Be Careful with U.S. Customs -- A Cautionary Tale

[Rich T]

Boaters need to know that any US law enforcement officer that has jurisdiction of a waterway can seize your vessel and the probable cause needed is very weak. Our 4th Amendment is extremely limited, as in nearly nonexistent, once we are afloat. Breaking ANY law can result in Vessel Seizure, and under provisions in the Patriot Act, seizures can be made even without probable cause or breaking a law. There are many cases to prove this, do research. There is much information on this subject, but it seems to be kept obscure.
Here is a short excerpt from the original law (I did not include the Patriot Act for brevity);
If it shall appear to any officer authorized to board conveyances and make seizures that there has been a violation of any law of the United States whereby a vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or other conveyance, or any merchandise on board of or imported by such vessel, vehicle, aircraft, or other conveyance is liable to forfeiture, the officer shall seize such conveyance and arrest any person engaged in such violation. Common carriers are exempted from seizure except under certain specified conditions as provided for in section 594, Tariff Act of 1930 ( 19 U.S.C. 1594) and section 274(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ( 8 U.S.C. 1324(b)(1)).

[reed1v]

One of my workers just lost his very valuable solid gold rolex to a customs agent in Miami. Simply took it. So far no amount of legal wrangling has gotten it returned. Evidently nowadays we do not have any protection from DHS. Drugs need not be involved.

[pufferfish]

I feel so sorry for the people who have to live in such a lawless country. Who needs to fear terrorists or organised crime when the government appears that evil?

I have stopped travelling to the USA long ago. Really like the national parks there, and would like to visit my friends there too, but no way I would voluntarily enter a country that blatantly violates human rights unchallenged let alone unpunished.

2 years ago I had to go through LA in transit for 2 hours only on a flight from Australia to Canada, and they made me go through customs searching everything rather than providing an international transit lounge as civilised countries generally do.

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Aldous Snow

It baffles me how many people try to board an aircraft with bags of cash and/or handguns.

One of those is not like the others.

It is (should be) our right as citizens to carry our rightfully earned and tax-paid (or even undeservedely inherited and expensive-lawyer untaxed) treasure around as we like.

If lost to highwaymen robbers, that's our problem.

But our public servants should not be the banditos.

_______
Interesting story about bags of cash:

Kidnapped Royalty Become Pawns in Iran’s Deadly Plot
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/14/m...ddle-east.html

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by Rich T

the officer shall seize such conveyance **and arrest** any person engaged in such violation.

I have much less objection to such powers if the owner is actually arrested.

The topic here is **civil** seizure when there is not enough evidence to support a charge or a warrant of any kind. Or in many cases outlined here not even an investigation or suspicion.

[TrentePieds]

Thanx for #320 John. I was about to point to it.

I think it is VERY significant that the wording employs the imperative "shall" rather than the permissive "may". That leaves the LEO with no discretion if it "appears", i.e. even if there be not "reasonable grounds to suspect", that a law has been broken.

And it is just that small difference in the choice of words that takes this matter out of the realm of criminal law with its much stricter requirements for evidence and much stricter prescription of procedure.

There are, I think, two, and only two, possible reasons for such wording: 1) The drafters of the legislation, and the legislators who enact it, MEAN to be oppressive. 2) The drafters of the legislation, and the legislators who presumably proofread it prior to enacting it, are grammatically incompetent.

Given the current state of education, we may well suspect that the latter is the case. If it be so, America's present plight could, conceivably, be remedied over a generation or two. If the former is the case, remediation could be swift and decisive but would require action that very few Americans would be willing to take.

TP

[john61ct]

Originally Posted by TrentePieds

There are, I think, two, and only two, possible reasons for such wording: 1) The drafters of the legislation, and the legislators who enact it, MEAN to be oppressive. 2) The drafters of the legislation, and the legislators who presumably proofread it prior to enacting it, are grammatically incompetent.

Given the current state of education, we may well suspect that the latter is the case. If it be so, America's present plight could, conceivably, be remedied over a generation or two.

Unfortunately, providing substandard education to all but the .x%'s children is another fast-accelerating trend.

Combined with the fact you'd have to be stupid to get involved with party politics in the first place, at least until you're rich and powerful enough to try to be your own man.

But many years of my youth working in the House and Senate convinced me that the environment is inherently corrupting of even those with the best of intentions.

The only solution I see is Finland-level education quality in every neighborhood of the country, and then lottery selection of public servants with strict term limits everywhere.

