Frightening experience on morning of debarkation...has this happened to anyone else

Here's my stopped by the police while doing nothing wrong, but I know why I was stopped story.

 

It was 1970, and I had a job as a census taker. I also had extremely long hair. I was in an area that that was not really welcome. In fact, one person told me that if I was in the woods during hunting season, I might be mistaken for a bear and shot. When I replied that I would not be in the woods during hunting season, he said, "Might not be the woods, might not be hunting season.".

 

Anyway, I saw what looked like either an unpaved road or a long drive way, and decided to check it out for any residences. When I was looking to turn out of that road/driveway. there was a police car just sitting there. I knew he was going to pull me over. The only explanation for me being there was that maybe I was a local who knew a good deserted place to smoke,or maybe a refugee from the Woodstock festival of the year before. Either way I could not possibly be up to any good.

 

So he moseyed over with that strut that policeman do when they pull you over. I was not worried as I did have an explanation for being there. I was ready to get my license, registration, and insurance papers all ready. But, then I turned towards him and he saw the tag I was wearing. It said I was a census taker on duty, and furthermore said that interfering with me in the course of my duties was punishable by a fine or jail time. It was funny seeing the arrogant expression literally melt off his face. He never asked for my documents. He only apologized!

Give him a break, IMO..

You were doing your job and HE was doing his.

Expectations of US law in this case. I guess OP disembarked in Galveston or Miami, and the ship called US law enforcement to inspect a cabin for some unknown reason. OP is from Kentucky. Even if the search took place in a different jurisdiction, American officers were trying to find proof that an American was doing something wrong. The questions "why did you do that" and the request "please forget that I was a suspect once when I was innocent" should both be valid. Maybe the line would think "something weird happened with this passenger, maybe innocent, maybe not, let's not take the risk, put them on the no-cruise list and btw we're actually Panamese", but I would expect that US government has an obligation to at least give some explanation. Maybe the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, but after being scared to death by people with guns entering your cabin as if you just killed someone, there must be some procedure to find out why they did think you were breaching some law. I actually would trust US law much more than the Dutch law regarding such rights.

 

 

 

 

I knew that, everyone on this site knows. That's why I re-ask the Chief when I want the details. Sometimes it's complicated.

Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. And while certainly most regular posters know that, don't know that everyone does. So maybe more do now.

Expectations of US law in this case. I guess OP disembarked in Galveston or Miami, and the ship called US law enforcement to inspect a cabin for some unknown reason. OP is from Kentucky. Even if the search took place in a different jurisdiction, American officers were trying to find proof that an American was doing something wrong. The questions "why did you do that" and the request "please forget that I was a suspect once when I was innocent" should both be valid. Maybe the line would think "something weird happened with this passenger, maybe innocent, maybe not, let's not take the risk, put them on the no-cruise list and btw we're actually Panamese", but I would expect that US government has an obligation to at least give some explanation. Maybe the 4th Amendment doesn't apply, but after being scared to death by people with guns entering your cabin as if you just killed someone, there must be some procedure to find out why they did think you were breaching some law. I actually would trust US law much more than the Dutch law regarding such rights.

 

 

 

 

I knew that, everyone on this site knows. That's why I re-ask the Chief when I want the details. Sometimes it's complicated.

In addition to the boarder search legality as mentioned by Capt_BJ ( I knew there was authority for this, didn't know the citations, so thanks for that), as stated the only explanation the US law enforcement officers would give is "we were assisting another jurisdiction in an investigation". That other jurisdiction would be the flag state, and it would be up to the flag state's law to determine whether the investigated person is due any explanation. Even in US law, if you are not arrested, merely detained for a period, law enforcement does not need to inform the person why they were detained.

Sorry. Didn't mean to offend. And while certainly most regular posters know that, don't know that everyone does. So maybe more do now.

I didn't feel offended.

Everyone would know when the Chief would have a link in his profile to Amazon to buy his book :D

Chief? Your BOOK. Get some ghostwriter to reorder all your posts and it would be a series of 5 books. A zillion cruisers, maybe a million totally interested in LNG and flags and corpses who need to visit a far port, where Vancouver doesn't count, low temperatures in hot pools, open doors in cabins, windows below water level, DSC, Casino, pilots. Bruns is taking your money!

Give him a break, IMO..

 

You were doing your job and HE was doing his.

Right, he was profiling.

Did anyone noticed that OP's first and only comment so far was made three months after the supposed incident. Did the incident really happened … just a thought.

