What LE authority does the Coast Guard have ashore? This is a question on a qualification board and I am hearing a bunch of different answers. Couple of scenarios:

If a CG small boat is chasing a go-fast and the go-fast pulls into a US port, can that boarding team pursue them onto land?

A CG small boat is doing a LE patrol in the bay and sees some illegal activity on land, could they tie up the boat and arrest them?

I've read through 14 USC 89 and don't see any mention of LE ashore. Here is what it says"

The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States"

Thanks for the help!!

SP,

The short answer to your question is 14USC143 and 19USC482. These authorities apply only to officers, warrants and petty officers. 14USC95 also provides authority on land, but this section applies only to CGIS special agents.

Most Coasties are well familiar with 14USC89, but its not the only source of LE authority. Unfortunately, most CG members who can quote 14USC89 are not as conversant with the very large body of case law that restricts the use of that authority.

It's also important to take your direction from the MLEM and your chain of command. The CG has the ability to restrict the exercise of LE authorty by its members, and wisely does so in many instances.

Thanks for the help! I'll be sure to read up on those!

quote:

not as conversant with the very large body of case law that restricts the use of that authority.

That's interesting. Let me say, as a function of bellicose, blowhard bar arguments (read "tipsy"), I have been known to say, that as a result of 14USC and 19USC, as well as the buttload of codification applying to the "M" world, a officer or petty officer working for a COTP has more statutory "law enforcement" authority than the head of the FBI ... leaving quietly the caveats that it depends on the amount of authority delegated to individuals, and it only applied to the "infraction witnessed" rule, and not towards actual "investigation".

So, in the interest of supporting one of my best chick pickup lines, could you point me towards some of the applicable case law restricting authority?

quote:

Originally posted by s12345:

If a CG small boat is chasing a go-fast and the go-fast pulls into a US port, can that boarding team pursue them onto land?

Thanks for the help!!

For this scenerio, I would think looking up the USCG Regs for "Hot Pursuit" would help you find the answer.

Don

Socially Autistic,

I really beginning to think that “typing under the influence” may be just as bad as “driving under the influence”, but you ask a very fair question, and others may be interested as well.

First off. I’m no lawyer, I’m speaking as a former CG Boarding Officer and as a civilian LEO with more than 30 years experience.

Here’s my point in a nutshell. The Constitution outranks the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations. All three outrank agency policies and practices. The Constitution is a single piece of paper, but the court decisions that have interpreted it fill libraries. When there is a conflict between what the Constitution says (including the content of all those decisions) and the U.S. Code (specifically 14USC89), the conflict gets resolved in favor the Constitution. The conflict most often exists with the Fourth Amendment. All searches have to be reasonable. You can’t justify an unreasonable search using 14USC89. To sum up an awful lot of case law, a reasonable search normally requires both “probable cause” and a search warrant. You can also have a reasonable search where there is “probable cause” and some recognized exception to the warrant requirement (like an exigency or where the search involves a vehicle (see U.S. v Ross)). There are also certain circumstances that allow for a search without any probable cause (Border Crossings (see U.S. v Moreno-Vargas and U.S. v Odutayo) and regulatory inspections (see U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez))

CG Boarding Officers are quite fortunate in that nearly all of our boarding scenarios fall under one or more of the search warrant exceptions. I have yet to meet a Boarding Officer who has ever gone through the process of obtaining a search warrant in the performance of their duties.

My main point is that if you’re going to quote 14USC89 to say what you can do, you also have to understand what you can’t do. Few folks are more dangerous than an over-zealous, and under-informed, law enforcement officer.

I remember being told in MLE School that a CG Boarding Officer “had more authority that just about anybody else.” IMHO that line is pretty nonsensical. Governments tend to give their LEO’s just enough authority to do their jobs, and no more. The authority of nearly all federal agents is limited by subject. That’s a pretty big restriction right there. Most state and local LEO’s possess fairly broad arrest authority. In California that arrest authority extends to misdemeanors that occur in the officer’s presence and to all felonies (including “suspected” crimes). There is no exclusion of federal offenses and there’s no limitation of subject matter (see California Penal Code section 836). If someone really needs to claim the “Guinness Record” of arrest authority, I’d have to nominate U.S. Marshals. (see 28USC566)

You seem to be reading a redacted copy of the statute. The full text of 14 USC 89 is

quote:

(a) The Coast Guard may make inquiries, examinations,
inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the
prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States,
address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship's documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all
necessary force to compel compliance. When from such inquiries, examination, inspection, or search it appears that a breach of the
laws of the United States rendering a person liable to arrest is being, or has been committed, by any person, such person shall be
arrested or, if escaping to shore, shall be immediately pursued and arrested on shore, or other lawful and appropriate action shall be taken or, if it shall appear that a breach of the laws of the United States has been committed so as to render such vessel, or
the merchandise, or any part thereof, on board of, or brought into the United States by, such vessel, liable to forfeiture, or so as
to render such vessel liable to a fine or penalty and if necessary to secure such fine or penalty, such vessel or such merchandise, or
both, shall be seized.
(b) The officers of the Coast Guard insofar as they are engaged, pursuant to the authority contained in this section, in enforcing
any law of the United States shall:

(1) be deemed to be acting as agents of the particular executive department or independent establishment charged with the administration of the particular law; and

(2) be subject to all the rules and regulations promulgated by such department or independent establishment with respect to the
enforcement of that law.

(c) The provisions of this section are in addition to any powers conferred by law upon such officers, and not in limitation of any
powers conferred by law upon such officers, or any other officers of the United States.

There is also 46 USC 70118 and 70119 under MTSA

quote:

Subject to guidelines approved by the Secretary, members of the Coast Guard may, in the performance of official duties—
(1) carry a firearm; and
(2) while at a facility—
(A) make an arrest without warrant for any offense against the United States committed in their presence; and
(B) seize property as otherwise provided by law.
(Note) The term “facility” means any structure or facility of any kind located in, on, under, or adjacent to any waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

However, there is always the difference between what statatory authority we have and what CG policy allows us to do. For specifics on Hot Pursuit, or any LE really, you'd have to look at the MLEM which isn't internet releasable. However, under the "any approprite action" of 14USC89, I personally think having police trained to operate on land apprehend suspects on land more appropriate than trying to chase them down myself, but that's not a comment on the current CG policy one way or the other.