Pulled over by coastguard

[Maineiac]

So where are you patrolling at in Iowa??

Mississippi River between L&D 10 and 20 primarily.

 

[zipper]

I get this all the time. Coast Guard here? There’s no coast! lol ?‍

Technically we have jurisdiction on all navigable waterways of the US and waterways subject to the jurisdiction of the US - this includes waterways that are a state border like the Mississippi River, Lake Champlain, Lake Tahoe, etc. There’s even agreements to supplement state law enforcement so we’ve been known to patrol Lake of the Ozarks from time to time.

Our marina is directly off shore of the Coast Guard Station in Burlington, Vt. on Lake Champlain. We like having them as neighbors. They fuel up at our fuel dock before/after their runs. And as far as we are concerned, we feel a little safer with them there.



Homeland Security and USCG station Burlington under the blue roof.

 

[Beachbummer]

The lanyard check is new in Texas from last year. Before they did not check on boats.

It's interesting the Coast Guard continues to have this extremely broad power which goes against the principle of unreasonable search...No crime suspected, minding your own business, tough luck we can still shake your underwear in the air to see if something falls off. (not that they do, but they can) I don't know if this is part of why they are always extremely respectful, or it's just the nature of military aspect of their civil/military weird/overarching status

They wield a very big stick, even too big for modern times, I think with the right challenge in court it could be adjusted within my lifetime, but they are indeed the most professional of all law enforcement I have ever interacted with, I think that helps direct unwanted attention about their broad powers to other, less professional forces that have less power, but also are much less consistent and professional about their training and interactions with their "victims?',"customers?", public?.

 

[Maineiac]

Our marina is directly off shore of the Coast Guard Station in Burlington, Vt. on Lake Champlain. We like having them as neighbors. They fuel up at our gas dock before and after their runs.

View attachment 153608

Homeland Security and USCG station Burlington under the blue roof.

View attachment 153611

Station Burlington is one of my favorites. I would visit the area often when my family lived in Vermont.

 

[Maineiac]

The lanyard check is new in Texas from last year. Before they did not check on boats.

It's interesting the Coast Guard continues to have this extremely broad power which goes against the principle of unreasonable search...No crime suspected, minding your own business, tough luck we can still shake your underwear in the air to see if something falls off. (not that they do, but they can) I don't know if this is part of why they are always extremely respectful, or it's just the nature of military aspect of their civil/military weird/overarching status

They wield a very big stick, even too big for modern times, I think with the right challenge in court it could be adjusted within my lifetime, but they are indeed the most professional of all law enforcement I have ever interacted with, I think that helps direct unwanted attention about their broad powers to other, less professional forces that have less power, but also are much less consistent and professional about their training and interactions with their "victims?',"customers?", public?.

The USCG authority is very similar to US Customs in that they have broad powers within their area of jurisdiction. 14 USC 89 has been challenged on 4th amendment grounds in the past but was upheld by the court as constitutional. That’s not to say things couldn’t change in the future but there is lots of precedent going back to the 1800s for this type of authority.

 

[zipper]

She's getting ready for crew training, coming up for the first night patrol next week.
View attachment 153679

--

Here is the USCG Aux. member you can get your compliance sticker from, in NJ anyway.

 

[swatski]

The lanyard check is new in Texas from last year. Before they did not check on boats.

It's interesting the Coast Guard continues to have this extremely broad power which goes against the principle of unreasonable search...No crime suspected, minding your own business, tough luck we can still shake your underwear in the air to see if something falls off. (not that they do, but they can) I don't know if this is part of why they are always extremely respectful, or it's just the nature of military aspect of their civil/military weird/overarching status

They wield a very big stick, even too big for modern times, I think with the right challenge in court it could be adjusted within my lifetime, but they are indeed the most professional of all law enforcement I have ever interacted with, I think that helps direct unwanted attention about their broad powers to other, less professional forces that have less power, but also are much less consistent and professional about their training and interactions with their "victims?',"customers?", public?.

Did you know? The USCG is a branch of the United States Armed Forces, one of the country's military uniformed services.

They... protect our borders. The vast majority of inland/inshore/intercoastal waters patrolled by the USCG constitute open borders as navigable and connected to open water.

Anyone suggesting our military should be concerned with a principle of unreasonable search or asking for permission to board any vessel - potentially foreign and potentially adversary - is out of their mind, in my book.

Yet, this seems like a perennial topic beaten to death including in this forum.

The USCG Auxiliary on the other hand, by themselves, will not board your vessel unless you ask them to do so.

