# Stopped and boarded by Homeland Security at Galv. Jetties



## Johnboat (Jun 7, 2004)

Yep. Friday coming in from offshore fishing. Semi-rigid inflatable with pilot house and triple outboards. I thought I had seen it all (LEO-wise) as a fisherman. Checked all compartments, chests, etc. Said it was random. Me and a friend with his 8 year old daughter. Next I guess the EPA will pull me over


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

Get used to it, friend. This 4th has been bittersweet for me.


----------



## berto1900 (Jun 18, 2009)

what were they lookin for?


----------



## crw91383 (Nov 21, 2008)

Yeah I have seen them out on the water a bunch lately. They store that thing at the Yacht Basin.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

Guns, drugs, bombs.... anything illegal... they are just doing their job, trying to keep our port safe....


----------



## Tortuga (May 21, 2004)

justinsfa said:


> Guns, drugs, bombs.... anything illegal... they are just doing their job, trying to keep our port safe....


You called it..anyone remember the USS Cole in Yemen... What a small boat with explosives can do..

Let's all hope Homeland Security boys do their job..


----------



## capt. stealth (Jul 7, 2008)

Did they ask for your TWIC card? I am surprised you don't have to have one to be on the water.


----------



## bzrk180 (Jan 7, 2008)

justinsfa said:


> Guns, drugs, bombs.... anything illegal... they are just doing their job, trying to keep our port safe....


I can understand them looking in vehicles to get on the ferry or to get into certain areas because you could refuse and not use the ferry or go into that area but to board you and do a search like that without a warrant and call it "random"???

Man, people, wake up!! You really dont think this is one more step towards a police state?


----------



## bzrk180 (Jan 7, 2008)

> Tortuga said:
> 
> 
> > You called it..anyone remember the USS Cole in Yemen... What a small boat with explosives can do..
> ...


----------



## cobia 254 cc (Jun 10, 2006)

yep, half of the folks on here wont mind giving up all their rights. 

People we are headed down a devastating road here. We are being stripped of our rights to freedom.

And at an alarming pace. 

SAD day, my grandpa has to be rolling over in his grave.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

I thought that if you chose to use waters that access the port, that you were open to be searched, I know its like that at all the refineries, and I think it should be the same for people that have water access to them as well....

And these boys are federal, not state, correct? And arent they military? Like the Coast Guard?

Its kind of like all the people complaining about having to take their shoes off at the airport... if making people take their shoes off at a security check keeps terrorists from collapsing 3 buildings, crashing 4 airplanes and killing thousands of innocent civilians, then take your damnn shoes off...

I dont know if you have noticed, but our ports and refineries are NOT very well guarded... I think they should actually be doing much more to protect them... Do you know what is in the Port of Houston??? Do you know how detrimental a terrorist attack on the Port of Houston would be to America??? 

If some terrorist had gotten into the port and blown something up, you people would be whining and crying because Homeland Security didnt do their job....

And if they randomly check your vessel in port waters, you whine and cry just the same. 

So whats it gonna be folks, some guys boarding your boat and checking it out just to be on the safe side and having the piece of mind that our tax payer money is going to protecting our country????

Or not seeing any patrols and just crossing your fingers and hoping that the terrorists dont choose Houston as their target next time.... 

These boardings help keep everybody safe.... If your not doing anything you arent supposed to, then you shouldnt be worried...

Were the Homeland folks rude to you or something? Is there a reason why you are upset???


----------



## Instigator (Jul 6, 2004)

It's easy to see both sides on this one. The is no question that our rights erode every day. And on the other hand I don't think that there's much question that in today's world we need increased vigilance. That's just the reality of 2009. Think about what it must be like for the HS guys, or any LEO for that matter. We describe offshore fishing as hours of boredom punctuated with seconds of chaos but it isn't anything compared to what those guys live. They can come board me anytime for some practice and to keep their minds sharp. Now if stuff starts getting confiscated or we're unreasonably detained then I'll start screaming police state right along with you.


----------



## CHARLIE (Jun 2, 2004)

Ya know I just think some folks dont realize we are at war rite now and the enemy will and has done its best to kill Americans. I support any move that might save someones life. Giving up rights, you should have been around in WW2

Charlie


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Now come on folks, there is no such thing as a "right" not to be stopped for inspection by a certified marine safety officer such as the Coast Guard. The ability to have and operate a boat is a privilege, just like driving a car. Any authority has the right to stop you such as for a routine traffic stop. 

There are differences in land versus nautical law. For example, with a car or truck on land one can have a checkpoint, or a LEO needs "probably cause" to pull you over. Well, there are no roads or checkpoints at sea, and for centuries is an authorized vessel of the government approached your vessel, one had to submit to a boarding. The authorities have the ability to ask for documentation and safety items, including any passengers or cargo (fish). If somebody appears sick on your vessel, your boat can be quarantined. Indeed, if you ever take your boat to Mexico, the Bahamas, or islands in the Caribbean, you have to pull down the US flag and run up a yellow quarantine flag. That's part of the Laws of the Sea.

What "rights" do you think you have to not be searched? This is nothing new, and not something that came up after 9/11 or in the Obama administration. It's always been there since our country was founded. Boats, vessels, and ships were regulated centuries before the automobile was even invented. You should check the history of boating such as about the US Customs regarding early shipping, or the rum runners and Coast Guard of the 1920s. I fail to see why folks are so upset.


----------



## Mr. Tuffy (May 5, 2005)

Those guys are slipped right next to me @GYB. Its not inflatable though, trip 275 verados w/pilot house. Sweet freakin ride. I told one guy, "hey, you need to take me for a ride because I help pay for that thing..." yeah, that was really smart of me. I just crawled back into my A/C w/22nd cold beer in hand.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

The price we are paying for "security" these days is out of control. 2 million dollars per year for the ferry. Running triple engine "enforcement" boats. Stopping lawyers driving Boston Whalers. It seems to me that we are spending money first, and not holding anyone accountable for results. To me, it's sadly inefficient.


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

Mont said:


> The price we are paying for "security" these days is out of control. 2 million dollars per year for the ferry. Running triple engine "enforcement" boats. Stopping lawyers driving Boston Whalers. It seems to me that we are spending money first, and not holding anyone accountable for results. To me, it's sadly inefficient.


Yes, but how many boats out there will even outrun triple engine boats?? I have seen a handful with quads... even triple 300s... So even the HS boys might be outrun...

I once asked a game warden why they put such HUGE engines on small boats, and he said that they "never wanted to be wishing they had more engine,"... whether it be racing to run down a criminal or racing to rescue people off of a sinking vessel....

I will not argue that the government is very inefficient, BUT, I will say that their spending stimulates the economy when nothing else does, keeping employees and contractors employed, even if the money is ours to begin with...