Not exactly realistic.

[skipmac]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

What we see or read about in "breaking news stories" represents a tiny fraction of real life in the US. LEOs are not all aggressive money grubbing thugs. The US is not a police state. But we have to acknowledge that when something is wrong it needs illumination by the media. The forfeiture process is the result of true criminals who manage time and again to escape justice using all the rights and benefits of the US system. Out of sheer frustration these procedures were designed to put a dent in drug and human trafficking and they have done a lot of good. Many lives have been saved. But we don't read about that.

What we have to decide as a society is how much liberty we are willing to give up to get more safety for our selves and our kids. Without LEOs we would get anarchy controlled by true thugs. So let's restrain the idea that law enforcement is nothing but thugs looking for their next victim. That's not fair.

The solution to this problem need not be complex or expensive. A simple requirement that there be a due and speedy process for resolving forfeiture cases may be what is needed. Real criminals will not want to appear in front of a judge. Some of you may have better ideas how to make the process more fair. Let's focus on that and less on the totally wrong notion that the US is a scary police state. It is not.

Maybe I missed it but I don't recall seeing anyone claim that all LEO are thugs or corrupt. I don't recall seeing anyone saying we need to completely eliminate the rule of law in the US. Without laws there would be chaos.

I don't think the US is totally a "scary police state", but their are aspects of our society and government and law enforcement that have gone that way. When cash can be confiscated without justification, without and due process of law but only on the whim of any government official or agency then that specific act is characteristic of a police state. When my boat (which at times in my past was my home and my only home) can be boarded and searched at random, with no warrant and no probably cause, on the whim of any official or agency that is to me a characteristic of a police state.

To ignore the law or to justify loopholes in the law in the name of crime prevention or public safety opens the door to further abuses of power and the potential for those in power to decide what is right or wrong in their opinion.

[IdoraKeeper]

It seems like Dockhead just wanted to warn folks not to carry more cash than you can afford to lose. As a person who made my living tearing around the countryside, that was always my policy. Even a person who is completely inspected and detected by the system will sometimes encounter odd behavior. It might be your tube of toothpaste or your wallet, you can never tell. In the age of drug wars and international terror the problem is predictable. Todays' business man is tomorrows criminal and visa versa...strange times indeed. Now, I better get down to the dock and sand the bright work....an activity that attracts sympathy and derision but is not (yet) subversive.

[cyan]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

What we see or read about in "breaking news stories" represents a tiny fraction of real life in the US. LEOs are not all aggressive money grubbing thugs.

Of course you are correct that all Law Enforcement Officers in the US are not money grubbing thugs. The US certainly does not feel like a police state to me, but then I don't plan to move a pile of cash this week. (Maybe I'll find that perfect boat next week, though. Note to self- get a cashier's check.)

However, I think you are wrong to suggest that these four or five news stories represent a only "tiny fraction" of real life in the US if you are a citizen who wishes to carry cash. (NOT a crime) The DOJ forfeiture fund now tops 5 BILLION DOLLARS. Estimates range from 1/3 to 2/3 of that amount that was seized without any crime being charged.

I believe these news stories represent just the tip of the slimy iceberg, transmitterdan. The incentive practice of Equitable Sharing is a trick that allows local authorities to act on behalf of of the Feds through Adoptive Forfeiture. A police deputy in small town America can grab cash from a traffic stop in the name of Federal Law , hand it over to the Feds, and get 80% kicked back to the local police department budget. Again, with no crime charged. Answer me this- How does South Dakota rank #1 of the 50 states in dollar totals for this Equitable Sharing scheme, err scam? SOUTH freaking DAKOTA?! Oh sure, cuz that's where all the drug criminals live. Puhleeeze.

Me? I don't feel at all like I live in a police state here in the US. I enjoy safety and freedom.* However, I am a law abiding citizen who is QUITE fearful of transporting a bundle of cash to buy my next boat, and that fear is not fear of bumping into a random thief. The fear is from bumping into a random police officer. (who might even have a dog who can smell cash) That is just wrong.
Federal Equitable Sharing - Institute for Justice

* caveat: Yes, I DO enjoy freedom in the US, but I must pass along the observation of my Polish friend: "Land of the free, and I can't drink a beer on the beach??"

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by transmitterdan

Out of sheer frustration these procedures were designed to put a dent in....

