# FWC Boarding



## esenjam (Jan 30, 2013)

I realize that the FWC guys have a pretty tough job, but I am curious about one aspect of the law. If they stop you and come up to your boat, do they have to have permission to board? I've never had a reason to not let them on, but what happens if I say "no"? If you are stopped in your car an officer has to have a probable cause (i.e. open container, drugs, weapons in plain site, etc.) or your permission to search your vehicle. I believe its even been ruled by the Supreme Court that your car is an extension of your domicile, but what about your boat? Does the FWC officer need a warrant or probable cause to board and search without permission of the Captain/Owner? If you know the answer and can post a reference that would be great?

Thanks in advance


----------



## JD7.62 (Feb 13, 2008)

Unfortunately you pretty much have no 4th Amendment when it comes to boating, fishing, hiking, hunting, etc.

Its BS if you ask me but apparently you waive that right when you get a fishing or hunting license.


----------



## esenjam (Jan 30, 2013)

JD7.62 said:


> Unfortunately you pretty much have no 4th Amendment when it comes to boating, fishing, hiking, hunting, etc.
> 
> Its BS if you ask me but apparently you waive that right when you get a fishing or hunting license.


Not to be argumentative, but where is that written? I have seen about three different Facebook videos with different guys walking around open carrying weapons (including the MSgt in Texas with the AR-15 and his son) - all appear to be trolling for trouble with the police. Some of the police that respond are jackasses, others are doing their jobs and know the law, question the individuals and let them go on their way, but how does this apply to boating/fishing in State or Federal waters?


----------



## devinsdad (Mar 31, 2010)

JD7.62 said:


> Unfortunately you pretty much have no 4th Amendment when it comes to boating, fishing, hiking, hunting, etc.
> 
> Its BS if you ask me but apparently you waive that right when you get a fishing or hunting license.


Very true... Boating laws are different from driving. I have thought about saying no to a boarding but they dont have to wait for PC.


----------



## JD7.62 (Feb 13, 2008)

esenjam said:


> Not to be argumentative, but where is that written? I have seen about three different Facebook videos with different guys walking around open carrying weapons (including the MSgt in Texas with the AR-15 and his son) - all appear to be trolling for trouble with the police. Some of the police that respond are jackasses, others are doing their jobs and know the law, question the individuals and let them go on their way, but how does this apply to boating/fishing in State or Federal waters?


I believe its part of the "fine print" when you get a fishing or hunting license.

Heck, they can enter your home w/o a warrant to check for possession limits in many states (not sure about Florida).


----------



## rfh21 (May 17, 2012)

JD7.62 said:


> I believe its part of the "fine print" when you get a fishing or hunting license.
> 
> Heck, they can enter your home w/o a warrant to check for possession limits in many states (not sure about Florida).


Yep. One of those things they just let you sign without disclosing. Like the fact if you don't submit to a breathalyzer you immediately lose your license.


----------



## Burnt Drag (Jun 3, 2008)

rfh21 said:


> Yep. One of those things they just let you sign without disclosing. Like the fact if you don't submit to a breathalyzer you immediately lose your license.


As of 2010, Im living proof that's not true. I refused all the "tests"/ "Hoops" and I told them that I had no obigation to walk a line or stand on 
one foot. They took me to jail and I beat the hell out of it in court. But... back to topic, DON"T KEEP ILLEGAL FISH and worry not....


----------



## Berry (Mar 8, 2011)

Long story short you don't have a choice. It has nothing to do with licenses or fine print this power was established long ago.

“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.”* Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution, ratified 12/15/1791.

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.* It was written in direct response to British general warrants which empowered British law enforcement to search virtually any home, at any time, for any reason, or for no reason at all.

The Coast Guard’s primary law enforcement authority is derived from 14 USC 89 (made law in1949) which states in part, “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 the 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 operations 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 . . .”

While the Fourth Amendment may protect the citizen, law abiding or not, from the threat of an “unwarranted” search, that protection ceases once the citizen is on a vessel.* The Coast Guard has sweeping authority to board any vessel (subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) at any time, any place.* It does not require a warrant.* It does not require probable cause.* Boardings need not be based on a suspicion that a violation already exists aboard the vessel.* Their purpose is to prevent violations and the courts have upheld this authority.* Also, the Coast Guard has full legal law enforcement power on any land under the control of the United States, as needed to complete any mission.* 14 USC* 89 has its roots in the Revenue Service Act of 1790 which provided “all collectors, naval officers, surveyors, inspectors and the officers of the revenue cutters . . . to go on board ships in any part of the United States . . . for the purposes of demanding manifests . . . examining and searching the said ships, and the officers shall have free access to the cabin and every other part of the vessel . . .”* This statute was passed by the first Congress, the same Congress that enacted the Bill of Rights, including the Fourth Amendment with its guarantees for citizens to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.* By enacting the Revenue Service Act, the first Congress showed unequivocally that the Coast Guard’s significant law enforcement authorities to board and search a U.S. flag vessel anywhere in the world, as well as vessels intending to call on U.S. ports, were consistent with the Fourth Amendment.

U.S. Courts over the last 200 years have consistently validated the right of the Coast Guard to board and inspect vessels, probable cause or not.

Plainly stated, when it comes to Coast Guard boarding, you don’t have any rights. *As stated by Capt. Rasicott and CDR Cunningham in their article found in Proceedings, Summer 2009;* “There are two main ways to board a vessel – either with permission, or without.”

Vessel operators should know that to refuse permission for Coast Guard personnel to board may subject them to a penalty of $500.** Forcibly resisting is a felony punishable by up to ten years in prison and a $10,000.00 fine.


----------



## Berry (Mar 8, 2011)

Should have added state agencies act bascially as deputys in loco for coast guard enforceent at least that is my understanding


----------



## esenjam (Jan 30, 2013)

Burnt Drag said:


> As of 2010, Im living proof that's not true. I refused all the "tests"/ "Hoops" and I told them that I had no obigation to walk a line or stand on
> one foot. They took me to jail and I beat the hell out of it in court. But... back to topic, DON"T KEEP ILLEGAL FISH and worry not....


Thanks for the reply. I'm not keeping illegal fish, I learned that one the hard way last year. What I am asking about is pertaining to my and your 4th Amendment Rights of unreasonable search and seizure. I get the impression that FWC feels they can board my boat for any reason at any time. I'm having this discussion with my girlfriend, who works at the tax collector office for the DMV. She's found that under Florida law FWC/Coast Guard have the right to board to inspect your safety equipment.

http://www.pwcsafetyschool.com/florida/hb_fl_state.html

But does this law give them probable cause to search for fish?


----------



## esenjam (Jan 30, 2013)

Berry said:


> Long story short you don't have a choice. It has nothing to do with licenses or fine print this power was established long ago.
> 
> “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.”* Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution, ratified 12/15/1791.
> 
> ...


 
Thank you! That's what I was looking for. :thumbup: Not that I had ever planned on not letting FWC/Coast Guard board - but it is helpful to know the law.


----------



## JD7.62 (Feb 13, 2008)

Berry said:


> Long story short you don't have a choice. It has nothing to do with licenses or fine print this power was established long ago.
> 
> “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.”* Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution, ratified 12/15/1791.
> 
> ...


That doesnt explain why FWC officers can open your cooler on the pier with out your permission. Ive seen it done more then a few times. I can understand local agents acting as deputies for the Coast Guard but what about on land? Hunting?


