I just spent the weekend at my parents' place on Smith Mountain Lake.  Today to put an exclamation point on the weekend, we had an afternoon snack and they had a few margaritas at a Mexican restaurant on the side of the lake.  Halfway through the meal, a police boat came into the cove and immediately started stopping every boat in the channel.  We saw 3 tickets written on the water there, and then the police came into the docking area.  One officer hopped off the boat and started walking up and down the aisles, writing 2 tickets that we saw to people loading up their boats.  The other officers still in the boat prevented a few people from leaving and signed off another 2 tickets there.  All interactions in all areas also had people leaving without any obvious tickets.

My father and mother immediately started worrying about what regulations they might not be following.  They went through their whole checklist of necessary safety items by memory and thought about the paperwork on the boat, etc.  In essence, the entire relaxing margarita session turned into a worried frenzy at the drop of a hat.

I began to feel a bit infuriated that this was common practice on the water while not acceptable LE practice on land (generally).  There did not appear to be any probably cause in the two stops I saw clearly.  The officers have complete authority to just walk right up or pull you over and demand to see paperwork and safety equipment.  If you can't provide them, ticket.

Upon describing the Stamp Act and the subsequent search warrants allowed for enforcement of it to my family and the irony of witnessing these searches on the July 4th weekend, it just infuriated me.  Since it's my parents' boat and I didn't want them to get targeted, I refrained from making any scenes or questioning the officers on whether or not they had the authority to do what they were doing.  When the officers went to fuel their boat up mom and dad scurried to their boat as if prey were avoiding the predator.

As soon as I got home, I researched it.  In Virginia, they do have legal authority to do what they do.  In several states, the act has been ruled unconstitutional by Supreme Courts.  Many states have outlawed the search practice.

Happy Dependence Day, folks.  Just thought I'd share, and/or start a discussion.

TL;DR:  Honey Boo Boo reruns are on somewhere.

Edited to add:  For those of you that aren't familiar with the Stamp Act history, it's an important moment in our founding history.  The British passed the Stamp Act, requiring any document, book, pamphlet, etc to have a tax stamp placed on it.  Obviously an impossible thing to effectively enforce, the law also resulted in British troops being able to write their own search warrants at will in order to search a home for compliance for the Stamp Act.  This greatly increased tensions between Britain and the colonies before the Revolutionary period and is a huge reason why the 4th Amendment exists in the first place.

That is a Dangerous lake due to the number of IDIOTS that have a boat in the surrounding areas...

Unfortunately, your boat basically doesn't have any 4th Amendment protection. I don't agree with that, but there's a LONG and well-established history of suspicionless vessel inspections in the U.S.

Of course, it used to be an anti-smuggling issue, intended to allow customs officials and coast guard personnel to inspect cargo. Now it's been mutated into allowing 5 different state "boat police" agencies to stop you in your 17' Whaler and make sure you have the correct number of flares while sniffing your breath.

At least in my mind, inside a land-locked lake (IOW no commercial shipping can reach it) in the middle of a state, an 'anti-smuggling' rationalization from the court falls down to anybody who would consider the likelihood of such a thing happening. At the mouth of the Chesapeake Bay, it might be conceivable, but even past Richmond on the James, it is hard to see.

However, having an arm of the government rule against another arm of the government is just about a black swan event, so I'll put my wookiesuit away.



Hmm, would you kindly point out where in the USC where solely the status of mental ability references what rights a person has or doesn't have? Sounds like a part I missed.

TR

I-81 is a dangerous road for the same reasons.  That doesn't mean the police have the authority to stop any vehicle on the road for no reason and conduct a safety inspection to find a reason.

In the state of Virginia, that's what the legal code would have you believe.

But from my searches it seems like a 3-1 issue for Supreme Court decisions in various states.  And the one that went against was kind of fuzzy to me on exactly what the ruling was, as the officer noticed drunk behavior of the driver after stopping the boat randomly for a safety check, giving him probable cause to search more thoroughly and ticket the driver.  Another account of that story says he noticed drunk behavior after boarding the guy's boat, I don't know if the boarding was consented to or not.

And yes, while searching on the internet it was VERY difficult to find the information on this issue on an inland lake that is non-navigable because of all of the boardings that are discussed in relation to Coast Guard authorities looking at boats in the international-connected waters.  Smith Mountain Lake starts and ends in VA, so you can't smuggle things from one country to another, nor one state to another.  The downstream section of the lake is blocked by a dam, which is the reason the lake exists, so it is therefore impossible to take a boat downstream into another country or state.  Upstream turns into creeks that can't be navigated by even a kayak before entering any other state or country.

