# Coast Guard firing on speedboats **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [June 14, 2003, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761 "2003-06-14T05:22:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/1 "2003-06-14T05:22:01Z")
On the COPS type shows there are stories of CG ships opening fire on speed boats they think maybe loaded with drugs. It seems that this sometimes happens far off shore. By what authority or right does the CG have to go after a boat with such force that just seems to be cranking over the open seas? Are there drug possession laws on the open seas (International waters?)? ---
**Author:** ![Q.E.D](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/51bf81/32.png) [@Q.E.D](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.E.D)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/2 "2003-06-14T05:29:52Z")
The Coast Guard doesn’t patrol international waters, and has no authority there. IIRC any waters within 200 nautical miles of the shoreline are considered as belonging to the country which owns said shoreline. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/3 "2003-06-14T06:13:56Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.E.D. \* > \*\*The Coast Guard doesn’t patrol international waters, and has no authority there. IIRC any waters within 200 nautical miles of the shoreline are considered as belonging to the country which owns said shoreline. \*\* I thought international law specified 12 miles. I could be wrong though. I looked for a cite just now but nothing useful came up. I’ll keep looking. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/4 "2003-06-14T06:31:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Q.E.D. \* > \*\*The Coast Guard doesn’t patrol international waters, and has no authority there. IIRC any waters within 200 nautical miles of the shoreline are considered as belonging to the country which owns said shoreline. \*\* I believe this is mistaken. international law has always recognised the right of government ships of any government to visit and inspect merchant ships of any flag in the high seas. The USCG _can_ patrol international waters and _can_ visit merchant ships and ask for papers (just like the authorities of any other country). If it is determined s ship is outside national waters but is engaged in illicit activities with the USA then it can be seized anyway. There are plenty of examples of ships seized in the high seas. [In September 2000 a Spanish judge gave orders for a ship to be seized in mid Atlantic](http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/europe/09/02/spain.drugs.reut/). It originated in Venezuela and bound for Europe and was believed to be carrying a large amunt of drugs. It was seized in the high seas by commandos and was forced to put into the Canary Islands where nothing was found. Also, National waters do not extend to 200 NM but to 12 NM. The economic zone extends to 200 NM. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/5 "2003-06-14T06:34:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*I thought international law specified 12 miles. I could be wrong though. I looked for a cite just now but nothing useful came up. I’ll keep looking. \*\* I believe each country sets their own limit. And other countries, and their ships, are free to accept or ignore that limit. But they may have to take the consequences if the country tries to enforce the limit they’ve set. But 12 miles (19.2 km) seems to be the most commonly accepted limit asserted by most countries. I recall that in recent years an unfriendly country (N. Korea, maybe?) tried to claim a 200 mile limit. The US refused to accept that, and deliberately had US Navy ships sail by at 13 miles out, proclaiming the freedom of the open seas. The country did nothing, declining to take on the US Navy. No guarantee though, if you tried the same thing in your 20’ sailboat. But it all depends. The US generally asserts a 12-mile limit, but claims a “hot pursuit” right for Coast Guard & other ships pursuing drug smugglers leaving or attempting to enter US waters. But the US & Canada have joint agreements, and assert rights to control fishing in the Newfoundland Banks area of the Atlantic, which extends way more than 12 miles into the Atlantic. Britain claims control over oil drilling in the North Sea, including parts of it that are more than 12 miles offshore. When money is involved, the limits can change! ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/6 "2003-06-14T06:55:43Z")
I thought it was 12 miles. 200 mile economic??? Maybe entering IMHO, but it seems that shooting across the bow of a speedboat is an act of war. Why should a boater have to submit to a search 12+miles offshore based on a suspect that doesn’t sound good enough to subject one to a search on land!?!? ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/7 "2003-06-14T07:01:38Z")
Boats and ships are like cars in that because they are mobile a search warrent is not required for law enforcement to search them. If the CG orders a ship/boat to stop and they do not heave to. Then a shot may be fired across their bow to let them know that the CG means business. IIRC a shot across the bow is a very old tradition meaning heave to or the shit will really hit the fan and you will be sorry. