Is random boarding of vessels unconstitutional?
 

Found this article interesting.


Link removed because it was a malware site.

Wifi...

NH got rid of random boarding a few years ago when the NH Supreme court ruled it unconstitional. Up until that point the NHMP would conduct "random" safety checks. Essentially stopping you and "checking" for "safety violations". The Court ruled that the NHMP needed to be held to the same standard as regular police forces, and needed 'articulable suspicion" that violation had already occurred prior to stopping someone.

When I had my 22 Classic, I used to get stopped every year at least 2-3 times for a "Vessel Safety Check" usually by a rookie.... it got to the point where I would laugh as I would have the stuff ready as they went down the checklist.

On the upside I got to meet some great NHMP officers! They do an awesome job with little reward!

Woodsy

Don't forget that the NH Constitution is different than the US Constitution, the NH Marine Patrol is different than the US Coast Guard and Lake Winnipesaukee is different than the ocean. The rules about stopping and boarding are very different.

Yes, very true, but as the linked article points out, at least one state supreme court has found that random boardings violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which applies to all citizens and government agencies in all U.S. jurisdictions. Different courts can and do rule differently on the same issue, so the best answer in this case is the typical lawyer's answer: "it depends."

Random stopping
 

A decade ago, marine patrol officers will stop you and do a safety check, out of the blue. Some will even board you vessel and comments on open containers, comparing the data plate recommendation for number of passengers etc.

Even though it was a pain I welcome the safety checks as I feel the lake is a lot safer for it. You can see the number of folks cited in the NHMP log.

Now, the only time I get a safety check is if I get stop for a violation. And I received a safety check once when I made a complaint about PWC violations. They never board a vessel and check the data plate today.

Since we're talking about safety checks....as a refresher, who's got the list of required items?

No it is NOT constitutional and lets hope it stays that way!!

Dan

New Hampshire v. McKeown
 

I have a boat on Winnipesaukee so this whole topic caught my attention.

In the 2004 case of NH v. McKeown it seems to me that the NH SJC has made it very clear that the Marine Patrol cannot conduct routine stops of vessels for the purpose of conducting a safety inspection.

SOP 2010: "Boats shall not be stopped for discretionary reasons", there must exist in the opinion of the Marine Patrol Officer an articulable suspicion that the operator, or other occupant of the boat is in violation of some criminal behavior or boating law, rule or regulation.

That all being said, as a veteran law enforcement officer I have tremendous respect for the good work of the Marine Patrol.

Ya... what he said!

Well said Irish!


Woodsy

"Articulable" would be?
 

I'll have to see if my registration number is of a contrasting color to the boat. ;)

Needs to be block letters too.

Is random boarding of vessels unconstitutional?


No......"Water Boarding" is unconstitutional

Always here to help.

Is that what happened to FLL ?:emb:

The 150 ft. rule is a great excuse for the MP to do a vessel boarding. Even if you're 250 ft. away from another boat, it's pretty tough to argue the point unless it's midweek traveling through the broads.

I've had this happen a couple times through the years when I was definitely not within 150 ft. of another boat and after passing the inspection what do you know - no citation for the 150 ft. violation.

See page 58 of the NH Boater Education Guide: http://www.boat-ed.com/newhampshire/...ment-Checklist.

Same here. I was "pulled over" by MP based on what they told me was a report from another boater that I was within 150' of them. I am on a PWC, so no boarding, but they did check my safety equip.

And for the record, I was nowhere close to being within 150'.

I was pulled over last year. No worries had all my stuff like I am supposed to and drive safe. He said it appeared I was witin the 150'. Off I went, said thank you and have a nice day.
I have a responsibility to the people I drive as well as the other families on the water. If they want to check to be sure I have all the safety equipment, license and registered, that is fine by me. I feel I am doing my part. I would be more bothered if MP just did not care.

Be safe.....:D

Use These—Get Stopped!
 

As a favor, I numbered a neighbor's previously-unmarked mailbox, and used a package containing "Coast Guard-approved" numbers.

http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i1...psf0820c7a.jpg

At only 60-feet—the width of the lot—the numbers fade away even on a solid background. They came in the red package I've propped up for the photo.

Do they really check for the daytime visual distress signals and nighttime vis. dis. signals and backfire flame arrestors on this lake? Isn't that more of a Coast Guard thing?

You have the same responsibility when you're on the road driving your car to work, or the movies, would it be okay for them to stop you at a red light to make sure your registration, insurance card and your inspection sticker was valid?

Honestly...no problem. Why would I care.

Yes, Random Boarding is Illegal
 

The short answer to the original question is: Yes. The government is not allowed to detain and board a vessel without probable cause that a crime or violation has been committed.