And as Toby Keith said, "Freedom don't come Free"... and that just doesnt mean with giving life, but moneys as well...


----------



## Haynie79 (Oct 30, 2008)

If you are not hiding anything why worry about it?


----------



## monster (Apr 11, 2008)

I dont' have any problem with them doing random searches, if they are trying to protect the country....BUT...seeing how we don't often bother tracking down illegals, and our border security is a joke....it seems like maybe this is more for show than protection. I'm not trying to knock our LEOs...but instead our government, our lawmakers, and our policies. Secure the border and deport illegals if you want to show that you're serious.


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Mont said:


> The price we are paying for "security" these days is out of control. 2 million dollars per year for the ferry. Running triple engine "enforcement" boats. Stopping lawyers driving Boston Whalers. It seems to me that we are spending money first, and not holding anyone accountable for results. To me, it's sadly inefficient.


Well that is a valid point. Remember I'm down here close by Mexico so I see the Coasties, Border Patrol, TPWD, DEA, why all these folks need triple Yammies on custom go-fast boats seems really weird. The only kind I didn't see were the NMFS and port security boats. They're not catching a lot more stuff, but they spent millions and millions of taxpayer money. Mostly, they seem to be messing with innocent "drive by" people. It seems a tad bit insane.

Meanwhile, our mid-size and coastal cutters are falling apart, mostly stuff built in the 70s. You don't stop a freighter ship with a gnat of a boat, you need a serious coastal defense vessel. The ones we're making like up in Pascagoula are so expensive and poorly designed two models were tied up at the dock for fears they might break in half! It's kind of a big joke and it's on us. Good point.


----------



## capt. stealth (Jul 7, 2008)

*Rights*

What rights it seems to me it is going down hill faster senses January 20, 2009! *Republic of Texas:texasflag*


----------



## MMMMGOOD (Aug 16, 2005)

justinsfa said:


> I thought that if you chose to use waters that access the port, that you were open to be searched, I know its like that at all the refineries, and I think it should be the same for people that have water access to them as well....
> 
> And these boys are federal, not state, correct? And arent they military? Like the Coast Guard?
> 
> ...


I didn see anything in the original post where he said he was upset, It was more like an informational post.

Anyhow I do see everyones point I agree that there alot of tax dollars spent so that thse guys can roll up on us in high tech, high power. water sleds.

If this is the price I have to pay to be safe at home then fine search my vessle. After all terrorism can happen any time anywhere history has proven that, lets just all hope its not here............on US soil I mean...........


----------



## willyhunting (Apr 21, 2006)

capt. stealth said:


> What rights it seems to me it is going down hill faster senses January 20, 2009! *Republic of Texas:texasflag*


Just the Man tryin' to keep us down!!!


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

What does a terrorist look like?


----------



## Porky (Nov 1, 2006)

At least they didn't have 3 guys aiming M-16's at you while the search was conducted.


----------



## TheAnt (Jul 1, 2008)

There are attracive sites along the coast that I, for one, believe should never have been built where they are. I would not want to live where many people do.

I am VERY glad to see some activity. IMO they should block off certain places, sorry but that is simple fact. In some cases things were built before all of this terrorist era. Some, however could have been aborted and done at a more secureable place with fewer people frequenting the area.

The right answer is to move them. It would cost many millions but the alternative is that sooner or later imminent domain will be used to make people move from their life long homes. I value private land liberty before commercial convebience.

Many folks just don't know what the terrorist knows about our homeland.


----------



## miguel4 (Aug 12, 2005)

A little common sense goes a long ways...


----------



## TheAnt (Jul 1, 2008)

Hooked Up © said:


> What does a terrorist look like?


Statistically quite predictably, mideastern, 20s through 50s, slim male.

All of the hijackers of 911 were Arabian.

Yea, yea, Tim McVeigh... he is an exception. If we had the intelligence to cast political correctness aside we might expect far more recruitment among black, hispanic, and white Americans.


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

TheAnt said:


> Statistically quite predictably, mideastern, 20s through 50s, slim male.


Finally being un-slim and pasty is to my advantage:cheers:


----------



## Texas Trophy Hunter (Aug 19, 2005)

They are not supposed to profile but they would be fools not to. The poster mentioned he had a kid on board. It kind of gets my goat when they waste time on someone like that. Why not do a "random" search on a boat with better odds of finding something. 

Reminds me of when airport security took my 8 yr old daughter aside to do a search because the jeans she was wearing had zipper pockets. Scared her to death. she was a big girl about it but as soon as they "released" her she fell apart crying.


----------



## Hotrod (Oct 11, 2006)

Hooked Up © said:


> What does a terrorist look like?


Like this guy. Careful, he's armed and dangerous:smile:


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

Did any of yall ever watch that series on ABC earlier this year about the border patrols and coast guard and homeland security?? Heck I think it was called Homeland Security...

Anyway, half the people that they caught smuggling drugs or weapons had kids with them... its an easy way to blend in a look innocent....

BUT, if it were random, if wouldnt matter if you had kids aboard or not.... Random is exactly that, random....


----------



## Brassnadz (Jun 18, 2007)

Haynie79 said:


> If you are not hiding anything why worry about it?


Will you feel the same way when they come for your guns?


----------



## Haute Pursuit (Jun 26, 2006)

Considering we are all not many miles away from petro-chem devastation... it would not bother me to be boarded and searched so long as they were not arses about doing it. I'm personally glad they have a presence. I don't understand the "random search" aspect but maybe there are attorneys and legal issues involved...


----------



## troutomatic1488 (Jun 18, 2006)

You don't need a boat you can drive your pickup within a couple hundred yards of just about any petro-chem plant in txcity. That scares the heck out of me


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

Homeland security is a joke and a very bad one at that.


----------



## H2 (Jan 11, 2005)

Mont said:


> The price we are paying for "security" these days is out of control. 2 million dollars per year for the ferry. Running triple engine "enforcement" boats. Stopping lawyers driving Boston Whalers. It seems to me that we are spending money first, and not holding anyone accountable for results. To me, it's sadly inefficient.


I agree. I just got back tonight from a cruise to Alaska on the "Star Princess" we made 3 stops in Alaska and 1 in Canada out of Seattle. Without exception, including the airports in Seattle and Houston all TSA and port security was poor at best, mostly manned by the same type of people that Wal Mart hires. 
We were not even required to present passports in Victoria, BC. Just had to deal with Princess Cruise Line security. Even when we got off the ship this morning the Fed's just glanced at our passports some did not even look at your picture. 
All this Homeland Security bs is a touchy feel good deal. They want the general public to think that we are safer today than we were 9-11-01. I agree that we should be doing more today than then but we are spending way to much money for what we are getting.


