Performance Boats Forum banner

FYI- National OUI enforcement this weekend

5K views 71 replies 23 participants last post by  RiverDave 
#1 ·
#4 ·
Comment:

Since were on the topic of BUI and FYI's.

I was told to be on the lookout for a mooring scenario wherein LEO will be moored on the river ie... anchored in way if you go by on plane they will have back up unit stop you for excessive speed ie... greater than 5MPH within 100ft of a moored vessel. However, if you come out of throttle they will subjectively decide whether to stop your vessel.

Once I heard this I was genuinely appalled as this tactic is very capricious and borders on illegal and unethical. Why! well the river in some areas is not very wide and this tactic may be more of an obstruction to boats navigating the river than attempting to curb BUI.

Honestly, you must be clueless if you cannot find candidates for legal stops without creating an obstacle under the guise of BUI enforcement. I am all for setting up a designated check point that is visible and clearly defined in a safe area.

Furthermore, if they really want to crack down on BUI just set up at Windsor or any other launch ramp at oh! 5:30 P.M. til dark and bring a wagon, stack of citation books and case of cuffs

I hope this information I was given was false. If anyone knows otherwise please let me know or post up.

KAP
 
#5 ·
This sounds like one of those, "My buddy told me he heard that it happened to the nephew of a girl that his brother's friend used to date" scenarios.

A couple of reasons.

1) Law Enforcement doesn't have enough boats or officers for this kind of "sting".

2) On the River it would be unnecessary, since California has a law for "no wake" within 100' of a dock or landing and 250' from a person swimming in the water or a beach. (Arizona has no laws regarding "No Wake" except in designated/marked "no wake" areas)

3) If we wanted to find PC to stop boats, we could stop boats all day long, based solely on number displays. I'll bet that 2/3-3/4 of the people here with boats don't have their numbers displayed in strict compliance with the law.

4) We don't need probable cause to stop boats. The Supreme Court has ruled that the 4th Amendment protections against warrantless stops of motor vehicles, don't apply to vessels:

Vessel Searches .--Not only is the warrant requirement inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are necessary predicates to stops of vessels. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. The boarding was authorized by statute derived from an act of the First Congress, and hence had ''an impressive historical pedigree'' carrying with it a presumption of constitutionality. Moreover, ''important factual differences between vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and automobiles on principal thoroughfares in the border area'' justify application of a less restrictive rule for vessel searches. The reason why random stops of vehicles have been held impermissible under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained, is that stops at fixed checkpoints or roadblocks are both feasible and less subject to abuse of discretion by authorities. ''But no reasonable claim can be made that permanent checkpoints would be practical on waters such as these where vessels can move in any direction at any time and need not follow established 'avenues' as automobiles must do.'' Because there is a ''substantial'' governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, ''especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,'' the Court found the ''limited'' but not ''minimal'' intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable. Dissenting Justice Brennan argued that the Court for the first time was approving ''a completely random seizure and detention of persons and an entry onto private, noncommercial premises by police officers, without any limitations whatever on the officers' discretion or any safeguards against abuse.
There are enough people on the water that are doing blatantly illegal or unsafe things that we don’t need to resort to subterfuge. made up PC or “random” stops to find people to pull over. While our time is taken up with someone who hasn’t done anything wrong, 10 boats will go that really deserve to be stopped.

As far as checkpoints and operations like this weekend, these are to raise awareness and to deter people from drinking and driving in the first place. Historically, these pull in about the same number of (or less) OUIs per officer than a normal weekend would.

We would like nothing more than to have one of these things and "catch" ZERO drunks. Keeping boaters sober and/or off the water in the first place is the main objective.
 
#9 ·
We would like nothing more than to have one of these things and "catch" ZERO drunks. Keeping boaters sober and/or off the water in the first place is the main objective.

That would be GREAT.....

After that set up a DUMB ASS sting.....
 
#11 · (Edited)
Hello Boatcop:

It is funny you did not mention this section.

5-347. Interference with navigation or launching areas
A. No person shall unreasonably or unnecessarily interfere with other watercraft, with the free and proper use of the waterways of the state or with areas used for launching watercraft onto such waterways. Anchoring or swimming in heavily traveled channels or launching areas shall constitute such interference. Note:There is also Federal Authority on this section that is same or similar.


