search by federal agencies?

[C-dub]

Your attitude is both noteworthy and praiseworthy, rwg3. You will never have a problem with the Coast Guard.

In my earlier post I neglected to mention something I think pertinent to your original questions, and which may to an extent merge those questions and help in understanding both border searches and Coast Guard "nonborder" searches.

Officers of the Coast Guard are, by federal law, "officers of the Customs," having the authority of officers of the Customs. To a very great extent border searches and searches of vessels by the Coast Guard differ only by where they are conducted and possibly where the "searchee" has been or is perhaps enroute. This, granted, is to an extent an oversimplification, but the underlying rationale behind making such searches presumptively "reasonable, under the circumstances" is much the same.

That is, the circumstances under which a search is held may cause the search to be reasonable, although under other circumstances such a search could be unreasonable and unconstitutional.

Jim

I've been thinking about your response to my post and rwg3's for a few minutes and can't really think of a safe way to extricate my foot from my mouth without first putting the other one in with it. I'm sorry and didn't know of a better way to describe the CG from my limited knowledge of the service.

I think what rwg3 is concerned about is the CG searching vessels without a warrant or probable cause. I know it is something I've wondered about.

[57Coastie]

Your attitude is both noteworthy and praiseworthy, rwg3. You will never have a problem with the Coast Guard.

In my earlier post I neglected to mention something I think pertinent to your original questions, and which may to an extent merge those questions and help in understanding both border searches and Coast Guard "nonborder" searches.

Officers of the Coast Guard are, by federal law, "officers of the Customs," having the authority of officers of the Customs. To a very great extent border searches and searches of vessels by the Coast Guard differ only by where they are conducted and possibly where the "searchee" has been or is perhaps enroute. This, granted, is to an extent an oversimplification, but the underlying rationale behind making such searches presumptively "reasonable, under the circumstances" is much the same.

That is, the circumstances under which a search is held may cause the search to be reasonable, although under other circumstances such a search could be unreasonable and unconstitutional.

Jim

I've been thinking about your response to my post and rwg3's for a few minutes and can't really think of a safe way to extricate my foot from my mouth without first putting the other one in with it. I'm sorry and didn't know of a better way to describe the CG from my limited knowledge of the service.

I think what rwg3 is concerned about is the CG searching vessels without a warrant or probable cause. I know it is something I've wondered about.

It merits thinking about, C-dub. We must always monitor our LEOs and keep them to high standards. The power given to LEOs can easily lead to arrogance and the misuse of that power, and this comes from one who was a federal LEO for a very long time.

Warrants. One of our most misunderstood constitutional amendments is the 4th. Many people are surprised to learn that the 4th itself does not require any LEO of any kind, of any agency, local, county, state or federal, to obtain a search warrant before conducting a search. A search warrant is mentioned in the 4th only to require probable cause be shown before a judge issues one. The search itself must only be "reasonable." I have often described a search warrant as just being a piece of paper protecting the LEO's backside by having a judge decide in advance that the proposed search will be "reasonable," and in turn making it more likely that the judge, or another judge, will, after the fact, as an armchair quarterback, decide that the search was indeed reasonable. In short, the Coast Guard is not alone in not being required to have a search warrant before a search.

Of course statutes, state or federal, may be more stringent, but I am talking about the 4th Amendment.

Let me assure you, Sir, that you are not alone in not knowing a lot about the Coast Guard. I mentioned above that one of our unofficial mottos is "our security rests on our obscurity," The Coast Guard has a ton of peacetime missions, and not a lot of money or people to do them, and at the same time they must train and train to become a part of the Navy in wartime. I can assure you that they do not have the time or desire to climb all over our citizenry in black boots, and that their helicopters are not black -- the latter wear a big red stripe for identification as they weather the elements to save life.

Your interest in the Coast Guard is appreciated very much, C-dub, and I would be happy to answer any more questions about my service any of our forum members might have.

Jim

[C-dub]

Your interest in the Coast Guard is appreciated very much, C-dub, and I would be happy to answer any more questions about my service any of our forum members might have.

