MSD Boarding in Florida

[doug86]

video of florida boarding has surfaced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDTsMLc_7Ro

you be the judge

[Chief Engineer]

I thought the issue was being boarded with weapons drawn?

I for one wouldn't think it very prudent to do that...y'know one hand for yourself one for the ship thing.

If you are that paranoid that you want to be putting cameras in your cockpits.....then you must not be very happy campers ashore....either

[Unicorn Dreams]

I don't want some dumb a$$ jumping aboard my boat, slipping and have a so-called accidental discharge and hitting a crew member or my boat.

Been boarded many times in the Fl Keys over the past 40= years back when pot runners were going hot and heavy and was never boarded with weapons drawn. That's the difference professionals and wannabe's on the water. Just like the GIWW DHS that patrols around Houma, La. Running around in what I would guess is a 25' launch with 4-300 HP Mercury OB's on it. They about panicked trying to turn it around at the city marina..

That's why I now fly an NRA flag and a white lage I made that has a silohuette of a .45 handgun with printing sating ALWAYS ARMED. flying from the starboard mizzen spreader. Have concealed carry in 42 States, but which is not necessary in my home..

Actually had locals board my boat on the ICW years ago and wanted me to leave the helm unattended as one of them stumbled around trying to get his sea legs. I for sure didn't want him running around with weapon drawn while boarding. I have absolutle nothing against professional LEO's. I have LEO all thru my family, me aux sheriff, one FHP, one retired deputy, one the old Florida Game and one FMP.

[osirissail]

I like that NRA flag idea - got get one. It is amazing how attitudes change with "gung-ho" overzealous LEO's if they think you are one of them.
- - In east central Florida the Sheriff's have similar overpowered boats with lots of lights and stuff. And on the weekends especially, the senior LEO's get the privilege of taking it out for a "patrol" which is another word for "joyride." However, as it was pointed out in a local newspaper the cost of the boat and operation was rather high and not seen as a very good use of taxpayer's money for simply riding around having fun. Rather than loose the fun of riding around in the "hot" boat, the Sheriff and his deputies started stopping everybody for "safety checks" and issuing lots of tickets to "justify" their use of the boat. That made the local news letter columns but did no good.

[gettinthere]

I've seen the responses from the sheriff that the operator ran below when boarded and was banging around down there. Lets assume that is true. Lets assume the operator was below shutting off discharge valves to avoid getting busted.

Why would the operator send his letter to Waterway Guide full of false accounts? Knowing it would get out to the public can only make things more difficult for this particular boat owner. SOMETHING drastic had to happen to push this owner to send this off regardless if he fabricated some of the story.

IMO, Something very fishy from the police end of things.

[osirissail]

Being a graduate parent, I have learned that there is always - the other side of the story. And almost all stories/reports are subconsciously "edited" for the maximum effect by side doing the telling/reporting.
- - So we have only the raw data of a strange stop, apparent over-zealousness by the LEO;s, and a ticket for a single violation. Surrounding ancedotes by other posters establishes a pattern of paranoia - justified or not - by LEO's fearful of getting shot/injured by the suspect in what was historically considered a low risk "stop." We know that happens as the mass media feed us a diet of violence and weirdo's attacking everybody. I've had a "cop" pull a gun on me for a "sliding through a stop sign" stop, but it was in a area subject to major drug trafficking activity. Welcome to modern America.
- - So the value of the thread is to know these things happen and a basic understanding of why they happen. Also it is valuable to plan how you would handle such a situation and how to deal with a nervous/paranoid/over-zealous LEO so as to minimize any negative effects to you and your boat.

[Cormorant]

It's only a matter of time till we see the first Kevlar PFD.

[S/V Antares]

We were boarded in Georgia just north of the Ben Sawer Bridge on the ICW last May. 5 very polite officers: 2 County clam cops (Their boat) 1 DEA, 1 homeland security,1 Coast Gaurd. All we asked was not to shoot the dog who was thrilled to see "New people" and very talkative. I stayed on the helm while my wife showed them around. This was near Charleston, another port of entry much like Ponce inlet in Velousia county Fl. It was clear to us that they were looking for something bigger than an open y valve. Perhaps bales of pot or perhaps hatians as they had little more than a quick peek at the padlocked y valve and registration papers.

This whole issue in Valousia County sounds like a new and nearly perfect revenue source perpetrated on visitors that do not vote there.

[osirissail]

And not only inside the USA, I was boarded by a group of 4 French Gendarmes in Guadeloupe who were very polite and courteous. Checked to see if I had checked-in and took a look around inside the boat. When leaving they did say they had admired my all red boat and really just wanted to see what the inside looked like as they were on their way to the commercial port across the bay. Extremely nice people - but - just because the French Islands have a reputation of being rather lax about procedures don't think you can get away with not following the rules. True for inside the USA and outside.

[Unicorn Dreams]

Cormorant
It's only a matter of time till we see the first Kevlar PFD.

I want 2 or 3 of them along with ceramic trauma plates and signs that have,,,

DON'T SHOOT THE POOP

on the front and back...