Ramona

In addition to the boarder search legality as mentioned by Capt_BJ ( I knew there was authority for this, didn't know the citations, so thanks for that), as stated the only explanation the US law enforcement officers would give is "we were assisting another jurisdiction in an investigation". That other jurisdiction would be the flag state, and it would be up to the flag state's law to determine whether the investigated person is due any explanation. Even in US law, if you are not arrested, merely detained for a period, law enforcement does not need to inform the person why they were detained.

In reality, Panama or Malta wouldn't even know what happened (and certainly couldn't care less about an American smoking marihuana on a ship owned by Americans, right next to America), so it would be hard for them to explain. I'm going to find out if being detained without any explanation would be legal in Holland. That sounds absurd. If I would kidnap my neighbour for just 10 minutes I'd be in jail and rightly so. When a policemen kidnaps me, and releases me afterwards because I did nothing wrong, at least I'd feel entitled to know why the officer felt that it was necessary to detain me.

Would a neighbouring cabin complaining about smoke, even adding "and we think it's marihuana" be enough to flag a cabin? Such a vague complaint could easily be about the cabin next door when the actual "crime" took place 5 cabins forward.

This type of operation isn't initiated through another pax complaining of smoke, or simple possession. Those should be dealt with by Security.

My guess, for most probable cause, is when returning onboard Security noted something unusual in a bag, while going through the scanner. As a previous post indicated, it would be investigated by the Security Officer, with findings presented to the Captain. Not aware of that Line's policies, but normally only the Captain has the authority to request Law Enforcement & K-9 aboard.

I didn't feel offended.

 

Everyone would know when the Chief would have a link in his profile to Amazon to buy his book :D

 

Chief? Your BOOK. Get some ghostwriter to reorder all your posts and it would be a series of 5 books. A zillion cruisers, maybe a million totally interested in LNG and flags and corpses who need to visit a far port, where Vancouver doesn't count, low temperatures in hot pools, open doors in cabins, windows below water level, DSC, Casino, pilots. Bruns is taking your money!

A group I know did this. A guy had YEAR of great stories, and everyone told him he should write a book. And he said he would, but never did.

So they collected up all his stories over the years, and did it for him. :D

A possible scenario?

 

You were smoking cigarettes on the balcony.

That annoyed your neighbours.

They could report your cigarette smoking to ship's security but what better retaliation (or belly-laugh) it would be to call the police and say they smelt drugs being smoked on your balcony.

 

Just a possible scenario.

 

JB :)

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get the cabins of chair hogs flagged too!:D

Just curious....it sounds like we don't have 4th Amendment rights when onboard a ship?

Perhaps not an ship registered in the USA ?

Perhaps not an ship registered in the USA ?

As already pointed out, constitutional protections do not apply to privately owned businesses.

It's not a matter of it being a privately owned business. Constitutional protections do still apply because the search was conducted by the US Govt. It's the fact this was a border search that is pertinent. 4th Amendment protects from unlawful search. However, as unpopular as this action might be, this type of search is not unlawful.

Here's my stopped by the police while doing nothing wrong, but I know why I was stopped story.

 

It was 1970, and I had a job as a census taker. I also had extremely long hair. I was in an area that that was not really welcome. In fact, one person told me that if I was in the woods during hunting season, I might be mistaken for a bear and shot. When I replied that I would not be in the woods during hunting season, he said, "Might not be the woods, might not be hunting season.".

 

Anyway, I saw what looked like either an unpaved road or a long drive way, and decided to check it out for any residences. When I was looking to turn out of that road/driveway. there was a police car just sitting there. I knew he was going to pull me over. The only explanation for me being there was that maybe I was a local who knew a good deserted place to smoke,or maybe a refugee from the Woodstock festival of the year before. Either way I could not possibly be up to any good.

 

So he moseyed over with that strut that policeman do when they pull you over. I was not worried as I did have an explanation for being there. I was ready to get my license, registration, and insurance papers all ready. But, then I turned towards him and he saw the tag I was wearing. It said I was a census taker on duty, and furthermore said that interfering with me in the course of my duties was punishable by a fine or jail time. It was funny seeing the arrogant expression literally melt off his face. He never asked for my documents. He only apologized!

So let me get this straight. You mistakenly went down the wrong road, driveway, or whatever it was. You were stopped by the police. When the cop saw you were a census taker, he apologized and let you go. And you have a problem with this....why?

As a census taker, do you really not see how your driving patterns would appear somewhat suspicious? Did you ever consider that maybe someone called you in as a suspicious person and the cop was responding to that call? Was your car clearly marked as a census taker?

