Coast Guard procedures

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

OK let’s look at a purely fantasy scenario.
You come home from work, You, the Wife and Kids are sitting down and eating supper and there is a knock on the door.
You get up and answer it, there is a cop wearing military gear who has his hand on his weapon standing there, you look behind him and another cop is in a truck with a 50 cal mounted and is manning it, in fact he has it pointed at You.
Your asked to step outside on the porch while a third cop goes inside to search, your wife and kids are sent outside on the porch with you. They separate you and your wife and start asking questions. Where were you today? Work you say, where do you work? What is the address? How long were you at work? Which route did you take from work to come here? How long did it take you? How long have you worked there, let me see your registration papers.
They are swabbing the kids to test for drugs. There is no warrant and no probable cause, you have done nothing you don’t do every day.
Meanwhile your wife has been being asked the same questions to see if she will give the same answers. Oh, I forgot the cop that is inside before he went in asked if you have any weapons in the house and then sort of snidely tells you you had better tell the truth cause if there are any, they will find them.

Does this sound familiar?

Before you dismiss me as some kind of liberal hippie, I’ll remind you that I spent 20 years and 6 months in Military service, I’m no left wing hippie. I’m no right wing Nazi either, however I do think that the citizens of the United States have given up too many rights in the interest of “Homeland Security” it needs to stop, I’m innocent until proven guilty, and my home is my castle, even if it floats.
We should politely, and legally raise this concern and get it fixed.
I’m not a second class citizen and have less rights just cause I no longer live on land.

My opinion only of course.

If your argument is -- "why should it be allowed to happen on my boat, if it's not allowed to happen on land", then the answer is -- the legal requirements are different. There is specific legal authority for the Coast Guard to board U.S. flag vessels anywhere and any time, which does not exist in the case of your home. So if your home floats -- it's not your castle. It's important to realize that.

However, just because it IS that way doesn't mean it SHOULD be.

I wouldn't hope that the situation will get better without political action. "Homeland Security" (I agree with you that the name sounds like something out of Orwell's 1984, and how about the "Patriot Act"?) considers small vessels to be a serious concern:

https://www.dhs.gov/small-vessel-security

You can download their "Small Vessel Security Strategy" paper here:

https://www.dhs.gov/publication/smal...urity-strategy

[30yearslater]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

If your argument is -- "why should it be allowed to happen on my boat, if it's not allowed to happen on land", then the answer is -- the legal requirements are different. There is specific legal authority for the Coast Guard to board U.S. flag vessels anywhere and any time, which does not exist in the case of your home. So if your home floats -- it's not your castle. It's important to realize that.

However, just because it IS that way doesn't mean it SHOULD be.

I wouldn't hope that the situation will get better without political action. "Homeland Security" (I agree with you that the name sounds like something out of Orwell's 1984, and how about the "Patriot Act"?) considers small vessels to be a serious concern:

https://www.dhs.gov/small-vessel-security

You can download their "Small Vessel Security Strategy" paper here:

https://www.dhs.gov/publication/smal...urity-strategy

Interesting read Dockhead. So if I got this straight, the goon squad torments the average clown out for a sail or returning from a pleasure trip and torments them with a surly character treating them like a criminal when reporting in. Then they want the same folks to provide 'eyes on the water' to report suspicious activity. What could go wrong?

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by 30yearslater

Interesting read Dockhead. So if I got this straight, the goon squad torments the average clown out for a sail or returning from a pleasure trip and torments them with a surly character treating them like a criminal when reporting in. Then they want the same folks to provide 'eyes on the water' to report suspicious activity. What could go wrong?

That's not a contradiction. Totalitarian states always enlist ordinary people as "ears and eyes". It's a great lever of social control to get the whole population involved, maybe the MOST powerful lever. So the "good guys" among the population become extensions of the state. Soon there is no such thing, as a private citizen, minding his own business, not involved, with his own thoughts and opinions. You're either a de facto deputy, or you're an enemy.

The authors of these policies don't believe that they are creating a totalitarian regime. They believe that terrorism is such an overwhelming, existential threat, that they have to grasp for the most effective means possible of fighting the threat, even if it means "breaking a few eggs". The population, paralyzed by fear of the existential threat, are happy to give up their rights. "I've got nothing to hide; why should I worry?" That's how it starts.

I believe that's exactly what Bin Laden had in mind when he launched the 9/11 attacks. Our predictable reaction to the attacks was Al Qaeda's real weapon, the most devastating weapon ever used against us.