As for the Villamonte-Marquez decision I have read it previously and it is a narrow decision. State and Local law enforcement is neither a Customs Agency nor the U.S. Coast Guard as the prior two agencies do not need PC to board. Nor do sister agencies of the newly formed Federal Homeland Security branchs all of which are under federal jurisdiction.

The same cannot be said generally for state and local law enforcement agencies. I say generally because some states do have safety boarding statutes I believe Nevada has such a statute. Local law enforcement must rely on a state statute to board a vessel without PC. Thus, in the absence of PC [ I mean one that can be articulated] or state statute--- law enforcement cannot unilaterally board a boat in a subjective manner. Sure you can find a lot of PC as stated but that is why judges also grant dismissals:D.

I am not as familiar with Arizona Revised Statutes Title 5 as you are, but I was unable to find a Arizona state boarding statute that would allow you to conduct a safety inspection on a documented vessel or state vessel without PC. If you could please cite this section I would like to read and review the authority.

I am not the stand on vessel when operating on the river in a meeting situation as no one could be on my starboard as it is dominated by reeds and bank:). For example I am going down river with the bank on my starboard the oncoming boat is traveling right at me ie... meeting situation-- they are required to alter course so as to pass on my port. Oh! and with enough room to do so safely. I sure not going to swerve to my port at planing speed that is inviting disaster.

For a complete listing of the navigation rules, refer to the document “Navigation Rules of the Road” published by the U.S. Coast Guard (COMDTINST 16672.2 Series:

Law as follows----Each vessel in a meeting situation must alter course to starboard so that each will pass on the port side of the other. At night, you will recognize a head-on meeting situation if you see both red and green side lights at the same time.

Crossing would only occur from the port side always--- as the reeds would be on my starboard in either direction. Thus, crossing would occur from the port side and this you cannot do and you must give way. In any scenario each vessel operator has the utmost duty to avoid a collision.

Our boat is a documented vessel and does not have numbers displayed. I find this to be a nuisance of a sort as this screams for scrutiny by law enforcement. I have spoken to the OIC on our part of the river and the word got out ;) so I usually get the customary wave and chat on occasion when times are slow.

It would be interesting to see a copy of the local Checkpoint plans for departments as lot of interesting information is contained in these plans which must be put into place prior to any enforcement action. Delays should not be excessive is the key I believe in most plans and no stacking of boats ie...numerous boats waiting.


Respectfully,

KAP
 
#46 ·
Kap I'm not so sure, from what I've read, they have the right to board a vessel without PC. It was held up by the Supreme Court as stated by Boat Cop.

Title 19 U. S. C. 1581(a) provides that "[any] officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel . . . at any place in the United States or within the customs waters . . . and examine the manifest and other documents and papers . . . ."
 
#12 ·
Kap,

Arizona's enforcement and boarding laws are contained in State Law, and AZGFD commission rules, as follows:

5-391. Enforcement; violation; classification

A. Any person who violates any provision of this chapter, except section 5-341, subsection A, B, C or D, section 5-349, section 5-350, subsection C, section 5-393, 5-395, 5-396 or 5-397 and subsection C, D, G or H of this section or any rule issued thereunder, is guilty of a petty offense. Any person who violates section 5-350, subsection C is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.

B. All peace officers of the state, counties and cities shall enforce the provisions of this chapter and all laws and rules relating to the operation of watercraft.

C. In the enforcement of this chapter, the operator of the watercraft on being hailed by any peace officer shall stop immediately and lay to, or maneuver in such a way as to permit the peace officer to come aboard or alongside. The operator may be ordered ashore to correct any unlawful condition, issued a written warning or written repair order or issued a citation for any violation of this chapter.

R12-4-528. Watercraft Checkpoints

A. A law enforcement agency may establish a watercraft checkpoint to ensure public safety on state waterways, to screen for unsafe or impaired watercraft operators, or to gather demographic, statistical, and compliance information related to watercraft activities.

B. An individual may be required to perform the following during a watercraft stop or at a watercraft checkpoint:

1. Stop or halt as directed when being hailed by a peace officer or entering the established checkpoint boundary under A.R.S. § 5-391, and

2. Provide evidence of required safety equipment and registration documentation under A.R.S. Title 5, Chapter 3, Boating and Water Sports.

