TexasCHLforum.com

bilgerat57 wrote:but as a LEO, would you feel comfortable leaving a functional, loaded firearm readily available to an individual you didn't know? Especially while you are in a vulnerable position with your attention focused on re-boarding your vessel?

GIJoe wrote:well, it's already been taken to the supreme court before, and the US SCOTUS has deemed that this type of search is legal, it has been challenged many times, and is still upheld.

GIJoe wrote:Me being an MP in the Army,

GIJoe wrote:PS if you cant find that part of the 4th, look at the link i gave in my last post, it gives the SCOTUS cases and the wording

GIJoe wrote:Research through the WHole law not just the Elementary school version

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Page 1241 of the US Constitution reads

" Vessel Searches.--Not only is the warrant requirement
inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards
applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are
necessary predicates to stops of vessels. In United States v.
Villamonte-Marquez,\74\ the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a
vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for
purpose of inspecting documentation. The boarding was authorized by
statute derived from an act of the First Congress,\75\ and hence had
``an impressive historical pedigree'' carrying with it a presumption of
constitutionality. Moreover, ``important factual differences between
vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and
automobiles on principal thoroughfares in the border area'' justify
application of a less restrictive rule for vessel searches. The reason
why random stops of vehicles have been held impermissible under the
Fourth Amendment, the Court explained, is that stops at fixed
checkpoints or roadblocks are both feasible and less subject to abuse of
discretion by authorities. ``But no reasonable claim can be made that
permanent checkpoints would be practical on waters such as these where
vessels can move in any direction at any time and need not follow
established `avenues' as automobiles must do.''\76\ Because there is a
``substantial'' governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws,
``especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is
great,'' the Court found the ``limited'' but not ``minimal'' intrusion
occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be
reasonable.\77\ Dissenting Justice Brennan argued that the Court for the first time was
approving ``a completely random seizure and detention of persons and an
entry onto private, noncommercial premises by police officers, without
any limitations whatever on the officers' discretion or any safeguards
against abuse.''\78\

suthdj wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

GIJoe wrote:This (Warrant-less Customs Searches)is actually written in the 4th amendment as an exception and has been that way for years

"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."

Could you show me where that clause is?

What the Coast Guard is doing is conducting unreasonable warrantless searches, and just because they are getting away with it doesn't justify it. I also don't see any exception for crossing international boundries. Maybe this is where the TSA gets their justification.

I would have to agree with you with 1 exception or is it acception were does US law end and maritime law begin?

GIJoe wrote:This (Warrant-less Customs Searches)is actually written in the 4th amendment as an exception and has been that way for years

Thomas wrote:

PUCKER wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

Thomas wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Still seems like a warrantless search to me, just as everybody gripes about TSA doing.

Pretty much, accept it's already accepted as the norm in the maritime industry. Maybe this is an example of how TSA will be in a decade?

I've scared people by just wearing coveralls that looked like the USCG's coveralls/uniform from a distance.

So an unconstitutional search should be accepted just because that's the way it's always been done?

At least the TSA can argue that the airlines are a private entity and so on, but this is an invasion of private property without a warrant just because they can.

Rent/buy a boat and go out for an afternoon on an area lake or other body of water and when the game warden/lake patrol/water patrol/Coast Guard, etc. comes up and boards, well, tell them to go away, lemme know how it works out for you. I do NOT agree with them being able to board/search without consent/probably cause, my vessel is my 2nd home (it really is). Things have definitely gone awry. Just because you are on the water it should NOT make a difference, just my nickel (inflation, ya know).

I meant EXCEPT!!!!!!!

I would never in my right mind tell some one to "accept" that. Sorry

Thomas wrote:

jimlongley wrote:Still seems like a warrantless search to me, just as everybody gripes about TSA doing.

Pretty much, accept it's already accepted as the norm in the maritime industry. Maybe this is an example of how TSA will be in a decade?

I've scared people by just wearing coveralls that looked like the USCG's coveralls/uniform from a distance.