----------



## jasoncooperpcola (Jan 2, 2008)

Lets take this a step further. This actually happened. 20Simmonsseaskiff, tripleblessing and his son, and I were on a boat about 9 miles offshore. Seas 3-4' and we were trolling in. Out of nowhere FWC shows up and wants to board. We were at the boats limit on people. It was rough as shit and could not get the boats close enough. Now what happens if he boards and during so the boat capsizes? What happens if one of us have to get on the FWC boat to make room for the officer and we get hurt? I think to an extent we should be able to deny boarding. They never boarded because the engine alarm went off and we ignored them while trying to find the cause.


----------



## esenjam (Jan 30, 2013)

OK - found some more info in regards to fishing and the FWC:

http://myfwc.com/media/407572/go17.pdf

​*F Vessel Inspections 
(1) *Vessel Inspections pursuant to Section 379.3313, Florida Statutes. 
*(a) *Sworn members shall have probable cause to believe the vessel was engaged in fishing "prior" to the inspection. The term "prior" shall be construed to mean: 
*1. *Actually engaged in a fishing operation; 
*2. *Returning from fishing; or 
*3. *Transporting fishery products. 
*(b) *Under no circumstances shall this section be used to inspect vessels not engaging in fishing activities or transporting fishery products. 
*(c) *The living or sleeping areas of a vessel and any containers stored therein shall not be subject to inspection pursuant to this section. The living or sleeping area of a vessel shall include all enclosed cabin areas such as galleys, bunk or staterooms, head or other such enclosed areas. This section does not restrict searches that are authorized elsewhere in this policy or law. 
*(d) *When a sworn member inspects a vessel pursuant to this section and no violation is found, the vessel and all containers, as well as the fishery product, shall be left in the same condition as immediately prior to the inspection or as close to the same condition as possible. If necessary, sworn members may purchase ice to replace any lost during the inspection. 
*(2) *Vessel Inspections pursuant to Section 327.56, Florida Statutes. 
*(a) *No sworn member shall board any vessel to make a safety or marine sanitation equipment inspection if the owner or operator is not aboard. 
*(b) *When the owner or operator is aboard, a sworn member may board a vessel with consent or when the sworn member has probable cause or knowledge to believe that a safety or marine sanitation equipment violation has occurred or is occurring. 
*(c) *A sworn member may board a vessel when the operator refuses or is unable to display the safety or marine sanitation equipment required by law, if requested to do so by the sworn member, or when the safety or marine sanitation equipment to be inspected is permanently installed and is not visible for inspection unless the sworn member boards the vessel.


----------



## esenjam (Jan 30, 2013)

jasoncooperpcola said:


> Lets take this a step further. This actually happened. 20Simmonsseaskiff, tripleblessing and his son, and I were on a boat about 9 miles offshore. Seas 3-4' and we were trolling in. Out of nowhere FWC shows up and wants to board. We were at the boats limit on people. It was rough as shit and could not get the boats close enough. Now what happens if he boards and during so the boat capsizes? What happens if one of us have to get on the FWC boat to make room for the officer and we get hurt? I think to an extent we should be able to deny boarding. They never boarded because the engine alarm went off and we ignored them while trying to find the cause.


What was the end result?


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

I think that Customs has the same sort of "authority". You don't want to get on their bad side coming in country on an airplane. Mostly they are VERY reasonable, but if you approach the checkpoint with a cell phone on your ear, STAND BY... 

Not a first hand thing, but watched another crew member sorta ignore the officer with a phone "attached" to his ear going through the line. He showed up at the hotel about 6 hours later. 

You don't want to screw with cops. You really don't want to screw with cops that have "extra" powers that come with border authority.




Jim


----------



## Fairwaterfishing (Mar 17, 2009)

If it was unsafe to board me I would say as captain, no sir you can not board its not safe, you can follow me in to inland waters where its calm and I will allow you to board there. Ok it might not stop them but if someone did get hurt it would cover my ass.


----------



## Chapman5011 (Mar 7, 2013)

esenjam said:


> Thanks for the reply. I'm not keeping illegal fish, I learned that one the hard way last year. What I am asking about is pertaining to my and your 4th Amendment Rights of unreasonable search and seizure. I get the impression that FWC feels they can board my boat for any reason at any time. I'm having this discussion with my girlfriend, who works at the tax collector office for the DMV. She's found that under Florida law FWC/Coast Guard have the right to board to inspect your safety equipment.
> 
> http://www.pwcsafetyschool.com/florida/hb_fl_state.html
> 
> But does this law give them probable cause to search for fish?


They will always be able to search for illegal game. Fish and wildlife wardens have more power than you would ever imagine. If they believe there is illegal game somewhere, they don't need a search warrant at all.
I have heard they are actually some of the only officers that can arrest the president. 
Any info on that would be nice.....


----------



## Catchin Hell (Oct 9, 2007)

FWC stopped me just after 911 for an inspection on my way back from fishing. He checked the boat thoroughly, but wouild not enter the cabin area even when I offered to let him. He told me FWC does not search private quarters, but the Coast Guard will. Given what I've just shared, I've always wondered how many folks with larger boats fill their cabin refrigerator/freezers with fillets. I also wonder how many have cooked up some undersized fish while at sea on those fancy stainless grills or cabin stoves. Your thoughts...


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

Berry said:


> Long story short you don't have a choice. It has nothing to do with licenses or fine print this power was established long ago.
> 
> “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.”* Amendment IV, U.S. Constitution, ratified 12/15/1791.
> 
> ...


I have no doubt this is not the law of the land & I do have just a wee bit of experience with search & seizure, border & customs law .... but just for arguments sake 14 USC 89 is a law passed by the Congress. Normally laws passed by Congress (or a State Legislature) do not supersede the Constitution and it's Amendments and are struck down by the Supreme Court ... except, apparently, in this case.

I hope Congress never passes a law saying you can't call the President a bad name (_1st Amendment)_, pray (_1st Amendment_) or keep & bear arms (_2nd Amendment)_ while aboard your vessel ... since boats are somehow exempt from the rights normally protected by the Constitution.


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

I was in Key West years ago and had a Diver in the water that I was following. A Marine Patrol boat came at me and said I am going to board you for an inspection. I said NO not until the diver at that buoy in the water has returned to this vessel, then you can inspect me. He looked at the buoy and turned around a drove off. Passed me twice more in the day and never stopped. Most are very reasonable and understanding.


----------



## beeritself (Nov 25, 2010)

sealark said:


> I was in Key West years ago and had a Diver in the water that I was following. A Marine Patrol boat came at me and said I am going to board you for an inspection. I said NO not until the diver at that buoy in the water has returned to this vessel, then you can inspect me. He looked at the buoy and turned around a drove off. Passed me twice more in the day and never stopped. Most are very reasonable and understanding.


I'm not a diver, nor have I ever been on a dive boat - I'm just curious. Why would you prefer they not board until the diver is up? Is because of a running motor with a person in the water?


----------



## Telum Pisces (Sep 27, 2007)

Wirelessly posted



beeritself said:


> sealark said:
> 
> 
> > I was in Key West years ago and had a Diver in the water that I was following. A Marine Patrol boat came at me and said I am going to board you for an inspection. I said NO not until the diver at that buoy in the water has returned to this vessel, then you can inspect me. He looked at the buoy and turned around a drove off. Passed me twice more in the day and never stopped. Most are very reasonable and understanding.
> ...


When you live boat with divers, your attention is on those divers and their bubbles. Anything less and you are putting their lives in danger by not knowing where they are.


