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.

Skip · 06-10-2013, 08:02 PM

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.

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.

06-10-2013, 08:02 PM	#2
Skip Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Dover, NH Posts: 1,615 Thanks: 256 Thanked 514 Times in 182 Posts	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.