If it were true that the forfeiture process was effective in seizing oodles of illegal money, the revenue generated would pay for the due processing of all seizures, making sure that all were appropriate. Logically there are only two reasons why illegal money seized was not used to ensure due processing:
1) there wasn't enough of it
2) the powers that be didn't see fit to respect due processing, etc. Clearly this would take a lot of work. Textbook example of a moral hazard.

The biggest thing that the forfeiture process is doing nowadays is turning citizens against one another under the guise of "war on drugs" and "reducing human trafficking" nonsense. Portugal has demonstrated the illigimatecy of the first point (by decriminalizing drugs) while many countries have reduced the second point using different means (e.g. controlled/legalized prostitution) with an outcome the US could only dream of.

Meanwhile if you're a (socioeconomic) 0.1% American, soaking profits from your fellow Americans, hiding your money outside the US, leaving the stupid 99.9% of Americans to pay for the aircraft carriers, planes, and servicemembers to guard your estate, you're good (a large number mammon-worshipping ends-justify-the-means Americans have your back). No need to jump on the private plane yet.

[belizesailor]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

That's odd. It was a while back but we took a trip to Belize and didn't need to carry thousands in cash. Has there economy collapsed recently?

No, but a charter operator there used to prefer payment in cash...a practice they have since discontinued. However, at < $10K per person you could still legally move a nice chunk of cash with a charter party.

[wallythacker]

I'll add a bit to the original post. I didn't read many of the middle posts so I don't know if he got his money back or ended up charged. If he only had $50,000 from drug dealing he was doing it all wrong.

Now let me add some color of the opposite type to this story.

In the late fall of 2016 I crossed the Cdn-US border at Niagara Falls to pick up an item from a drop shipment mailbox and return the same item via US postal system. I pulled up to US Customs and told them what I just told you and he asked what the item was that was being returned (no business of his) but I told him anyway, it was an amplifier head for a rock band. His eyes lit up and we bantered for 5 minutes about musical gear (it was a slow day) and whatnot then he waved me through wishing me a good day and too bad about the head not being what I wanted.

I got the item at the warehouse, sent it back via the US mail system and went home, I got lost and came back into Canada via Fort Erie. It was two days later I realized I crossed the border without a passport, or Nexus card, or even declaring where I was born! In a rental car no less!

So for all the times you've had a proctology examination when you've crossed the border there are some of us who, for reasons unknown, sail through without showing ID of any kind.

I crossed the border again last year going to a concert and was asked where I was born, I said Canada, then asked what citizenship I was and I said UK, but again wasn't made to show my passport or any other ID. Hmmm.

[Michael Conway-Brown]

US Border Guards are often very snotty with Canadians. I know a fellow who flew a small plane into the US, and a guard wanted to look inside a wing. The pilot had to hire and fly in an accredited aviation mechanic to reassemble it, at great personal expense.

Mostly we've had few problems at the US border. But one hears horror stories from others.

If a US border guard asks if you intend to purchase legal pot in the US, don't point out that it is legal, they will turn you back. Federal and state laws are currently in conflict, and they are fighting. Don't get in the middle. "Just say: no Sir".

[TrentePieds]

Belize (327)

Probably still a tad risky. Remember that the wording of the legislation is that the LEO SHALL...if it APPEARS..."

What is to stop him asserting that the entire charter crew are family and therefore have an AGGREGATE limit of $10K? Do you think that presentation of a slew of - say - passports, all in different names, would make him back down once the assertion has been made? I don't :-)!

Remember that the entire point at issue is that DUE PROCESS as conceived by the civilized world is deliberately being circumvented, not to say flaunted, and that that is "justified" by the "war" on drugs.

The current foo-fa-rah about the involvement of the RCN in the USCG's "Operation Caribe", and the violation of the civil rights of "detainees" aboard USCG vessels, arises precisely because what I've just described is how the USCG plays the came. RCN crews are the ones that actually clap the cuffs on the benighted fishermen and carry them in RCN cutters to USCG vessels lying off. Our (Canadian) government and Naval Command dodge the issue by "seconding" our men (and cutters) to the USCG so that, nominally, they are acting under command of a USCG officer! We can then throw up our hands and whimper "it wasn't us".

The Commander RCN was interviewed on CBC and did a MASTERFUL job of dodging and weaving - as indeed it is his duty to do.

Very neat! Also despicable. But entirely characteristic of the "special relationship" that has existed since the formation of NORAD and the building of the DEW (Distant Early Warning) Line in northern Canada. It comes back to the ability of the US to impose de facto sanctions on us, because 70% of our foreign trade is with the US.

TP