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

[Yukonjake]

Not cruising related, but I can relate.

 

I was in Canton, Ohio on a business trip in the late 80s/early 90s. I was staying a name hotel right downtown. I went to the gym, did my reps, and then went to sit in the sauna in my birthday suit (yes, I sat on a towel).

 

10 minutes into my sweat, the door burst open and two men in suits started challenging me. They couldn't really search me in my state of undress, but they were a bit aggravated that I didn't have ID. After determining that I was not a threat, they left me to my now not-so-relaxing sauna time.

 

Long story short, the Vice President was giving a fundraiser for a Senate candidate of his party that night. The ballroom where the fundraiser was to be held was directly underneath the gym. The men in suits were Secret Service agents doing an advance sweep.

[lisiamc]

Ship security is notably lax in dealing with smoking issues and will often say this is nothing they can do unless they catch somebody in the act. But you know the old saying that "payback is a b^%$$! One wonders if somebody decided to get some real payback. While we would never consider anything that drastic, we do salute anyone who would do such a thing to a smoker who ignores the rules.

 

Hank

 

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.

[sail7seas]

Don't smoke on your balcony...simples.

 

 

 

 

Simpler...... don't smoke anything

[chengkp75]

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.

 

Probably the majority of reports of drugs and things like that result in no findings, so the DEA and local/state LEO's are well used to turning up empty handed. It isn't like TV where the informant is always right.

 

But I agree with others that this cabin was flagged by ship's security for some reason, and it was such a reason that the DEA was called in. Crew are subject to random searches by DEA, but not passengers, without reasonable cause.

[gammie1964]

Similar situation happened to my sister and BIL - was the result of mistaken / stolen identity. Did NOT end at the port of Miami though -they had to go to the Justice offices in Tampa in order to PROVE it wasn't him! It all worked out as he was able to prove the guy in the "mugshot" using his name wasn't him.

[ontheweb]

Similar situation happened to my sister and BIL - was the result of mistaken / stolen identity. Did NOT end at the port of Miami though -they had to go to the Justice offices in Tampa in order to PROVE it wasn't him! It all worked out as he was able to prove the guy in the "mugshot" using his name wasn't him.

 

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!

Edited June 6, 2018 by ontheweb
minor correction

[L1211]

No one here can tell you. But, you admit to smoking on your balcony and you say you’re from Kentucky, which has a huge illicit drug use problem.

Related? No idea.

 

 

 

We don’t wear shoes in KY either. It’s all true.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[davekathy]

Just getting off the ship the last day of the cruise and having to go back home and face reality is frightening enough. Well at least until the next cruise.

[bonsai3s]

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

[sfaaa]

And how did you know they were law enforcement?

 

How? This.

 

I opened it to find 4 or 5 fully armed law enforcement officers (Customs, INS??) ?

[Heidi13]

Having both worked on cruise ships and sailed as a pax for 40 years, the search experienced by the original poster was neither routine, nor random.

 

While it is all speculation, the 2 most likely reasons are:

- Your conduct on board raised flags, most likely for drugs

- Mistaken identity - wrong cabin

 

However, smoking on the balcony is one of the biggest fire hazards on a ship and if it had been spotted, I would certainly hope security would have dealt with the issue immediately. Unfortunately, the sprinklers can't be directed to a single cabin, or that's how I would deal with such irresponsible conduct.

[Husky61]

How? This.

 

I read that but also read that the OP said CBP, INS, ??? So the OP only assumed they were LE.:) Plus I don't believe that LE wold send 4 or 5 armed officers on a ship if the occupants of the cabin had been accused of smoking on the balcony.

[BDRebel]

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

Once the ship hits international waters, you lose all your constitutional rights.

Constitutional rights only apply to persons (of any nationality) within the borders of the United States.