[bgallinger]

I have been boarded a few times on the great lakes and once on Lake St. Clair which is more of a mud puddle. Any time I have been boarded the officers were pleasant and thorough. When I was boarded on Lake St. Clair, it was a combined effort of Mich. State Police, DEA and Homeland Security. They called it a "safety inspection". I found it interesting that the boarding was carried out in Canadian waters, not US. I also thought it was overkill. This is obviously a very contentious topic!

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by bgallinger

I have been boarded a few times on the great lakes and once on Lake St. Clair which is more of a mud puddle. Any time I have been boarded the officers were pleasant and thorough. When I was boarded on Lake St. Clair, it was a combined effort of Mich. State Police, DEA and Homeland Security. They called it a "safety inspection". I found it interesting that the boarding was carried out in Canadian waters, not US. I also thought it was overkill. This is obviously a very contentious topic!

I cross international borders in my boat a dozen or even a couple of dozen times every year, and I have been boarded many times.

In order to prevent problems, I keep my boat ready to be boarded -- things in order, papers in perfect order, always broadcasting AIS (so they don't board me just to find out who I am), and I always behave very carefully.

What does it mean, to "behave carefully"? Your behavior is an absolutely crucial element, in how you will manage with this kind of interaction. All kinds of authorities dealing with you on your boat are watching your behavior intently and with expert eyes, to determine how to deal with you. If you send them the right signals you enormously reduce the risk of a bad experience. Those signals: (a) you are not a threat -- you fully recognize their authority and will do whatever they tell you; (b) you are totally confident and you are not the least intimidated or fearful of them -- nothing to hide; (c) professional -- you've done this before and know the rules of the game (this is very important); (d) friendly, but (e) not talkative -- don't volunteer extraneous information; (f) efficiently give them what they need to finish what they're doing and move on. Make the job easy and pleasant for them, and very often they will make the encounter easy and pleasant for you.

Here in Northern Europe, the authorities behave better than they do in the U.S., where the bad experiences for us started in Florida waters when they cracked down on travel to Cuba. My Father used to take our boat to Cuba every year in the '90's when sailing to Cuba was still tolerated, and got us onto a database of boats to harass, and we were stopped all the time, and the boat was virtually ripped apart on a couple of occasions. Nevertheless, even when you are fair game for harassment, the great majority of Coasties are not nasty people and will not ruin your day if you follow the above rules of behavior.

But even here in Northern Europe, you occasionally encounter some stupid, officious or malevolent people among the vast majority of pleasant and professional people wearing a coast guard, customs, or doannier uniform. It seems to happen on a random basis and it's just a risk which you have to live with. The human factor in law enforcement is EXACTLY why there must be rules and civil rights. As James Madison said:

"If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary." The Federalist No. 51

[30yearslater]

Fortunately I haven't been boarded despite several trips to Canada per year. Prior to the new ROAM reporting system I was often required to contact someone at CBP via telephone. These were miserable sorts who seemed to delight in their ignorance of the reporting requirements and demanding I sail an additional hundred or so miles to check in. To the contrary the contact using the ROAM app was professional and actually pleasant. Of course there was no method for actually having contact with CBP to insure correct operation or test of the system. My biggest gripe is the 'safety inspection' premise used as an excuse to board. Just call it like it is, we think you are a criminal and will treat you accordingly. Simple.

[zboss]

I think most boardings are simply because the boat is loaded with 18 and 20 something young one-weekend-a-month kids and the Cap and they are given a mission to compete for that Saturday or whatever and they just do what they are told so that by the end of the weekend, they have to complete minimal paperwork and they just go home and get back to their regularly schedule program. Maybe I’m off here but I think it’s often as simple as that.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

"Actually, state law doesn't trump federal law. "
Sorry guy, that's a matter of "States' Rights" and except for those areas where the Fed has been specifically given sovereignty? The states are still sovereign and superior. That's why the USCG can't enforce regulations on your local duck pond, but it can enforce them on your *designated* navigable waterways. And why the USCG can't give you a ticket for breaking a red light, but your local "peace officers" can.

Sorry but you are confusing the issue. With a few rare exceptions, CG isn't operating on duck ponds. They are in coastal waters and can claim boarder status.

But States Rights sounds good but reality is outside very specific conditions, it is the Federal rules that take precedence, particularly in a coastal situation.