C. This Section does not limit any state peace officer's authority to conduct routine watercraft patrol efforts under A.R.S. Title 5, Chapter 3, Boating and Water Sports.
Although contained in the section regarding "checkpoints", the highlighted portion(s) permit the stopping and inspection of watercraft for any or no reason.

State courts, including appeals courts, have ruled that the provisions of the Villamonte-Marquez ruling apply on federal and sole state waters for state and local marine enforcement officers in enforcement of boating laws.

I'll post those decisions later. Not enough time this morning.
 
#13 · (Edited)
If federal law prohibits the random stopping of a motor vehicle I fail to understand why a water vehicle would be handled in any other manor. It appears to me that State, County or Cities have taken advantage of the purpose and intent of federal maritime laws and that in the truest sense of a citizens rights are being unlawfully taken advantage of and borders on infringement of our Constitutional right of liberty and freedom without probable cause.

In addition, todays newspapers are reporting that the US military is trailing a Korean ship believed to have nuclear weapons and that there is discussion if the US has the right to board this ship. My point is that I believe it's clear there are certain rights and laws for boarding watercraft that apply all the way down the line and that just because some over zealous bonehead politician and his cronies passed some vague law allowing LE to stop and board boats does not make it concurrent with US Constitutional rights.

I am not anti-law enforcement but I am concerned about maintaining our Constitutional rights to be able to come and go without being stopped by law enforcement to see who and what we are doing without just cause.
 
#17 ·
If federal law prohibits the random stopping of a motor vehicle I fail to understand why a water vehicle would be handeled in any other manor. It appears to me that State, County or Cities have taken advantage of the purpose and intent of federal maritime laws and that in the truest sence of a citizens rights are being unlawfully taken advantage of and borders on infringement of our Contitutional right of liberty and freedom without probable cause.
Boatcop, the no PC required for a stop is new to me. I read that case law decision, and it seems to hover a lot over waters accesible to the ocean, borders, etc. How do you guys argue that havasu/parker is similar to that? I understand that the river eventually flows to mexico/maybe even to the ocean at one time in history, but to me that decision doesn't seem to impact the river/inland lakes.

PS, i'm not being a smartass, i'm asking an honest question....as i know virtually nothing about the case law involving vessels. I can see if you're driving a cigarette boat in from the wide open sea, that there would be less restriction on the searches for "National Security", much like border checkpoints, but not driving a jet boat around in blythe...am i wrong?
Here is one decision on the issue:

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/152999a.htm
 
#14 ·
Boatcop, the no PC required for a stop is new to me. I read that case law decision, and it seems to hover a lot over waters accesible to the ocean, borders, etc. How do you guys argue that havasu/parker is similar to that? I understand that the river eventually flows to mexico/maybe even to the ocean at one time in history, but to me that decision doesn't seem to impact the river/inland lakes.

PS, i'm not being a smartass, i'm asking an honest question....as i know virtually nothing about the case law involving vessels. I can see if you're driving a cigarette boat in from the wide open sea, that there would be less restriction on the searches for "National Security", much like border checkpoints, but not driving a jet boat around in blythe...am i wrong?
 
#18 · (Edited)
That's stretching it to say the least....If that's the case, have you guys been stopping people just to check them out..or do you still rely on PC, using that case decision as something to fall back on? If that case decision stands, could you stop the same boat every day you see in on the Parker strip just to do an "inspection"?
 
#20 · (Edited)
Dear Boatcop:

I usually agree with most posts that you put up and your insight into boating safety and experience is very much respected.

However, when you delve into the area of legal interpretation your argument is misleading and missing key language and/or is a stretch which would never hold up in a court of law in any jurisdiction. The legal authority you cited about enforcement involves where you have reason to believe or observed a violation of a particular boating statute ie...registration. The section you quoted makes no mention of authority to conduct a warrantless search of a vessel.