No, of course not. It's just easier to push an anti-cop agenda, right?

Chengp75, CaptainBJ, and AquaHound...as always, we genuinely appreciate and value all your answers and information. We can always count on you to provide detailed answers.

Perhaps the OP will return and make additional comments.

Regarding "probable cause"...if the Captain had the ultimate say, what could have been the probable cause for the Captain to request assistance from law enforcement? As the OP said, K9 was used. Dogs are primarily used for two reasons: to sniff out bombs and drugs.

Our guess: Captain had probable cause that the OP may have had drugs.

Inquiry minds wants to know...how?

Regarding "probable cause"...if the Captain had the ultimate say, what could have been the probable cause for the Captain to request assistance from law enforcement? As the OP said, K9 was used. Dogs are primarily used for two reasons: to sniff out bombs and drugs.

The Captain having a part in this search was just speculation. I can't say that I share the same assumption. CBP has been conducting random room searches for years. It's very sporadic, but these stories have been told from time to time here on CC.

I was once told that when CBP does this, rooms are chosen at random throughout the ship. The fact the OP threw in balcony smoking is just anecdotal. Again, I'm not so quick to assume this had anything to do with it.

But as far as Captain involvement.....if a ship's master were to tell CBP that a complaint was received from a particular room, it is the discretion of CBP whether or not they want to act on it. The master really only has control of a private inspection....meaning having ships security conduct a check. He can do that anytime he wants.

Chengp75, CaptainBJ, and AquaHound...as always, we genuinely appreciate and value all your answers and information. We can always count on you to provide detailed answers.

Perhaps the OP will return and make additional comments.

Regarding "probable cause"...if the Captain had the ultimate say, what could have been the probable cause for the Captain to request assistance from law enforcement? As the OP said, K9 was used. Dogs are primarily used for two reasons: to sniff out bombs and drugs.

Our guess: Captain had probable cause that the OP may have had drugs.

Inquiry minds wants to know...how?

As noted, this is a border search, and "probable cause" is not needed by US federal LEOs. Also, as I noted in a previous post, the Captain has the authority to search your cabin or luggage, at his sole discretion, meaning he/she does not have to have any reason at all. This authority is granted both by the ticket contract, and by the Captain's overriding authority when it comes to safety. Since the Captain doesn't have to have probable cause to search, he doesn't have to have probable cause to request assistance from another law enforcement agency.

But, yes, there was some indication of drug use or transportation, whether from reports of smells, or reports from cabin steward, which would have been investigated by ship's security and then CBP and DEA would have been called to deal with it in US waters.

If someone was tempted to do that, I bet the law enforcement agents wouldn’t be too happy to have their time wasted for payback purposes! I would think that the people making the false report would have more cause for worry than the illicit balcony smokers would.

Anyone that would conclude that Customs and Border Patrol, ICE, or any law enforcement agency would board a ship and search someone's room because of a report that they were smoking on the balcony is incredibly .......

Fill in the blank. But, this is Cruise Critic.

Just curious....it sounds like we don't have 4th Amendment rights when onboard a ship?

As others already posted, we lose a lot of protections when we cross the border into the US.

It gets worse if immigration stops you within 100 miles of a border. Check out this - https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone - and there are efforts to expand this zone to within 100 miles of a border crossing. Add lots of circles to the map at the link centered on every airport that serves international destinations.

Nothing you wrote indicated such, I MO,

 

 

 

 

I cannot agree seeing all we know about this is what you wrote here. Nothing you wrote gives that message.

If you were a guy with long hair in the late 60s and 70s you fit a profile that many LEOs used for stops. Heck, I was stopped several times in the mid 70s for suspicion of driving a stolen car . . . long hair, long beard, and VFW license plate holder . . . can't be his car.

As others already posted, we lose a lot of protections when we cross the border into the US.

 

It gets worse if immigration stops you within 100 miles of a border. Check out this - https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone - and there are efforts to expand this zone to within 100 miles of a border crossing. Add lots of circles to the map at the link centered on every airport that serves international destinations.

 

 

 

If you were a guy with long hair in the late 60s and 70s you fit a profile that many LEOs used for stops. Heck, I was stopped several times in the mid 70s for suspicion of driving a stolen car . . . long hair, long beard, and VFW license plate holder . . . can't be his car.

Yes, I realized that at the time and knew with 100% certainty that he was going to pull me over. (No VFW plates, but I qualified with the rest.)