Jim

I was an Airdale in the Navy, although for only 4 years, and heard many bias accounts of the CG. I was not and am not one that thinks like that. I am aware of their role during previous wars, but don't think of the service as a combat force. My point of view may be common, but I view the CG as more of a Search & Rescue and Law Enforcement unit that operates primarily on the water. If I had known more about the service before enlisting in the Navy at 17 I might have gone CG. Other than Australia, I would have rather stayed closer to home than the Indian Ocean. But, being an Airdale had it's privileges. Stationed on land except for cruises and near some of the most beautiful beaches in the Continental U.S., San Diego.

Regarding the reasonable search of a vessel that has done nothing other than be on the water. If they have done nothing illegal, how is any search reasonable? That's what confuses me. It sounds like a LEO just stopping me, while I'm driving down the road breaking no laws, to check and make sure my emergency brake works or my airbag is intact and because I might seem a little nervous searches a little more and finds some illegal substance. Now, we all know that entire stop will get thrown out if something like that ever even occurred. What keeps the CG from getting in trouble with searches when someone has not broken a law before being searched? Am I off on this or am I just missing a big chunk of information?

[philip964]

I was traveling in Canada by car rented in the US. I made a detour into the top of Maine to visit one of the four corners of the country.

When asked at the border about my plans, I said I was coming right back to Canada after I visited the end of US 1.

I guess they really don't like that, as we were selected for a full inspection.

You know how you put your pills in those daily plastic pill holders. (those of you who are not in your 60's don't know about taking a lot of pills everyday, so you don't know about these, well just wait)

So both my wife and I had to explain what each drug was and what it was for. "that is Docolase it makes my poop soft" "that is fish oil it helps my LDL" "that is Paxil it keeps me from being irritated at things like this"

They kept us for about 50 minutes. Then released us after messing up the whole car.

I have now done both the top and bottom of US 1 on the East coast. Still have the West corners to do.

There is some kind of Harley-Davidson park we visited near the North East corner. Apparently your supposed to do all four corners on one motorcycle trip.

There is no freedom of entry into the US, they can do what they want to you. I suspect however, if you are a partially bearded 24 year old male from Yemen, with no particular reason for visiting the US, they let you right in.

[sjfcontrol]

You know how you put your pills in those daily plastic pill holders. (those of you who are not in your 60's don't know about taking a lot of pills everyday, so you don't know about these, well just wait)

I've often wondered what would happen if an 'authority' became interested in that. When I travel I usually just take the 7-day pill holder, not the bottles with the prescription labels. Especially going through airport security, I've wondered if some day that might bite me.

[57Coastie]

...Am I off on this or am I just missing a big chunk of information?

This is beginning to look like I am selling something, rather than answering reasonable and honest questions, which is the way this started. I will come back only because you have given me new questions, C-dub, which of course I invited. I did not intend to engage in a debate, nor do I now. I felt I might be well-qualified to shed some light on something not understood very well by many people; I did and do applaud their interest in learning something not terribly easy to understand.

When one phrases a question as you have, one which begs for only a "Yes," a "No," or perhaps a "Maybe," one has a built-in limitation in trying to answer. In my opinion the answers to your two questions I quote above are "Yes" and "Maybe." If I have not answered the second question yet it is nobody's fault but mine, but I have tried very hard to answer it while avoiding to the extent I can "lawyer talk," which I do not believe would shed any more light on the issue and might further confuse it. Those who disagree with me would still disagree. The answer I attempted to give has been approved over and over again for 222 years by the Congress of the United States of America, beginning with its very first session, the President of the United States, without exception since George Washington, and the federal judiciary. Of course there are those who disagree with them, as well. This forum demonstrates that over and over. That is their right.

But when an a military service is assigned a routine job by the Congress of the United States and that service's Commander-in-Chief, both explaining in detail how that job is to be performed, one which has been approved by the judiciary, for so very long, leaving no case for the Commander-in-Chief's order to be considered clearly illegal and in violation of the 4th Amendment, that military service salutes, says "Aye, Aye, Sir," and does the job as best it can.