I have yet to have one law enforcement officer in California indicate to me that state and local law enforcement can conduct warrantless searchs of vessels in inland waterways ie...navigable lakes and rivers. Furthermore, in California you need PC and if by chance you are stopped by law enforcement on a technical isssue of safety violation. The issuing agency will issue you a receipt of your safety inspection with the appropriate check marks where you passed so if you get stopped again you simply produce the document and you go on your way.

This area is very much the hush hush area of law enforcement no one really talks about--- why? It is my opinon that law enforcement does not want the public to really know what their rights are and/or to maintain the edge when contacts are made under the guise of safety checks.

Officer Authority, Compliance & Assistance
In California, every peace officer of the state, city, county, harbor district, or other political subdivision of the state has the authority to stop and inspect vessels to enforce local boating laws when there is probable cause that a violation exists.

The Arizona Model Plan for BUI checkpoints specifically mentions the fact that it is difficult for law enforcement to establish PC randomly to check for BUI issues including safety equipment--- See page two of form.

Furthermore, the majority of case law where you have warrantless searchs ie... search were no PC existed has several common denominators. One the vessels are in Customs waters ie... open ocean and subject to searchs by U.S. Customs, U.S. Border Patrol or U.S. Coast Guard. These searchs are usually in Florida or areas where open waters do not allow for enforcement as it is too difficult to inspect such vessels.

I cannot find a single Arizona statute that indicates it is acceptable to conduct a non-PC stop on a vessel. Furthermore, I would love to be stopped with no PC and take the issue up the legal ladder ie...Appeals court one way to make it precedent:D.

You simply cannot be stopped unilaterally with no observable violation of a safety statute or regulatory issue on a inland navigable waterway such as the Colorado river or the lakes it forms.

Talk to your District Attorney at the Parker Division and ask them what they think about conducting a warrantless search on a vessel with no real PC;).

Plus, it is my observation over the last 28 years of boating is law enforcement really uses their discretion well on the water ie... provide warnings or information to boaters which is extremely valuable.

Respectfully,

KAP

P.S. I take it the information on meeting head on with a vessel on the river is correct and the crossing as well. Add one more component and you really have a scary situation meeting head on at night on the river---ultra scary:D.

Let me know when you find that Arizona Statute on the ability to conduct warrantless searches on vessels and/or no articulable PC.

P.P.S. I do like/support and commend your position on not enforcing gun laws which violate the United States Constitution:D.
 
#21 ·
This issue has already been covered and ruled on in Arizona state courts. The main thing defense attorneys use to get their clients off from OUI charges is attacking the PC for the stop.

In one example, a boat was stopped (Advantage Party Cat) because a passenger was in the front of the boat jumping up and down doing "jumping jacks". The boat was traveling at 35 MPH.

Now NO ONE, except maybe criminal defense lawyers, thinks that this is safe operation.

The officer pulled the guy over for a passenger blocking the view of the operator. The law in AZ says that no one can be ON THE BOW, blocking the view of the operator. The operator was intoxicated and was arrested and charged with OUI.

The defense attorney argued that that portion of the front of the boat is technically not a "bow", and asked that the PC and stop be thrown out, and case be dismissed.

The Judge ruled that the reason for the stop WAS NOT valid, because of the wording of the law and definition of "bow". However he did not dismiss the case, since the officers do not need PC to stop a vessel, and can do stops on vessels to check documentation and equipment.

This is just one of numerous cases that have turned out this way.

I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea here. I DO NOT encourage or condone stops of vessels for no reason. I have never done it, and to my knowledge, neither have any of my officers. This does nothing but detain innocent boaters and drive up numbers. I don't care about the number of stops, number of citations, arrests or OUIs. The only numbers I'm concerned about are the number of collisions or other incidents occurring on the water. That is our sole purpose for being out there.To reduce the number and severity of boating accidents. PERIOD!

The "PC" may be dismissed, due to a technicality like above, but the fact remains that PC isn't necessary.
 
#47 ·
The officer pulled the guy over for a passenger blocking the view of the operator. The law in AZ says that no one can be ON THE BOW, blocking the view of the operator.

Kind of ironic but, everytime most boats get underway the BOW is in the ****ing way!!!!!!
Sounds like another brilliant law there!!!!! It's almost all about the PC and the money!!
I can think of an accident a while back where there was a huge lawsuit involving in incident with a BOW in the way!!
 
