Is random boarding of vessels unconstitutional?

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by jeremiason

This is one of the reasons the US is going to implode one day...

Everyone wants to feel safe... Unless it interferes with there own individual freedoms

I don't know that would be a fair representation of this discussion. I believe it is entirely reasonable to expect the same level of respect for constitutional protection aboard a boat as one might in their car... Or their home for that matter.

[denverd0n]

Originally Posted by Dulcesuenos

Saying no or you need a warrant gives them probable cause thru suspicion.

Not true. The Supreme Court has specifically ruled that simply asking to see a warrant, or refusing to grant permission without a warrant, is NOT probable cause that justifies a search. If this happened to you, you should have gotten an attorney and sued. You most assuredly would have won.

[jeremiason]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

I don't know that would be a fair representation of this discussion. I believe it is entirely reasonable to expect the same level of respect for constitutional protection aboard a boat as one might in their car... Or their home for that matter.

Seeing how a boat has never had protection under the 4th Amendment and is in fact legal for most law enforcement to board you, I don't see your reasoning.

Why you would expect protection against warrantless search of your vessel, when you have never had the protection to begin with?

I refer you to my original post...

[Captain Bill]

Originally Posted by jeremiason

Seeing how a boat has never had protection under the 4th Amendment and is in fact legal for most law enforcement to board you, I don't see your reasoning.

Why you would expect protection against warrantless search of your vessel, when you have never had the protection to begin with?

I refer you to my original post...

This is not true. It is protected under the 4th amendment from random searches from all law enforcement but Customs and Border Patrol and the USCG. Of course if the local LEOs have been deputized by the USCG then they can board your boat. In some states like Florida, they can board you to inspect your holding tank/head system. If you don't have a permanently plumbed in head they can't even board then, if you can show it to them from the gunnel (boats over 26 ft are required to have a head in FL, but not necessarily permanently installed). What they are not required to do is close their eyes to any evidence of criminal activity while they are making a head inspection. So if while he's below putting a dye tablet in the head he sees a bale of maryjane sitting in your saloon you are going to be arrested. What he can't do is tear your boat apart looking for stuff, or look in drawers and lockers. Be assured the Customs and Border Patrol or the USCG can do that. Local LEOs require a warrant or probable cause. They can’t just come up and jump on your boat, at least not legally without at least probable cause. What they’re hoping is that you won’t know your rights and will let them do what they want. It’s not the law in most cases, it’s simply a power play and intimidation.

I’ve known a lot of cops over my lifetime and I would guess a goodly number of them are in it simply for the power. I would guess about 1/3. Before people start attacking me for saying this I should note that I have cops in my family. If you run into the good guys you’ll have a very pleasant experience, if not, they’ll try to intimidate you into giving up your rights. A very few might even resort to physical violence. Of course in that case you’ll be charged with assault on a police officer and resisting arrest even if you did absolutely nothing. This of course is less likely to happen if it appears that you can afford a really good lawyer. I personally was robbed by members of the Volusia County, FL Sheriffs department in 1972 while being held under threat of being clubbed with one of their 6 d-cell flash lights while others in their group emptied my car of a bunch of scuba gear. I was 20 years old and didn’t look like I could afford a lawyer (they were right). I complained to every Law enforcement agency that I could think of and no one would touch it, including the attorney general’s office. That blue line is very solid and one has to commit a major crime and probably have it on video before it’s going to break.

[jeremiason]

Originally Posted by Captain Bill

I’ve known a lot of cops over my lifetime and I would guess a goodly number of them are in it simply for the power. I would guess about 1/3. Before people start attacking me for saying this I should note that I have cops in my family.

With all of your experience and expertise on cops you really don't have a clue about todays police officers.

If you truly have relatives that are in law enforcement they must be really proud of your writings, but it doesn't qualify you as expert because some poor cop happened to marry your cousin.

In my 30 years as a cop, I found that the majority of Police Officers are honest cops just trying to do their jobs. Your estimation that one third are bad and nothing more than egotistical power mongers saddens me, because you have no idea about the men and women across this country going out every day to protect us.

They have some of the highest divorce rates in the country, works nights weekends and holidays and have to do there job everyday knowing there is a possibility they will be hurt or worse crucified in the press, so the rest of us can feel some sort of safety and secure.

Are there bad cops, of course there are, like any other profession, but the chance of running into one is a fraction of what it was 40 years ago.

As far as telling me I am wrong about the 4th Amendment applications to searching of vessels... I say we disagree.

[s/v 'Faith']

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

I don't know that would be a fair representation of this discussion. I believe it is entirely reasonable to expect the same level of respect for constitutional protection aboard a boat as one might in their car... Or their home for that matter.

Originally Posted by jeremiason

This is one of the reasons the US is going to implode one day...

Everyone wants to feel safe... Unless it interferes with there own individual freedoms

I hardly think the reason the US will "implode" has to do with not wanting any and every entity with a shiny new grant-purchased boat having the ability to continue to ignore the 4th amendment.

I am well aware the edict of the constitutional congress pre-dates the 4th amendment... But as the article Chuck posted (..you did read it right?) points out, that is being revisited by the states...

I think that is a good thing.