[chengkp75]

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

 

Well, the 4th Amendment, in so far as hotel rooms (ship cabins) is limited to the extent of your "expectation of privacy" in that cabin. Your ticket contract generally gives the cruise line authority to search your cabin and your luggage at any time, and many cruise lines state that it can be with or without your presence or knowledge. So, given the ticket contract, you have given up your "expectation of privacy". You agree to the contract when you purchase the cruise, so you agree that they have this right.

 

You do realize that when you are on a foreign flag cruise ship, you are not in the US, and you do not have all the protections that US citizenship in the US entails? Even when a foreign flag ship is in US port, the general guideline of international maritime law deals with the overlapping jurisdiction by applying the laws of the flag state unless the safety or well being of the port state is affected. So, these DEA agents would be assisting the Captain in applying the laws of the flag state.

[chengkp75]

Once the ship hits international waters, you lose all your constitutional rights.

Constitutional rights only apply to persons (of any nationality) within the borders of the United States.

 

That's not quite correct. The US has passed laws granting "extraterritorial" jurisdiction in certain instances, most notably where serious crimes have been committed against US nationals on foreign ships, in international waters. Any nation can claim extraterritorial jurisdiction simply by passing a law stating such for its own nationals. The US laws do not cover all aspects of US "constitutional" rights, but there are specific rights protected.

[AmazedByCruising]

But I agree with others that this cabin was flagged by ship's security for some reason, and it was such a reason that the DEA was called in. .

 

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.

[chengkp75]

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.

 

Generally, the complaint would be investigated by ship's security, including video evidence, to determine the merits of the complaint, before a request to local LEO's would be made. But the cabin could be "flagged" for future surveillance by security until cleared of any wrongdoing.

[AmazedByCruising]

Generally, the complaint would be investigated by ship's security, including video evidence, to determine the merits of the complaint, before a request to local LEO's would be made. But the cabin could be "flagged" for future surveillance by security until cleared of any wrongdoing.

 

That makes it a strange story.

 

I wonder if you have some right to know why your cabin got flagged. Even when they found nothing, I'm afraid "flags" stick to people who did nothing wrong. (I just read an astounding story about someone where everyone agreed that the tickets on her (stolen!) car shouldn't have to be paid, but the computer said it is her car, so.. It took twenty years, including bankruptcy, to reach someone high enough to stop it)

[chengkp75]

That makes it a strange story.

 

I wonder if you have some right to know why your cabin got flagged. Even when they found nothing, I'm afraid "flags" stick to people who did nothing wrong. (I just read an astounding story about someone where everyone agreed that the tickets on her (stolen!) car shouldn't have to be paid, but the computer said it is her car, so.. It took twenty years, including bankruptcy, to reach someone high enough to stop it)

 

That would depend on the flag state laws on this. I would suspect not, since the ticket contract gives the Captain the authority to search at his sole discretion. This is underwritten by the international provision of the Captain's "overriding authority" with regards to decisions made for ship, cargo, and passenger safety.

[AmazedByCruising]

That would depend on the flag state laws on this. I would suspect not, since the ticket contract gives the Captain the authority to search at his sole discretion. This is underwritten by the international provision of the Captain's "overriding authority" with regards to decisions made for ship, cargo, and passenger safety.

 

That's that Captain can order a search if he dislikes the way you look without any explanation. I'm actually OK with that, similar to a bar owner who should be able to get rid of guests he doesn't like for whatever reason. Also, a Captain has "superpower" because of the nature of a ship. While at sea, someone must be the absolute boss and any kind of trias politica would endanger the ship.

 

But when a ship calls the DEA to search a cabin, there must have been some point where they said "We think X did Y, you may want to do a search". After that, IMHO, X should be able to ask on what grounds the DEA acted. And, when nothing was found, to request a complete removal of any "flags", both by law enforcement and the line.

[chengkp75]

That's that Captain can order a search if he dislikes the way you look without any explanation. I'm actually OK with that, similar to a bar owner who should be able to get rid of guests he doesn't like for whatever reason. Also, a Captain has "superpower" because of the nature of a ship. While at sea, someone must be the absolute boss and any kind of trias politica would endanger the ship.