Seems to me that it is completely unreasonable to have boats searched in this manner.

If I ever get stopped randomly for a safety inspection, I will be hoping to video tape the encounter, declining any voluntary information as if I was on land in a car, forcing the officers to tell me that I MUST comply with them by law, then complying with them and taking it to the Supreme Court afterwards.  I say that... but I don't know the costs of going to court...

I was simply appalled to see this behavior.  Especially on the weekend of July 4th.  It was very symbolic to me of what we have become.

Were there MRAPs in the parking lot?  I wish we would enforce our national borders like we do a lake or hwy.

They probably heard their new MRAP was amphibious.  It's probably 25' off shore...

In spite of my propensity to joust at windmills here in this little corner of Algore's Interwebs, I'm going to refrain from commenting ...

except to relate that I ...


Laughed.


Laughed again.

Out loud.  Both times.

Pretty much any "navigable water of the United States" - and that includes some pretty tiny creeks - falls under this rubric. The better question is how the traditionally federal (i.e., Coast Guard and Customs) boarding authority of traditionally larger, commercial vessels, for cargo inspection, has morphed into state fish police being able to conduct suspicionless seizures and inspections of small pleasure craft.

Agreed.

I just won!

I have never delved into the state court decisions on this issue, to be honest. I know about the basic USCG and federal historical practices and precdedent. I used to do a lot of sailing on Cape Cod, right next door to USCG Station Woods Hole, and in all those years I never saw or heard of them bothering anybody over stupid shit like this - so I never really worried about it. There weren't any state/local authorities around other than the harbormaster, who was basically just the mooring police.

It does seem like Virginia has a lot of rather annoying and aggressive water-borne state authorities. DGIF game wardens, Marine Police, etc., and I've heard a number of people complain about their brownshirt tactics.

If you've found any Supreme Court of Virginia or Court of Appeals of Virginia cases dealing with this issue, please post them.

I did another search and found another Supreme Court decision in NC that said the search was reasonable.  However, it was ANOTHER search where they didn't board the boat and they noticed the operator was impaired.  Link:  Pike v NC

I found this part within that brief referencing a US Supreme Court ruling:



They based this Pike v NC decision on the federal decision of United States v. Villamonte- Marquez.  Yet, the federal decision has a clear basis on "reasonableness" pertaining to access to open (I assume international) seas being treated differently than highways.

The search continues...

Yeah, what you need to find is a case where they stopped/boarded someone without any suspicion and preferably not at a "checkpoint," and then found something just by dumb luck.

Just got finished reading the NC v Pike.

They specified that people don't have an expectation of privacy in their boats, and therefore the initial stop without probable cause is okay.  It seems backwards to me that they are saying "law requires these safety devices, and it should be expected for police to look for compliance for them, and therefore there's no expectation of privacy on a boat".  Again, seems awfully similar to that Stamp Act...

They noted that the boat itself passed the inspection, it was the operator that did not.

It seems as if the only people that take these cases all the way to the Supreme Court are those who get hit with big charges.  Possession, driving while intoxicated, etc.  I haven't seen someone just say "no I won't show you my whistle" and been ticketed for it going all the way to the supreme court of any state yet.

I need a break now.  

Sadly, this weekend at the lake saw the end of my open support of the police.

my wife got served with a pair of trumped up tickets while out on the Jet Ski, But hey they are just tickets and they are open to opinion so no big deal.

What pissed me off is these scum bag deputies decided it was OK to call my wife a liar to Her face! what caused them to do this did she argue the tickets? Nope! (She is Swiss they are not like that)

No she she politely wished them a happy 4th of July and said thank you for their time. Their reply "YOU ARE A LIAR NO ONE LIKES GETTING A TICKET".

So Boys when your getting your arse kicked on the streets, and I don't come jumping in to save you like I used to don't get all offended because apparently the public are all scum in your eyes!

Many people experience epiphanies like this, unfortunately.

It's sad, really. When I was growing up, most folks (including me) liked and trusted the police. They weren't out to pin stupid shit on you. You really had to be an epic, spectacular idiot for them to even bother you. They went to the same gym as you and you'd talk with them like normal people. They acted like normal people even when they did make an "official" encounter with you, and not like officious jackwads.

Sadly, that is not the case these days.

And all gun owners are assault rifle hoarding nut jobs.  

Or are only doing gross generalizations for certain subject matter?

