Winnipesaukee Forum - View Single Post - Is random boarding of vessels unconstitutional?

CTYankee · 06-10-2013, 06:49 PM

"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.

06-10-2013, 06:49 PM	#1
CTYankee Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Guilford, CT and Bear Island, NH Posts: 29 Thanks: 483 Thanked 20 Times in 9 Posts	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.