Graham Pugh wrote: "In the Thosand Islands and Lake Ontario between New York state and Ontario both the US and Canadian customs including district the local water police have the authority to board any boat for compliance with local regulations."

Thanks, Graham, for making my comment clearer; what I tried to do was draw the line between the local yockels and [certain] feds.  And since my comment was based on the US Constitution, it only applies in the US.  You are correct about CBP, of course.  In the US, I'm not aware of any Federal "Water Police," but of course, I stand - as always - to be further enlightened.  In any case, in the US, the locals need a warrant, and so do at least some some Federal agencies; not all can board w/o one.  That certainly applies to potti-patrols of state and local jurisdiction.

Thanks, again.

Jim

Peg and Jim Healy aboard Sanctuary
Currently at Charlotte Harbor, Punta Gorda, FL
Monk 36 Hull #132
MMSI #367042570
AGLCA #3767
MTOA #3436

Snip:".... In any case, in the US, the locals need a warrant, and so do at least some some Federal agencies; not all can board w/o one.  That certainly applies to potti-patrols of state and local..."

Jim,
There are many regulations that give State and Local marine types authorities related to that regulation.  Compliance to local regs. On the water can be compared to that of vehicles on the road.  So incidental to a "stop many inspections can be undertaken for "their and your safety" Or some other legitimizing justification.

Joe,

Very interesting!  I just had a similar offline exchange with another person I respect.  Remember, my comments apply to the US only.  I do not know how legal protection for citizens works in Canada.

And let me say for the record, I am not a lawyer.  I am most certainly not offering legal "advice."  I have been in enough conversations of this topic (as you surely know by now, I'm a bit of a "process" freak) to have confidence in the content of my post.  However, as is always the case with material posted on any Internet forum or list, by me or by anyone else, the reader is responsible for their own due diligence and use of posted material.  And unquestionable, your tolerance for aggravation is also a factor, because there certainly could be repercussions if you choose to deny boarding to the potti-patrol.  Anyway, any lawyers out there, particularly maritime law, please set me straight - online of off - if I'm out-of-line.

I respectfully disagree with the assertion that potti-patrols are the same as a health and safety inspection of restaurants or buildings.  On land, restaurants and [commercial] buildings are "places of public accommodation."  A suitable analogy might then be that forced boarding by potti-patrol officers for the purpose of compliance inspection might be allowable for privately owned but licensed commercial tour or dinner boats - which are places of public accommodation - or maybe for fishing boats where the captain operates under the authority of a license and the boat under the separate authority of a fishing license.  Pleasure boats [in the US] are neither licensed nor places of public accommodation; they are private.  I am not a Coast Guard Captain's License holder; and so, I have not voluntarily given up my constitutional rights, as I do on land if I want to hold a Driver License.  Residential code enforcement authorities get involved with administrative law enforcement when issuing permits and in building standards compliance.  However, once the "Certificate of Occupancy" is issued, they cannot later come along and demand admittance to my private land-based home to do a routine inspection of my fusebox to see if it's compliant unless they posses a warrant signed by a judge.  That's the "Castle Doctrine..."  And, the Constitution...

I choose to live aboard a boat knowing that the US Constitution does not protect me in my boat home to the same extent that it protects me in my land-based home.  Although, the recent Supreme Court case in Miami over the treatment of an unmotorized houseboat may suggest that could change for liveaboards.  Remember, there weren't many private cruising boats around in the 1770's when the Federalist Papers were being developed.  That, in fact, is why the Coast Guard and CBP can board me WITHOUT a warrant.  To enter my land-based home, those exact same authorities WOULD need a warrant, except in the case of "exigent circumstances."  But even on a boat, that boarding privilege DOES NOT extend to every local Tom, Dick and Harry with a badge...

Jim

Peg and Jim Healy aboard Sanctuary
Currently at Charlotte Harbor, Punta Gorda, FL
Monk 36 Hull #132
MMSI #367042570
AGLCA #3767
MTOA #3436

Snip:".But even on a boat, that boarding privilege DOES NOT extend to
every local Tom, Dick and Harry with a badge..."

Privilege is not the proper term.  Sorry, but authority is.  There are many
State and Local authorities (certainly not all) that have the legally
authority to stop you to enforce regulations (verify compliance) e.g.
fishing regulations, document inspections, safety equipment, vague general
lookout, etc. within their geopolitical jurisdiction.  Once they have
stopped you, other factors may justify further intrusions.get my drift(no
pun).  It is very easy for a seasoned leo to find and build probable cause
to search further for "his and your" protection.  The courts have allowed
this however each case is ruled on its own merits as to the outcome.  This
is a little silly with a heavy dose of hyperbole.  The vast majority of
officers do not want to be bothered by random searches that are fruitless.
Most have a real reason to stop you..  There are a few "badge happy" ones
but trust me that a well documented and articulated complaint to a proper
authority brings results in weeding them out.

Joe

Joseph C. Pica
411 Walnut Street, #8227
Green Cove Springs, Florida 32043
Ph 301-904-9122
M/V "Carolyn Ann" GH N-37
MTOA# 3813
AGLCA# 5485 (Platinum Looper)

http://carolynann-n37.blogspot.com/
mailto:Joseph.pica@gmail.com Joseph.pica@gmail.com