It does not matter what the New Hampshire Constitution or state or local law/ordinance says to the contrary. Such action has been found unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution.

Corrections to above post.....
 

A law enforcement officer only needs articulable suspicion to stop and temporarily detain a vessel. Articulable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause. Probable cause is what an officer needs to effect an arrest, and is usually derived from observations obtained after articulable suspicion led to the original stop and temporary detention. There is a significant difference between articulable suspicion and probable cause, although the two terms are often confused. They are not interchangeable.

Additionally on inland waters under State control, like Winnipesaukee, an officer would need articulable suspicion to temporarily stop and board a vessel. However, that does not pertain to Federal navigable waterways such as most of the Piscatiqua River and its any tributaries near thisState's coast line. On a Federal Navigable waterway the Coast Guard can and will board you or random inspections, no articulable suspicion is required. Likewise the State has entered into a reciprocal agreement with the Federal Government in reference to the Marine Patrol that gives the NHMP the same powers as the Coast Guard in Federal navigable waterways, allowing the NHMP to make random checks as well.

I am boarded for routine inspection at least once a year down here, and on most occasions the boarding vessel consists of both Coast Guard and NHMP officers working together.

Same State, different waterways, completely different set of rules recognized by the Courts.

You can get stop/boarded for basically any reason they want to come up with.(articulable suspicion seems to be "the phrase":rolleye2:)
I don't care if they stop me. Zee paperwork is in order, I have ALL the necessary safety equipment on board for lake OR ocean, I don't drink, and I KNOW I am more knowledgeable than most(I have the Tres Martin diploma, power squadron cert(s), dunk-tank cert, etc etc) and am a safe and excellent driver.
It is an inconvenience only. The NHMP are a bunch of pretty good & fair guys.
I am GLAD they are out there watching for articulable suspicion.:cool:

That is incorrect.

You can only be stopped and/or bordered if the officer can articulate, using the reasonable person/officer standard, that you have, had or were about to engage in criminal activity.

A far cry from "...basically any reason..."

:)

But to protect their reputation, they can make up any excuse, that in their experience, the court will accept. I believe that was what he was saying.

No disrespect, of course :)

I have been boating on Narragansett Bay (RI) and environs since 1967. I have NEVER seen the Coast Guard or Local Harbor
Masters, Police, etc. "Pull Over" a boat....EVER. :look: :look:

We have Big GoFasts, Mega Yachts and every conceivable kind of boats in between. We DO Not have a 150' Rule. I don't ever recall any "Accidents" because someone was passing Too Close. Just an observation on my part...............YOU decide...:D NB

Articulable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause
 

"A law enforcement officer only needs articulable suspicion to stop and temporarily detain a vessel. Articulable suspicion is a lesser requirement than probable cause."

Skip's observation, a LEO only needs an articulable suspicion to stop and temporarily detain a [person] is correct. What Skip is referring to is known in law enforcement/criminal law quarters as a "Terry stop." This doctrine is derived from a U.S. Supreme Court holding in Terry v. Ohio. Briefly; a LEO may detain an individual for a brief period if that officer, through his training and experience, develops an articulable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed. The doctrine allows the officer to subject the person to reasonable restraint and a pat-down of their outer clothing for weapons. A general search of the suspect and his vehicle/vessel is not permitted. For that to take place probable cause must be developed - i.e. that more probably than not a crime has been committed.

I don't see much utility in the Terry Doctrine in the enforcement of boating violations. A LEO either sees a violation or is investigating the complaint of a violation, where a known witness is available, and stops the violator. With all due respect, Skip's explanation greatly simplifies a difficult area of the law that has been and continues to be litigated. Simply calling it a "safety inspection" does not always wash.

Let's not lose sight of the original question posed in this thread: Is random boarding of vessels unconstitutional? The short answer is still: Yes. We can debate the nuances of Fourth-Amendment jurisprudence till the cows come home, the answer will be the same.

I'll bow out by pointing out that when a law enforcement officer refers to a "Terry Stop" they are not referring to a routine boating or traffic stop, but specifically to the portion of the Terry decision that allows a pat and frisk during a temporary detention. Very few boating or traffic stops result in Terry authorized pat downs.

As to your continued blanket assertion that random safety inspections violate the Fourth Ammendment, you also continue to fail to recognize that on federally navigable waterways such stops are routinely conducted here in New Hampshire by both the NHMP and Coast Guard, with such actions to date not prohibited by any appropriate Court action.

Bringing it back to the purpose of this website, one point that we can agree on is that on Winnipesaukee the NHMP does not have the authority to conduct random safety inspections, as dictated by appropriate Court decision and by the NHMP's own internal directives.

:)