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

From a Ben Franklin article:

*"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"*


----------



## En Fuego (Jul 26, 2006)

Before people start piping off about why they got stopped, you should actually ASK a Coastie or other LEO what they DO find on these random stops. You would be blown away.

I have 2 cousins in the Coast Guard who are on these sorts of patrols.


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

Snagged said:


> Homeland security is a joke and a very bad one at that.


 I have to admit that I have mixed emotions about that one. Seems to me that we have "visible" deterrents and "non-visible" deterents under the H/S umbrella. Both have there purpose(s). It's the "non-visible" that is more likely to bring the desired results IMHO. Nonetheless, the so called "warm and fuzzy" stuff isn't ALL bad. I was boarded (underway / making way) for 45 minutes while bringing a large sportfisherman to Clear Lake from down South. Didn't bother me at all. Like it or not, times have "already" changed. Respectfully, H/U


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

I don't have anything to hide and personally don't care for "random" stops. When I was a kid on Clear Lake and Clear Creek, it was common to be stopped several times a day for "life jackets" and such. "Homeland security" has made flying a very miserable experience these days and now it's spreading to the water. I haven't had the pleasure of meeting one on these people on the water, but the ones in the airports are unemployable for any position except the one they hold as some agent or part of HS. We are spending billions of dollars every year on what amounts to a joke. If you want homeland security, start by closing down our borders. Then, export everyone that is here illegally. I happen to know John, personally, and a "random stop" of a well dressed, clean cut white guy in a clean boston whaler is a pathetic excuse for so called security.


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

> I happen to know John, personally, and a "random stop" of a well dressed, clean cut white guy in a clean boston whaler is a pathetic excuse for so called security.


 Not arguing that at all. Unfortunately, we live in such a litiginous society nowadays that the "powers that be" find themselves in a no-win situation if they don't "spread the love" a little. If they target only dark skinned folks with white towels in their boat they are sued for "profiling". That costs us even more taxpayer money and also takes manpower / valuable personnel off of the water to testify in court. It's a no win situation IMHO. In the OP I keyed on the fact that they had a little girl on board immediately and that bugged me too. Like I said; "mixed emotions" on this one.  H/U


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

Guy, having known you most of my life, don't take this personally, but I would chalk that stop up to screwing off.


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

Mont said:


> Guy, having known you most of my life, don't take this personally, but I would chalk that stop up to screwing off.


 LOL! Can't argue that. It most certainly happens. Thinking back (way back), I may even guilty of that H/U


----------



## dragnet (Jun 14, 2005)

Swells said:


> Now come on folks, there is no such thing as a "right" not to be stopped for inspection by a certified marine safety officer such as the Coast Guard. The ability to have and operate a boat is a privilege, just like driving a car. Any authority has the right to stop you such as for a routine traffic stop.
> 
> There are differences in land versus nautical law. For example, with a car or truck on land one can have a checkpoint, or a LEO needs "probably cause" to pull you over. Well, there are no roads or checkpoints at sea, and for centuries is an authorized vessel of the government approached your vessel, one had to submit to a boarding. The authorities have the ability to ask for documentation and safety items, including any passengers or cargo (fish). If somebody appears sick on your vessel, your boat can be quarantined. Indeed, if you ever take your boat to Mexico, the Bahamas, or islands in the Caribbean, you have to pull down the US flag and run up a yellow quarantine flag. That's part of the Laws of the Sea.
> 
> What "rights" do you think you have to not be searched? This is nothing new, and not something that came up after 9/11 or in the Obama administration. It's always been there since our country was founded. Boats, vessels, and ships were regulated centuries before the automobile was even invented. You should check the history of boating such as about the US Customs regarding early shipping, or the rum runners and Coast Guard of the 1920s. I fail to see why folks are so upset.


 He is upset because the fourth amendment is supposed to protect us from unreasonable searches and seizures. I think common sense has flown the coop if you think boarding a small craft with a child and obvious fisherman on board is anything but unreasonable. Common sense should apply, just like my grandmother not being required to take her shoes off at the airport. This is government out of control. Period. And anyone with COMMON SENSE knows it.


----------



## no_worries (Apr 14, 2009)

Guys I have been to the sandbox as a Marine infantry man and seen what a terrorist looks like first hand, and I can tell you from experience that there is no profile for one. Ive seen a woman with a kid in the back seat blow her self up at a check point. As a resident of the League City area I am glad that they do what they do and am willing to allow it on my boat any time. Consider yourself lucky you werent in a 50' Viking coming back from two days on the water, while unknown to you the recently separated ex wife had placed an anonymous call to the Coast Guard about a boat just like yours bringing dope and weapons from Mexico. That would suck a lot worse.


----------



## perch_jerker (Jun 22, 2009)

Careful Hot rod, I see U R an eye ball poker a tree hugger gonna git U.. Nice pogy biggest I've seen, good to eat better on a 9/0 octapus hook.... ;-)


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Swells said:


> Now come on folks, there is no such thing as a "right" not to be stopped for inspection by a certified marine safety officer such as the Coast Guard. The ability to have and operate a boat is a privilege, just like driving a car. Any authority has the right to stop you such as for a routine traffic stop....What "rights" do you think you have to not be searched?.... I fail to see why folks are so upset.


Uhmm, its a little right called the Fourth Amendment, Part of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Just because its being done does not make it okay. So, some folks are upset that, like you, the government does not seem to know, or care, that we do in fact have basic rights, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

*Amendment IV*

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


----------



## texas32 (Jun 16, 2005)

In regards to the 'Dept. of Homeland Security' -- what some people might not be aware of is that the USCG and the Dept. of Homeland Security are basically the same thing. For example my Vessel Documentation paper reads:

Department of Homeland Security
United States Coast Guard

I remember right after 9/11 the USCG escorting the Cruise ships in and out of Galveston and periodically escorting the ferry. I personally don't miss the 'pucker factor' that came with that program. You know-coming in from a fishing trip and passing an escort and having a 50 Cal trained on your boat.

Jay


----------



## johnmyjohn (Aug 6, 2006)

jig said:


> Uhmm, its a little right called the Fourth Amendment, Part of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Just because its being done does not make it okay. So, some folks are upset that, like you, the government does not seem to know, or care, that we do in fact have basic rights, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> *Amendment IV*
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Hit the nail on the head. If we all talk long enough we too will not see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Action Jackson_1 (Nov 18, 2008)

Amen Brother!!



monster said:


> I dont' have any problem with them doing random searches, if they are trying to protect the country....BUT...seeing how we don't often bother tracking down illegals, and our border security is a joke....it seems like maybe this is more for show than protection. I'm not trying to knock our LEOs...but instead our government, our lawmakers, and our policies. Secure the border and deport illegals if you want to show that you're serious.


