USCGAUX INSPECTION

randyp · Post by **randyp** » Thu May 07, 2009 8:54 am

Probably not the best idea to argue with guys carrying guns and the Constitutional authority given them back in the 1700's to confiscate any and all boats....

wet wonder · Post by **wet wonder** » Thu May 07, 2009 9:16 am

Hi Mike. I haven't been that far up river. We usually hang out around the BR bridge and points around. Anchored and swimming or fishing or having a beer or watching a concert at the Festival Pier.

reelfishin · Post by **reelfishin** » Thu May 07, 2009 10:08 pm

I believe in my rights and other peoples rights. The problem is that there are people who cannot distinguish the difference between the two. They do not realize that their rights end where mine start.
As for the Coast Guard boarding my boat, that is OK with me. I have nothing to hide. Now some one who does have something to hide then, yea, I can see they have a problem with them boarding.
As for Terroists, I say, if boarding a boat or all boats stops one terrorist from killing someone then I say let them board. Simple as that. Besides they did not come to harass, the came to make sure I was compliant with Safety equipment. I should be or should not be out there.

prowlersfish · Post by **prowlersfish** » Thu May 07, 2009 10:37 pm

I agree .

wet wonder · Post by **wet wonder** » Thu May 07, 2009 11:33 pm

It's a major responsibility for the coast guard to have the right to use and examine other people's property without their permission. This is probably the most litigated fundamental right in the U.S. Our fourth amendment rights are suspended when it comes to the Coast Guard stepping onto our boat. They are suspended only in the context of a safety inspection though. The coast guard can not use their right of entry to examine anything beyond the delineated safety points. There are not many boaters that have much to hide in terms of safety, and whatever else they may want to hide is beyond the reach of the Coast Guard, even if they see it. Making any examinations beyond the scope of safety would amount to a warrantless search of your property, and an unlawful of entry of that property. If you are happy to have them board your boat, then that's cool, I understand. You don't have to convince me though about why you it's justified in your mind. That's your business. I personally don't like it. That is all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's fundamentally improper or immoral for them to do it. I'm just saying that I don't like it, I don't believe it is necessary to do so on my boat, and I find it to be an intrusion and inconvenience.

prowlersfish · Post by **prowlersfish** » Fri May 08, 2009 6:57 am

A lot of folks feel that way , funny thing when somthing happens they sure like the CG then .

I never felt this was giving away my rights as I have the right to not go boating .

Just like the cry babys on getting searched boarding a plane cuze it volates the religin ( removing head gear etc) rthey have the ringht not to fly .

some times you have to give a liltle to get a liltle

wet wonder · Post by **wet wonder** » Fri May 08, 2009 7:35 am

You're right. When we need them, we sure do want them. As a matter fact, they work for us. We pay for them.

IMO it would be more efficient and just as effective to have boaters submit to an inspection once per year, like many do now with the Aux, similar to inspecting a car. And then cut down the on water inspections, reserving them for suspicious situations or safety violations in plain site.

I happen to believe that the CG finds these indiscriminate boarding practices to be more important as a training tool, rather than absolutely necessary to ensure safety. Doing frequent on water inspections is a way for officers and crew to gain experience hooking up, dealing with boaters, learning how to look for things, and keeping their eyes sharp, etc. I don't think that's a good enough reason to board folks indiscriminately.

I don't see it as being comparable to airplane safety procedures. Just an opinion.

wet wonder · Post by **wet wonder** » Fri May 08, 2009 8:32 am

randyp wrote:Probably not the best idea to argue with guys carrying guns and the Constitutional authority given them back in the 1700's to confiscate any and all boats....

They can't use their authority arbitrarily to confiscate any boats. The rights of the CG to intrude on or take away your property is limited to the powers granted to them under traditional US maritime law - pertaining to national security and general safety - which predates the constitution.

The authority is not granted by the Constitution, but has been upheld by the Supreme Court's interpretation of it.

kevin babineau · Post by **kevin babineau** » Fri May 08, 2009 8:36 am

i understand the importance of the police but i was brought up to stay away from them...i dont want them near me ....on my boat..in my car...on my property...i have nothing to hide but that is just how i was brought up....in this day an age kids are told that the police are good...that wasnt my case being brought up

gjrylands · Post by **gjrylands** » Fri May 08, 2009 9:02 am

wet wonder wrote:It's a major responsibility for the coast guard to have the right to use and examine other people's property without their permission. This is probably the most litigated fundamental right in the U.S. Our fourth amendment rights are suspended when it comes to the Coast Guard stepping onto our boat. They are suspended only in the context of a safety inspection though. The coast guard can not use their right of entry to examine anything beyond the delineated safety points. There are not many boaters that have much to hide in terms of safety, and whatever else they may want to hide is beyond the reach of the Coast Guard, even if they see it. Making any examinations beyond the scope of safety would amount to a warrantless search of your property, and an unlawful of entry of that property. If you are happy to have them board your boat, then that's cool, I understand. You don't have to convince me though about why you it's justified in your mind. That's your business. I personally don't like it. That is all I'm saying. I'm not saying it's fundamentally improper or immoral for them to do it. I'm just saying that I don't like it, I don't believe it is necessary to do so on my boat, and I find it to be an intrusion and inconvenience.

I'm not sure what dream world you are living in, but if counter band was spotted on yours, mine, or anyone's boat by the Coast Guard, I don't think they would turn a blind eye to it. I certainly wouldn't want to put them to the test. Itâ€™s my opinion that if they didnâ€™t take action, they should be charged with dereliction of duty. Part of their duty is to stop smugglers. I could be wrong, but I donâ€™t believe any search warrant is required for the Coast Guard to board your boat, with or without your permission.

kevin babineau · Post by **kevin babineau** » Fri May 08, 2009 9:20 am

the town of newbury wouldnt let the harbor police carry guns anymore so they all quit

wet wonder · Post by **wet wonder** » Fri May 08, 2009 9:36 am

I understand what your saying gjrylands, but that's not how the law works. Our fourth amend constitutional rights against unlawful search and seizure are not part of a dream world. They exist in each person and are enforceable against the gov't.

If the CG stops someone with a reasonable suspicion that they are breaking a law, like smuggling for example, and then find smuggled contraband, than that is a permissible warrantless search and the evidence they find can be used against the Captain or whoever.

If they stop a boat for the purpose of doing a safety inspection, w/o reas suspicion of any other unlawful activity, then anything they pursue beyond the scope of the safety inspection would be considered to have been obtained by an impermissible warrantless search - and then any evidence they seize from that couldnt be used to support a criminal charge. That's not saying they couldn't seize the contraband, whether it be drugs or illegal immigrants. This is just saying that the evid couldn't be used against the Captain to support a criminal charge.

If you've ever been boarded for an inspection, you may have noticed that the CG says to you, "Captain, we are going to board your vessel for the purposes of doing a safety inspection . . . " They do this to make you aware of the basis of their authority as it pertains to your 4th amendment rights. It would be impermissible of them, save an emergency situation, to board your boat w/o notifying you of their intent and purpose.

This is a matter of our fourth amendment constitutional rights. We don't dream of having these rights. We are granted them by the constitution.

I think it is rare to find someone that would go out of their way to argue against their constitutional rights, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. You are of course entitled to waive your constitutional rights if you choose. If the CG asks your permission to board your boat, you have the right to decline and just putter away. But, if you choose, you can waive that right and let them aboard. Anything that turns up from that boarding could be used against you b/c you waived your 4th amendment rights by giving them permission to board.