----------



## Berry (Mar 8, 2011)

AndyS said:


> I have no doubt this is not the law of the land & I do have just a wee bit of experience with search & seizure, border & customs law .... but just for arguments sake 14 USC 89 is a law passed by the Congress. Normally laws passed by Congress (or a State Legislature) do not supersede the Constitution and it's Amendments and are struck down by the Supreme Court ... except, apparently, in this case.
> 
> I hope Congress never passes a law saying you can't call the President a bad name (_1st Amendment)_, pray (_1st Amendment_) or keep & bear arms (_2nd Amendment)_ while aboard your vessel ... since boats are somehow exempt from the rights normally protected by the Constitution.


if that info is wrong please correct me when I did an internet search of your rules and rights in regards to coast guard boarding everything I found pretty much said the same thing. What i copy and pasted came from a maritime law blog written by a maritime lawyer


this link from coast guard enforcement bulletin pretty much say the exact same thing but in less detail 

http://www.uscg.mil/d1/prevention/NavInfo/navinfo/documents/Enforcement.PDF 

-------------------------------------------------
the actual rule is
14 U.S.C. 
United States Code, 2010 Edition
Title 14 - COAST GUARD
PART I - REGULAR COAST GUARD
CHAPTER 5 - FUNCTIONS AND POWERS
Sec. 89 - Law enforcement
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov

§89. Law enforcement
(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.
(Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, 63 Stat. 502; Aug. 3, 1950, ch. 536, §1, 64 Stat. 406.)
Historical and Revision Notes
Based on title 14, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §§45–47, 51, 52, 66, 67, 104, and on title 33, U.S.C., 1946 ed., §755 (R.S. 2747, 2758, 2760, 2762; June 18, 1878, ch. 265, §4, 20 Stat. 163; June 16, 1880, ch. 235, 21 Stat. 263; June 22, 1936, ch. 705, §§1–3, 49 Stat. 1820; July 11, 1941, ch. 290, §7, 55 Stat. 585).
The words “or such merchandise” are inserted in the last clause of subsection (a) in order to provide for situations where it may be desirable to seize merchandise without seizing the vessel.
Changes were made in phraseology. 81st Congress, House Report No. 557.
Amendments
1950—Subsec. (a). Act Aug. 3, 1950, struck out “to” before “examine” in second sentence.
Annual Report on Drug Interdiction
Pub. L. 104–324, title I, §103, Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3905, as amended by Pub. L. 109–241, title IX, §901(p)(1), July 11, 2006, 120 Stat. 565, provided that: “Not later than 30 days after the end of each fiscal year, the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives a report on all expenditures related to drug interdiction activities of the Coast Guard on an annual basis.”
Enhanced Drug-Interdiction Assistance
Pub. L. 99–145, title XIV, §1421, Nov. 8, 1985, 99 Stat. 750, required assignment of a member of the Coast Guard to each surface naval vessel at sea in a drug-interdiction area to perform law enforcement functions, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 99–570, title III, §3053(b)(3), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3207–76. See section 379 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are tons of sites providing case law and appeals from circuit courts up to the supreme court that have been fought since the laws were passed by the first congress of the US over this while the coast guard powers have been found to violate the 4th amendment occasional it has been primarily upheld that can stop and board and conduct through safety check and any thing illegal that is found it admissible in a court of law. When searching commercial ships or large private ship there is a reasonable expectation of privacy in personal quarters, unless there is a head which they may search to ensure raw sewage is being pumped properly. In regards to the 4th amendment the coast guard is tasked with public safety and checking compliance the exercise of random boards without probable case has not been viewed as an infringement by the supreme court since the 1800s

The coast guard task certain state agencies to conduct stops in waterways under their jurisdiction


----------



## Outside9 (Apr 30, 2008)

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi/t/text/text...v8&view=text&node=50:12.0.1.1.1.8.1.5&idno=50

Here is some info on federal boardings. If link does not work search 50 CFR 600 and look down at prohibitions.


----------



## John B. (Oct 2, 2007)

Chapman5011 said:


> I have heard they are actually some of the only officers that can arrest the president.
> .....


Someone should take that dude snapper fishing this weekend! Take one for the team.... :whistling:

Sent from my LG G2X using Forum Runner


----------



## JD7.62 (Feb 13, 2008)

I will ask again. What about FWC/Park Rangers being able to check coolers and your vehicles with out a warrant if you are fishing or hunting on land?


----------



## baldona523 (Mar 2, 2008)

Fwc needs the least bit of reasonable suspicion to search you of any law enforcement agency. If you have fishing poles, are in the woods with camo and/ or gun, etc they can search you. If you have fishing poles on your boat they can search your boat for game. If you brought a cooler on a fishing pier that is probably enough suspicion for them to inspect it for game, so dont bring a cooler of drugs somewhere people are fishing and hunting.

One thing we always do when going through the pass is try to put most the fishing poles out of sight, we don't do anything illegal it just seems to reduce the amount of checks.


----------



## MrFish (Aug 21, 2009)

baldona523 said:


> Fwc needs the least bit of reasonable suspicion to search you of any law enforcement agency. If you have fishing poles, are in the woods with camo and/ or gun, etc they can search you. If you have fishing poles on your boat they can search you for game. One thing we always do when going through the pass is try to put most the fishing poles out of sight, we don't do anything illegal it just seems to reduce the amount of checks.


That's why I get stopped every time. They tell me that they see the poles up. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. They either tell me nice fish or they say better luck next time. They have never checked safety equipment, though. Is that normal? One time, they checked life jackets, but I had 6 people on board in my bay boat. I've only been checked for flares, etc. in Apalachicola once.


----------



## hsiF deR (Oct 4, 2009)

JD7.62 said:


> I will ask again. What about FWC/Park Rangers being able to check coolers and your vehicles with out a warrant if you are fishing or hunting on land?


I use to ride with the FWC and do patrols. 

I was told that being on the water or in the woods was the probable casue needed to search boat/coolers.


----------



## Telum Pisces (Sep 27, 2007)

hsiF deR said:


> I use to ride with the FWC and do patrols.
> 
> I was told that being on the water or in the woods was the probable casue needed to search boat/coolers.


That is my understanding as well with a little caveat. IF you have fishing or hunting gear with you, that is their probable cause to search. No need to look into your cooler if you are just hanging out on the beach relaxing with no fishing gear. Or there is no need to inspect you in the woods if you are simply camping or hiking with no firearm etc... especially outside of hunting seasons.


----------



## Collard (Oct 23, 2007)

Wirelessly posted (Not the droid youre lookin for)

The way I see it if you're fishing ....they have probable cause. They are making sure you're legal. If you have fish or no their job is to check your vessel


----------



## Outside9 (Apr 30, 2008)

JD7.62 said:


> I will ask again. What about FWC/Park Rangers being able to check coolers and your vehicles with out a warrant if you are fishing or hunting on land?


 

Why not ask the FWC?

http://m.myfwc.com/contact/


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

Berry said:


> if that info is wrong please correct me


Perhaps I worded that badly ... I did not mean to imply I thought your posted info was incorrect. 

I was just questioning how a Congress or State Legislature can pass a law that supersedes the 4th Amendment or any provision of the Constitution.


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

Collard said:


> Wirelessly posted (Not the droid youre lookin for)
> 
> The way I see it if you're fishing ....they have probable cause. They are making sure you're legal. If you have fish or no their job is to check your vessel


If you're driving ... can the State police randomly stop you without cause just to make sure you're legal? Would you be okay with that?