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/8 "2003-06-14T07:35:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by [t-bonham@scc.net](mailto:t-bonham@scc.net) \* > I believe each country sets their own limit. And other countries, and their ships, are free to accept or ignore that limit. But they may have to take the consequences if the country tries to enforce the limit they’ve set. This seems silly (no offense). I would assume that there is some international treaty on this. Otherwise any country could say they claim 1,000 miles off shore. Of course, they’d have to have the ability to enforce that to make it meaningful but still…you could see this being used as a rpetext in all sorts of disputes where one country wants to nab the resources of another. > [@](#): > > I recall that in recent years an unfriendly country (N. Korea, maybe?) tried to claim a 200 mile limit. The US refused to accept that, and deliberately had US Navy ships sail by at 13 miles out, proclaiming the freedom of the open seas. The country did nothing, declining to take on the US Navy. No guarantee though, if you tried the same thing in your 20’ sailboat. IIRC this is one of the major roles of the US Navy in peacetime…enforcing rights of passage. I think Libya back in the 80’s claimes 200 miles out, the US sailed the Navy inside that 200 miles and blew a plane and boat or two up to make the point. > [@](#): > > But the US & Canada have joint agreements, and assert rights to control fishing in the Newfoundland Banks area of the Atlantic, which extends way more than 12 miles into the Atlantic. Britain claims control over oil drilling in the North Sea, including parts of it that are more than 12 miles offshore. > > When money is involved, the limits can change! One can see where countries come close to each other they need to agree among themselves how to divy up the resources as at some point even a one foot limit will impinge on your neighbor. Of course, in the end might makes right and when serious money is involved I imagine treaties can be seriously bent if not outright ignored. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/9 "2003-06-14T07:55:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Whack-a-Mole \* > \*\*This seems silly (no offense). I would assume that there is some international treaty on this. \*\* Well, it is a bit silly, but that’s pretty much the way it is internationally. There really isn’t any overall international body that can lay down to law to nations – that’s what soverignity means – a nation can do pretty much what it wants, until other nations get together to stop it. And really, what kind of an international treaty could there be? I remember as a teenager reading about the 12-mile limit in the Hardy Boys books. But probably half the nations of the world didn’t exist as nations at that time. How could they have signed a treaty? Nations are created & dissolved all the time. How effective anymore is any treaty signed by Saddam Hussien? Of course, in practice, it’s not that much of a Wild West situation – most nations do get along together reasonably well. But in international relations, it’s like you discussed – your rights are the rights you can enforce. Silly, but true. ---
**Author:** ![Duckster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/duckster/32/1244_2.png) [@Duckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duckster)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 8:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/10 "2003-06-14T08:03:33Z")
> [@](#): > > The United States Coast Guard is the nation’s leading maritime law enforcement agency and has broad, multi-faceted jurisdictional authority. The specific statutory authority for the Coast Guard Law Enforcement mission is given in 14 USC 2, “The Coast Guard shall enforce or assist in the enforcement of all applicable laws on, under and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” In addition, 14 USC 89 provides the authority for U.S. Coast Guard active duty commissioned, warrant and petty officers to enforce applicable U.S. law. It authorizes Coast Guard personnel to enforce federal law on waters subject to U.S. jurisdiction and in international waters, as well as on all vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction (including U.S., foreign and stateless vessels). Source: [http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/LawEnforce.html](http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factfile/Factcards/LawEnforce.html) > [@](#): > > Any officer of the customs may at any time go on board of any vessel or vehicle at any place in the United States or within the customs waters or, as he may be authorized, within a customs-enforcement area established under the Anti-Smuggling Act (19 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), or at any other authorized place, without as well as within his district, and examine the manifest and other documents and papers and examine, inspect, and search the vessel or vehicle and every part thereof and any person, trunk, package, or cargo on board, and to this end may hail and stop such vessel or vehicle, and use all necessary force to compel compliance. Source: 19USC1581 > [@](#): > > Sec. 637. Stopping vessels; immunity for firing at or into vessel > > (a) Whenever any vessel liable to seizure or examination does not stop on being ordered to do so or on being pursued by an authorized vessel or authorized aircraft which has displayed the ensign, pennant, or other identifying insignia prescribed for an authorized vessel or authorized aircraft, the person in command or in charge of the authorized vessel or authorized aircraft may, after a gun has been fired by the authorized vessel or authorized aircraft as a warning signal, fire at or into the vessel which does not stop. > > (b) The person in command of an authorized vessel or authorized aircraft and all persons acting under that person’s direction shall be indemnified from any penalties or actions for damages for firing at or into a vessel pursuant to subsection (a). If any person is killed or wounded by the firing, and the person in command of the authorized vessel or authorized aircraft or any person acting pursuant to their orders is prosecuted or arrested therefor, they shall be forthwith admitted to bail. Source: 14USC637 ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Pearse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/richard_pearse/32/13144_2.png) [@Richard\_Pearse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Pearse)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 10:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/11 "2003-06-14T10:48:58Z")