I see no reasonable alternatives for those who disagree with the government's conclusion on a question of constitutional law other than (a) getting the Congress to change the law, (b) to facetiously suggest that one refuse to permit a duly authorized CG boarding officer to count his life jackets, and then pursue his remedies in court, or (c) comply with the federal LEO's order and complain on this forum.

As I have said more than once, but it may have been overlooked, the Coast Guard is not at all unique in being permitted by the U. S. Constitution to search a vessel subject to its jurisdiction, having in advance neither a warrant, probable cause, or probable suspicion, when the search is reasonable under the circumstances.

I will close with posing a couple of rhetorical questions in turn: does OSHA need one of those three before inspecting a work-site for hsazardous working conditions? Does the fire department need one of those three before inspecting a building's fire protection and possible fire hazards? Does the local department of health, of whatever name, require one of the three before inspecting Joe's Diner for such things as roaches? Does the FAA need one of the three to inspect the aircraft you are planning on flying overseas aboard? I could of course go on and on, in particular having to do with public health and safety, precisely what the CG's inspections are concerned with. The fact that they occur elsewhere by other agencies will not convince anyone who feels to the contrary that the searches are illegal. As soon as this note is posted I will not be surprised to see a rush to the keyboad by certain forum members arguing that they are obviously unconstitutional and that the government is sticking its nose in our business. After being a member for so long I can almost predict who they will be. So be it. That is their right.

You, on the other hand, C-dub, have raised serious questions and personal concerns, in an adult nonranting manner, and it is a pleasure talking with you.

I cite those other cases solely for the proposition that the CG is not alone in being able to lawfully conduct a search without one of those three, when the search is reasonable under the circumstances. One of my favorite "Big Name" restaurants here in College Station was recently shut down for a time when roaches were found by our local inspector. I still have lunch there often, very appreciative of the inspection and for the action taken. I never did care for the taste of roaches.

Very best regards, and, again, Happy Birthday, Coast Guard

Jim

[C-dub]

I will close with posing a couple of rhetorical questions in turn: does OSHA need one of those three before inspecting a work-site for hsazardous working conditions? Does the fire department need one of those three before inspecting a building's fire protection and possible fire hazards? Does the local department of health, of whatever name, require one of the three before inspecting Joe's Diner for such things as roaches? Does the FAA need one of the three to inspect the aircraft you are planning on flying overseas aboard? I could of course go on and on, in particular having to do with public health and safety, precisely what the CG's inspections are concerned with. The fact that they occur elsewhere by other agencies will not convince anyone who feels to the contrary that the searches are illegal.

Jim

Of course, they are allowed, but aren't they also required? Is the CG required to search every vessel on the water for safety? And are any of those also LE agencies? I'm not sure, but I don't think any of them are. They can fine you, but not detain or arrest you, right? That seems like a big difference to me if true.

Are these safety inspections conducted by the CG searching for things that are required by law? Things like life preservers, fire extinguishers, flares, strobes, radio, fresh water?

Thanks Jim. I do appreciate this education.

[57Coastie]

...Are these safety inspections conducted by the CG searching for things that are required by law? Things like life preservers, fire extinguishers, flares, strobes, radio, fresh water?

Of course, C-dub. Different requirements for different types and uses of vessels, of course.

But if during these required safety inspections, and you may call them "searches" if you wish, contraband or such is discovered, and I do not mean "in clear view from outside the vessel," then different rules applicable to a "reasonable seizure" come into play.

I will repeat what I observed above. LEOs are not, just by virtue of their office, exempt from abusing their authority occasionally. I have no reason to expect this would not apply to a Coastie now and then, but I, who have had a hand in training them, would hope not. If that happens either the on-scene LEO's supervisors or a judge can expect to find themselves in the picture, being asked, possibly in turn, to decide whether the search and/or seizure was indeed "reasonable under the circumstances."

