search by federal agencies?

[C-dub]

See, with intel from another agency, I can understand. Even without a warrant, you could probably get one if it were required. And, since Moby said they never lost a case in court, I'm guessing that performing these searches and inspections without one is somewhere in the CG charter or law or case law somewhere. And I can understand that with foreign vessels within our coastal boundaries. I do, however, still have a tiny bit of trouble with how that reconciles with the 4A and especially what the basis for that ability was. It seems so counter to what other LE agencies have to go through. Can you imagine the ruckus there would be if they did not need a warrant or our permission to search our vehicle anytime they wanted just for driving on a public road?

[Moby]

See, with intel from another agency, I can understand. Even without a warrant, you could probably get one if it were required. And, since Moby said they never lost a case in court, I'm guessing that performing these searches and inspections without one is somewhere in the CG charter or law or case law somewhere. And I can understand that with foreign vessels within our coastal boundaries. I do, however, still have a tiny bit of trouble with how that reconciles with the 4A and especially what the basis for that ability was. It seems so counter to what other LE agencies have to go through. Can you imagine the ruckus there would be if they did not need a warrant or our permission to search our vehicle anytime they wanted just for driving on a public road?

We had that very conversation in school. But the law said we needed no warrant.
I remember in North Carolina the local sheriff once asked us to go to a marina to assist
with a bust because we needed no warrant. We went, but the USCG group office my station was under
told us (Coast Guard) to remove all persons from the vessel, then NOT allow the Sheiff on board until a warrant
arrived. We did as instructed. The issue was not contraband related. I think in that case the CG was being improperly used
by local LE. The issue revolved around not being contraband related. So I believe the authority comes from Customs law.

[57Coastie]

Welcome aboard, Moby. So glad to hear from you! Now we have someone who can address the questions raised here from the viewpoint of having been where the rubber meets the road. I suspect I have outworn my welcome.

Sir, the watch is relieved, Moby!

In closing, it definitely appears to me that the common theme of those who question the Coast Guard's authority under the 4th Amendment, comparing that of the Coast Guard with that of the cop stopping your car alongside the road, simply do not understand "the circumstances" in the expression "reasonable under the circumstances." That is the quite reasonable concern expressed time and again. I can only say that if they had been privileged to go to sea with you, Moby, if they were subject to military regulations requiring them to go out, regardless of the conditions, without anything in those regulations saying that they had to return, then they might, just might, see a little difference in "the circumstances."

This is where the difference lies. It is a matter of what the Constitution, as amended, means. Each and every one of us has, thank God, the right to have and express his or her opinion on that. But when push comes to shove, though, some opinions on that have more weight than others. I have not, contrary to what might appear, been laying my personal opinons here before the forum -- I have instead tried, and not very well, to explain the reasoning behind those who have given their opinions, clearly contrary to the opinions of some, and have had their opinions understood and upheld by the final authority in picking one of those diverse opinions -- the federal judiciary -- those who have the constitutional duty to decide what the Constitution means.

My old age has caused my memory to fail me at times, and I forgot to tell a little story here. Perhaps, just perhaps, it might shed just a little light on how decisions about "the circumstances," for example, come to be made by those in authority.

It may surprise some to learn that the first predecessor of the federal statute discussed above, now Title 14, United States Code, Section 89, was enacted before the 4th Amendment became a part of our Constitution. If there is any interest, I will take the liberty of repeating here the words of that statute, among the very first enacted by our very first Congress way back in 1789, just to make reference back to it easier. The Bill of Rights, including the 4th Amendment, finally found its way through our difficult Constitutional amendment process in 1790. That predecessor statute, which has said essentially the same thing since 1789, said:

“It shall be lawful for all collectors, and the officers of the revenue cutters herein after mentioned, to go on board of ships or vessels in any part of the United States, or within four leagues of the coast thereof, if bound to the United States, whether in or out of their respective districts, for the purposes of demanding the manifests aforesaid, and of examining and searching the said ships or vessels; and the said officers respectively shall have free access to the cabin, and every other part of a ship or vessel”

Before one jumps to a reasonable, but incorrect conclusion, to wit, that the 4th Amendment invalidated that statute, we must look at history the way our federal government, including its judiciary, has looked at it.

