Game wardens don't seem to think the Constitution applies to them either.
Why did you change the title?
^%#$*@!^* the ACLU and their little horsey they rode in on. That said I don't like the law.
Good..Well done USCG....
depends on whether the waters are in are of federal jurisdiction.
Not only does the Coast Guard think they can override the Constitution of the State of Washington, they won't even ...You wanna re-write some of the laws and responsibilities regarding vessels plying the water-ways?
I swear, some of you people live in a bubble and have a historic 'event horizon' of only a couple of years ...
A car bomb detonated on a ferry or, more likely, on several ferries simultaneously would be a great victory for Al Qaeda or an affiliate.
The same people complaining about vehicle searches on ferries would likely be the first to criticize the lack of them if a terrorist attack succeeded.
I am reminded of those who complain about airport security being lax, then complain about being searched at airports. There is no way to keep ferries secure without searching passenger vehicles, just as you can't keep aircraft secure without searching passenger baggage.
A ferry is a vessel that can carry the lives of hundreds of people, like an airplane. Unless you are a crewman, it's not your bedroom, searching vehicles aboard them during a time when terrorists are known to be operating in our country is not an unreasonable search, and complaining about keeping ferries safe is the wrong side of the argument to be on.
Having said that, this "secret order" business obviously needs to be cleaned up.
http://www.uslegalforms.com/lawdigest/legal-definitions.php/US/US-ADMIRALTY.htm
Admiralty and Maritime Law and Legal Definition
Admiralty law or maritime law is the distinct body of law (both substantive and procedural) governing navigation and shipping. Topics associated with this field in legal reference works may include: shipping; navigation; waters; commerce; seamen; towage; wharves, piers, and docks; insurance; maritime liens; canals; and recreation. Piracy (ship hijacking) is also an aspect of admiralty.
The courts and Congress seek to create a uniform body of admiralty law both nationally and internationally in order to facilitate commerce. The federal courts derive their exclusive jurisdiction over this field from the Judiciary Act of 1789 and from Article III, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution. Congress regulates admiralty partially through the Commerce Clause. American admiralty law formerly applied only to American tidal waters. It now extends to any waters navigable within the United States for interstate or foreign commerce. In such waters admiralty jurisdiction includes maritime matters not involving interstate commerce, including recreational boating.
For a minute, I thought this was an article about the San Francisco DA's office.
Here is an interesting read,
http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov068.htm
Titled:
JURISDICTION & THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT
The following is taken from the Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXXVII, 1932-1924 with my comments in brackets if any. This is not the complete Review but only portions.
From ... The Harvard Law Review. Here is an excerpt from "Benedict on Admiralty" --
.7-22 SOURCE OF LAW AND JURISDICTION 109
........ maritime legislation generally.(6) The Constitution, however, is a document which must be construed as a whole and it has always been interpreted(7) as investing the paramount legislative power in the Congress whether such power was sought to be derived from one or other of the express powers above mentioned, or as a necessary concomittant of and inherent in the grant of the judicial power.
"Commentators took that view, Congress acted on it, and the Courts including this Court [the Supreme Court] gave effect to it. Practically, therefore, the situation is as if that view were written into the provision."(8) This interpretation was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.(9) in these words:
"Article III, Section 2, cl. 1 (3d provision) of the Constitution and section 9 of the Act of September 24, 1789, have from the beginning been the sources of jurisdiction in litigation based upon federal maritime law. Article III impliedly contained three grants. (1) It empowered Congress to confer admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the 'Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court' which were authorized by Art. I, Section 8, cl. 9. (2) It empowered the federal courts in their exercise of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction which had been conferred on them, to draw on the substantive law 'inherent in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,' Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 55, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 LEd. 598 (1956), and to continue the development of this law within constitutional limits. (3) It empowered Congress to revise and supplement the maritime law within the limits of the Constitution. See Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 55.
"Section 9 of the First Judiciary Act granted the District Courts maritime jurisdiction. This jurisdiction has remained unchanged in substance to the present day."