You are certainly holding my feet to the fire, C-dub, but your thinking makes me think, and that is good, and hopefully assists me in clarifying things. I have been retired from the Coast Guard for 35 years, and two additional careers have intervened. The "57" in "57Coastie" reflects the year I was commissioned in the Coast Guard, after graduating from the Coast Guard Academy. The photo up there in the right-hand corner is one taken of the square-rigged training ship I trained in off and on for four years. The photo was taken near-about 60 years ago, with yours truly aboard as a lowly seaman. The Eagle still trains Coast Guard cadets in the basic elements of seamanship, leadership, and going to sea as have been true for hundreds of years -- training them to first learn to take and comply with military orders, and then, as upper classmen, training them in properly giving military orders so that they might be obeyed in good spirit.

I have been addressing the questions here as a matter of law, C-dub, which, as you might expect, makes my posts long-winded. At the same time I have tried to explain them with the practical viewpoint of an active participant, while showing that the two different approaches come up with the same result. One gets somewhat stale in 35 years.

Everyone, regardless of who she or he is, has prejudices of some kind, though they may honestly think otherwise, and it is no secret that I am prejudiced in favor of my Coast Guard, and I am proud of the Coast Guard and the privilege I had to serve in her. In those subsequent careers I mentioned above I have been trained to plead my cause in a logical and convincing fashion. I have not always done that successfully, and it may be that this is one of those times. Should I ever be tempted to think that everyone should agree with me, then I would be the one who is arrogant and unthinking, and I would lower my head in shame. That is just the way it is in our great country, and I thank the Good Lord that that is the way it is here.

Jim

[WildBill]

You know how you put your pills in those daily plastic pill holders. (those of you who are not in your 60's don't know about taking a lot of pills everyday, so you don't know about these, well just wait)

I've often wondered what would happen if an 'authority' became interested in that. When I travel I usually just take the 7-day pill holder, not the bottles with the prescription labels. Especially going through airport security, I've wondered if some day that might bite me.

What I do is to keep a 7-day supply in the prescription bottles to take with me and transfer the rest to the pill holders to stay at home.

[C-dub]

You know how you put your pills in those daily plastic pill holders. (those of you who are not in your 60's don't know about taking a lot of pills everyday, so you don't know about these, well just wait)

I've often wondered what would happen if an 'authority' became interested in that. When I travel I usually just take the 7-day pill holder, not the bottles with the prescription labels. Especially going through airport security, I've wondered if some day that might bite me.

What I do is to keep a 7-day supply in the prescription bottles to take with me and transfer the rest to the pill holders to stay at home.

I don't, but my wife does. She has traveled by air a few times in the last few years and I make her take the bottles with her name and everything on them so there won't be any problem and she hasn't even been asked about them.

[srothstein]

I have been addressing the questions here as a matter of law, C-dub, which, as you might expect, makes my posts long-winded. At the same time I have tried to explain them with the practical viewpoint of an active participant, while showing that the two different approaches come up with the same result.

I think I might need to clarify the difference between what I posted earlier and what Jim has posted. I fully agree with what Jim has posted as far as what the law is and how it has been interpreted by the courts. The CG does have the legal authority to make these inspections without probable cause.

What I was posting in disagreement is the philosophical interpretation of the 4th Amendment as it applies to these laws. I agree with the point made that the 4th does not prohibit all searches, just those that are unreasonable.

From what was posted, and I could be wrong, I gathered that Jim has agreed that these inspections are reasonable for public safety. I disagree on that, especially as it applies to privately owned non-commercial vehicles. For the record, I also disagree with the fire marshal and building code inspections for similar cases. But the courts have certainly agreed with Jim on whether these are reasonable or not.

I want to emphasize the difference is a matter of opinion on philosophy and I can certainly see Jim's side. One of the things I really enjoy about this board is the way we can disagree and remain reasonable. I always enjoy the philosophical discussions as they do make me think more, much as Jim was saying. And I don't think he has gotten long-winded in making his case. Answering from his experienced viewpoint makes me think and justify my viewpoint more.

[C-dub]

...Are these safety inspections conducted by the CG searching for things that are required by law? Things like life preservers, fire extinguishers, flares, strobes, radio, fresh water?

Of course, C-dub. Different requirements for different types and uses of vessels, of course.

But if during these required safety inspections, and you may call them "searches" if you wish, contraband or such is discovered, and I do not mean "in clear view from outside the vessel," then different rules applicable to a "reasonable seizure" come into play.