#22 ·
Well Boatcop I commend you on your and your officers stance on not doing "random" checks but up in Havasu you have no less than 5 LE agencies doing this all the time. Maybe you should relay your personlized job desciption to the other agencies.
Maybe you are wondering why I would want this, well the overwhelming presence of LE has taken a huge toll on the tax revenue for LHC and surrounding areas, attributed to a place where you can come to have fun and end up in jail. I'm not supporting drinking and boating at all. This is just the fact as a businessman and tax payer.
Maybe the BLM , Ranger, and Sheriff boats could pick up the dead carp and quit spending their time pulling over boats to look at the girls on board.
 
#24 ·
Comment:

Let me begin with a little background I am not a criminal defense attorney nor do I share or subscribe to the mindset you associate with that field of law. As I am sure I can subscribe numerous stereotypes with law enforcement actions and tactics so let's not go down that road:).

In smaller jurisdictions the judge looks at the bigger picture ie...the OUI offense and all the variables that surround it as a whole. This would be the basis for the judges ruling versus the PC or definition of bow. If the stop is illegal or violates the 4th Amendment the resultant evidence and basis for the arrest must be dismissed now that much is decided and I can supply you with the authority. However, when you factor cost of an appeal to a lay person and it soon becomes a foregone fact that it is to expensive to pursue an appeal from a small court in the Arizona desert;).

Really the heart of this discussion at least for me is when law enforcement believes or acts in a manner which is above the law or tramples on my constitutional rights in any manner there is a problem. If the 4th Amendment is watered down it affects every citizen and that is just unacceptable to me. If we adhere to your position---your own family can be stopped detained on the water whenever ANY law enforcement personnel chooses to do so based on fictitious PC---this is simply ludicrous and would be unethical and illegal:mad:.

Seriously, I do not believe you when you indicate Probable Cause is not necessary for you to make a valid stop. The reason I do not believe this is if Arizona courts have ruled on this it would be easy to furnish an opinion on the subject or at a minimum one Arizona statute which allows warrantless searchs of vessels on an navigable inland waterway. I would bet dollars to donuts [no pun intended] you know all the common code sections of boating violations by heart and can rattle them off from memory or a cheat sheet. The authority requested would clearly be at the top of my list when making a stop on a vessel.

On a side note it is always interesting that law enforcement chooses to tell you what you can be arrested for but not what your rights are excepting Miranda warnings which is another famous Arizona case:(:(.

Respectfully,

KAP

P.S. I hope people read this and understand more about their rights and to become informed boaters---I always say information is power so use it!
 
#25 ·
I posted the sections of Arizona law and Commission Rules allowing stops of vessels, and the responsibility of persons stopped. For clarity, I'll repeat only the applicable portions:

the operator of the watercraft on being hailed by any peace officer shall stop immediately and lay to, or maneuver in such a way as to permit the peace officer to come aboard or alongside.
and

An individual may be required to perform the following during a watercraft stop:

2. Provide evidence of required safety equipment and registration documentation under A.R.S. Title 5, Chapter 3, Boating and Water Sports.
 
G
#26 ·
I posted the sections of Arizona law and Commission Rules allowing stops of vessels, and the responsibility of persons stopped. For clarity, I'll repeat only the applicable portions:

and
Alan,

Not sure what all of the confusion is about.

I don't believe you have stated that AZ allows you warrantless searches. Based on what you have posted I read that AZ law allow you stop a watercraft for no other purpose beyond providing registration and to display the required safety equipment. If I am misinterpreting your comments please let me know

Thanks
John
 
#28 ·
And in follow up of state court cases from around the US, appeals and state supreme courts have consistently held that random stops of vessels, for the specific purpose of checking safety equipment and registration documents IS legal, as long as state statutes allow it.

In one case, Florida v Casal, the Florida Supreme court AND the US Supreme Court), ruled that warrantless stops of vessels IS constitutional for the narrow purposes of checking documentation/registration and seafety equipment. The charges in this particular case, transport of marijuana, was dismissed however, as the officers went beyond the scope of the stop and searched the vessel and found drugs.

If the evidence (drugs) in that case had been in plain view, the outcome would have been different. The main argument wasn't the stop itself, but the subsequent SEARCH of the vessel. Just as if evidence of intoxication of the boat driver is in plain view, that evidence and any subsequent evidence obtained obtained is admissible.