There may be diferent limits with different enforcement powers in each zone. E.g. Australia has a 12 Nm, 26 Nm and 200 Nm limit. The 200 Nm limit is essentially for fishing only. Australia can board and arrest (and they do frequently) a foreign fishing vessel found fishing inside the 200 Nm limit, but may not be able to do the same of a suspected drug vessel until it comes within one of the smaller limits. Australia can also board a foreign flagged vessel in international waters if it has an agreement with the foreign nation to do so. The US may have a similar setup. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/12 "2003-06-14T11:51:58Z")
> [@](#): > > Maybe entering IMHO, but it seems that shooting across the bow of a speedboat is an act of war Outside the 12 mile limit it is an act of war, but as captain you have to decide are you going to run, fight or surrender. If you really have nothing to hide and the USCG has a reputation of letting one go if drugs are not found then your best corse of action would be surrender. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/13 "2003-06-14T13:16:11Z")
Maritime international law has always recognized the right of naval vessels of any nationality to board (“visit”) and inspect non-governmental vessels of any flag in the high seas. With due consideration they are allowed to ask for registratioon papers (i.e.: verify the flag is legit), cargo manifest, port clearance papers, personnel rolls, etc. If there is any suspicion that the vessel is engaged in any of a number of crimes under international law (piracy, slave trading, drug running, etc) or is there is any doubt about the legitimacy of the papers, or if the vessel is engaged in criminal activities against the country of the visiting vessel then the naval vessel is allowed to detain the ship or take it to port. Naval and other government vessels are exempt from these visits. In other words, the high seas belong to the community of nations and any and all are allowed to police them. Also, by customary international law and by ruling of the International Court of Justice. [The Court held](http://www.blonnet.com/businessline/2001/02/26/stories/092671pa.htm): ``(T)here is no rule of international law prohibiting the state to which the ship on which the effects of the offence have taken place belongs, from regarding the offence as having been committed in its territory and prosecuting, accordingly, the delinquent.’’ In other words, if you are bound for the US with a load of cocaine, the fact that you are a thousand miles away and in the high seas is not going to save you. US government vessels can and will board your vessel. That is customary international law from the times when instant communications were non existent or very difficult. More recently governments will generally, as a matter of courtesy, ask the country of register for permission to board. > [@](#): > > [http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/012512.txt](http://vls.law.vill.edu/locator/3d/Feb2002/012512.txt) > On November 11, 1999, the HMS Northumberland, on board which there was a United States Coast Guard law enforcement detachment, intercepted the Adriatik north of Trinidad and Tobago. Upon observing signs suggesting narcotics smuggling, a Statement of No Objection was requested from the Panamanian government for permission to search the Adriatik and, if need be, escort it to a United States port for an intrusive and destructive search. The Panamanian government granted the request. > [@](#): > > [http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thbustos.html](http://www.admiraltylawguide.com/circt/5thbustos.html) > In May of 1999, the M/V CHINA BREEZE, a 510-foot Panamanian freighter bound for Portugal, sailed through the international waters south of the passage between Hispanola and Puerto Rico. The United States government suspected the vessel’s use in drug trafficking based on information from federal authorities in Greece. On May 27, 1999, the Panamanian government issued a statement of no objection to allow the United States Coast Guard to board the freighter and search for contraband. The Coast Guard boarded the vessel and found four tons of cocaine in a disabled sewage tank. The following day, Panama gave express permission for the enforcement of United States laws on the vessel. The Coast Guard then ordered the M/V CHINA BREEZE to Galveston, Texas. During the ten-day voyage to Galveston, Coast Guard officials questioned the crew members about the hidden cocaine. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 1:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/14 "2003-06-14T13:39:17Z")
US law: > [@](#): > > USC - Part I \_ Regular Coast Guard - Chapter 5: \_ Functions and Powers - Sec. 89. Law enforcement > (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 . . . . (bolding mine) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/15 "2003-06-14T14:45:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by [t-bonham@scc.net](mailto:t-bonham@scc.net) \* > **Well, it is a bit silly, but that’s pretty much the way it is internationally. There really isn’t any overall international body that can lay down to law to nations – that’s what soverignity means – a nation can do pretty much what it wants, until other nations get together to stop it.