----------



## bigscrnman (Feb 19, 2009)

jig said:


> Uhmm, its a little right called the Fourth Amendment, Part of the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Just because its being done does not make it okay. So, some folks are upset that, like you, the government does not seem to know, or care, that we do in fact have basic rights, specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
> 
> *Amendment IV*
> 
> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


That little part of the Constitution was tossed in the crapper when congress passed the "patriot act"! It seems to have slipped under the radar that the "bill of rights" has already ceased to exist, and nothing short of a massive mobilization by the voting public at large is going to change that. I won't go into a long political rant here, I will however say that if you did not see this coming you have had your head someplace dark and quiet!

Dewayne:texasflag


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

bigscrnman said:


> That little part of the Constitution was tossed in the crapper when congress passed the "patriot act"! It seems to have slipped under the radar that the "bill of rights" has already ceased to exist, and nothing short of a massive mobilization by the voting public at large is going to change that. I won't go into a long political rant here, I will however say that if you did not see this coming you have had your head someplace dark and quiet!
> 
> Dewayne:texasflag


The Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971 allows the government, mainly through the Coast Guard, to inspect any all recreational boats. This Act has withstood review by the US Supreme Court, which of course must find if the Act is constitutional or not. The Act as amended allows the Secretary to require:


A method of numbering boats for identification
Cooperating efforts with states and local governments
Sufficient patrols to enforce the provisions of the Act
A boater education program
Prior to this law, only commercial boats over a certain tonnage, length, or purpose were required to be inspected. Given the popularity of boating in the 60s and thereafter, there were many accidents from recreational boats, some with "drag racing" potential. The Act was a direct response to this growing problem. It has even been ruled that the Act supersedes all common or "tort" laws. See 46 US Code Section 1451 and following, which even regulates boat design.

It's the law, man. Many have tried to overturn the law and have failed.


----------



## RockportRobert (Dec 29, 2006)

Put that frog in cool water, then slowly raise the heat...............


----------



## EGT Limited (Jul 30, 2004)

Harasssing the obviously innocent as a show of force does nothing but turn the law abiding citizen against the law. Will I cooperate with a LEO? Nope get a warrant.


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Swells, just because it's a 'law' does not make it legal. We have many judges sitting with a 'legislate from the bench' mentality. Many 'laws' are passed that are eventually overturned by the Supreme Court as unconsitutional. Just because they don't overturn all bad 'laws' does not make the few they miss more legal. The Supreme Court even overturns its own decisions on occasion. This is why it is so important (and was the most important aspect of the last election, IMO) to ensure to take appropriate political action to ensure you have consitutional judges appointed, and not legislative ones. No where in the Constitution is there a provision that it is a 'living' document (at least not that I am aware).


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

EGT Limited said:


> Harasssing the obviously innocent as a show of force does nothing but turn the law abiding citizen against the law. Will I cooperate with a LEO? Nope get a warrant.


The men who boarded 4 airline flights in September of 2001 were obviously innocent as well... No one even paid any attention to them....

Then they hijacked the planes and killed thousands of people....

Listen to the Marine on here.... there is no specific LOOK to a terrorist... the only way to truly tell is to check...

Kazinski and McVey look like half the people I see fishing at the jetties.... how can you know who is innocent and not???


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Gosh folks, no need to get excited, personal, or boil frogs. None of us like being boarded and it's a pain in the Ess. 

But the fact is that until further notice, the LEOs have broad enforcement authority on the waters due to the Texas Water Safety Act and the Federal Boat Safety Act. 

In general there are two kinds of "orders" used for inspections and boardings. One is targeted, such as an accident, MAYDAY, complaint or tip-off about a commercial fisherman, or a suspected drug runner on the radar (illegal Mexican fishermen are a big deal here). 

The other kind of orders is to do random searches. This often takes in "innocent" boats but that is done on purpose. 

As one person already mentioned, you should know better than be out on the waters on the 4th of July weekend, since that's when more LEOs are on orders than any other time of the year. 

If you really want some excitement in your life, try running away from a Coastie or Game Warden before he or she can board your boat. I look forward to your "constitutional" argument in front of the judge! I need some laughs around here anyway ...


----------



## BIG PAPPA (Apr 1, 2008)

*WOW GUYS*

Reading some of these post's, I thought i was in the Jungle. When was the Last Time the Texas Coastline had a Terrorist act? When was the last time the Texas Coast had a Refinery Blown up? When was the last time an Offshore Production platform was blown up due to Terroristic activities??
Thank a Soldier, Our Coast Gaurd, and our Homeland Security.
I was Boarded the weekend Chenney shot that guy in the face a couple years back by two of the nicest guys (with Homeland Security), and i told them, i have been fishing these waters for over 40 years and not once have i ever run into Homeland Security.. The Gentlemen Nicely stated " That's because we are out here Working when You're in bed Sleeping".
They can board my Boat anytime.


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

justinsfa, you're right. And the only way to be sure, I mean absolutely sure (which is what we want, right?), is to check everyone. Just like you said, how can you know who is innocent and not? So we should all be locked up, until we can all be checked, just to be sure we are all safe from one another. We should all have to be approved before we can get in our car (each and every time); otherwise how can we be sure the guy next to us is not DUI? We should all be approved before we buy a knife (it used to be guns when we let the politician register them, but people get killed with knives too ya know). Oh, and hammers, and rocks.

Sorry, I think I just went into "Jungle" territory. Maybe we should submit every post to appropriate moderator in advace to ensure they go to the right forum.


----------



## bzrk180 (Jan 7, 2008)

> So whats it gonna be folks, some guys boarding your boat and checking it out just to be on the safe side and having the piece of mind that our tax payer money is going to protecting our country????


I think I prefer that my rights as an American Citizen not be violated and show the respect to every fallen soldier who has given the ultimate sacrifice to protect that right&#8230;..Yeah, I think I prefer that!!

Also, airports and other places you list&#8230;Those searches are done because you CHOOSE to use private aircraft and you can always choose to drive. 




> The ability to have and operate a boat is a privilege, just like driving a car. Any authority has the right to stop you such as for a routine traffic stop.


And even with a car, an officer (federal or local) does NOT have the right to search your vehicle at random and without a warrant&#8230;Now, give them permission and that is different.




> If you are not hiding anything why worry about it?


Because every time I sacrifice and give in to the government treading on my rights as an American, I spit on each and every grave of each brave soldier who gave their life to protect that right&#8230; That's why!!
AND, with each and every action I allow the Govt to do that is a violation of my rights, I am saying its just that much more OK to take the next one...
Man...WOW!!