When the Constitution was adopted, the existing maritime law became the law of the United States subject to the power in Congress to modify or supplement it as experience or changing conditions might require. Congress thus has the paramount and undisputed power to fix, determine, alter and revise the maritime law which shall prevail throughout the country; and federal statutes, if constitutional, are paramount to any judicially fashioned rules of admiralty.
....
--- and ---
9-34 MARITIME CRIMES § 114
the recent Supreme Court decision of United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, (a) in which the majority of the Court concluded that the action of customs officials in boarding and stopping a vessel without any "reasonable suspicion of a law violation" was indeed "reasonable" and consequently not violative of the fourth amendment. The Court articulated several factors upon which it based its decision:
1.19 U.S.C. § 1581(a), which authorizes customs officers to examine the manifest and other documents and papers by hailing and stopping the vessel is a "lineal ancestor" to section 31 of the Act of August 4, 1790, ch. 35, i Stat. 145, in which the First Congress clearly authorized the suspicionless boarding of vessels. This fact naturally led the Court to conclude that such boardings do not run afoul of the fourth amendment;
2. While random stops of automobiles away from borders are not allowable under the protections of the fourth amendment, stops at fixed checkpoints or at roadblocks are allowable. However, where commerce at sea provides clear access to the open waters and is quite different from highway traffic, alternative methods of searching vessels which differ from the "stop" approach are less likely to accomplish the government?s objective of deterring criminal activity;
3. The system of marking automobiles utilized by the states is considerably less complex than the types of documentation and external marking that the federal government requires for vessels at sea. Indeed, the government has a substantial interest in making sure that the vessel documentation requirements are complied with, especially where there is a great need to frustrate and apprehend smugglers.
Therefore, the Court concluded that while the intrusion made in vessel search cases might not realistically be termed "minimal, "it is indeed "limited" when balanced against the "substantial" state interest involved.
As a practical matter, most border searches are conducted pursuant to informer's tips and the instinct of the experienced customs official in discerning nervousness in a suspected traveller. If probable cause or proof of the reliability of an informer were a necessary pre-requisite to customs searches, protection of the national borders would be difficult if not impossible without a more sophisticated surveillance system than is now used. While the search of a person's body is not specifically contemplated by the present statutes authorizing border [also see 19 U.S.C. 482].
It was an enticing thread, until the ACLU was mentioned to be getting involved.
Concern for the issue from that point has been divvied.
But, unless the official threat level rises, state troopers won't be combing through car interiors or trunks when the plan takes effect July 1, State Patrol Chief Lowell Porter said."
Anybody want to bet on this?
It's tough because this whole "bag-search, dog-sniff, metal detector" society is becoming quite comfortable for many sheeple. You wouldn't believe the number of folks who are not offended by having a 16-year-old beanpole search their bags as they enter the movie theater...
Slippery slope, slippery slope is all I can say.
~ Blue Jays ~
It has to do with the Fringes on the Flag
The ACLU is looking into this, and I would urge everyone to contact their state and federal representitives to complain about this Federal intrusion into the operation of our State.
But you forgot: The ACLU strongly encourages everyone to use all 100 crayon colors when writing Jimmy & Patty.
The rest of us learned from this:
The state court system just ruled last week that passengers in cars don't have to give over they ID during a traffic stop without probably cause but now you have to have your car searched on what is a part of the State Highway system.
When will we be dissallowed from carrying our pocket knives on board the ferry?
Do you also get your shorts in a knot that you have your bags and shoes searched at SEA-TAC Airport?
Federal maritime and aviation regulatory authority trumps State Constitutions.
If you don't like it, don't fly out of SEA-TAC and drive around Tacoma to get to Bremerton or Bainbridge instead of taking the ferry.
A terrorist van packed with explosives detonating on the Bainbridge-Seattlle run would be quite an easy terror operation once we have rules that say that vehicles can't be searched and that Arabs can't be profiled.
There is nothing wrong with searching cars during time of war. What's your beef?
I just got back to Whidbey Island after taking my son to Seatac airport this morning. I caught the 6:30 a.m. Clinton ferry -no visible security but the 3:00 p.m. Mulkiteo terminal was backed up quite a ways - only one toll booth open and many patrol cars around, and big signs which says they might seach your car.