I will repeat what I observed above. LEOs are not, just by virtue of their office, exempt from abusing their authority occasionally. I have no reason to expect this would not apply to a Coastie now and then, but I, who have had a hand in training them, would hope not. If that happens either the on-scene LEO's supervisors or a judge can expect to find themselves in the picture, being asked, possibly in turn, to decide whether the search and/or seizure was indeed "reasonable under the circumstances."

You are certainly holding my feet to the fire, C-dub, but your thinking makes me think, and that is good, and hopefully assists me in clarifying things. I have been retired from the Coast Guard for 35 years, and two additional careers have intervened. The "57" in "57Coastie" reflects the year I was commissioned in the Coast Guard, after graduating from the Coast Guard Academy. The photo up there in the right-hand corner is one taken of the square-rigged training ship I trained in off and on for four years. The photo was taken near-about 60 years ago, with yours truly aboard as a lowly seaman. The Eagle still trains Coast Guard cadets in the basic elements of seamanship, leadership, and going to sea as have been true for hundreds of years -- training them to first learn to take and comply with military orders, and then, as upper classmen, training them in properly giving military orders so that they might be obeyed in good spirit.

I have been addressing the questions here as a matter of law, C-dub, which, as you might expect, makes my posts long-winded. At the same time I have tried to explain them with the practical viewpoint of an active participant, while showing that the two different approaches come up with the same result. One gets somewhat stale in 35 years.

Everyone, regardless of who she or he is, has prejudices of some kind, though they may honestly think otherwise, and it is no secret that I am prejudiced in favor of my Coast Guard, and I am proud of the Coast Guard and the privilege I had to serve in her. In those subsequent careers I mentioned above I have been trained to plead my cause in a logical and convincing fashion. I have not always done that successfully, and it may be that this is one of those times. Should I ever be tempted to think that everyone should agree with me, then I would be the one who is arrogant and unthinking, and I would lower my head in shame. That is just the way it is in our great country, and I thank the Good Lord that that is the way it is here.

Jim

No bias at all. I'm just trying to understand the difference between a LEO in my city needing a reason to stop me and an even bigger reason to search my vehicle and how the CG is able to do all this without someone having broken any laws.

I go through the same thing with students in my profession. The more questions they ask the better I am able to explain it to the next set and it solidifies the concept in my head better.

So, the safety inspections are required. That's good to know. Are they required annually or monthly or every time they are on the water? Is each vessel given any kind of a certificate to indicate that they ave been inspected? If the CG came along side a vessel and they had such a certificate, if one exists, would that exempt them from another inspection for any particular length of time? Given the amount of record keeping I had to do when I was in, I'm sure you all kept a log of each vessel inspected. Was that log available to all CG personnel? As you would be sailing around if you saw a vessel and knew it had been inspected anytime within some recent time frame would you bother inspecting it again? I am not accusing the CG of abusing this policy nor do I have any knowledge of anyone hat claims to have been a victim of any abuse by the CG.

[C-dub]

I have been addressing the questions here as a matter of law, C-dub, which, as you might expect, makes my posts long-winded. At the same time I have tried to explain them with the practical viewpoint of an active participant, while showing that the two different approaches come up with the same result.

I think I might need to clarify the difference between what I posted earlier and what Jim has posted. I fully agree with what Jim has posted as far as what the law is and how it has been interpreted by the courts. The CG does have the legal authority to make these inspections without probable cause.

What I was posting in disagreement is the philosophical interpretation of the 4th Amendment as it applies to these laws. I agree with the point made that the 4th does not prohibit all searches, just those that are unreasonable.

From what was posted, and I could be wrong, I gathered that Jim has agreed that these inspections are reasonable for public safety. I disagree on that, especially as it applies to privately owned non-commercial vehicles. For the record, I also disagree with the fire marshal and building code inspections for similar cases. But the courts have certainly agreed with Jim on whether these are reasonable or not.

I want to emphasize the difference is a matter of opinion on philosophy and I can certainly see Jim's side. One of the things I really enjoy about this board is the way we can disagree and remain reasonable. I always enjoy the philosophical discussions as they do make me think more, much as Jim was saying. And I don't think he has gotten long-winded in making his case. Answering from his experienced viewpoint makes me think and justify my viewpoint more.

