Taking GPS coordinates of a site... captain's permission?

[redacted]

So the threat, which occured prior to boarding, is in and of itself - ILLEGAL??? How??? you want to police to write a report of something that by itself is NOT illegal.


I dont know all of the specifics - but - the power and authority of a boat captain, specifically in non state waters - is much more than many of you are giving him/her credit. Thus - the liability of the boat captain if anything goes wrong. Captains are held accountable for almost any and everything that goes wrong on a boat - and with that accountability - they are given more power and authority than what would be afforded their equivalent on land.


Maritime Law is an archaic thing in some regards.

As to the jurisdiction of the GPS - it isnt questionable at all. I know in my area - if it happened more than 3 miles from the coast of my state - the police would not respond in any way, shape or form. Now - the Coast guard might - but NOT the police.

---------- Post added January 15th, 2013 at 04:28 PM ----------





In the US - you would need to prove that some sort of harm was caused directly linked to the trespass. If the captain searched your stuff - and you cannot prove harm - this would go nowhere. If the captain (as a reasonable one would) took the GPS and deleted the location - then returned it at the end of the trip - You would have a hard time winning anything.

I know there are stories that end with "throw it overboard"....but I know a lot of situations where captains took the device and deleted something - Ive never known one to, literally, throw it overboard. Im sure they have - I just dont know anyone who would.

I also havent seen any instances where this was applicable directly in maritime law. Only in land based settings. The might exist - but I was unable to find them in a few searches.

We are not talking a state waters thing. We are talking Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US constitution covers at least federal waters. Outside that limit, I guess it will depend on maritime and foreign country laws at least until the boat reenters US waters or lands. So the captain might want to be prepared to defend the reasonableness of his actions in US courts. Not to mention the money and time put into such a defense. Maybe the actions could be scheduled for off-season.

 

[manni-yunk]

We are not talking a state waters thing. We are talking Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The US constitution covers at least federal waters. Outside that limit, I guess it will depend on maritime and foreign country laws at least until the boat reenters US waters or lands. So the captain might want to be prepared to defend the reasonableness of his actions in US courts. Not to mention the money and time put into such a defense. Maybe the actions could be scheduled for off-season.

Im still not sure that the 4th ammendment is as openly interpreted on a boat as is on land. Admiralty law is different and the captain, who is subject to extreme liability - is often given more flexibility than you want to admit, to keep the vessel/passengers safe.

If the captain thinks (or at least claims) that something in you belongings could be a safety issue to his vessel or passengers - I dont think you will find a prosecutor in the US, or Coast Guard that isnt going to allow him/her that leeway.

And to be perfectly honesy - we have gone past my area of knowledge and I am now in the dangerous world of speculation.

I will say this - when in doubt - I look for precedent. I was unable to find a single case online where a captain was in any way held responsible for an "illegal search".........

 

[Tug]

If the captain thinks (or at least claims) that something in you belongings could be a safety issue to his vessel or passengers - I dont think you will find a prosecutor in the US, or Coast Guard that isnt going to allow him/her that leeway.

Most facilities and a good number of boats will have something similar to this posted somewhere

 

[nimoh]

Im still not sure that the 4th ammendment is as openly interpreted on a boat as is on land. Admiralty law is different and the captain, who is subject to extreme liability - is often given more flexibility than you want to admit, to keep the vessel/passengers safe.

If the captain thinks (or at least claims) that something in you belongings could be a safety issue to his vessel or passengers - I dont think you will find a prosecutor in the US, or Coast Guard that isnt going to allow him/her that leeway.

And to be perfectly honesy - we have gone past my area of knowledge and I am now in the dangerous world of speculation.

I will say this - when in doubt - I look for precedent. I was unable to find a single case online where a captain was in any way held responsible for an "illegal search".........

I think a safety issue is a whole different thing. Did the captain suspect a safety issue and then find a GPS and dispose of it?

were you able to find a case where a captain was charged (or at least accused) with an illegal search?

---------- Post added January 15th, 2013 at 04:16 PM ----------

Most facilities and a good number of boats will have something similar to this posted somewhere

I think a sign like this makes it legal. You have the choice not to enter, and if you do enter, you are consenting to being searched.

This is very different from a captain going through your personal belongings without your knowledge (while you are diving).

 

[ScubaSteve]

This thread has always been about a moral dilemma for me and not a legal dilemma.

Those signs do not change anything for me. On the topic of searching me or my belongings......I am happy to comply if I am present for the search. Nothing short of a credible risk to the ship or passengers make it OK to search a passengers belongings without them present IMO. On second thought, death might qualify as an acceptable reason as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk.......figure it out

 

[Tigerman]

Would you book a charter with this guy if you had another choice?

I wouldnt book with Reck Diver, FULL STOP.
However, as I stated many posts ago, I think hes just a troll anyways, but I wouldnt book with anyone even resembling his attitude...

 

[rjack321]

I think a sign like this makes it legal. You have the choice not to enter, and if you do enter, you are consenting to being searched.

This is very different from a captain going through your personal belongings without your knowledge (while you are diving).

These are standard signs in theory granting LAW ENFORCEMENT (or TSA) the right to search you or your belongings without probable cause in the interest of public safety, looking for weapons or explosives for instance. Congress has not granted any Joe Capt. the right to search you for non-hazardous property like a GPS.

 

[manni-yunk]

These are standard signs in theory granting LAW ENFORCEMENT (or TSA) the right to search you or your belongings without probable cause in the interest of public safety, looking for weapons or explosives for instance. Congress has not granted any Joe Capt. the right to search you for non-hazardous property like a GPS.

Many marinas also have those signs and not specific to LEO or TSA. Especially if the marina has commercial boats - or close to shipping operations.

 

[Tug]

These are standard signs in theory granting LAW ENFORCEMENT (or TSA) the right to search you or your belongings without probable cause in the interest of public safety, looking for weapons or explosives for instance. Congress has not granted any Joe Capt. the right to search you for non-hazardous property like a GPS.

Nope, aboard my vessel (commercial) I have full rights to search bags according to the vessel security plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dr. Lecter]

If you're going to post a sign that cites to the CFR, maybe you should consider reading the CFR itself. In this case, the only screening authorized is

for dangerous substances and devices at the rate specified in the approved FSP.

Security measures for access control.

Security measures for access control.

In general, though, here's something to keep in mind: posting a sign that says "By doing X, you consent to Y" doesn't do jack squat in terms of giving you authority to do Y just because someone did X. Either there's law giving you that authority under those circumstances or there isn't. Notice (i.e., a sign) may be relevant to the analysis, but posting a sign isn't necessarily like putting a contract out there for people to sign.