On not stopping for two miles? I could be on the ICW needing to run bridge openings before dropping anchor for the night...and like a railroad train, I can't stop for 1/2 hour and still make those openings. "Sorry, Captain, but you're welcome to join me for a drink after we drop the hook in a couple of hours." Or, I'm heading north from the Battery, making the six mile run past HellsGate into the Sound, and I need to make slack water at the Gate. "Sorry Captain, not now."

What you are describing is a inconvenience issue not a safety issue. You would have to do some serious explaining to claim it's unsafe for you to miss your bridge opening and you can always wait for the next tide.

If they force a boarding in 6' seas right here right now, it's easy to claim a safety issue.

Kinda scary to see USCG boats with twin machine guns uncovered and manned....when the background is Manhattan, and there's simply no safe way to fire those guns.

It's paranoia to think they are going to fire on a 6kt sailboat for refusing to stop for a safety inspection.

Yes, there are certain areas where states hold rights where the Feds are limited but generally speaking if Fed and State laws come into conflict, the Fed laws come out on top...particularly when you are talking coastal/border issues.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

Yes, there are certain areas where states hold rights where the Feds are limited but generally speaking if Fed and State laws come into conflict, the Fed laws come out on top...particularly when you are talking coastal/border issues.

Well, there are two principles here:

1. The Supremacy Clause -- Article IV, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution -- valid Federal law trumps state law on the same subject.

2. Principle of Enumerated Powers -- Article 1, Section 8; 10th Amendment; and other provisions. States have general legislative authority -- they can pass laws on anything not in violation of the Constitution. Federal government has only those powers specifically delegated to it.

How these two principles interact is -- Federal law trumps state law but only on subjects where the Federal government has the right to legislate, and those subjects are only those specifically enumerated.

The power to regulate interstate commerce is one of those enumerated powers -- the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, in Article 1, Section 8. This was interpreted a long time ago to give the Federal Government authority over all navigable waterways of the U.S. -- the concept is known as "navigable servitude". U.S. v. Rands, 389 U.S. 121 (1967), is the operative precedent today, but the principle goes back much further.

[mottseng]

Originally Posted by denverd0n

As captain of the boat I would have told them I did not think it was safe for them to board. I think your offer of meeting them in the next harbor was extremely reasonable.

On the other hand, in the end, when guys with guns and badges tell you that they are going to do something, it is usually best to cooperate.

I might consider filing a complaint, or at least calling the local office and asking some pointed (though polite) questions.

The offer to meet them under safe conditions was completely legit. So what if they have guns and badges, what would they have done if you insisted that it was unsafe? Shoot you? When you call them and complain forget about being polite!! They are a government agency providing a service that you pay for. Remember that and also remember to demand payment for the damages.

[hellosailor]

a64-
"I don’t think there is this big Psyop Plan that is being followed."
We don't disagree. I didn't, and don't, say there is some nefarious master plan being followed. BUT. Governments in general are aware that allowing the people to panic is generally not a good thing, it tends to causes riots and looting and lynching and then, you know, they're likely to stop paying taxes too.
NIMS provides for "psychological first aid" and other published papers and reports deal with issues like the distrust the public now has because of the way the 9/11 events were bugled. People were told "stay in place" "evacuate" "go back" "oops" and NYC's own polls indicate that in a future incident, they expect a very large half of the population will IGNORE all government orders, because they no longer trust them to be right. That's considered another issue where what are effectively psyops have to be performed.
People wanted to help after 9/11, great. So...you tell them to bring things to a local collection point and truck them in. The people feel good, they're calmer, they're doing something, and perhaps most importantly they are staying out of the way. Psyops.
You need toothbrushes? Really? OK, you send a state guard truck (not nationalized, but still under state control) to the nearest Duane Reed or WalGreens or other warehouse, collect a thousand toothbrushes, and you're done. (Yes, in NYS our arcane laws actually allow that, the state can commandeer and hand over an IOU.)
You tell people there's a big rescue event (which may have ruined the lungs to 10,000 more people) while they're looking a about 200 vertical feet of concrete and steel rubble, collapsed into a 150' tall pile. (70' in the basement levels, 50+ more above ground.) Psyops. Or, business as usual when you have to keep the rubes distracted and placated. No conspiracy needed.