"Probable Cause" is a term a lot of people throw around loosely without really knowing what it is. Probable Cause only exists where an officer has a reasonable basis to believe a crime has been or is being committed. 

Simply because one is fishing is not a basis in & of itself to believe someone is committing a crime any more than simply driving down the road is.

I know game officers have been doing this for years & the government has passed laws giving them such authority ... I just question whether those laws are actually Constitutional.


----------



## jim t (Sep 30, 2007)

AndyS said:


> If you're driving ... can the State police stop you without cause just to make sure you're legal?


I think there are privileges and rights that are lost when you are not on US soil...

I may well be wrong, but being on the water offshore may not count.

I know I am not on US soil when I fly in to the US but have not cleared Customs.

They can tear apart my luggage if they want. Just on a hunch, or randomly.

Jim


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

jim t said:


> I think there are privileges and rights that are lost when you are not on US soil...
> 
> I may well be wrong, but being on the water offshore may not count.
> 
> ...


That's border search authority, a different animal ... you are not "in" the US till you've cleared Customs.

We're talking about being stopped & searched for "_suspected_" violations of fishing regulations while fishing in US waters --- where there is no basis for suspicion a law is being, or has been, violated.


----------



## baldona523 (Mar 2, 2008)

AndyS said:


> If you're driving ... can the State police randomly stop you without cause just to make sure you're legal? Would you be okay with that?
> 
> "Probable Cause" is a term a lot of people throw around loosely without really knowing what it is. Probable Cause only exists where an officer has a reasonable basis to believe a crime has been or is being committed.
> 
> ...




As said, fishing and hunting are not rights given to us under the constitution and therefore needing less suspicion to search you is constitutional. Yeah you better not be driving drunk in camo during hunting season or driving drunk on your boat with fishing rods because they are going to search you, so you are right their ability to search you can affect your life outside of hunting and fishing.


----------



## flex (Feb 26, 2013)

if you refuse to let them on you might as well be admitting you have illegal fish.. 

and if it was that easy then might as well go and catch 1000 pounds of red snapper and just refuse to allow FWC to search the boat.


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

baldona523 said:


> As said, fishing and hunting are not rights given to us under the constitution and therefore needing less suspicion to search you is constitutional.


Given? Given!? You think your rights are _given_ to you by the Constitution? So far as I am concerned the Constitution doesn't "_give_" us any rights ... rather it exists to _protect_ our rights from government overreach/intrusion. And one of those rights protected is outlined within the 4th Amendment.

Note the 4th Amendment does not say we are _given_ this right ... it says government shall not violate our rights.

_"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."_

I don't see anything about an exception for hunters and fisherman in there. 



baldona523 said:


> Yeah you better not be driving drunk in camo during hunting season or driving drunk on your boat with fishing rods because they are going to search you, so you are right their ability to search you can affect your life outside of hunting and fishing.


I didn't think we were discussing drunk driving here. That's a different subject.

How does possession of a fishing rod constitute a _reasonable basis to believe a crime is being or has been committed?_ (see definition of "probable cause.")


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

flex said:


> if you refuse to let them on you might as well be admitting you have illegal fish..


If I refuse an officer search of my car ... is that an admission I have a trunk load of marijuana?


----------



## flex (Feb 26, 2013)

AndyS said:


> If I refuse an officer search of my car ... is that an admission I have a trunk load of marijuana?


I have been stopped plenty of times by cops and never once did they ask to search my car. the only time they ask is if they think you are doing something illegal. i mean if you have a bag of drugs sitting in the passenger seat or a gun on the floor in plain view then yeah i think its a good idea to search your car don't you think? if it was a gangsta driving through your neighborhood with a gun and drugs in their car while your kids were playing in the yard i think you would sing a different tune if the cops wanted to search the gangsta's car 

you are paranoid and your arguement has nothing to do with the thread.


----------



## bigrick (Sep 29, 2010)

Tell them they can't board and see how quick they rip every inch of your boat apart....


----------



## flex (Feb 26, 2013)

Burnt Drag said:


> As of 2010, Im living proof that's not true. I refused all the "tests"/ "Hoops" and I told them that I had no obigation to walk a line or stand on
> one foot. They took me to jail and I beat the hell out of it in court. But... back to topic, DON"T KEEP ILLEGAL FISH and worry not....


 
you got lucky here and i hope you don't drink and drive on a regular basis. we just lost a serviceman who was struck by a drunk driver right here in Pcola and the driver fled the scene.. they were later caught luckily


----------



## Naby (Jan 18, 2009)

baldona523 said:


> As said, fishing and hunting are not rights given to us under the constitution and therefore needing less suspicion to search you is constitutional. Yeah you better not be driving drunk in camo during hunting season or driving drunk on your boat with fishing rods because they are going to search you, so you are right their ability to search you can affect your life outside of hunting and fishing.


The Amendment IX states:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Just because fishing and hunting are not spelled explicitly out does not mean that they aren't protected activities. You can make arguments that things like driving a car are privileges and not rights. But hunting and fishing, especially during the time the constitution was written, were necessary activities for some for their daily survival. Those activities are not privileges granted to us by the state any more so that planting a garden is. The constitution exists, among other reasons, to protect our God given rights from the Government. Our natural resources are given to us by God and on public land or public waters we all share the _rights_ to those resources. On our own private property we have exclusive rights to those resources.

I would argue, at the most basic level, that being searched without probable cause as a recreational hunter or fisherman does violate the 4th Amendment. That is my opinion and how I believe what the 4th Amendment, in part, was intended to protect. Obviously, due to various other statutes and court rulings that is not the case in practice. I feel the same way about the police ID or DUI check points, but those have been ruled constitutional as well.


----------



## flex (Feb 26, 2013)

bigrick said:


> Tell them they can't board and see how quick they rip every inch of your boat apart....


wow someone chimes in with some common sense in this thread. 

let them search your boat, offer them a soda.. talk about the weather and fishing.. and then say goodbye to them. not a big deal


----------



## bigrick (Sep 29, 2010)

I've noticed most cops love it when you kiss their ass and if you do generally there will be no problem. When you start asking them the questions and being a smart ass is when they call 3 of their friends and have a little fun with you back. It's much easier to be nice, let them do their job and be on your way. I've been pulled over many times and besides asking me to open my cooler once or twice most don't even board my boat. FWC will usually ask to see a fishing license, check your registration and send you on your way. Do some cops get aggressive when they are disrespected, hell yes, but so would I.


----------



## Naby (Jan 18, 2009)

flex said:


> wow someone chimes in with some common sense in this thread.
> 
> let them search your boat, offer them a soda.. talk about the weather and fishing.. and then say goodbye to them. not a big deal


This isn't a question of whether or not an FWC officer _can_ board your boat and search you, it is question of whether or not they _should_ be able to. I think everybody here agrees more or less that those guys do a good job. They have been given the power through various mean to stop us, board our boat, and search us. By doing so they are doing the job they took an oath to do. 

I have no problem with what they do based on the fact that they're doing their job. I have a huge problem with the premise behind why they are allowed to do their job and the power they have to carry that out. That is the issue. Nobody here wants to refuse to let these guys do their job. The intent of the original post was to understand the law and our rights. 

We're in the situation that we're in today because at some point in time nobody or not enough people stood up and spoke about these particular issues when our rights were being legislated away or done away with by a court ruling. That is not paranoid or anything else to that effect, that is being aware of the fact that if we do not make an effort to understand what our rights are and what they should be then they will slowly but surely be eroded in the name of government power, etc.