In all cases the courts look into the "reasonableness" of the stop, and have found that the state has a vested interest in protecting its citizens, and that duty to protect outweighs the "minimal" intrusion that a document and equipment inspection entails.

If plain view evidence is discovered, then THAT provides the Probable Cause to expand the scope of the inspection. Whether that means detention until a warrant can be obtained or a search under Carrol v. US.

Whenever anyone enters the state of California, they are briefly detained at agriculture checkpoints. They are questioned as to where they are coming from and if they have any produce. Currently if there's a boat in tow, the detention is expanded so the boat can be inspected for invasive species, be it zebra/quagga mussels or invasive vegetation.

The state has an interest in preventing the introduction of invasive species which outweighs the minimal intrusion and brief detention. Now if during this stop, the officer detects evidence of impairment of the driver or sees bales of marijuana in the back seat, does this mean no further action is taken? No.

Florida v. Casal is the state equivalent to Villamonte-Marquez regarding the state's right to conduct warrantless stops of vessels. It affirmed the state's right to make such stops, but limited the scope of the inspection to documentation and equipment required under state law, and other evidence if obtained through the plain view doctrine.
 
#51 ·
I think people might be confusing the issue of an illegal search or a safety stop. If you are stopped and checked for safety equipment (wich is legal and is not a search) and at that time slure your words or can't get your story straight, at that point the police have there PC that you have been drinking an will conduct a FST. I know from personal experience. I was stopped on my dad's pontoon. I was sober, but I was not familiar with the location of the flotation devices and fumbled around the boat looking for all the equipment. So i looked like an idiot and had to do the FST and a brethalizer and was free to go after words. By the way the police never boarded or searched my boat.
 
#52 ·
On the OUI point yes, on search and seizure of anything, any compartment and any persons on your boat, they have the right. Here's the whole bill.

What I don't understand is whether or not a local police officer has the powers of a "customs" officer???



Sec. 1581. Boarding vessels


(a) Customs officers

Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel
or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs
waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area
established under the Anti-Smuggling Act [19 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.], or at
any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and
examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine,
inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any
person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and
stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel
compliance.

(b) Officers of Department of the Treasury

Officers of the Department of the Treasury and other persons
authorized by such department may go on board of any vessel at any place
in the United States or within the customs waters and hail, stop, and
board such vessel in the enforcement of the navigation laws and arrest
or, in case of escape or attempted escape, pursue and arrest any person
engaged in the breach or violation of the navigation laws.

(c) Penalty for presenting forged, altered, or false documents

Any master of a vessel being examined as herein provided, who
presents any forged, altered, or false document or paper to the
examining officer, knowing the same to be forged, altered, or false and
without revealing the fact shall, in addition to any forfeiture to which
in consequence the vessel may be subject, be liable to a fine of not
more than $5,000 nor less than $500.

(d) Penalty for failure to stop at command

Any vessel or vehicle which, at any authorized place, is directed to
come to a stop by any officer of the customs, or is directed to come to
a stop by signal made by any vessel employed in the service of the
customs and displaying proper insignia, shall come to a stop, and upon
failure to comply a vessel or vehicle so directed to come to a stop
shall become subject to pursuit and the master, owner, operator, or
person in charge thereof shall be liable to a penalty of not more than
$5,000 nor less than $1,000.

(e) Seizure of vessel or merchandise

If upon the examination of any vessel or vehicle it shall appear
that a breach of the laws of the United States is being or has been
committed so as to render such vessel or vehicle, or the merchandise, or
any part thereof, on board of, or brought into the United States by,
such vessel or vehicle, liable to forfeiture or to secure any fine or
penalty, the same shall be seized and any person who has engaged in such
breach shall be arrested.

(f) Duty of customs officers to seize vessel

It shall be the duty of the several officers of the customs to seize
and secure any vessel, vehicle, or merchandise which shall become liable
to seizure, and to arrest any person who shall become liable to arrest,
by virtue of any law respecting the revenue, as well without as within
their respective districts, and to use all necessary force to seize or
arrest the same.