> If this is the price I have to pay to be safe at home then fine search my vessel


Right&#8230; I agree&#8230;but ASK ME and I will probably give you permission (which maybe the OP did) but to simply stop me, board me and then go through my stuff&#8230;Well, that is a violation of my right. AND, I should maintain the RIGHT to *refuse *an unreasonable search




> After all terrorism can happen any time anywhere history has proven that, lets just all hope its not here


And studies have been done AFTER 911 that Homeland Security hasn't really done anything to minimize that threat. People still get through checkpoints, people still get things on airplanes, etc&#8230;So, are you willing to give up your rights for something that isn't making a difference??? The idea that you are willing to give them up at all is simply allowing the Govt to have more control and it seems the argument here lately is just that&#8230;Govt is getting too much control!




> Will you feel the same way when they come for your guns?


AMEN!!!!




> Homeland security is a joke and a very bad one at that.


See SNAGGED&#8230;We do agree on some things!! What is the world coming too?? LOL!!


----------



## FLAT FISHY (Jun 22, 2006)

Yep and everyone on here that is complaining about loosing rights because some one in State waters got boarded would be the FIRST ones saying something should have been done when the TC docks get blown apart by a EVIL DOer and diesel for their F350's runs em $5.90 a gallon .


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Nope, you're missing the idea completely. The Coast Guard and TPWD officers have many other functions besides terrorism, which is a very new thing. They do boat safety, fishing regulations, rescues, drug interdiction, pollution issues, immigration, and so forth. Nobody said their primary duty was to run off the terrorists. You're cooking up that answer on your own.

In fact, many complained because the Coast Guard now usually refuses to tow people these days unless the crew is in immediate danger. They'll refer you to a towing company instead, and even call one for you. But many protested because they thought they had "rights" as a taxpaying US citizen for a free tow. What "rights?"

Of all the branches of the US military, the Coast Guard is the least prepared for any terrorist strike. In fact for years they were part of the US Department of Transportation, but were moved to Homeland Security. I have high respect for the men and women in the Coast Guard, who are even today fighting to defend the Port of Basra over in Iraq. They work for long hours and low pay to keep YOU safe. I just don't get it. If they board your boat all the suddenly they're your enemy? You lost me there, grasshopper.


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Swells, I don't know if you are responding to my post, but I don't think I or anyone else said the CG is our enemy. These are outstanding folks doing an outstanding job. Same with law enforcement, etc., etc. However, the "law" they are enforcing, should they chose to search any person's boat, car, house, person, whatever without a warrent or probable cause is illegal. The various branches of government condoning it does not make it any more legal. I don't have anything to hide (for that matter, I don't even own a boat), but I do have certain rights as an American that I don't like to see eroded. I honestly do not know what I would do in the event I was asked permission to be searched, but I like to think I would politely decline without a warrent or probable cause. I know above, in this day and age, is a pipe dream, but I like to think there are still rights, and the politicians trampling them bothers me.

Again, not harping on the officers; they are just doing their jobs. But, then again, so were the firemen in 'Farenheit 451.'


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

jig said:


> Swells, I don't know if you are responding to my post, but I don't think I or anyone else said the CG is our enemy. These are outstanding folks doing an outstanding job. Same with law enforcement, etc., etc. However, the "law" they are enforcing, should they chose to search any person's boat, car, house, person, whatever without a warrent or probable cause is illegal. The various branches of government condoning it does not make it any more legal. I don't have anything to hide (for that matter, I don't even own a boat), but I do have certain rights as an American that I don't like to see eroded. I honestly do not know what I would do in the event I was asked permission to be searched, but I like to think I would politely decline without a warrent or probable cause. I know above, in this day and age, is a pipe dream, but I like to think there are still rights, and the politicians trampling them bothers me.
> 
> Again, not harping on the officers; they are just doing their jobs. But, then again, so were the firemen in 'Farenheit 451.'


A coast guard search without a warrant is not illegal. The coast guard is also exempted from Posse Comitadas (sp?) the law that says armed forces cannot enforce domestic law. Also, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (which our representatives voted for) granted them even broader authority to search vessels for enforcement of Port Safety on top of the authority they also have for inspections related to safety of life at sea, fishing regulations, and illegal immigration. Maritime law is a totally different realm than what applies back on land or when your vessel is tied up to the dock


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

FLAT FISHY said:


> Yep and everyone on here that is complaining about loosing rights because some one in State waters got boarded would be the FIRST ones saying something should have been done when the TC docks get blown apart by a EVIL DOer and diesel for their F350's runs em $5.90 a gallon .


You hit the nail on the head. The people that complain about this will be the first people to point fingers at the government to say that they were not doing their job.

Alot of you are forgetting that its not all about the physical boarding of vessels. The HS and CG presense in itself is just as effective because it acts as a deterrent. Terrorists and criminals act on points of weakness. If there is no presence of authority in our waterways, its like a big billboard that says "He guys! They aren't paying attention to their ports! Lets get them there!"

And trust me, the Texas coast is a red dot on their map. Its the hub of what runs this nation.... OIL.... Everybody remember when intelligence reported that they uncovered the word PASADENA in some terrorist documents?? Im pretty sure they didnt mean California guys...

These guys are trying to keep us safe... they arent targetting people just because they are bored and need to meet a boater check quota... if they were doing that, dont you think they would be much happier meeting their quota up on Lake Conroe where they can look at all the tiny bikinis?? haha

But seriously, we have all used the term " Well I never would have thought,"... Or even better!!! All of the people that get interviewed on the news about their neighbor being a serial killer or terrorist... "He seemed like a nice person. I never would have guessed he could be capable of that."

That, my friends, is why random searches are done.... to increase the chances of catching something like that....


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

PS... Im not too fond of alot of the decisions that the government makes (ESPECIALLY ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION!!!!)... but I think that Homeland Security is extremely necessary...

Its our only form of physical protection from attack....


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Then I'll tell you how it works. The Coast Guard has the ability to board any vessel and see if there is a condition of noncompliance. If they do find something, they have the ability to impound the boat. At that time they will ask the chain of command for a warrant to officially "search" the vessel. Such a warrant must be granted before doing anything. This search may involve ripping out the decks, fuel tanks, bulkheads, and anything that prevents them from doing their job. I hope this is starting to make some sense now. :work:


----------



## Kenner21 (Aug 25, 2005)

TROUTOMATIC said:


> You don't need a boat you can drive your pickup within a couple hundred yards of just about any petro-chem plant in txcity. That scares the heck out of me


That goes for the ship channel as well, all of this TWIC card stuff hasn't made my place of employment one bit safer. It's hard for some people to swallow but if a terrorists wants to blow up something and is willing to give his life doing so there isn't much we can do. I know that sucks but prove me to me otherwise, please someone.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

As long as we are only violating US citizen's rights it seems to be ok. But God forbid we profile or offend a foreigner.