----------



## flex (Feb 26, 2013)

^^^ i don't disagree but unfortunately if you read the reports from FWC there are so many dumbasses that BUI, keep illegal fish, pollute our oceans and fail to carry the necessary licenses. 

if everyone was perfect we wouldn't need FWC to patrol at all. this isn't a perfect world though, see what happened in cleveland.. there a lot of bad people out there.

with cops it would be nice if they focused on serious crime for sure. i am not a fan of wasting time/money for vice type crimes.. would rather it be used for serious crime. in my experience i have dealt with cops/FWC plenty in my life and never had an issue with them. its all about how you talk to them

wouldn't it of been nice if the cops would have searched that guys house in cleveland? how would you guys have felt if they were refused from going in there to rescue those girls? i know the answer but i am trying to make you all understand that there are bad people out there


----------



## flex (Feb 26, 2013)

bigrick said:


> I've noticed most cops love it when you kiss their ass and if you do generally there will be no problem. When you start asking them the questions and being a smart ass is when they call 3 of their friends and have a little fun with you back. It's much easier to be nice, let them do their job and be on your way. I've been pulled over many times and besides asking me to open my cooler once or twice most don't even board my boat. FWC will usually ask to see a fishing license, check your registration and send you on your way. Do some cops get aggressive when they are disrespected, hell yes, but so would I.


not even about kissing ass. i have gotten out of a ton of tickets with fwc and traffic police by simply being respectful.. admitting what i did/aplogizing immediately. and thanking them for what they doing. the last cop i said "i thank you all for what you do everyday" he looked at me in shock.. went back to his car, came back 2 minutes later and said "i am giving you just a warning" .. i said thank you have a good day and that was it


----------



## billin (Oct 14, 2007)

*Illegal search*

Happens all the time I got pulled outside of Houston in a Honda accord with my wife and chocolate lab I was cursed had my car torn apart and my dogs life threatened in the hopes of finding drugs by a county deputy of course they didn't find anything my wife and I work in the medical field and are subject to random drug testing so we wouldn't even consider it but... That didn't stop them I just for the record I am not from La as Texan hate Cajuns this was totally unprovoked proof is I didn't get tickets for anything I called the ACLU who reported they will look into it but they already have over 200 complaints against this county. So for anyone who thinks a LEO will not single you out and try to destroy your life cause he or she is having a bad day is sadly mistaken they can and will do whatever, whenever and however they want and you will say yes sir or Ma'am and learn to like it


----------



## flex (Feb 26, 2013)

billin said:


> Happens all the time I got pulled outside of Houston in a Honda accord with my wife and chocolate lab I was cursed had my car torn apart and my dogs life threatened in the hopes of finding drugs by a county deputy of course they didn't find anything my wife and I work in the medical field and are subject to random drug testing so we wouldn't even consider it but... That didn't stop them I just for the record I am not from La as Texan hate Cajuns this was totally unprovoked proof is I didn't get tickets for anything I called the ACLU who reported they will look into it but they already have over 200 complaints against this county. So for anyone who thinks a LEO will not single you out and try to destroy your life cause he or she is having a bad day is sadly mistaken they can and will do whatever, whenever and however they want and you will say yes sir or Ma'am and learn to like it


yeah bro you are cajun so you do not have the same rights as other americans. 

jk!! sorry this happened, i hope you sue their butts.. sounds like a cracker county in texas


----------



## bigrick (Sep 29, 2010)

Alabama has some of the most crooked cops in the country. I've seen it personally multiple times. When everyone knows everyone in a town getting out of trouble is easy if you know the right people.


----------



## Naby (Jan 18, 2009)

flex said:


> ^^^ i don't disagree but unfortunately if you read the reports from FWC there are so many dumbasses that BUI, keep illegal fish, pollute our oceans and fail to carry the necessary licenses.
> 
> if everyone was perfect we wouldn't need FWC to patrol at all. this isn't a perfect world though, see what happened in cleveland.. there a lot of bad people out there.
> 
> with cops it would be nice if they focused on serious crime for sure. i am not a fan of wasting time/money for vice type crimes.. would rather it be used for serious crime. in my experience i have dealt with cops/FWC plenty in my life and never had an issue with them. its all about how you talk to them


What you're saying is basically the fundamental issue: how much freedom do we deprive people of in order to keep others from doing bad things. The simple answer is that you only deprive freedom insomuch as is required to prevent those freedoms from being used to harm others or deprive others from their freedoms. In a simplistic case I'm not allowed to murder because that deprives another person of their right to live. So any law or government power should be based on the same idea. Is allowing me to do something going to also allow me to deprive the rights of others? Of course in practice it is a lot more complicated and certainly up for debate. 

Just like the issue of being stopped by the police for an ID check. A lot of people think that "I'm not doing anything wrong, so no big deal." But in that instant you are a seized person, with no probable cause to justify it. The gun control issue is along the same lines and is debatable depending on how you see it.

In the case of keeping illegal fish, the questions is whether or not it is worth violating my rights just to see if I kept some fish I should not have. Does the possibility that I may be keeping a few illegal fish (which I don't by the way) justify you getting searched? And then there is the argument of how effective those methods actually are. How many people would be inclined to break the law if they knew that there was no possibility of them getting searched unless somebody actually saw them breaking the law? Of course that is a question that can't be answered. But to some if the answer was "a lot" then maybe searching is justifiable. But then again maybe it is not. 

We all work hard to afford a boat, gas, etc. so that we can go fishing a few times a year. A lot of us go out of our way to make sure that we follow the laws, laws we completely disagree with most of the time regarding how many fish we can keep. Yet even so we can't go out and enjoy a day of fishing without the possibility that the government is going to stop an honest hard working individual and make that person prove that he isn't breaking the law. In my opinion that is not a power the government should have.


----------



## mike6043 (May 24, 2012)

I think its funny how many people on PFF and GCGF don't care about their' or anyone else's rights.


----------



## tabasco40 (May 25, 2008)

Video record all interactions with police.


----------



## tabasco40 (May 25, 2008)

AndyS said:


> I was just questioning how a Congress or State Legislature can pass a law that supersedes the 4th Amendment or any provision of the Constitution.


Because we the people no longer hold our represented officials to the Constitution. As a society, we don't read it or understand it, therefore it does not exist.


----------



## Chapman5011 (Mar 7, 2013)

flex said:


> I have been stopped plenty of times by cops and never once did they ask to search my car. the only time they ask is if they think you are doing something illegal. i mean if you have a bag of drugs sitting in the passenger seat or a gun on the floor in plain view then yeah i think its a good idea to search your car don't you think? if it was a gangsta driving through your neighborhood with a gun and drugs in their car while your kids were playing in the yard i think you would sing a different tune if the cops wanted to search the gangsta's car
> 
> you are paranoid and your arguement has nothing to do with the thread.


This not about a gangster in my neighborhood with drugs and guns. 
We are talking about our great and wonderful federal governments trying to fund their entity because of the loss of funding because of the sequestration. They gave all the money to people that don't work and cut funding from organization like the coast guard so they can continue to legally buy votes by supporting those whose wish to not work.


----------



## Chapman5011 (Mar 7, 2013)

I made the prediction that this year will be the worst year with law enforcement agencies going to brand new levels searching for every dime they can get their hands on. 
It starting to look like I am correct in every form.
By the way have you seen where on Tuesday it has been recommended that the nation blood alcohol limit be lowered to .05 for all 50 states.
Now that is another example of what I am referring to. It has nothing to do with saving lives, it has everything to do with the money. Our government is broke and they need more funding to survive. Guess where they will be getting their new earned funding from. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE...........