I also agree when it comes to commercial vessels. I'm just having a hard time with private personal vessels. The FD does have the right to inspect businesses and it is even required for businesses to have those inspections to get their certification. However, I am not required to have the FD inspect my house and I am unaware if I must let them in if they showed up on my doorstep wanting to come in to inspect my house. I am also not required to let the police inspect my vehicle and they cannot stop me to inspect it unless they can detect some violation before stopping me, right?

[Moby]

Like 57Coastie I too was in the Coast Guard for 10 years as a Boarding Officer on a Taclet (Tactical LE Team). I worked the Gulf and Florida coasts.

The Coast guard needs no search warrant. As customs officers we can do a safety inspection on any US Vessel anywhere and search the same for contraband.
Any foreign vessel in US waters or with the vessels country of registry permission in international waters. We could search anywhere looking for contraband.
No warrant needed.

The Coast Guard does not ask to board. This is the first thing hammered into our heads at LE school in Yorktown VA. I did in fact go through cabinates, under bench seats, most anywhere I believed could hold drugs or other contraband.

On vessels we were looking for or that came up positive on an EPIC (El Paso Intelligence Center) hit we even cut bulkheads with saws, drilled holes, whatever. If dope wasn't found (that was seldom when DEA or Customs gave us intel) the vessel owner fixed the boat and gave the government the bil.
That never happened to teams I was with but I heard of it happening once. 50% of the vessels I boarded had firearms on them. We disarmed the vessel by putting the weapons on our boat, or sometimes on recreational boats (smaller vessels where I was pretty sure it was folks just out boating) I would direct the vessel owner/operator to show me the weapon without touching it. Then I'd leave it where it was and keep all away from that area.

Never lost a case in court. If ya have contraband, and it's found, you're busted. But smuggling quantities. We were looking for smugglers.
We were extremely professional with the boating public. But if a boater got upset and started yelling 4th amendment I would pull him over to our boat and calm him down and explain we needed no warrant. They ALWAYS chilled out once I took them to the Coast Guard vessel as they were afraid they were getting busted right then. I would put on my best apologetic attitude and explain I had orders, we need no warrent, and I promise I would make our intrusion as short as possible. They always understood as I kissed ass (but remained firm) as much as I could. I knew how they felt.

I found recreational pot many times, and cocaine a few times. I always asked politely if I could throw it overboard. No ever minded as they thought I was giving them a break. Truth was I was instructed NOT to bust party pot and small powder finds. (we called it) unless a boat owner was a problem (usually drunk) then we'd bust him. After I got out in 1986 the USCG took a no tolerance policy. A joint and they took the boat. I'm glad I wasn't in when that policy took effect. They even confiscated a USC Research vessel because a student had a small bag of pot of the coast of CA. The University did get the vessel back.

The US Coast Guard has been involved in every war we've ever had. From Normandy where we piloted landing craft for Marines to Iraq where we guarded the countries offshore oil rigs. My brother Bob even met an MRAP full of Coasties working river banks in in Iraq. I do not know if they’re in Afghanistan as it is land locked. By far the Coast Guard is the most versatile branch of the military. Oh, and we save thousands and thousands of lives. Will go out in any weather, anytime day or night, and do what ever it takes to bring the victims home. I've been in so many storms I have come to like them. You'll not find more dedicated men and women anywhere. The pilots in the Coast Guard have balls of steel. When the Navy pulls their planes in the Coast Guard choppers keep going. Those guys are some the most competent pilots in the world. I've seen them drop a basket on my 41' patrol boat with serious wind and seas. Amazing flyers. Now that the Coast Guard is under DHS they have many more resources. I wish I was still in now.
We had a saying, "You've got to go out, you don't have to come back"
NEVER once was I told it's too rough wait for the storm to clam down down. When the bell rung, we were underway 5 minuets later. No matter what.

Semper Paratus, ALWAYS READY!

[RSJ]

http://www.aclu.org/national-security_t ... -free-zone" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;