 

But when a ship calls the DEA to search a cabin, there must have been some point where they said "We think X did Y, you may want to do a search". After that, IMHO, X should be able to ask on what grounds the DEA acted. And, when nothing was found, to request a complete removal of any "flags", both by law enforcement and the line.

 

Again, you are basing this on your expectations of Dutch law, not Bahamian or Panamanian law.

[leaveitallbehind]

That's that Captain can order a search if he dislikes the way you look without any explanation. I'm actually OK with that, similar to a bar owner who should be able to get rid of guests he doesn't like for whatever reason. Also, a Captain has "superpower" because of the nature of a ship. While at sea, someone must be the absolute boss and any kind of trias politica would endanger the ship.

 

But when a ship calls the DEA to search a cabin, there must have been some point where they said "We think X did Y, you may want to do a search". After that, IMHO, X should be able to ask on what grounds the DEA acted. And, when nothing was found, to request a complete removal of any "flags", both by law enforcement and the line.

 

It appears that you are basing you discussions and suppositions from a lay person's point of view. Please realize that chengkp75 is basing his information on fact based knowledge as a career professional in the maritime industry. In other words, he accurately knows what he is talking about.

[Husky61]

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

 

All of the constitutional amendments are constraints against the government, they do not apply to private businesses.

[Capt_BJ]

you may want to research the terms

 

customs search or boarder search ....

 

the search authority granted in a 'border zone' or to certain law enforcement agencies in the maritime setting GREATLY exceed what you are familiar with 'at home'

 

In particular there is BROAD AUTHORITY for WARRANTLESS SEARCH by agents of certain government agencies ...

 

"In United States criminal law, the border search exception or doctrine is a doctrine that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause.[1] The doctrine is not regarded as an exception to the Fourth Amendment, but rather to its requirement for a warrant or probable cause.[1][2] Balanced against the sovereign's interests at the border are the Fourth Amendment rights of entrants. Not only is the expectation of privacy less at the border than in the interior,[2][3] the Fourth Amendment balance between the interests of the government and the privacy right of the individual is also struck much more favorably to the government at the border.[4] This balance at international borders means that routine searches are "reasonable" there, and therefore do not violate the Fourth Amendment's proscription against "unreasonable searches and seizures".

Federal law allows certain federal agents to conduct search and seizures within 100 miles of the border into the interior of the United States.[5] The Supreme Court has clearly and repeatedly confirmed that the border search exception applies within 100 miles of the border of the United States as seen in cases such as United States v. Martinez-Fuerte where it was held that the Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment.[6] However, searches of automobiles without a warrant by roving patrols have been deemed unconstitutional.[4]

The U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers, U.S. Border Patrol agents, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agents, and U.S. Coast Guard officers (E4 grade and above) who are all customs officers (those tasked with enforcing Title 19 of the United States Code) with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, are permitted to search travelers and their belongings at the American border without probable cause or a warrant.[7] Pursuant to this authority, customs officers may generally stop and search the property of any traveler entering the United States at random, or even based largely on ethnic profiles.[8]"

14 USC 89:

(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.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

 

I patrolled and conducted boardings, searches and seizures and arrests under these rules for 30 years .....

 

they have been contested uncountable times and the courts have upheld in each and every case ......

 

so far .....

 

warrantless search in a boarder zone or high seas where jurisdiction otherwise applies ...... yeperdoodle.

Edited June 7, 2018 by Capt_BJ

[AmazedByCruising]

Again, you are basing this on your expectations of Dutch law, not Bahamian or Panamanian law.

 

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.

 

It appears that you are basing you discussions and suppositions from a lay person's point of view. Please realize that chengkp75 is basing his information on fact based knowledge as a career professional in the maritime industry. In other words, he accurately knows what he is talking about.

 

 

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.