[Mambo]

Originally Posted by UWOA

I don't agree with anything that's been said here. First of all, the PIO (Public Information Officer) from the sheriff's department is entirely correct ... the law is well settled in this regard and, due to the mobility of the watercraft, the officers may board without permission (Carrol v. United States, et sup.) BIG SNIP OF MORE OF SAME.

Carrol is a vehicle case and its not a case about searching without permission -- it is a case about searching without a court issued warrant. In order to stop a vehicle you need probable cause for a stop (articulable facts leading to an objectively reasonable conclusion of illegal activity afoot) and exigent circumstances (mobilty will do) to justify searching without the warrant. None of that is present here. If the law is different for boats, I have not heard it articulated clearly -- and it certainly isn't based upon Carrol v. US.

I just started reading this thread so if this has been cleared up . . . excuse me.

[Mambo]

Originally Posted by velero

Get a lawyer!!!

Agreed

It seems from the DEP write up below, they can board your vessel if:

1. If they have probable course
2. with consent - they have to ask!!!
or
3. if the operator refuses or is unable to display the safety or marine sanitation equipment.

What a joke how are you going to show MSD w/o boarding?

If those DEP regs (assuming the FAQs accurately represent them) violate the 4th Amendment . . . the constitution wins. That seems to be the crux of this. Law Enforcement / civilian encounters go bad -- it just happens. What you can not have is illegal encounters initiated by law enforcement. The problem here is not the gun, it is the boarding.

[Mambo]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

No, he just has to have a reasonable belief that there is a permanently mounted MSD. It is entirely reasonable to believe that a 36 foot cruiser has a permanently mounted MSD as virtually every 36 foot cruiser does in fact have such a device.

He definitely had the right to board.

He also had the right to write a ticket for not following the letter of the law with regard to securing the seacock. A more reasonable and wiser officer would have given a polite warning, but he did have the right to write the ticket.

But he did not have the right to threaten the cruisers with his pistol and behave like a bully. Threatening with a pistol is assault. It is a serious crime if not done with legal justification.

No. He needs a reasonable belief of illegal activity -- having the MSD is not illegal activity. He did not "definitely have a right to board" without permission. It sounds like the CG may -- I'd still like to see the primary authority for that right too.

[AnchorageGuy]

Originally Posted by Mambo

Carrol is a vehicle case and its not a case about searching without permission -- it is a case about searching without a court issued warrant. In order to stop a vehicle you need probable cause for a stop (articulable facts leading to an objectively reasonable conclusion of illegal activity afoot) and exigent circumstances (mobilty will do) to justify searching without the warrant. None of that is present here. If the law is different for boats, I have not heard it articulated clearly -- and it certainly isn't based upon Carrol v. US.

I just started reading this thread so if this has been cleared up . . . excuse me.

This is from FindLaw and may clarify this a bit more;

"Vessel Searches .--Not only is the warrant requirement inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are necessary predicates to stops of vessels. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 74 the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. The boarding was authorized by statute derived from an act of the First Congress, 75 and hence had ''an impressive historical pedigree'' carrying with it a presumption of constitutionality. Moreover, ''important factual differences between vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and automobiles on principal thoroughfares in the border area'' justify application of a less restrictive rule for vessel searches. The reason why random stops of vehicles have been held impermissible under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained, is that stops at fixed checkpoints or roadblocks are both feasible and less subject to abuse of discretion by authorities. ''But no reasonable claim can be made that permanent checkpoints would be practical on waters such as these where vessels can move in any direction at any time and need not follow established 'avenues' as automobiles must do.'' 76 Because there is a ''substantial'' governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, ''especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,'' the Court found the ''limited'' but not ''minimal'' intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable. 77 Dis senting Justice Brennan argued that the Court for the first time was approving ''a completely random seizure and detention of persons and an entry onto private, noncommercial premises by police officers, without any limitations whatever on the officers' discretion or any safeguards against abuse.'' 78 "

[Mambo]

Originally Posted by Waterwayguy

This is from FindLaw and may clarify this a bit more;

"Vessel Searches .--Not only is the warrant requirement inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are necessary predicates to stops of vessels. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, 74 the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. The boarding was authorized by statute derived from an act of the First Congress, 75 and hence had ''an impressive historical pedigree'' carrying with it a presumption of constitutionality. Moreover, ''important factual differences between vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and automobiles on principal thoroughfares in the border area'' justify application of a less restrictive rule for vessel searches. The reason why random stops of vehicles have been held impermissible under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained, is that stops at fixed checkpoints or roadblocks are both feasible and less subject to abuse of discretion by authorities. ''But no reasonable claim can be made that permanent checkpoints would be practical on waters such as these where vessels can move in any direction at any time and need not follow established 'avenues' as automobiles must do.'' 76 Because there is a ''substantial'' governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, ''especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,'' the Court found the ''limited'' but not ''minimal'' intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable. 77 Dis senting Justice Brennan argued that the Court for the first time was approving ''a completely random seizure and detention of persons and an entry onto private, noncommercial premises by police officers, without any limitations whatever on the officers' discretion or any safeguards against abuse.'' 78 "

Thanks WWG. I'll read Villamonte tonight. Gotta love Brennan . . .. 4th A law, like much of constitutional law it seems, has given up its intellectual integrity for the sake of expedience.