Is random boarding of vessels unconstitutional?

[CTYankee]

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.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by CTYankee

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.

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.

[NHBUOY]

You can get stop/boarded for basically any reason they want to come up with.(articulable suspicion seems to be "the phrase")
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.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by NHBUOY

You can get stop/boarded for basically any reason they want to come up with.(articulable suspicion seems to be "the phrase")

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..."

[wifi]

Originally Posted by Skip

.....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

[NoBozo]

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.

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... NB

[CTYankee]

"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.

[Skip]

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.