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

Pocketfisherman said:


> A coast guard search without a warrant is not illegal. The coast guard is also exempted from Posse Comitadas (sp?) the law that says armed forces cannot enforce domestic law. Also, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (which our representatives voted for) granted them even broader authority to search vessels for enforcement of Port Safety on top of the authority they also have for inspections related to safety of life at sea, fishing regulations, and illegal immigration. Maritime law is a totally different realm than what applies back on land or when your vessel is tied up to the dock


Please show me in the US constitution the exemption for the USGC from Article IV of the bill of rights. Anything that is contrary to the US constitution is unconstitutional, period. Regardless of some other law that says it is okay. As someone once said, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

And how can you compare search without a warrent or just cause to the red snapper fishing situation? I am concerned about drugs, so it should be okay to do a random search (to the extent Swells mentioned above) on whomever we please, because it is in the best interests of society? I want all illegal activity stopped, and violaters put under the jail. This does not mean I want innocent citizens basic constitutional rights violated in the process.

You folks are looking at (and further supporting) the erosion of the most basis rights in the constitution, because it is convenient to you personally, right now. In this case, it is under the guise of making you safer. When will you draw the line that the government has gone too far in violating your rights to make you "safe?"


----------



## The Savage Nation (Sep 22, 2006)

well if we could keep better track of the ppl comin n goin in this country, we might not need to search joe the plumber, those dirtbags were arabic.... so why the need to search a good ole country boy in his boat? The gubermint made mistakes on 9/11 so why is everyone so quick to hand more power or RESPONSIBILITY over to the g u b e r m i n t? The point is YOU need to be more involved in the diligent work of securing your country. You should be VERY slow to delegate your precious duties as a citizen over to the government.


----------



## Pocketfisherman (May 30, 2005)

jig said:


> Please show me in the US constitution the exemption for the USGC from Article IV of the bill of rights. Anything that is contrary to the US constitution is unconstitutional, period. Regardless of some other law that says it is okay. As someone once said, I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
> 
> And how can you compare search without a warrent or just cause to the red snapper fishing situation? I am concerned about drugs, so it should be okay to do a random search (to the extent Swells mentioned above) on whomever we please, because it is in the best interests of society? I want all illegal activity stopped, and violaters put under the jail. This does not mean I want innocent citizens basic constitutional rights violated in the process.
> 
> You folks are looking at (and further supporting) the erosion of the most basis rights in the constitution, because it is convenient to you personally, right now. In this case, it is under the guise of making you safer. When will you draw the line that the government has gone too far in violating your rights to make you "safe?"


First off, I was stating fact, and not my opinion. I'm on your side in beleiving this has gotten way out of hand with the liberties we have given up. But, the way to get them back is through the legal system challenging those laws. Unfortunately, this has been done with respect to the US Coast Guard since the 1800's. There's a great paper summarizing the a great deal of the case law behind the Fourth amendment here if you want some heavy reading:

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/5781108/4th-Amendment-US-Constitution--Search-and-Seizure

The Constitution outranks the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. All three outrank agency policies and practices. The Constitution is a single piece of paper, but the court decisions that have interpreted it fill libraries. When there is a conflict between what the Constitution says (including the content of all those decisions) and the U.S. Code (specifically 14USC89), the conflict gets resolved in favor the Constitution. The conflict most often exists with the Fourth Amendment; All searches have to be reasonable. You can't justify an unreasonable search using 14USC89. To sum up an awful lot of case law, a reasonable search normally requires both "probable cause" and a search warrant. You can also have a reasonable search where there is "probable cause" and some recognized exception to the warrant requirement (like an exigency or where the search involves a vehicle (see U.S. v Ross)). There are also certain circumstances that allow for a search without any probable cause (Border Crossings (see U.S. v Moreno-Vargas and U.S. v Odutayo) and regulatory inspections (see U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez))

The full text of 14 USC 89 is 
(a) The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, 
inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the 
prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty 
officers *may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, 
address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship's documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all
necessary force to compel compliance.* When from such inquiries, examination, inspection, or search it appears that a breach of the 
laws of the United States rendering a person liable to arrest is being, or has been committed, by any person, such person shall be 
arrested or, if escaping to shore, shall be immediately pursued and arrested on shore, or other lawful and appropriate action shall be taken or, if it shall appear that a breach of the laws of the United States has been committed so as to render such vessel, or 
the merchandise, or any part thereof, on board of, or brought into the United States by, such vessel, liable to forfeiture, or so as
to render such vessel liable to a fine or penalty and if necessary to secure such fine or penalty, such vessel or such merchandise, or 
both, shall be seized. 
(b) The officers of the Coast Guard insofar as they are engaged, pursuant to the authority contained in this section, in enforcing 
any law of the United States shall:

(1) be deemed to be acting as agents of the particular executive department or independent establishment charged with the administration of the particular law; and

(2) be subject to all the rules and regulations promulgated by such department or independent establishment with respect to the 
enforcement of that law.

(c) The provisions of this section are in addition to any powers conferred by law upon such officers, and not in limitation of any 
powers conferred by law upon such officers, or any other officers of the United States.

Then 46 USC 70118 and 70119 under MTSA says:
Subject to guidelines approved by the Secretary, members of the Coast Guard may, in the performance of official duties- 
(1) carry a firearm; and 
(2) while at a facility- 
(A) make an arrest without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence; and 
(B) seize property as otherwise provided by law. 
(Note) The term "facility" means any structure or facility of any kind located in, on, under, or adjacent to any waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

What makes the situation with the Coast Guard unique though is that it essentially operates on the "borders" of the USA with respect to port protection. And for that reason, there are special application of case law that the Supremes have applied throughout history granting greater search powers without probable cause to our US Forces and agencies enforcing border security and compliance with international commerce.


----------



## jfbattagl (Aug 6, 2005)

Most of you sound like a bunch of paranoid ********; the vessel mentioned in the original post is a component of US Customs and Border Protection, specifically Air & Marine manned by Marine Interdiction Agents. They are protecting our nation's borders from the bad guys who want to do harm to us. If you have nothing to hide you should welcome the search and move on and have a nice day.
:flag:


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

PF, I hear you, and sorry for being brash. 

But all that 'justification' is exactly what I am talking about. The CG situation is unique. And then the BATF situation is unique. And then the FBI, CIA and NSA are unique. And next the EPA will be unique. And here we are 200 years later, where there are so many unique laws dealing with unique situations that they are codified in volumes of regulation no one has read, or is aware of, but has people thinking it is acceptable throw the Fourth out, since it is, after all, just the government looking out for me. And now its okay to pull people over for random road checks just to make sure you are not doing anything illegal in a car. And worse, they can now strap you to a table and draw blood from you (IMO a violation of the Fifth amendment). 

