BoatCop
Retired And Loving It.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2007
- Messages
- 5,598
- Reaction score
- 10,557
There's been a few threads lately about "Probable Cause" and "Reasonable Suspicion" when Police stop your boat on the water, comparing them to vehicle stops on the roads.
There is a difference and the Supreme Court has consistently held these differences. To fully explain it, here is the decision in their own words:
*Disclaimer: I have always taught and trained my officers that this is a "power" that should not, under any circumstances, be overused or abused. There are too many people on the water doing things that are illegal or unsafe to be bothering someone just because we "can".
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.
My note: While the Colorado River and it's lakes are no longer accessible "to the open sea", the ability to flee the jurisdiction onto land or waters of another state on Federal Waterways makes the same decision to be applicable here and on similarly situated Federal Waterways.
There is a difference and the Supreme Court has consistently held these differences. To fully explain it, here is the decision in their own words:
*Disclaimer: I have always taught and trained my officers that this is a "power" that should not, under any circumstances, be overused or abused. There are too many people on the water doing things that are illegal or unsafe to be bothering someone just because we "can".
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.
My note: While the Colorado River and it's lakes are no longer accessible "to the open sea", the ability to flee the jurisdiction onto land or waters of another state on Federal Waterways makes the same decision to be applicable here and on similarly situated Federal Waterways.