----------



## Chapman5011 (Mar 7, 2013)

....


----------



## billin (Oct 14, 2007)

*Chapman*

You pegged it thus is what happens when you scream no new taxes long enough local and state GOVERMENT will generate revenue and survive regardless of the milage rate through fines and parole payments ever wonder why it's so easy to get probation any more????? Cause it generates funds that's why


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

flex said:


> I have been stopped plenty of times by cops and never once did they ask to search my car. the only time they ask is if they think you are doing something illegal.  i mean if you have a bag of drugs sitting in the passenger seat or a gun on the floor in plain view then yeah i think its a good idea to search your car don't you think? if it was a gangsta driving through your neighborhood with a gun and drugs in their car while your kids were playing in the yard i think you would sing a different tune if the cops wanted to search the gangsta's car
> 
> you are paranoid and your arguement has nothing to do with the thread.


I think the points I bring up have everything to do with the thread.

What constitutes "thinking" you are doing something illegal, as you say above? The way you look? The officer's stats? The fact you are "_not from around here, are ya_"?

I do know a bit about the subject of police searches as I have personally searched plenty of cars (& residences) without having probable cause ... just consent. I'm not "paranoid", just my knowledge of the reality of how things are done. "_You don't mind if I look in your car, do you_" as I'm opening the door & going inside ... if there's no protest by you then you have just given me consent. Ta Da!

As to the posters talking about highway consent searches ... a lot of those State Police wanting consent to search your vehicle are part of Highway Interdiction Teams & get training, Federal funding, and access to various Federal databases to engage in that activity. It's a Federally funded fishing expedition (pardon the pun.)

But we're not talking about vehicle searches by local/State police here which do require either consent or probable cause. And we're not talking about border searches. We're talking about the Constitutionality of the 4th Amendment exception of a game officer being able to search your vessel and/or belongings inside the USA without any probable cause or consent at all. 

Did you know a game warden can see you leave the pier parking lot with a fishing pole, follow your car five miles, pull you over & search anywhere in the car you might be able to hide a fish - with no more suspicion than the mere fact you have a fishing pole? I understand courts have upheld it as an exception to the 4th Amendment thus far (google_: Maikhio vs. California_, ) but something's just not right to me about that. A game officer should have to be able to articulate _why_ he thinks you might have something illegal in your possession before he can search you without consent - just like any other government agent has to. That's just my opinion ... others may differ I understand. 

And of course if _"asked" _to be boarded & searched I will not refuse ... because I know I'm not really being "_asked_" and can't refuse under current law. I may have my legal & political opinions ... but I'm not stupid.




.


----------



## John B. (Oct 2, 2007)

AndyS said:


> I think the points I bring up have everything to do with the thread.
> 
> What constitutes "thinking" you are doing something illegal, as you say above? The way you look? The officer's stats? The fact you are "not from around here, are ya"?
> 
> ...


Take it a step further, if you make it to your home and take a cooler and fishing pole inside... they can enter your house.

Sent from my LG G2X using Forum Runner


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

fenbields5 said:


> Because we the people no longer hold our represented officials to the Constitution. As a society, we don't read it or understand it, therefore it does not exist.


+1

As the old saying goes: *
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." *- attributed to B. Franklin


----------



## esenjam (Jan 30, 2013)

Naby said:


> This isn't a question of whether or not an FWC officer _can_ board your boat and search you, it is question of whether or not they _should_ be able to. I think everybody here agrees more or less that those guys do a good job. They have been given the power through various mean to stop us, board our boat, and search us. By doing so they are doing the job they took an oath to do.
> 
> I have no problem with what they do based on the fact that they're doing their job. I have a huge problem with the premise behind why they are allowed to do their job and the power they have to carry that out. That is the issue. Nobody here wants to refuse to let these guys do their job. The intent of the original post was to understand the law and our rights.
> 
> We're in the situation that we're in today because at some point in time nobody or not enough people stood up and spoke about these particular issues when our rights were being legislated away or done away with by a court ruling. That is not paranoid or anything else to that effect, that is being aware of the fact that if we do not make an effort to understand what our rights are and what they should be then they will slowly but surely be eroded in the name of government power, etc.


 
I started this thread out of curiosity of the law, and what it meant to all of you on the PFF. My original post had nothing to do with DUIs, gangstas, politicians trying to screw people out of their hard earned dollars by raising taxes, or concealing illegally caught fish. After 20 years of uniformed military service in defending and upholding The Constitution, I wanted to know what my rights are and aren't when it comes to the sports that I have come to love doing, in living here on the Gulf Coast. I'm not a cop of any sort, and don't envy the job that they do day in and day out. I'm quoting the above post because Naby is at least trying to keep this thread on track in what I intended it to be - nothing more, nothing less. If USCG has the Commerce Act of 1790 that supersedes my 4th Amendment rights when I'm on the territorial waters of the United States, then by all means they are welcome aboard my vessel. I would want them to have that law on their side - especially when someone is trying to smuggle in cocaine, marijuana, heroin, or a nuclear device into the Country that I live in and love. It appears to me anyways, that the FWC has similar rights if they have probable cause to believe I was fishing - so be it. As I see it the FWC is there to protect the natural resources of the State of Florida for *all of us* to enjoy. If they weren't there, the possibility exists that the fish I love to go after may be wiped out by overfishing. I would want FWC to request to board my vessel, but I'm not going to repel them if they don't. If they do board and state that I have committed an illegal act of whatever sort - I'm not going to argue with them - I'm going to fight them in Court, where the argument belongs.


----------



## Inn Deep (Oct 3, 2007)

So was this legal?

My boat was in a private slip. The slip was across the street from the private parking lot where my vehicle was. We had just returned from fishing. The fish we caught were in coolers inside of my 4runner. My back hatch was open and the coolers were inside and visible. Everyone that was fishing with me were on the boat cleaning up. The FWC pulled up in one of the fwc trucks. As they started to walk towards my boat they noticed the coolers in the back of my 4runner. They actually pulled the coolers out and went through them. There were no illegal fish. They left the coolers on the ground then came down to the boat and checked it too. They even went into my cabin. We were all polite. We were completely legal. They actually told us that it looked like we had a great trip.

Even though everything was legal it pissed me off that they pulled the coolers out of my truck without asking permission. For all they knew it could have been someone elses 4runner that had groceries in the coolers. I kept my mouth shut because I fish a lot and didn't want further hassles.


----------



## Flguy32514 (Sep 16, 2012)

Are you sure that were your 4runner was parked he didn't see you? FWC I've noticed are some of the sneakiest around


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

Inn Deep said:


> So was this legal?
> 
> My boat was in a private slip. The slip was across the street from the private parking lot where my vehicle was. We had just returned from fishing. The fish we caught were in coolers inside of my 4runner. My back hatch was open and the coolers were inside and visible. Everyone that was fishing with me were on the boat cleaning up. The FWC pulled up in one of the fwc trucks. As they started to walk towards my boat they noticed the coolers in the back of my 4runner. They actually pulled the coolers out and went through them. There were no illegal fish. They left the coolers on the ground then came down to the boat and checked it too. They even went into my cabin. We were all polite. We were completely legal. They actually told us that it looked like we had a great trip.
> 
> Even though everything was legal it pissed me off that they pulled the coolers out of my truck *without asking permission*. For all they knew it could have been someone elses 4runner that had groceries in the coolers. I kept my mouth shut because I fish a lot and didn't want further hassles.