[frank_f]

Originally Posted by s/v 'Faith'

I don't know that would be a fair representation of this discussion. I believe it is entirely reasonable to expect the same level of respect for constitutional protection aboard a boat as one might in their car... Or their home for that matter.

I would think that a boat would be viewed the same way as an RV.

As long as you were parked in the KOA (docked in a marina in our case), you should be free of random inspections. If, however, you are on the road and there's a RIDE program going on or you're breaking the law, expect to be stopped.

Anchoring would be the equivalent of being pulled over to the side of the road. It's temporary, not made for long term usage and the police have the right to ask you if you are OK and assess the situation.

Nobody has problems with this on land (and there is a much larger driver population to fight unjust laws in the courts), so why do we expect different because we own a boat?

[hellosailor]

faith-
If you want a fair analogy between boas and cars, consider that around '69 the USSC actually ruled that the police had no power to pull a car over and conduct a search in it without express probable cause.
Then a few years later some states had the clever idea that as a condition of receiving your driving license, you had to consent to random stops and searches. So the issue wnet back up to the USSC in the early 70's and they ruled that since a license was a privilege and not a right, yes, the states could require such a consent. (Nevermind that no one can require you to waive a constitutional right, that's illegal.)

So when a cop pulls over your car, you have already consented to it, that was among the fine print when you got your driver's license.

When a watercop pulls over your boat...No analogy, no license, no consent.

Taking it one further, a cop can pull me over for a visible mechanical violation, like a burned out tail light. But he can't simply pull me over to do a full safety inspection, to check my brakes and emissions, simply because he wants to. He needs probably cause for that "safety" inspection.

My friend has an oil painting of "great greatgrandpa's" privateer, a merchant sailing vessel privately owned and equipped with cannon that fought the British. That was not only legal, it was encouraged and praised by all parties except, well, the Brits. Today? Oh hell, if the same exact vessel with the same exact cannon sailed into NY Harbor, or Philly, or Boston...It isn't the laws that have changed, is it?

[Andy73]

Originally Posted by zeehag

state constitutions have nada to do with federal law. feds rule over state until a cessation of that state from the union is declared

Hi ZeeHag,

Respectfully, that idea isn't really true. There is a very mainstream concept originating from Jefferson's and Madison's writings about state rights which details how States are able to declare, and then change, federal laws to be unconstitutional.

The concept is called Nullification.
Nullification (U.S. Constitution) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, Tom Woods wrote an excellent book on the subject providing a great deal of historical background and examples of the principle being applied successfully by various states.

Andy

[SeaBuffalo]

You guys want to talk about not needing a warrant to search just come to Texas and see the power of a game warden. You would be amazed how many warrant-less searches they have done on the basis of looking for illegal game that can be disposed of in the time it takes to get a warrant.

[jeremiason]

Originally Posted by hellosailor

faith-

So when a cop pulls over your car, you have already consented to it, that was among the fine print when you got your driver's license.

!
This is ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT!

Obtaining a drivers license does not allow police officers to search you car... It does administratively allow them to take a blood test and by refusing they can take your license away.

[boatman61]

Much ado about nothing...
children need to play...
Now if you were talking Somalia.... you'd have a complaint...

[sailorboy1]

seems a lot of arguing about a "problem" that is smaller in real life than it is on the internet

In reading the thread it seems people are mostly interested in winning the argument or shouting from their soap box.

[hellosailor]

Andy-
Your citation at the Wiki disproves your point when they say right up top "The theory of nullification has never been legally upheld;[1] rather, the Supreme Court has rejected it.[2]"

All a state can do if they disagree with the fed, is take it to the federal courts. Or, as a number have in the past, call up the State Militia. Yes, "Militia" is a dirty word today because states had taken to arms in the past. In the 1900's, not just the 1800's.

Tom-
Wrong, yes, in that it isn't that simple. Right, in that that "consent" is the basis for a lot of other things. On this coast, maybe you can't pull me over just to peek in my trunk. But once you've pulled me over, yes, you can detain me and bring drug dogs (and that's a search) and do other things, all based on those same USSC rulings. The point is, there's weasel logic under the whole house of cards, and that's where they've started it.

And then you've got the NYPD being taken to task for their "stop and frisk" program, which says they can simply decide "That guy looks like a skell" and detain you for a search. Or search your backpack because you similarly "consented" to a search before riding on public transit. All legal, all unconstitutional. It isn't such a hard document to read--but it is beyond the reading skills and knowledge of most of America today. In the 1960's a group at Harvard took it to the streets, and folks thought it was the Communist Manifesto.

[LakeSuperior]

Originally Posted by jeremiason

Seeing how a boat has never had protection under the 4th Amendment and is in fact legal for most law enforcement to board you, I don't see your reasoning.

Why you would expect protection against warrantless search of your vessel, when you have never had the protection to begin with?

1. Because the IRS views my boat as a domicile for tax purposes!

2. Because we are talking about small privately owned yachts not ships owned by other sovereign nations.

3. Because people live on their boats and they are their homes and we are protected in our homes warrantless searches according to the US Constitution.

4. With modern communication technology the urgent need for warrantless searches on the high seas has passed.