When I worked as a Class surveyor in the 90s in Galveston, I worked very closely with the local CG office, needless to say. While there was some rotation, the core of the marine inspectors stayed the same, and they were a pretty conscientious bunch. I did take me about a year to get the trust of the old timers, but I did and was also allowed to work with some of the newly assigned inspectors and bring them up to speed on various requirements. Also in the 90s, the Port State Inspection scheme began. At the time, they didn’t assign regular inspectors to these assignments, and it did not go well. Previous to the Port State Inspection Scheme, the CG DID carry out Tank Vessel Examinations (TVE) on all flags of vessels, essentially a Port State Inspection, but was limited to tank vessels. They did use the regular marine inspectors for this duty. Most of the inspectors that I worked with were Warrant Officers, so they were a bit salty.
While discharging cargo,I once had 6 auxes come up the gangway. The “leader” kept telling me he had the power to shut me down. It was very difficult to attend to cargo ops and babysit them.
Small power boats like you referenced are increasingly used to smuggle drugs around rural waterways all over the country. We had a group near where I live get caught doing it.
So you’re saying short sea shipping has a chance…
Please quote where I stated the bold above. I never stated or implied USCG search powers are not applicable to domestic craft.
So are automobiles. And small airplanes. And motorcycles. And bicycles. And RV’s. All of these require probable cause and/or search warrant.
Sure here you go.
I never stated the law was not applicable to domestic craft. I stated I feel the intention and spirit was to protect the borders of the country, not harass citizens enjoying the ability of free passage within the borders of our country.
The founding fathers were against the overreach of government, to include hatred of unreasonable search and seizure–it is hard for me to believe they intended to allow unrestrained “inspection” of private vessels.
If you don’t like where it has morphed from origins and intentions, that’s fine, but it has been and is legal. And as the service gained new responsibilities from the Congress over the years, it was vested on top of the baseline authorities previously granted as a means to enforce.
I can understand not liking it, but you pushed a legal theory that was just wrong. The End.
Did I? How many pleasure boats existed when the law was written?
Yeah, you did, very clearly. As for your question—if you were trying to make a debate, you’d know and offer the info as a supporting point instead of asking, the Socratic method only gets you so far before bad faith shows. I guess your original contention doesn’t rely on a fleshed out concept with supporting data. You’re not trying to have a debate, you’re just trolling. Good Day, Mate.