Regarding the highlighted/bolded above, they don't have to_ ask your permission_. 

Yes, they may do it to be polite most of the time but they don't have to, so ...... too bad. And a lot of people seem to be OK with that.


----------



## AndyS (Nov 22, 2011)

esenjam said:


> After 20 years of uniformed military service in defending and upholding The Constitution, I wanted to know what my rights are and aren't when it comes to the sports that I have come to love doing, in living here on the Gulf Coast.


You're rights are that a game officer can check your car, vehicle, even residence for illegal game if s/he thinks you've been fishing or hunting, regardless of any protections afforded by the 4th Amendment. I think that's pretty clearly established.






esenjam said:


> If USCG has the Commerce Act of 1790 that supersedes my 4th Amendment rights when I'm on the territorial waters of the United States, then by all means they are welcome aboard my vessel.


In answer to your question ... yes, prevailing law says your 4th Amendment rights are curtailed not only if you are on a vessel, but if you are or have been recently fishing or hunting. 

The Commerce Act of 1790 is a legislated law ... not part of the Constitution. Doesn't seem right to me that any legislated law should take away any of our rights that are protected by the Constitution ... be it Search & Seizure, Speech, Religion, or the Right to Keep & Bear Arms. What did you spend 20 years to "support & defend?" (thanks for your service, btw)

No doubt there are not a few in this nation who would jump at an opportunity to create similar exceptions to the 4th Amendment when it comes to firearms .... that's why the NRA filed an Amicus brief in support of the ACLU's appeal to the Supreme Court in _Maikhio vs. California _on this very issue. http://www.nraila.org/media/5744000/no._11-527_amicus_final.pdf





.


----------



## baldona523 (Mar 2, 2008)

Inn Deep, most likely they were watching you the entire time. FWC will watch with Binos very often. They probably watched to see if you put all the fish you cleaned in those coolers and to see if you placed any fish elsewhere. They probably saw you pull the boat in, clean the fish, put the coolers in the trucks, and then leave to clean the boat. FWC will watch you a long time before actually making contact.

I was gator hunting Lake Wimico one night and we didn't see any other boats that night. We got back at probably midnight to an empty ramp out in the middle of nowhere and as we pulled the boat out of the water 2 FWC guys came out of the woods. They said someone reported a gun shot (no guns are allowed gator hunting) and they had a plane that was looking for gator hunters spotlighting and radioing the ground of their location. Point being, they have a lot of resources and have to be sneaky in order to catch people in the act. 

If you don't like FWC's abilities, don't fish or hunt. I have run into FWC jerks but they have never done anything I have felt was illegal and most importantly I don't do anything illegal and could care less.

Just remember, just because law enforcement searches and finds something does not mean it will hold up in a court of law. They are human and make plenty of mistakes too.


----------



## Chapman5011 (Mar 7, 2013)

They are sneaky and yes they are doing their job. Because of them people do relate what the fishing laws are and makes most think twice before trying to keep illegal fish. 
But every has to agree that some citations could be avoided with a little common courtesies. And their are some people that deserve being thrown under the bus. It's a good thing they are there. 
But I still don't like a ticket. And there are a few that do take advantage of their authority they have been given. Point made
Thanks


----------



## Inn Deep (Oct 3, 2007)

"Inn Deep, most likely they were watching you the entire time. FWC will watch with Binos very often. They probably watched to see if you put all the fish you cleaned in those coolers and to see if you placed any fish elsewhere. They probably saw you pull the boat in, clean the fish, put the coolers in the trucks, and then leave to clean the boat. FWC will watch you a long time before actually making contact."

We were cleaning the boat, not the fish. All the fish in the cooler were still whole


----------



## bamaflinger (Jun 30, 2011)

John B. said:


> Someone should take that dude snapper fishing this weekend! Take one for the team.... :whistling:
> 
> Sent from my LG G2X using Forum Runner


:lol:


----------



## sealark (Sep 27, 2007)

beeritself said:


> I'm not a diver, nor have I ever been on a dive boat - I'm just curious. Why would you prefer they not board until the diver is up? Is because of a running motor with a person in the water?


Yes we were close to a channel with lots of current and boat traffic. I was underway and following my diver. It would have been very unsafe to leave the diver alone in the water. The officer used common sense and just left.


----------



## Jason (Oct 2, 2007)

I love it when everyone gets a kick outta the riff/raff getting busted by FWC/SO/FHP so on and so forth. Folks post the arrest records and lots of "good jobs" are mentioned. But mention that someone thinks it's not right for FWC/Coast Guard to be able to board and search and folks jump on the "it's not right" band wagon. 

Plain and simple: They are there to protect resources/persons/and property. By doing so they can board and search. They use "sneaky" (I prefer resourceful) methods to find offenders and will generally already have answers to any questions they ask you. Not too sure what all the anxiety about them boarding is. If you are doing nothing wrong why worry. I've never been boarded, they've tied up to me and checked me but no worries! 

As fer the poster that beat his DUI, maybe that was a wake up call and GOD was looking down on you saying here is a life ring....I just hope you grabbed it.


----------



## PurpleNGold (Mar 15, 2011)

bigrick said:


> I've noticed most cops love it when you kiss their ass and if you do generally there will be no problem. When you start asking them the questions and being a smart ass is when they call 3 of their friends and have a little fun with you back. It's much easier to be nice, let them do their job and be on your way. I've been pulled over many times and besides asking me to open my cooler once or twice most don't even board my boat. FWC will usually ask to see a fishing license, check your registration and send you on your way. Do some cops get aggressive when they are disrespected, hell yes, but so would I.


I'm not going to kiss their ass, sorry not me. Do they deal with dumbasses? Of course, that's part of their job. I'll give them the respect they give me.


----------



## 2RC's II (Feb 2, 2012)

PurpleNGold said:


> I'm not going to kiss their ass, sorry not me. Do they deal with dumbasses? Of course, that's part of their job. I'll give them the respect they give me.


You really on fish river? I got cousins with a place on fish river. The Stevensons.


----------



## hsiF deR (Oct 4, 2009)

Duplicate post.....


----------



## hsiF deR (Oct 4, 2009)

Jason said:


> I love it when everyone gets a kick outta the riff/raff getting busted by FWC/SO/FHP so on and so forth. Folks post the arrest records and lots of "good jobs" are mentioned. But mention that someone thinks it's not right for FWC/Coast Guard to be able to board and search and folks jump on the "it's not right" band wagon.
> 
> Plain and simple: They are there to protect resources/persons/and property. By doing so they can board and search. They use "sneaky" (I prefer resourceful) methods to find offenders and will generally already have answers to any questions they ask you. Not too sure what all the anxiety about them boarding is. If you are doing nothing wrong why worry. I've never been boarded, they've tied up to me and checked me but no worries!
> 
> As fer the poster that beat his DUI, maybe that was a wake up call and GOD was looking down on you saying here is a life ring....I just hope you grabbed it.


There is no space on this board for your sensible posting! :thumbup:


----------



## PurpleNGold (Mar 15, 2011)

twodown said:


> You really on fish river? I got cousins with a place on fish river. The Stevensons.


Yea, whereabouts do they live?