(g) Vessels deemed employed within United States

Any vessel, within or without the customs waters, from which any
merchandise is being, or has been, unlawfully introduced into the United
States by means of any boat belonging to, or owned, controlled, or
managed in common with, said vessel, shall be deemed to be employed
within the United States and, as such, subject to the provisions of this
section.

(h) Application of section to treaties of United States

The provisions of this section shall not be construed to authorize
or require any officer of the United States to enforce any law of the
United States upon the high seas upon a foreign vessel in contravention
of any treaty with a foreign government enabling or permitting the
authorities of the United States to board, examine, search, seize, or
otherwise to enforce upon said vessel upon the high seas the laws of the
United States except as such authorities are or may otherwise be enabled
or permitted under special arrangement with such foreign government.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, Sec. 581, 46 Stat. 747; Aug. 5, 1935,
ch. 438, title II, Sec. 203, 49 Stat. 521; 1946 Reorg. Plan No. 3,
Secs. 101-104, eff. July 16, 1946, 11 F.R. 7875, 60 Stat. 1097; Sept. 1,
1954, ch. 1213, title V, Sec. 504, 68 Stat. 1141.)

References in Text

The Anti-Smuggling Act, referred to in subsec. (a), is act Aug. 5,
1935, ch. 438, 49 Stat. 517, as amended, which is classified principally
to chapter 5 (Sec. 1701 et seq.) of this title. For complete
classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1711 of this title
and Tables.
The navigation laws, referred to in subsec. (b), are classified
generally to Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters.
For definition of officer of the customs used in text, see section
1401 of this title.


Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act
Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, Sec. 581, 42 Stat. 979. That section
was superseded by section 581 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this
section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.
Prior provisions dealing with the subject matter of this section
were contained in R.S. Sec. 3059, conferring powers similar in most
respects to those conferred by this section, so far as it relates to
vessels, on any officer of the customs, including inspectors and
occasional inspectors, or of a revenue cutter, or authorized agent of
the Treasury Department, or other persons specially appointed in
writing; section 3060, requiring appointments under the preceding
section to be filed in the custom house; section 3067, authorizing
collectors, etc., and officers of revenue cutters to go on board vessels
in port or within four leagues of the coast, for the purpose of
demanding manifests, and examining and searching vessels; and section
3069, relative to noting and sealing, if necessary, packages found
separate from the residue of the cargo. All of these sections were
repealed by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, Sec. 642, 42 Stat.
989.


Amendments

1954--Subsec. (d). Act Sept. 1, 1954, provided a penalty against the
owner, operator or person in charge, as well as the master, of a vessel
failing to come to a required stop and struck out provisions relating to
the duty of the customs officers to pursue such vessels.
1935--Act Aug. 5, 1935, amended section generally among which
changes it subdivided the section into subsecs. (a) to (h), inclusive.
 
#56 ·
Just to "muddy the waters", PC (probable cause) is not the standard to detain person(s). Probable cause is the standard to arrest person(s). Reasonable suspicion is the standard for detentions. We must also remember the "plain sight doctorine." What law enforcement sees in plain sight is fair game. If they are doing a "safety" check and observe signs and symptoms of a person(s) under the influence they then have reasonable suspicion to detain them and determine if they are infact under the influence. To many people watch a season of "Law and Order" and feel they "know" the law...... Sorry just had to vent on this issue.
 
#57 ·
I'm still confused about that case law, it clearly touches on when there's a security issue, albeit a national security issue...and when doing so is in good faith. Just because the case decision permitted...in THAT case the warrantless /PC less top of THAT vessel, doesn't mean it can be broadly applied to every watercraft, especially on those that are 500 miles from the ocean, and can't get out of the country without hitting a dam.

There's case law that says when someone runs at the sight of a cop, the cops can chase them...but it outlines circumstances (IE...time of night, type of area, high crime, etc)...you can't just paint it with a broad brush and start running after every person that runs from you.

Again, i did not read the WHOLE decision, i may be insterting my foot in my mouth. I challenge a water cop to stop the same boat every day for the "inspection", and see how far it goes in court, especially in front of a jury. These types of stops have to be articulated, and reasonable.

That being said, you stop me, i'd expect you to have some PC...but i'll still stop and cooperate.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top