TexasCHLforum.com

J E R K.........you did the right thing, but don't file a complaint..nothing is going to happen anyways.

rm9792 wrote:
Not that I agree with this but.....I believe their defense would be that you agreed to waive your rights by paying to register your boat. Kind of like registering your car gives them rights to require things from you. Boats arent normally needed, most are pleasure craft so it wouldnt fall into life necessitys.

I always thought the constitution was the highest law of the land. I do know the Coast Guard routinely demand the right to board a boat without probable cause. Then again all the police have to do is claim they smelled something and they have probable cause. It seems like with boats they don't even have to claim they smell anything.

Liberty wrote: I always thought the constitution was the highest law of the land. I do know the Coast Guard routinely demand the right to board a boat without probable cause. Then again all the police have to do is claim they smelled something and they have probable cause. It seems like with boats they don't even have to claim they smell anything.

I believe court precedence has served to interpret the right of the CG to board without probable cause. When I worked for US Customs (now ICE), we pretty much had unfettered access to search mail, cargo, and people. The bar for proving probable cause was set very low -- so low that I don't recall a single instance where a Customs search was ever successfully challenged. This was several years ago, but I remember it being explained to me that the courts had ruled in favor of certain federal agencies having search and seizure rights that were in fact aligned with the 4th Amendment. IANAL, so an attorney would probably be in a better position to explain the finer points of constitutional law than I...

If we are out on a boat do we automatically give up our right to unreasonable search and seizure? Do we have a right to deny them the right to board?

Believe it or not, no, you don't have the right to refuse them to board or search. SCOTUS has ruled a lot of years ago that a game warden does not need permission to enter anywhere to search for illegal game. This includes your home, by the way. They don't even need probable cause. I've tried to find the case for a while and I can't find it anywhere. I do remember reading about it in the Houston paper when I was about 20-21 years old. Over 30 years ago.

rm9792 wrote:

McKnife wrote:

If we are out on a boat do we automatically give up our right to unreasonable search and seizure? Do we have a right to deny them the right to board?

BINGO!

I don't boat.. but I still wonder, what is their reasonable suspicion for detaining (boarding) you and probable cause for searching your vessel?

US waters are still US, right? Or does Nazi Germany own them?

Not that I agree with this but.....I believe their defense would be that you agreed to waive your rights by paying to register your boat. Kind of like registering your car gives them rights to require things from you. Boats arent normally needed, most are pleasure craft so it wouldnt fall into life necessitys.

Since the top dog over those guys is Jerry Patterson (right?), who is a gun guy and a strict constitutionalist, perhaps we ought to ask him to clarify this.

Not that I agree with this but.....I believe their defense would be that you agreed to waive your rights by paying to register your boat. Kind of like registering your car gives them rights to require things from you. Boats arent normally needed, most are pleasure craft so it wouldnt fall into life necessitys.

That means politicians waive ALL their rights by running for office. Nobody NEEDS to run for political office.

Now excuse me while I seize the contents of Obama's bank accounts for my personal use.

Rex B wrote:Since the top dog over those guys is Jerry Patterson (right?), who is a gun guy and a strict constitutionalist, perhaps we ought to ask him to clarify this.

Sorry, but he is the Commissioner for the General Land Office. Parks and Wildlife is the department in charge of the Game Wardens. Two different state agencies.

You might be able to get him to look into it, but I think he is more of a gun guy than a true strict Constitutionalist.

srothstein wrote:

Rex B wrote:Since the top dog over those guys is Jerry Patterson (right?), who is a gun guy and a strict constitutionalist, perhaps we ought to ask him to clarify this.

Sorry, but he is the Commissioner for the General Land Office. Parks and Wildlife is the department in charge of the Game Wardens. Two different state agencies.

You might be able to get him to look into it, but I think he is more of a gun guy than a true strict Constitutionalist.

I knew he was over state parks, was not sure about the other, thanks.

In the Texas Monthly article about him earlier this year, he called himself a strict constitutionalist, or words to that effect.