Those great men who devised our Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, were largely the same men who served in that first Congress. When they enacted 14 U.S.C. 89 the 4th Amendment was out there being considered by the American people, through their more local representatives, after being drafted and approved, as I said, by essentially the same men. That greatest collection of Americans ever to meet together in one room, understood what, under these circumstances, a "reasonable" search was. They were a collection of traitors to George III's kingdom of Great Britain, subject to be hanged by the neck until dead if they had not unbelievably defeated Great Britain, then the world's greatest military power, with their ragtag army. They had lived through "unreasonable" searches by agents of the crown, both civilian and military, and they knew precisely what they were talking about when they approved both 14 U.S.C, 89 and the 4th Amendment practically concurrently, and they saw nothing inconsistent between the two.

Those who relish the thought of "strict construction" of the Constitution, and there are plenty of those here on this forum, particularly when the 2nd Amendment is considered, will see here a prime example of strict constructionism. Our Congress has through the years amended the statute, mainly to use more modern English phraseology, but the meaning remains, and our judiciary has continued to approve the terms of that statute when challenged, taking full note of the history which may not be well known by some, while taking full note of the view of "the Founding Fathers."

That is the best I can do. I'll let you take it from there, Moby, not from the viewpoint of the lawyer, but from the viewpoint of the man on the firing line.

Thank you for your service, Moby. I salute you and take my hat off to you and all those dedicated young men and women who take up the challenge offered by our small, but very busy and very proud, service.

Jim

[JP171]

See, with intel from another agency, I can understand. Even without a warrant, you could probably get one if it were required. And, since Moby said they never lost a case in court, I'm guessing that performing these searches and inspections without one is somewhere in the CG charter or law or case law somewhere. And I can understand that with foreign vessels within our coastal boundaries. I do, however, still have a tiny bit of trouble with how that reconciles with the 4A and especially what the basis for that ability was. It seems so counter to what other LE agencies have to go through. Can you imagine the ruckus there would be if they did not need a warrant or our permission to search our vehicle anytime they wanted just for driving on a public road?

We had that very conversation in school. But the law said we needed no warrant.
I remember in North Carolina the local sheriff once asked us to go to a marina to assist
with a bust because we needed no warrant. We went, but the USCG group office my station was under
told us (Coast Guard) to remove all persons from the vessel, then NOT allow the Sheiff on board until a warrant
arrived. We did as instructed. The issue was not contraband related. I think in that case the CG was being improperly used
by local LE. The issue revolved around not being contraband related. So I believe the authority comes from Customs law.

While I do believe that the 4th Ammendment applies to CIVILIAN law enforcement, it does NOT nor has it ever until the guy in the white house started making imperial decrees apply to MILITARY actions or and Uniformed Service There is no connection between the Constitution and Military actions and before you start, the Veterans in here know how it works cept the airforce guys. The Coast Guard is a Uniformed Service/Military first then a Law Enforcement Agency within limited capacity under a different rules of engagement.

[57Coastie]

While I do believe that the 4th Ammendment applies to CIVILIAN law enforcement, it does NOT nor has it ever until the guy in the white house started making imperial decrees apply to MILITARY actions or and Uniformed Service There is no connection between the Constitution and Military actions and before you start, the Veterans in here know how it works cept the airforce guys. The Coast Guard is a Uniformed Service/Military first then a Law Enforcement Agency within limited capacity under a different rules of engagement.

There you are, ladies and gentlemen. No problem at all. That takes care of it. We have been wasting our time and our breath.

