator, ABYC Master Technician

what is the Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988?

Can the CG legally board non US boats outside of territorial waters?
I can see it being yes if they have an agreement with other countries in their territorial waters. ex. Ecuador.

 

[sailingdog]

Be aware that there is a legal difference between allowing them to board your boat with your consent and allowing them to board your boat. If you consent to allowing them to search your boat, anything they find on a search is allowable for use in court as evidence. If you consent to them boarding but do not consent to the search, you do not give up your Fourth Amendment rights. From an article on vehicle searches:

The Consent Search

An officer may have suspicion of something criminal during a traffic stop. He may not be able to articulate that suspicion specifically. Without that there is no probable cause, and the officer cannot legally search the vehicle. He may ask the driver for consent to search the vehicle.

An individual has no obligation to give consent and may refuse consent. The officer may insist on searching. Someone desiring to refuse consent should be polite, but unequivocal. There should be an unmistakable statement. For example: "I am not giving consent to this search".

Firm repetition could be useful in court in the future. Often encounters between police and public are recorded both by audio and video. Clear denial on tape would be strong evidence.

After a driver makes clear the desire that the car not be searched, the officer's instructions should be followed. Failure to do so could possibly lead to other criminal charges. If, after a clear denial of consent an officer proceeds to conduct a search it is unwise to interfere with the search or touch the officer.

While, you do not have the right to refuse the search or boarding, it does not mean that you have to consent to it.

 

[JHJensen]

Presidential Proclamation No. 5928

what is the Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 of December 27, 1988?

Can the CG legally board non US boats outside of territorial waters?
I can see it being yes if they have an agreement with other countries in their territorial waters. ex. Ecuador.

Here is the link and text: http://www.nauticalcharts.noaa.gov/hsd/docs/CSE_library_shalowitz_App_g.pdf
Appendix G
Presidential Proclamation No. 5928
December 27, 1988, 54 F.R. 777
Territorial Sea of the
United States of America
International law recognizes that coastal nations may exercise sovereignty
and jurisdiction over their territorial seas.
The territorial sea of the United States is a maritime zone extending
beyond the land territory and internal waters of the United States over which
the United States exercises sovereignty and jurisdiction, a sovereignty and
jurisdiction that extends to the airspace over the territorial sea, as well as to its bed and subsoil.
Extension of the territorial sea by the United States to the limits permitted
by international law will advance the national security and other significant
interests of the United States.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, RONALD REAGAN, by the authority vested in me as
President by the Constitution of the United States of America, and in
accordance with international law, do hereby proclaim the extension of the
territorial sea of the United States of America, the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other territory or
possession over which the United States exercises sovereignty.
The territorial sea of the United States henceforth extends to 12 nautical
miles from the baselines of the United States determined in accordance with
international law.
In accordance with international law, as reflected in the applicable
provisions of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,
within the territorial sea of the United States, the ships of all countries enjoy the right of innocent passage and the ships and aircraft of all countries enjoy the right of transit passage through international straits.
Nothing in this Proclamation:
(a) extends or otherwise alters existing Federal or State law or any
jurisdiction, rights, legal interests, or obligations derived therefrom; or
(b) impairs the determination, in accordance with international law, or
any maritime boundary of the United States with a foreign jurisdiction.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 27th day of
December, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-eight, and of
the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and
thirteenth.
/s/ Ronald Reagan
419

 

[gafred99]

JHJenson, that makes no sense what so ever.

As far as giving conset to search, who will be in control of the video\audio of you not giving consent to the search? There ya go, the cops word is golden in court, all he has to say is you did give consent, done and over with.
Your meals will be dished out to you the next 10 years and for exercise you get to turn large rocks into little ones. All for saying no.

 

[JHJensen]

What makes no sense?

JHJenson, that makes no sense what so ever.

As far as giving conset to search, who will be in control of the video\audio of you not giving consent to the search? There ya go, the cops word is golden in court, all he has to say is you did give consent, done and over with.
Your meals will be dished out to you the next 10 years and for exercise you get to turn large rocks into little ones. All for saying no.

Gafred99,
I am a bit confused. What makes no sense? Are you refering to Sailingdog's post about consent to search? As far as I know consent to search by the USCG on the water is different than dirt side by cops searching your car. The USCG have much broader powers. Or are you refering to Regan's proclamation? Could you please clarify? I know this issue is a minefield and I certainly don't have all the answers.

John

 

[gafred99]

Presidential Proclamation No. 5928 makes no sense to the juristiction of CG, what I gather they can board when and where ever they choose.