----------



## Emerald Ghost (Mar 11, 2008)

billin said:


> You pegged it thus is what happens when you scream no new taxes long enough local and state GOVERMENT will generate revenue and survive regardless of the milage rate through fines and parole payments ever wonder why it's so easy to get probation any more????? Cause it generates funds that's why



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are two reasons why probation is given as opposed to jail time:
1- the offender is not a threat to society and therefore the individual can continue to work and provide for their family.
2- Jail over crowding 

Regarding FWC or other authorities boarding your vessel.
I just don't get all of the hoopla. They are there to make sure that you keep vessels safe, that you don't fish our waters out, and to not operate a boat recklessly or under the influence.
IF someone treats you with rudeness or disrespect have someone on board videotape it. I have NEVER had an FWC Officer be rude to me.
just my .02


----------



## DLo (Oct 2, 2007)

I'm conflicted on this matter and can argue for and against the boarding of vessels without probable cause, on the one hand I hear folks saying this is an erosion of 4th amendment rights, but the law was written less than a year after the Constitution was adopted by the first congress by some of the same folks that had helped to write The Constitution. They felt strong enough about being able to protect our coastline that they gave the predecessor to the Coast Guard sweeping authority to board and search vessels in US water.

On the other hand, if you substitute private residence on any of the arguments made, then many of the people that don't see an issue would be ready to stand and fight to protect the rights listed in the 4th amendment. The "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" argument, or the " they have a job to do and they're just trying to protect the resource and keep us safe" argument could easily be stretched into police entering your home to make sure you're not wasting water or electricity, I don't think those are valid arguments for vessel boarding without probable cause. 

I get the national security angle of controlling who is coming and going through US waters and I can understand checking safety equipment since if you get in a bind at sea, the CG are the ones to come haul your butts out of the water. I guess my issue is being presumed guilty of game violations and having to prove my innocence to a law enforcement agency. I would not tolerate it from any other law enforcement.


----------



## Emerald Ghost (Mar 11, 2008)

DLo said:


> I'm conflicted on this matter and can argue for and against the boarding of vessels without probable cause, on the one hand I hear folks saying this is an erosion of 4th amendment rights, but the law was written less than a year after the Constitution was adopted by the first congress by some of the same folks that had helped to write The Constitution. They felt strong enough about being able to protect our coastline that they gave the predecessor to the Coast Guard sweeping authority to board and search vessels in US water.
> 
> On the other hand, if you substitute private residence on any of the arguments made, then many of the people that don't see an issue would be ready to stand and fight to protect the rights listed in the 4th amendment. The "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to worry about" argument, or the " they have a job to do and they're just trying to protect the resource and keep us safe" argument could easily be stretched into police entering your home to make sure you're not wasting water or electricity, I don't think those are valid arguments for vessel boarding without probable cause.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MY RESPONSE and my position HAS NOTHING to do with a LEO coming into a persons home or residence without a warrant. Let's don't get the two confused.


----------



## Breeze (Mar 23, 2012)

I find this thead amusing. So they board ya. Big deal. If your legal then no biggie. If your illegal then your busted. While on the chesapeake I got boarded a couple times by DNR and the CG. This was on a sailboat with no rods on deck. Only time it bothered me at all was after spending all day taking a beating in really rough seas. That was the CG and they opted out of inspecting the cabin and head when they saw the mess created below by the rough weather.. lol


----------



## FLMarine (Jan 5, 2012)

The issue is not if you are legal or not but being subjected to excessive searches. Yes the law says when you're on a boat the coasties and law enforcement don't need probable cause to board and do a safety inspection or check for fish.

Would you agree with police pulling over random people on the road just to make sure their cars are safe? How would you feel if once a week you were pulled over in your car to make sure you didn't have drugs in your vehicle and couldn't refuse a search. 

I think the time has come to update the 4th amendment protection to the water. I've always been legal and go out of my way to obey the law, but that doesn't mean I want to be pulled over without probable cause when I go out fishing or boating. If you think it's no big deal just because you haven't done anything wrong then you are allowing the erosion of our rights by not standing up to them.


----------



## DLo (Oct 2, 2007)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MY RESPONSE and my position HAS NOTHING to do with a LEO coming into a persons home or residence without a warrant. Let's don't get the two confused.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't responding to you personally, just to the thread. But where is the line? What if I live in a houseboat? Have I given up my Constitutional rights? Every time this thread comes up someone pops up and starts telling us that wildlife officers are the most powerful beings in the universe and can confiscate your soul if they think you might have been fishing and keeping illegal fish.


----------



## Outside9 (Apr 30, 2008)

FLMarine said:


> The issue is not if you are legal or not but being subjected to excessive searches. Yes the law says when you're on a boat the coasties and law enforcement don't need probable cause to board and do a safety inspection or check for fish.
> 
> Would you agree with police pulling over random people on the road just to make sure their cars are safe? How would you feel if once a week you were pulled over in your car to make sure you didn't have drugs in your vehicle and couldn't refuse a search.
> 
> I think the time has come to update the 4th amendment protection to the water. I've always been legal and go out of my way to obey the law, but that doesn't mean I want to be pulled over without probable cause when I go out fishing or boating. If you think it's no big deal just because you haven't done anything wrong then you are allowing the erosion of our rights by not standing up to them.


Next time they try and board your vessel refuse and you can fight it to highest court that will hear the case.

Let us know how it turns out.


----------



## spear em (Oct 4, 2007)

just obey the rules and you have nothing to worry about. hell they can come on my boat, in my house, ride in my truck and even pet my dog. I don't care. if they are hungry I will feed them. if they are thirsty I will give them water. I have nothing to hide, even my hey shizz face YOU CANT DO THAT, but please come to me when I am sinking, and pull me and my children from the water. but when you do I will remind you that I PAY YOUR SALARY. DAMN I KEEP GETTING A W-2 EVERY YEAR. I MUST BE WORKING FOR MYSELF.


----------



## Chapman5011 (Mar 7, 2013)

I watched orange beach launch a seadoo today. He put his little hat on and left. Under cover. At this exact point is when I finally realized that they are there more so for the tickets and NOT for the protection and serving. They simply launched this seadoo in plain clothes to go out and write as many tickets as they can .
America the free. No more.


----------



## KingCrab (Apr 29, 2012)

Chapman5011 said:


> I watched orange beach launch a seadoo today. He put his little hat on and left. Under cover. At this exact point is when I finally realized that they are there more so for the tickets and NOT for the protection and serving. They simply launched this seadoo in plain clothes to go out and write as many tickets as they can .
> America the free. No more.


Sad but true. He has to write to prove he's doing his job. Either it's a warning or Its a revenue citation. It's all about money disguised as safety. It will get worse.


----------



## FLMarine (Jan 5, 2012)

Outside9 said:


> Next time they try and board your vessel refuse and you can fight it to highest court that will hear the case.
> 
> Let us know how it turns out.


I didn't say anywhere that I was going to refuse coastlines or FWC to board. I have been boarded, searched, and safety checked several times. I know what the law allows them to do. The point I was trying to make is that if you think it's no big deal just because you don't break the law then with that attitude is what allows the erosion of our freedoms. I guess you don't mind the government looking at who you call or reading your email just because you haven't done anything wrong either. 

I have seen coasties at Ft Lauderdale just outside the inlet stop every boat that goes by to "check" them. They got to my brothers boat and left us alone very fast when we identified that there was 3 Coast guard pilots and 1 marine pilot aboard (my brother used to fly for the coast guard). It bothered me though that they were checking everyone with no probable cause even though the law allows them to do just that.


----------