And next will be the EPA searching your house, because you might be doing something illegal there too, like not use Green light bulbs. But that of course is a unique situation.

I just want to live in America, not in a EU member state. 

I am off my soap box now. Man, its a long way down. :redface:


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

jfbattagl said:


> Most of you sound like a bunch of paranoid ********; the vessel mentioned in the original post is a component of US Customs and Border Protection, specifically Air & Marine manned by Marine Interdiction Agents. They are protecting our nation's borders from the bad guys who want to do harm to us. If you have nothing to hide you should welcome the search and move on and have a nice day.
> :flag:


 Thsoe who supported the nazis said similar things.


----------



## jfbattagl (Aug 6, 2005)

You are going to compare what I said to someone who supports nazis, get a life!


----------



## jig (Aug 2, 2005)

jfbattagl said:


> If you have nothing to hide you should welcome the search and move on and have a nice day.
> :flag:


I never looked at it that way. Thanks, you have changed my perspective with you well thought out and reasoned response.


----------



## Snagged (May 21, 2004)

jfbattagl said:


> You are going to compare what I said to someone who supports nazis, get a life!


 Yes, because historicaly there is little if any difference. If you give up RIGHTS, the rule of law, or responsibility to government you give up FREEDOM. 
It starts with little things and soon becomes everything. Read your history.


----------



## mredman1 (Feb 4, 2007)

*Terrorist profile*

Keep an eye out for this one!



Hooked Up © said:


> What does a terrorist look like?


----------



## justinsfa (Mar 28, 2009)

hahahahahahaha.... Ive seen that thing at the jetties too


----------



## firemitch2 (Sep 5, 2006)

Got boarded by them about 3 months ago at the jetties. They were polite look around and left. Two guys while geting back on there boat one of them told the other guy "I told you It was the othe boat we were talking about." thought it was kinda funny.


----------



## fishngrl1377 (Aug 30, 2007)

jfbattagl said:


> Most of you sound like a bunch of paranoid ********; the vessel mentioned in the original post is a component of US Customs and Border Protection, specifically Air & Marine manned by Marine Interdiction Agents. They are protecting our nation's borders from the bad guys who want to do harm to us. If you have nothing to hide you should welcome the search and move on and have a nice day.
> :flag:


While I know this to be a TRUE fact...they do NOT need a warrant to board your vessel and search it. All that is required at the federal level is BORDER NEXUS which happens when you are on your way OUT to fish and definately on your way IN from fishing ...


----------



## Pocboy (Aug 12, 2004)

Those of you who have stated that they would refuse to be boarded without a warrant please have a video camera with you so we can see what happens.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Haynie79 said:


> If you are not hiding anything why worry about it?


would you like them to come and knock on your door whenever they want and rummage through your house? or tap your phone? or put a surveillence camera at your front and back door?

if you're not hiding anything, what's there to worry about, right?


----------



## Hooked Up (May 23, 2004)

Pocboy said:


> Those of you who have stated that they would refuse to be boarded without a warrant please have a video camera with you so we can see what happens.


Yeah. LMAO! Y'all be sure and let us know how that works out for ya H/U:slimer:


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

jfbattagl said:


> Most of you sound like a bunch of paranoid ********; the vessel mentioned in the original post is a component of US Customs and Border Protection, specifically Air & Marine manned by Marine Interdiction Agents. They are protecting our nation's borders from the bad guys who want to do harm to us. If you have nothing to hide you should welcome the search and move on and have a nice day.
> :flag:


Only paranoid ******** are concerned with basic liberty and rights I guess. That is funny, maybe we should learn to enjoy the erosions of our basic rights and sit back and be entertained watching our great country descend into a police state. I have nothing to hide, but I do not appreciate unwarranted searches of my private property. I understand rec boats are different, but if you want to search my home or auto, you had better have a warrant.

As was already quoted pages ago, "those who trade liberty for security deserve neither".


----------



## Eastern Tackle (Oct 28, 2008)

Here in NC, they will board you while trolling. You just lift up a rigger, they pull along side and hop on. Troll around with you for a while, then hop back off. Doesn't matter if your 5 miles or 50 miles off. If you have it together and are polite, they usually are just going through the motions for training.

There was one young fellow that stopped me inshore one day, because my numbers were TOO BIG on the side of my boat. I gave him a good lecture on the magnusen stevens requirement for commercial registered vessels to have 10" numbers or bigger (as well as some of the other requirements) and sent him down the creek with his tail between his legs. That happens when you start teaching them about federal regulations and pull out the red book. No, he was not invited to board and he didn't ask. The station commander and I would have had a discussion if he had pressed that issue. But that was only one negative incident in 100 positive, that he learned from that day, I'm sure. His partner never even came out from behind the wheel and appeared to actually be hiding at one point. 

That being said. Then there was the day when my steering went 38 miles offshore and they walked me all the way in. I was able to lock the motors straight and get in on the trim tabs, but break down way offshore in bad conditions (or have some geezer stroke out on you) and the boys will immediately become your best freinds. I gaurantee that.


----------



## Matapanga (Sep 7, 2005)

Will probably tick people off but here goes

I can't help but wonder how the folks here that say their "rights are being infringed upon" by being boarded for inspection will react when someone does slip thru and do some unthinkable act.

If I had to guess, some of you will be the first that yell about HS not doing their job and keeping us safe.....


----------



## rockhound76 (Feb 22, 2007)

Haynie79 said:


> If you are not hiding anything why worry about it?


LOL. I always count posts to see how long it takes to get to this off-used gem.

(try saying it with a German or Russian accent while tapping a baton in your open hand. It is much more effective.)


----------



## bzrk180 (Jan 7, 2008)

Pocboy said:


> Those of you who have stated that they would refuse to be boarded without a warrant please have a video camera with you so we can see what happens.


Here is a guy who did just that....

Now, before you watch it... When I first saw this, I went and looked at some of this guys other stuff... He is a little "out there" but in this instance, he stood by his rights and complied with exactly what he HAD to comply with and refused to be searched. LUCKILY he DID have a video camera with him. If you look through some of his other videos, you will see what happened when he didnt.






Although I think the guy is a bit of a nut job, I commend him for standing by and enforcing his rights as an American Citizen. You can willingly allow a search but you should be able to refuse such a search to and be able to do so because its YOUR RIGHT!


----------



## Levelwind (Apr 15, 2005)

Matapanga said:


> Will probably tick people off but here goes
> 
> I can't help but wonder how the folks here that say their "rights are being infringed upon" by being boarded for inspection will react when someone does slip thru and do some unthinkable act.
> 
> If I had to guess, some of you will be the first that yell about HS not doing their job and keeping us safe.....


