Coast Guard Boardings - Interesting Perpective
- Thread starter Da Nag
- Start date
Robbi, one of the points brought up in the text of your posting speaks to frisking an individual for weapons.
In my line of work, anytime that I have an injured individual that has been the object of some type of police activity, I conduct a complete head to toe physical exam for any injuries (just as I would for any individual that is has suffered a traumatic injury) (obviously, I have to preference my touching the individual if he/she would like to have my medical assistance). If they say "yes" then I proceed with my head to toe medical exam but I keep in mind that I'm looking for any concealed weapons. If the patient has been in police custody prior to my arrival, I will ask the officer if a search for weapons was indeed performed. But even if the officer says yes, I still search for weapons as well during my "head to toe" exam. I have located weapons before on individuals that was missed in an officer's search. One time one of our crews had a loaded handgun fall on the floor from the patient as the stretcher was being locked in place in the Medic unit. On another occasion I had an individual that was the subject of a high speed pursuit that crashed his car into a tree. When I arrived the patient/suspect was standing by the road with ONE handcuff on. I asked the officer to either remove the handcuff or secure it to both of the patient/suspects wrists as those cuffs to me provided "clearly" a weapon that could be used against me or my fellow "resucers". Normally, any officer who takes custody of an individual from another officer will perform their own search for their own safety.....I know I do, and I'm not even in law enforcement.
One other story of a patient I had that had rolled a vehicle off the road. As we were transporting the patient to the hospital, our dispatcher contacted us by radio and informed us that they had a "hit" on the individual. I acknowledged the transmission and since we had stripped the individual of his clothes to treat his wounds, I was not worried that he might have any weapons on him, however I relayed the information of the "hit" so he could keep his "guard" up. (It turns out this individual was a felon, he and his buddy had committed an armed robbery from a convenience store several hours previously).
Not every person the law enforcement contacts is a "nice" person. :roll: So, I totally respect the work they are doing to protect me.
On the other "side of the coin", I clearly understand folks concern about searches (boardings) that they feel are unlawful and I will be interested to "hear" what kind of opinions Pat illicits from his compadres.
In my line of work, anytime that I have an injured individual that has been the object of some type of police activity, I conduct a complete head to toe physical exam for any injuries (just as I would for any individual that is has suffered a traumatic injury) (obviously, I have to preference my touching the individual if he/she would like to have my medical assistance). If they say "yes" then I proceed with my head to toe medical exam but I keep in mind that I'm looking for any concealed weapons. If the patient has been in police custody prior to my arrival, I will ask the officer if a search for weapons was indeed performed. But even if the officer says yes, I still search for weapons as well during my "head to toe" exam. I have located weapons before on individuals that was missed in an officer's search. One time one of our crews had a loaded handgun fall on the floor from the patient as the stretcher was being locked in place in the Medic unit. On another occasion I had an individual that was the subject of a high speed pursuit that crashed his car into a tree. When I arrived the patient/suspect was standing by the road with ONE handcuff on. I asked the officer to either remove the handcuff or secure it to both of the patient/suspects wrists as those cuffs to me provided "clearly" a weapon that could be used against me or my fellow "resucers". Normally, any officer who takes custody of an individual from another officer will perform their own search for their own safety.....I know I do, and I'm not even in law enforcement.
One other story of a patient I had that had rolled a vehicle off the road. As we were transporting the patient to the hospital, our dispatcher contacted us by radio and informed us that they had a "hit" on the individual. I acknowledged the transmission and since we had stripped the individual of his clothes to treat his wounds, I was not worried that he might have any weapons on him, however I relayed the information of the "hit" so he could keep his "guard" up. (It turns out this individual was a felon, he and his buddy had committed an armed robbery from a convenience store several hours previously).
Not every person the law enforcement contacts is a "nice" person. :roll: So, I totally respect the work they are doing to protect me.
On the other "side of the coin", I clearly understand folks concern about searches (boardings) that they feel are unlawful and I will be interested to "hear" what kind of opinions Pat illicits from his compadres.
Pat Anderson
New member
Robbi - that is a pretty interesting article. I don't think a case about customs agents and smugglers quite gets us to local police and recreational boaters in Lake Washington! But, if you look farther up this thread, you will find my post that says I would speculate that the legal rationale is predicated on the highly mobile nature of boats, and so indeed it is in the vessel cases in your article there. Thanks for finding this. I will pass on whatever my esteemed colleagues have to say. Attorneys from both the MI and Seattle City Attorney offices participate, and it will be interesting to get their thoughts. Whatever it is, it cannot be that a statutue trumps the constitution, but rather that some case has determined that some exception exists, and that it is not an "unreasonable" search or seizure in the circumstances.
This just gets more interesting. In the article under the section "vessels", the case US v. Villamonte-Marques, they cite the 1790 USC Sec 1581 that created vessel "documentation", or "Documented Vessel". The stopping and boarding of the vessel in question, was ruled a legal search because the customs agents have the authority to check "documentation" of a vessel. So does this only refer to Documented Vessels?
I also read that the authority to search and seizures w/o warrants, is passed along to LE agencies below the federal level, when it concerns a "documented vessel".
I wonder if state registered vessels, and federal documented vessels are covered by different laws, and that is where it gets murky?
Pat, In the dissenting view, Justice Brennen used "police officer" and not "customs officer", to me meaning he interpreted the ruling as being much broader in scope, and would impact all LE.
I think I have messed around with this long enough to miss out on my 4 mile walk
Robbi
I also read that the authority to search and seizures w/o warrants, is passed along to LE agencies below the federal level, when it concerns a "documented vessel".
I wonder if state registered vessels, and federal documented vessels are covered by different laws, and that is where it gets murky?
Pat, In the dissenting view, Justice Brennen used "police officer" and not "customs officer", to me meaning he interpreted the ruling as being much broader in scope, and would impact all LE.
I think I have messed around with this long enough to miss out on my 4 mile walk
Robbi