So instead of acknowledging reality and saying something like, "Yeah, too many cops are hut-hut dickheads these days, and everyone would be better off if that changed" ... you post this. Further proving my point.

Here's the problem, described in terms that might make more sense to you. You know how cops approach every contact with the understanding that the person they're contacting "could" be violent or a wanted felon? Even though "most" people aren't? Because the consequences of being off-guard and running into one of those are too high, and they're not sure what kind of person they're dealing with?

That's now a two way street because of the prevalence of the kinds of cops that Badger66 described. If you're not one of "those," then great, but you're left with a harder job because of those kinds. I have to assume that every cop I encounter for any reason is an officious asshole, because too many of them are these days and the consequences of misjudging are too high.

How did pointing out that gross generalizations are ridiculous prove your "point" that the police (not SOME police) are officious jackwads and are out to pin anything they can on citizens?

Perhaps if you approached encounters with LEOs with an open-mind you'd find more officers that also have them.  And Badger66 obviously had a bad experience but I'd like to know how many experiences he's had with law officers, and how many ended negative, neutral, or positively.  Because it seems to me he's made his mind up about all police based on one encounter with what sounds like a couple jerks that he and his wife should make demeanor complaints on.

If I get bitten by a dog I don't expect all dogs to bite me, I approach them knowing what could happen and make my judgement of their nature based on each interaction.

When you stop a car at night, do you invite the driver out for a chat and a cup of coffee to get to know him better and see if he's  a nice guy?

Or do you shine a bunch of bright lights into his car while you run the plate, check him for warrants, and make sure he's not out to get you?

If you don't want to acknowledge that there is a problem, then don't. Makes no difference to me. But when a highly educated white suburban guy with no record, who used to trust and respect cops, now treats them with suspicion, you do indeed have a serious problem. And I'm not an anomaly.

I don't invite the driver to do anything of the sort, I either issue a summons in accordance with the Code or I give him a warning.  If I determined that that person is a "nice guy" and chose not to issue a summons based on that, and would normally have issued a summons, that would be bias-based policing which is not proper.  

Would you prefer law officers base their work on personal feelings or adherence to Justice and impartiality as much as possible?

There are individual officers who are problems.  There are departments that allow endemic problems within their ranks.  However, there are far more officers and departments trying to  do the job the right way for the right reasons and  I don't care for their hard work and sacrifices being impugned carelessly along with the people who stained their own badges..

Eta

To give an example:

If a know Multiple felon narcotics dealer is driving along and a minister runs a red light and strikes the drug dealers vehicle, and during the accident investigation evidence of narcotics is found in the drug dealers vehicle and I arrest him for say PWID Cocaine, I will leave that scene with him in my backseat and a signed summons ordering the minister to come to traffic court for failure to stop at a red light in my file folder.

Or should that be handled differently because ones a nice guy?

Oh ok. So you will robotically do whatever the Code says, but the rest of us should be more "open minded?"

Should I not enforce the law as my job requires, as the politicians created, whom the citizens voted into office?

Not all law officer interactions, not 1/2 of them involve actual law breaking or code enforcement.  If the code requires something, then it's required, if it doesn't my options are open.  As I said, I could either give a summons or a warning but you ignored that part huh.

Hey, do whatever you want. Just don't act surprised and butthurt when people won't talk to you, cooperate with you, or help you in any way because you do something obnoxious (like suspicionless boat boardings) just because the Code says you can.

Thanks for not answering any questions on cross examination counselor.

Just returning the favor for your non-answer about lighting people up and checking them for warrants instead of keeping an open mind.

This has been an excellent exchange that has thoroughly reinforced my opinion about talking with cops.

Asked and answered.

Are you suggesting I conduct traffic stops without using lights, without running drivers licenses and without taking basic safety precautions like protecting my life on one of the single-most dangerous actions a law officer can do in his career which is proven statistically year after year?

You completely ignored and did not address in any way the question about lighting them up, running the plate and checking them for warrants, while expecting the public to keep an open mind about what kind of cop they're dealing with.

Are you suggesting that I blindly trust and cooperate with an armed agent of the state, whose job is to find reasons to arrest people, who has broad authority and immunity to use violence against me, and who may or may not be suitable for that job?

Of course I would do that, all of it.  the idea of not using lights to see what I'm doing at night is idiotic, and unsafe to other drivers on the road, the rest of it is even worse.

I shouldn't determine the ownership of a vehicle I've stopped for a traffic violation investigation?  I shouldn't check to make sure the driver is licensed and doesn't have outstanding warrants?  What exactly do you expect a police officer on a traffic stop to do?