--

 

[Ronnie]

I’m generally OK with the broad jurisdiction granted to the CG. In reality even if the CG needed probable cause to stop and board your boat they could most likely find it or create/justify it easily. For example, “the driver/pilot was smoking or drinking something and was operating his vessel in an unsafe manner before we stopped him”. That stated, I would only be concerned if I was smuggling contraband (e.g. drugs, illegal aliens, weapons fugitives from justice).

The stop and inspection thing is like getting pulled over in car, it can happen to anyone at anytime, I just hope it’s not me and again why I keep a 9 year old inspection passed sticker on my boat.

 

[swatski]

In reality even if the CG needed probable cause to stop and board your boat they could most likely find it or create/justify it easily.

Sure thing, but any such requirement would open them up to civilian legal challenges.

Not making this shit up: in my new home state of NJ things are so deeply eff-ed up there is actual debate going on currently on new legislation that would make it illegal for cops to search teens smoking weed while driving.

Lets take the politics of this particular example aside for a moment, and let's just picture this:
A cop loosing their job for stopping a teen ostentatiously smoking a joint while driving.

Do we want to subject our military to... that?

I would say - hell no.

--

 

[Beachbummer]

So, There are two extremes to the conversation. What makes the Coast Guard so special they have privilege to search anyone for no reason? If this was an awesome superpower that works great for all enforcement, why do we not afford the same superpower to your local and federal police? Boarding a family in a local lake for "their safety" is the same as boarding you car on land with no cause for your safety. One is legal the other is not. For consistency, would you equalize this by giving police on land the same authority? I would rather adjust the other way, some real reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed should be a bar to overcome before a stop/board is initiated if I had my way.

I for one very much like and appreciate most authority has to at least make an effort to make up some illegality you are committing before engaging.

I don't think I'm mad/crazy for these thoughts as you suggest
---
Anyone suggesting our military should be concerned with a principle of unreasonable search or asking for permission to board any vessel - potentially foreign and potentially adversary - is out of their mind, in my book.
---

On the contrary, and humbly: Potentially Foreign and Potentially Adversary is a BS powergrab. 2 kids in a Canoe on an inland lake do not need the same rules of engagement as offshore waters. Boats crossing international borders are well tracked, and are boarded and inspected as part of their entry process in many cases. We have radar and satellite imagery and suggesting that the Coast Guard needs the same power in the high seas than at an inland lake is a convenience that favors a concentration of power I prefer to not have. Other than boarding a boat for "Safety Inspection" which generally is used for training more than anything, I don't mind they following up on each and every lead they ever have on illegal activity. But reasonable suspicion is not a high standard. I bet most rules of engagement our military comply with when dealing with "the enemy" is more demanding.

I don't like that they can board you and me for no reason and If I could change that, I would.

Having said this, as I have stated in other topics as it relates to my opinion, you have nothing to worry about, my thoughts seem to be in the minority and the current law and precedent do support your logic that the CG has and deserves unlimited power on the water (regardless of how far from a border), and until they misuse it in a nuclear way I don't see it changing. But it could happen.

Happy boating!

 

[swatski]

If I could change that, I would.

You can stop boating, or go boating somewhere else. We are very fortunate to enjoy unrivaled recreational boating freedoms in the US.

I would like it to stay that way.

--

 

[Beachbummer]

How is unrivaled boating freedom threatened by coast guard needing reasonable suspicion before boarding me?

Really wishing to learn your point of view. After all the forum is for fun, and to learn a bit. The fact that we have certain awesome things available doesn't mean they could not be better.

 

[swatski]

How is unrivaled boating freedom threatened by coast guard needing reasonable suspicion before boarding me?

I can't tell if you are serious.

But - it sounds like you have nothing to worry about the coast guard.

--

 

[Beachbummer]

I am totally serious. It's for me an absolute first world problem, filled with appreciation for the privilege of discussing these matters in great freedom and comfort.

Given the choice between CG being legally allowed to board boats without reasonable suspicion of a crime or not, I would choose that they should be required to have that suspicion, and I don't see how that would limit my boating freedom.

Again, humbly sharing a thought, recognizing the CG has been the most professional and best behaved law enforcement I have had the "opportunity" to interact with. (Opportunity in quotes because they boarded me, was not sought, but they still have been very professional in the many times I have invested with them over my years of boating)

 

[Maineiac]

Operation on water is a much more inherently dangerous arena than operating on land. When accidents happen on the water (especially offshore) the stakes are much higher.