" Just the name Homeland Security has me nervous, sounds too much like the Fatherland." Heck, when the TSA asks for my shoes I make sure to tell them I expect those to be polished before they're returned to me. Funny how the TSA says those folks work for the airline that's using the terminal, but the airline says they're TSA employees, they don't work for the airline. Keystone Kops indeed.
In SeaTac I nearly caused a panic because I'd missed a single PENNY in my pants pocket. Oooh, dangerous weapon?

"Myself, I wouldn’t sleep better if my house was randomly searched for safety gear. "
I wear seat belts, and have worn them, because I find that getting out of what used to be a perfectly good car is easier if you are doing it under your own power. As opposed to being thrown as a missile. I wear a PFD because I know what it is like to bob around in rough water--and that's not on my short list of fun things to do.
Both may be required these days, but even though I use them, I'm firmly against the rules requiring their use. I'm a firm supported of the Darwin Awards. (And I've also found that if the adults put them on without any fuss, any kids who are around WANT to do the same thing, no convincing needed. Except, who gets to wear Mickey Mouse and who's stuck with Donald Duck.)

"Drug activity" Years ago I heard the most ridiculous thing from some far left wingers. They said that drugs were kept illegal because that was good for the economy. (Nevermind that every presidential and congressional task force on the subject has said only legalization can solve that problem.) the logic is that drugs lead to theft and property crime, which keeps the rubes busy working overtime to replace what they lost, which means the factories have to build more new stuff, which also allows for prisons and more police....All making capitalism work better. Ridiculous. Although, no other explanation works better, does it? Ergh....

"Why aren’t fire extinguishers, warning triangles, first aid kits required?"
Well, funny thing, on German cars sold in Germany the warning triangles are mandatory equipment. In the US, the same cars are sold with empty storage bays for those items--and the items often simply not available even on request. Same for many first aid kits. Although I'd argue, the average driver would shoot the extinguisher off in their own face and forget to get new bandaids when the old ones ran out. There IS a national program (CERT, run by DHS and patterned after the LAFD program for disaster response) to provide free training and some minimal equipment to any citizen, but even for free, folks just aren't concerned. Or, they're working overtime (as above) and too busy to be concerned.

"Why do you think local cops...So why does it being a boat, make it different?"
Because some misguided judges decided to follow the tradition of commerce instead of recognizing that homes can float. There's a saying that "Reasonable men cannot disagree" and of course, a "reasonable man" would be your average citizen. In which case, lawyers, trained in the law, should be more reasonable than average folks. And the most reasonable men would be the judges, especially those at the USSC. And since reasonable men cannot disagree....Gee, funny how that court is overwhelmingly split 4:5 on so many votes, isn't it? And how they're such great weasels at avoiding major issues?

I think it was 2-3 years ago that someone in a town near Fort Lauderdale had his houseboat run aground, and eventually confiscated and crushed by the town. He took it all the way to the USSC and they did in fact find that in the particulars of the case, it was his HOME rather than a "boat" and the town would have to pay up in full. Last I heard, they were still trying to challenge how "pay up" could be ignored.

So there's hope yet.

[Jammer]

Originally Posted by zboss

The amount of harassment by law enforcement in key west is untenable.

Can confirm, at least insofar as the city's bicycle cops are concerned.


Closer to home, I've observed the Sheriff's water patrol doing their thing and have been unimpressed. They mainly target the party boats. I wish they did not feel that they had to roar around at 40 knots when going up and down the river in search of party boats.

[Kit_L]

Call up your local small boat station and ask to meet with the Officer in Charge. Convey all these greviences you have to them in person, and give them a chance to explain both the law you clearly don't know and the process and reasoning behind boardings.

As a Marine Rescue volunteer here (closest organisation to the USCG here), this suggestion would most definitely be effective; 70% of our funding comes from public donations, and we are sensitive to any concerns members of the public express, and respond to all complaints.

OTOH, none of are armed with more than our wit; the situations in our countries are very different.

I found this thread extremely interesting; thanks everyone.

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by Kit_L

As a Marine Rescue volunteer here (closest organisation to the USCG here), this suggestion would most definitely be effective; 70% of our funding comes from public donations, and we are sensitive to any concerns members of the public express, and respond to all complaints.

OTOH, none of are armed with more than our wit; the situations in our countries are very different.

I found this thread extremely interesting; thanks everyone.

Not armed, funded by public donations -- doesn't sound much like the USCG!

[14murs14]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

Not armed, funded by public donations -- doesn't sound much like the USCG!

And most in the Coast Guard only wish they had only one mission, Search and Rescue, like the aforementioned organization!