You're a trip you know that?  

Right, because you don't know. Just like that driver doesn't know what kind of person you are, yet you want him to keep an open mind as you blind him and investigate him.

An open mind yes, to judge me on my actions and interactions, not what you're talking about where you're assuming I'm on some sort of nefarious traffic stop related power trip from the instant the red and blues come on in your rear-view.

So why don't you judge people based on that, not based on some assumption that they're a nefarious actor with warrants and a gun under the seat who is about to kill you?

Nothing in the Code requires you to blind them with lights, run them for warrants, etc.  - right?

What exactly about running someone I've stopped who's committed an infraction is somehow wrong and indicative of me being a bad police officer?

And I don't treat people as if they're diehard felons about to pull a gun on me,  where did I ever say such a thing?  You obviously have a very odd idea of what goes on during traffic stops.

Why do you blind people with lights and run them for warrants when you only stopped them for a minor traffic infraction?

None of that is required by the Code, right?

Not very open minded of you. It must be because you don't know and don't trust that person, yet you expect him to trust you?

Listen counselor, asked and answered on both counts, ad nauseum.  I'm not going to try to type out answers that you'll overlook or overrule all night, for the same repetitive questions when you can't answer a few simple ones of my own.

Oh and I hope you'll understand that I don't take advice on morals and principles of character from a man whose profession dictates that he bend his own like a cornstalk in front of a hurricane because a client threw money at him.

That means a lot coming from someone whose job is specifically empowered and permitted to lie and deceive in order to accomplish its tasks.

I can think of quite a few jobs like that.

Maverick, I would like to apologize for my part in the devolution of your thread.  I'm gonna leave y'all to it as I don't want to continue with a GD type conversation in the VAHTF.

Hey, as long as the cop goes home safe..


Forget about John Q. Public, they have not right to protect themselves from the justice you are about to serve...

Wow, THAT escalated quickly.  

The USCG doesnt need probable cause. They can stop and board any US flagged vessel at any time under the guise of a "safety inspection". Most aqua-cops have been deputized by the USCG to enforce federal laws as well as the local laws.

I dont agree with it but that might be how they get away with it.

The Revenue Act of 1790 made it legal to board ships to ensure tariffs were paid on imported cargo. This act was highly controversial at the time (especially with the likes of the Boston Tea Party), but a fledgling nation was strapped for cash and needed to follow the commerce .  The 4th Amendment does not apply vessels in service. In this sense the USCG has always been the super police.  However, their mission, equipment, and training is entirely different and often does not come across as harassment.  Where the USCG mission ends the VDGIF picks up and the focus has been game laws and illegal possession of wildlife.  In recent years the very well funded police departments have jumped into this b/c THEY CAN and they don't need a cause.......it's all about revenue enhancement and pleasure working while on holiday pay.   I'm not sure there has been any changes to the Revenue Act of 1790, but it probably needs to be revised if not trashed. ETA:  In a nutshell you have fewer rights on a boat and can't help but invite the Man in your life if they want to.  If they want to assume the worst of you and nit pic from a much longer list of potential violations they will find you worthy of a ticket.

There's a USCG unit on SML. I believe it's a small Auxiliary unit.

Both Bedford and Franklin counties have marine units. Which side of the lake was this on? Which Sheriff's Office?

This is the sort of bullshit that does not add to any discussion at all.

At least DBrowne and Boom21, while vehemently disagreeing, are keeping it on topic.

What flavor of po-po was it? I know Virginia Game Wardens have a lot more power than regular po-po when it comes to searches. In my area the Wardens do boat safety checks.

That said I suspect what with all the herp-derp on SML every summer the county cops might be getting in on the revenue action too.

On the water, boat searches/compliance inspections can be done by any LEA.  However, the premise of boat boarding was for tariffs on imports..............not Americans celebrating Independence Day on the lake.  I'm not against local PDs being on the water; however, I too have seen a conduct far less professional than from USCG/ VDGIF.  There is a worthy concern apparent in this thread.   To be able to search a boat for any reason they want is BS, un-American and born out of revenue enhancement.

If it's an auxiliary unit then it's highly unlikely that they are conducting any kind of involuntary or non-compliant boardings. They generally don't even have a boat or equipment although a few of them do. Coast Guard Auxiliary is mostly older folks who are into boating, and they mainly do "voluntary" safety inspections for boaters (to make sure the vessel will pass if boarded by someone else) and training for boaters.