** Why would one bother responding to a GQ if one has no knowledge about the subject at hand? [The Law of the Sea.](http://education.yahoo.com/search/be?lb=t&p=url%3As/sea__law_of_the) The Law of the Sea, a international convention joined by nearly all countries that touch a sea or ocean (but interestingly not the US, even though we began the negotiations - pending Senate ratificiation, the US has agreed to act in accordance with its provisions), sets a 12 mile limit on territorial waters. It also guarantees a 200 mile exclusive economic zone for activities like fishing and seabed mining. Other issues, such as transit rights, make this convention reflective of customary international law. T Some countries have attempted to make up their own rules. China claimed that its EEZ gave it the right to force down the US EP-3 recon plane back in April 2001. Durnig the '80s, Libya claimed the entire Gulf of Sidra as territorial waters, and proclaimed a “Line of Death” from, IIRC, Benghazi on the east to Mistratah on the west. The US sailed a carrier in there, shot down some Libyan planes, and the issue eventually slinked away into that good night. As far as boarding ships on the high seas, [here’s](http://www.cbc.ca/news/features/board_ship.html) a simple explanation. I could go on about treaty law and shared sovereignty, but that’s for another thread. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [June 14, 2003, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/16 "2003-06-14T15:50:56Z")
**Ravenman** , that is an interesting link. I am always surprised by how ignorant common people are about issues of international law even to the point of denying its very existence as was the case recently in a GD thread. Others will admit its existence but deny a sovereign nation has any obligation to respect it which is pretty much declaring the law inexistant and the nation’s right to be a rogue nation (quite a few Americans defending those views these days). International law derives mainly from (a) treaties among nations, (b) international custom and © principles generally respected by civilized nations. Of course, treaties supersede the other two just as statute law supersedes common law principles. The page you linked says > [@](#): > > Article110 > Right of visit > > . . . a warship which encounters on the high seas a foreign ship . . . is not justified in boarding it unless there is reasonable ground for suspecting that: > > (a) the ship is engaged in piracy; > (b) the ship is engaged in the slave trade; > © the ship is engaged in unauthorized broadcasting and the flag state of the warship has jurisdiction under article109; > (d) the ship is without nationality; or > (e) though flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag, the ship is, in reality, of the same nationality as the warship. I was under the impression that there were more cases which included suspicion that the ship: - Is engaged in drug running or any other activity which is considered a crime by all nations, including running blockades decreed by the UN. (In other words, any country’s warship could legally enforce the embargo on Iraq when it was in force) - Is engaged in an activity which has a criminal effect in the nation of the warship. This last case is not so clear. I know of cases where ships suspected of running drugs have been searched in the high seas but I also remember that during prohibition, ships engaged in running liquor were generally safe outside the 12 NM limit. Maybe in the case of alcohol it made a difference that it was legal in every other country except the USA so a ship outside the 12 NM limit, flying a foreign flag, had good reason to be protected by its foreign flag. OTOH, set up a cocaine ship just outside the 12 NM limit and see how long you last. ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/17 "2003-06-15T18:16:47Z")
Thanks for all the good and interesting answers and information. It seems to be reasonable make sense, but the TV shows still make the CG seem to be a bunch of bullies that shoot at boaters without even knowing if a crime, deserving of the use of deadly force, has been committed. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [June 15, 2003, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/18 "2003-06-15T22:24:40Z")
**B&I** what you are missing is that the CG only fires on a boat after they have ordered it to stop, and the boat in question does not stop. If you want to see a fictional version of these procedures watch the first 5 minutes or so of [Clear and Present Danger](http://www.all-reviews.com/videos-2/clear-and-present-danger.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Blown\_Injected](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a87d85/32.png) [@Blown\_Injected](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blown_Injected)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/19 "2003-06-16T03:43:47Z")
I am not missing that. I am missing the probable cause part - it looks like we do not practice what we preach. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [June 16, 2003, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761/20 "2003-06-16T19:58:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Blown & Injected \* > \*\*I am not missing that. I am missing the probable cause part - it looks like we do not practice what we preach. \*\* I imagine the Coast Guard, based on their experience, has a list of suspicious activities that make them decide which ships they to ask to stop. (Just like customs at the border, and security guards at airports have similar lists.) But I don ont expect that they would make such a list public – that would just tell the criminals how to hide better! Also, based on sailors’s post above, it seems that when on the high seas, navy ships of any nation can request your ship to stop for inspection. So I would think that refusing to do so, but attempting to run away instead, is in itself probably cause to believe that they are doing something criminal. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/coast-guard-firing-on-speedboats/181761.md?page=2)