I suppose there would be some. But people with an ounce of brains, which to me, applies more to those who are protective of their civil liberties than those who aren't, understand that there IS risk to living in a free society.


----------



## hog (May 17, 2006)

Is this what its all leading to? Ordering a simple Pizza

I just thought, some how, this link applied to the flavor of the thread :tongue:

Enjoy your day,

Hog


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

OK folks, we get the message. Last year Coast Guard Commandant Thad Allen posted this blog entry:



> I have received reports from highly respected professionals recounting Coast Guard boardings, inspections, and investigations not displaying professionalism. Additionally, some have said they lost the complete trust they once had in the Coast Guard and are fearful of retribution if they challenge the Coast Guard's conduct.


If you feel that your boardings are not up to your standards and liberties, you can contact Thad here:
http://www.uscg.mil/global/mail/
and here:
http://www.uscg.mil/top/news/phonebook.pdf

There are high standards of conduct for doing a USCG boarding. There is a 200 year old law that allows boardings, but marine tradition requires the boarding team to ask permission before setting foot on your boat. This is just like a cop asking if he or she can look in the trunk of your car. If you say "no," well the boarding team can take measures to impound your boat, get a warrant, and really make your life miserable. Now you're a "person of suspicion." Most USCG boardings only last 20 minutes for recreational boats, and most appear to be not unpleasant. I actually like the Game Warden or Coastie to board my boat every year or so, and they won't fool with you after that.

But you do have rights when you are boarded, and the Commandant will be eager to know if you have any major complaints. And save the crazy uncle talk, he's heard it all. -sammie


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

Johnboat said:


> *Stopped and boarded by Homeland Security *


schtuff happens..... hope no one was traumatized too badly and needed to seek therapy


----------



## Swells (Nov 27, 2007)

Bill Fisher said:


> schtuff happens..... hope no one was traumatized too badly and needed to seek therapy


LOL, no panty-wetting moments thar? :rotfl:


----------



## tiger (Jun 1, 2004)

Its like the terrorist is going to pull over and say go ahead search my boat{ I don't think so } I personally think if someone is out to blow up a ship or something in a harbor its going to get blown up.pulling boats over and searching them isnt going to stop them,thats just my opinion.They stopped me from fishing in the harbor,so no one could bomb the harbor,I had fished for about 2 hrs before coastgurad got there and told me to leave? Whats the point? Do you think the terrosist are going to wait till someone boards them? Or they see someone coming? Or will coast gaurd just open up on any vessal entering the harbor without permission with a 50 Cal.


----------



## TMWTim (Jan 20, 2007)

It seems to me that a few minutes of inconvenience doesn't compare to the good they are doing out there. I'm not breaking any laws and I know what they are trying to do. I'd let them search, shake their hand when they are done and tell them to keep up the good work.


----------



## Blue Water Breaux (Feb 6, 2008)

how many people on this thread, or board for that matter, have the coast guard inspection sticker on their vessel? I believe its green? Once we had the sticker on our boat, they'd approach, see the sticker and move on while waving. Before, however, we were stopped 3x in a matter of 4 months.


----------



## Fubar (Jun 10, 2005)

it happened to me back in 2005, its good to have the secret service on board


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

*#100 !!!!*

woohoo!!!!!....... i get to have the 100th reply to the original post!









but bummer..... no real reply though

although i did see in today's paper that 2 boys were stopped for a routine safety check on a local freshwater river this week and were found to have 109 black bass.......... (the limit's 10 pp/pd)


----------



## Snap Draggin (Nov 11, 2007)

Actually it was #101, but it was your 3,000th.


----------



## Bill Fisher (Apr 12, 2006)

Snap Draggin said:


> Actually it was #101, but it was your 3,000th.


:doowapsta farout!..... a 2fer! (i didn't notice the ''3000" thingy)

you see....... i WAS the 100th reply cuz the count of replies starts with the first reply (which was post #2 in this thread )

the original post isn't a 'reply'

:texasflag


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

justinsfa said:


> I thought that if you chose to use waters that access the port, that you were open to be searched, I know its like that at all the refineries, and I think it should be the same for people that have water access to them as well....
> 
> And these boys are federal, not state, correct? And arent they military? Like the Coast Guard?
> 
> ...


Ich dachte, dass, wenn Sie beschlossen, Wasser zu benutzen, das auf den Hafen zurückgreifen, der Sie geöffnet waren gesucht zu werden, ich weiß, dass sein Gleiches, das an allen Raffinerien und an mir denken, es der selbe für Leute sein sollte, die haben Wasserzugang zu ihnen außerdem&#8230;. Und diese Jungen sind, der nicht Zustand föderativ, korrekt? Und arent sie Militär? Wie die Küstenwache? Sein ein bisschen Gleiches alle Leute, die über das Müssen ihre Schuhe am Flughafen beseitigen&#8230; wenn, sich beschweren Leute bildend, nehmen ihre Schuhe an einer Sicherheitskontrolle fernhält Terroristen von einstürzen 3 Gebäude, vom Zerschmettern von 4 Flugzeugen und vom Töten von Tausenden der unschuldigen Zivilisten, dann entfernt Ihre damnn Schuhe&#8230; Ich weiß nicht, wenn Sie beachtet haben, aber unsere Häfen und Raffinerien werden NICHT sehr gut geschützt&#8230; Ich denke, dass sie viel mehr wirklich tun sollten, um sie zu schützen&#8230; Wissen Sie, was im Hafen von Houston?? ist? Können Sie, schädlich ein Terroristenangriff auf dem Hafen von Houston nach Amerika?? sein würde? Wenn irgendein Terrorist in den Hafen gekommen und etwas gesprengt hatte, würden Sie Leute jammernd und schreiend sein, weil Staatssicherheit erledigte nicht ihre Arbeit&#8230;. Und wenn sie nach dem Zufall Ihren Behälter im Portwasser überprüfen, jammern Sie und schreien gerade die selben. So was wird es sein Völker, einige Kerle, die Ihr Boot verschalen und heraus es gerade überprüfen, um auf der sicheren Seite zu sein und das Stück des Verstandes haben, das unser Steuerzahlergeld zum Schützen unseres Landes??? geht? Oder keine Patrouillen, sehend und gerade, Ihre Finger kreuzend und hoffend, dass die Terroristen wählen Houston nicht als ihr Ziel folgendes Mal&#8230;. Hilfenunterhalt dieser Einstiege jeder sicher&#8230;. Wenn Ihr Handeln nicht alles Sie arent angenommenes zu, dann Sie nicht ist besorgt&#8230; Waren die Vaterlandvölker unhöflich zu Ihnen oder etwas? Gibt es ein Grund, warum Sie?? umgekippt sind?

(basically, I am glad our Grandfathers didn't think this way.)


----------