It would be difficult to apply land based probable cause restrictions to the water because the operating environment is different as well. There is no designated highway with lane markings or distracted driving laws so it’s not as easy to just pull someone over for driving erratically like your local policeman can do on land.

 

[Beachbummer]

That is a very reasonable statement, but it doesn't convince me that it's OK to stop without ANY indication of crime committed. (when not stopping for international crossing.) Why would it be so problematic to state, If there is zero indication of illegal activity or need for help, no stop. You can still stop for every possible reasonable reason where there might be a problem, but if you can't see anything illegal and nothing is suspected, no stop. That would be my humble push to make this less intrusive on the innocent. Why be subject to inspection when there is zero indication of a problem?

In my twenties I was stopped on the same day 3 times. Others only one, Some years I'd be stopped 5 or 6 times for no reason in the same season. (Not all CG, also local police have their boats, deputized for water etc) It's an intrusion I could do without, and I'm not convinced the benefits obtained outweigh the pain inflicted.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Again, first world problem for me, and I admit I'm much happier when I see CG in the water vs. the local, less trained, police.

 

[swatski]

Given the choice between CG being legally allowed to board boats without reasonable suspicion of a crime or not, I would choose that they should be required to have that suspicion, and I don't see how that would limit my boating freedom.

I gave a very specific example of how an infringement of the ability to conduct searches creates threats of lawsuits which ties police hands, as they are currently facing an onslaught of those - wishing the same on the military is stupendously misinformed, in my view. Since you chose to ignore that specific point, and continue complaining, be my guest.

Frankly, I find your position to betray a degree of entitlement, not to be characterised further out of respect for the forum rules; I certainly hope those kinds of attitudes will not prevail and dictate what the USCG can or can not do.

--

 

[bigwaves]

That is a very reasonable statement, but it doesn't convince me that it's OK to stop without ANY indication of crime committed. (when not stopping for international crossing.) Why would it be so problematic to state, If there is zero indication of illegal activity or need for help, no stop. You can still stop for every possible reasonable reason where there might be a problem, but if you can't see anything illegal and nothing is suspected, no stop. That would be my humble push to make this less intrusive on the innocent. Why be subject to inspection when there is zero indication of a problem?

In my twenties I was stopped on the same day 3 times. Others only one, Some years I'd be stopped 5 or 6 times for no reason in the same season. (Not all CG, also local police have their boats, deputized for water etc) It's an intrusion I could do without, and I'm not convinced the benefits obtained outweigh the pain inflicted.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Again, first world problem for me, and I admit I'm much happier when I see CG in the water vs. the local, less trained, police.

The more Coast Guard, state and local law enforcement on the water the better. Keeps everyone on their toes and mindful of boating safety and not be jackasses. The opportunity for tragic outcomes on the water are far greater. If you’re following the law there’s nothing to worry about.

If you’re boarded be compliant and courteous and you’ll be on your way. If you’re cited, do not argue, accept it and deal with it through the courts if you believe you were improperly cited. Yeah, you might incur the cost of an attorney (that’s your decision) but you’re a boater so there won’t be much sympathy coming your way over that.

 

[Maineiac]

I speak only for myself here, but you can make a reasonable argument that recreational enforcement on inland waters is different than operating on the ocean.

The ocean is essentially an open border zone and customs law applies. And it’s also much more dangerous.

That being said, you have to make a distinction between commercial vessels and recreational vessels. If random inspections could not be done, smart criminals combined with open borders makes for a bad situation that is easily exploited. These random inspections ensure that fisheries aren’t devastated, smugglers aren’t moving people/drugs, vessels don’t pollute our waters, etc. No program is 100% fool proof, but I’d rather live with what we have than nothing at all.

Most of the people on this forum are good people trying to do the right thing. Unfortunately, laws aren’t made to protect the public from people like us and sometimes a little inconvenience is the price of overall safety for everyone. That’s a price I’m willing to pay.

 

[Babin Farms]

Was stopped on Torch Lake due to my daughter(5yr old) being in a puddle jumper that is CG approved. I let the female officer and wife handle the encounter while the male officer & I were BS'n towards the rear of the boat. I offered them water and asked how their day was going, heard the F officer telling my wife that she would like to see my daughter in an actual life jacket not a PJ'er even though it's CG approved. More chit-chat back and forth and then the F officer would not let us leave without putting my daughter in a life jacket so if that's what the LEO want's that's what they get but overall a pleasant experience.