Speak for yourself, Sir, and do not pretend to speak for all veterans -- at least not for this one. The Constitution of the United States of America applies to both the military and the civilian, but the Congress, and the federal judiciary, along with the military judiciary, have devised a quite workable compromise between the demands of military service and what the Constitution might otherwise provide in certain quite limited respects, yet the military judiciary has always been subservient to the civilian judiciary, and I hope to the Good Lord above that it remains so. The Court of Military Appeals has, itself, said unequivocally that "the protections in the Bill of Rights, except those which are expressly or by necessary implication inapplicable, are available to members of our armed forces." United States v. Jacoby, 29 C.M.R. at 246-47.

We who have been engaged in this discussion heretofore have been talking law, and as one gentleman to another, regardless of the strength of opposing opinions -- not politics, and not rudely toward each other. We have now had our first rant. Finally. I was beginning to hope we were exempt from that.

Would you suggest that the 3rd Amendment does not apply to the military? I cite the 3rd as but just one example which should be clear. The framers of the Constitution and its "ammendments" knew well what happens when the red coats of the British Empire were unfettered in the colonies before the revolution, and they did not want to see any more of that -- at all.

Jim

[JP171]

While I do believe that the 4th Ammendment applies to CIVILIAN law enforcement, it does NOT nor has it ever until the guy in the white house started making imperial decrees apply to MILITARY actions or and Uniformed Service There is no connection between the Constitution and Military actions and before you start, the Veterans in here know how it works cept the airforce guys. The Coast Guard is a Uniformed Service/Military first then a Law Enforcement Agency within limited capacity under a different rules of engagement.

There you are, ladies and gentlemen. No problem at all. That takes care of it. We have been wasting our time and our breath.

Speak for yourself, Sir, and do not pretend to speak for all veterans -- at least not for this one. The Constitution of the United States of America applies to both the military and the civilian, but the Congress, and the federal judiciary, along with the military judiciary, have devised a quite workable compromise between the demands of military service and what the Constitution might otherwise provide in certain quite limited respects, yet the military judiciary has always been subservient to the civilian judiciary, and I hope to the Good Lord above that it remains so. The Court of Military Appeals has, itself, said unequivocally that "the protections in the Bill of Rights, except those which are expressly or by necessary implication inapplicable, are available to members of our armed forces." United States v. Jacoby, 29 C.M.R. at 246-47.

We who have been engaged in this discussion heretofore have been talking law, and as one gentleman to another, regardless of the strength of opposing opinions -- not politics, and not rudely toward each other. We have now had our first rant. Finally. I was beginning to hope we were exempt from that.

Would you suggest that the 3rd Amendment does not apply to the military? I cite the 3rd as but just one example which should be clear. The framers of the Constitution and its "ammendments" knew well what happens when the red coats of the British Empire were unfettered in the colonies before the revolution, and they did not want to see any more of that -- at all.

Jim

ok so let me see, looks like a personal attack here, so now we go into that arena, kewl beans. I am so appreciative that you have schooled me.

The Constitution does apply to individual service members with compromise. Another member posted that the coast guard doesn't need a warrent to board a vessel, nor does Customs enforecment need warrents to inspect shipping containers into the country, so by laws that are in place the 4th ammendment does not apply to certain situations, the national guard does not need a warrant to hold an individual that violates its mission parameters.


but hey I forgot the rest of the people here that are complaining that all those things are uncontitutional weren't giving opinion, but I was ranting. well sir or ma'am as the case is, have a good day

[anygunanywhere]

Just because it is done that way does not make it right and does not mean that it should not be changed.

The government does not grant rights. God does.

Rights are taken away through tyrannicall actions. Call it customs inspections or whatever.

Putting a rock in the oven does not make it a biscuit.

Calling it a customs search does not make it right.

When you get in a boat in US territorial waters to fish you do not forfeit your rights.

I ain't buying it.

Anygunanywhere