Cecil answered this question some years ago now.
And it may be of interest that our hamster wheeling friend is once again in the news for having cost each of us another 1.2 cents. As it turns out, the coast guard and legal system do not have endless patience for shenanigans.
I disagree with the example in the link provided because no law was being broken. It was an overly optimistic endeavor that failed. Where I draw the line is at injury incurred during illegal activity. For example, bank robber Joe is fleeing the police and crashes into a wall. I’d save Joe, but he would be charged with the cost, put into collections if necessary, and have his credit trashed for non payment. Any money he earned in prison or received by any other means would be tapped until the bill was paid.
Paddling a watercraft from California to Hawaii is doable. It takes 3 months, paddling 9 hours a day, and lots of luck weather wise. It’s been done twice, attempted many times more.
I wouldn’t object to the first daredevil attempt to do anything, if it wasn’t clearly illegal. And I wouldn’t insist that he pay for his rescue, however stoopid the idea or attempt was.
But for the second or any subsequent attempts, when taxpayer funds were spent on rescuing him and/or the Coast Guard or other lawful authority ordered him not to try it again, then he should be required to pay for those rescue(s).
But he didn’t ask to be rescued. In fact, he not only refused the USCG, he claimed he would self-destruct rather than to yield. (Until he didn’t.)
This was 70 miles off the coast of (the US state of) Georgia. Not excusing his foolhardiness (the Coast Guard deemed his floating hamster wheel “manifestly unsafe”), but is that not beyond the point of being in international waters, outside of their jurisdiction?
Agreed, the coast guard should have left him, and when he finally did push his little save me beacon, they should have ignored it.
As a former emergency responder, in a conversation with someone who is a former first responder (there is a subtle difference), I had some similar questions . . .
I saw this in the news, and also read that a “Harbor Master”/“Port Master”/“Port Captain” (I don’t recall the specific title) had ordered him not to do this again. But I’ve got some questions . . .
Lots of skin-deep reporting have me looking to connect some dots.
This is my main argument on why he should be left alone–he’s on the high seas! IANAL, but the USCG, cannot compel anyone to do anything outside of the 12-mile territorial waters (1). I have to ask at what point the USCG boards vessels for ‘safety inspections’ . . . In this case though, he slipped out past the surf and littoral, so he’s on his own–cave “surfer dude”.
However, if is beacon activated . . .
I disagree. There is a financial/human/moral/etc. responsibility to respond to every emergency alarm, regardless of a perception of a real-world, repeat, or presumed-false alarm. Emergency services cannot pick-and-choose which alarms to, for lots of reasons, including exposure to legal liability through inaction on a real-world alarm (aka “cover-yer-a**” or CYA), and erosion of public/financial support in perception of inaction.
Now billing for those multiple esponses? Damn skippy they should be assigned to that guy. Using Baluchi as an example, at a minimum, the USCG should have noted the serial number of his beacon on the first alarm’s visit–that one’s free of charge. Second alarm with the same beacon serial number? Dude, here’s a decent bill, but knock it off. Third alarm with the same beacon serial number? Dude, here’s a bigger bill, and we’re going through the courts to put a lien on your house. Fourth? Bigger bill, here’s some jail time, and . . . (I’m running out of ideas for preventing him from going further. . .)
(1) I am nether a lawyer, boater, nor a floating lawer, so I could use some references on what to do with my proverbially SeaLand-flagged, pirate-radio-broadcastin’ yacht 14 miles off of Toms River, NJ should the USCG order me to ‘heave to’.
Tripler
Longwinded, but I think my argument is fully rigged for speed.
A US citizen would still be subject to US law, and the lawful orders of the Coast Guard, on waters anywhere, I believe. And the USCG gets around: Patrol Forces Southwest Asia - Wikipedia
I am aiming to phrase this in the respectful, right way to acknowledge the belief, while still needing to pull the thread, without coming across as an a-hole, so please accept this in good humor and good acaddemic debate. . .
“I understand your point, but I gotta see this in writing.” I see two problems with your point:
Taking point #2 a step further, from 14 USC Sec. 522:
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. . . yadda yadda yadda
Bolding, italicization and yadda yadda by Tripler
There’s gotta be a definitive line, that’s an affirmative defense by a defendant. I thought it was 12 miles offshore, but knowing of a lot of the counter-narcotics intercepts in the Carribean and Gulf of Mexico, I’m not sure what the case law says. I imagine the Cutter Captain submitting an affidavit saying, "We saw a HWOD off the East Coast, and thought it might be smuggling narcotics, so we attempted to board it to ascertain. . . "
After writing all this up, in good faith, I was going to pull the Posse Comitatus Act card, but I see that it specifically does not include the USCG. So, it’s possible my US-flagged three-masted xebec can be ordered to ‘heave to’ for a safety inspection 500 miles West of the Galapagos . . .?
Tripler
I wish this was posted from a 100’ xebec 423 nautical miles West of the Galpagos.
“Granted asylum”…
Should have been granted insane asylum, more like.
Point taken, Tripler.
No, no, no . . . you gotta highlight where I’m wrong!! You gotta tell me what I’m missing!
I ultimately laid out what I thought I know, culminating with a bullethole in my own foot. Please don’t take my over-caffienated post as a stick-in-the-eye. Your short reply tells me you’ve taken offense, which is not my intent–I apologize.
Tripler
Let me buy you a proverbial beer at the bar, to turn the mic over to you.
No, no - I assure you I haven’t taken offense!
I’m still buying you a beverage of your choice.
Tripler
“A man of his word.”
Get a room
On an ocean liner, perhaps…?
Here is a legal analysis. Short answer, any vessel owned by a US citizen is considered to be under US jurisdiction even in international waters.
The article also includes the detail that he kept the Coast Guard at bay for two days by falsely claiming to have a suicide bomb, which IMO moves him from “eccentric” to “just lock him up”.
This helps, thank you! I stand corrected. I love this blog, and had seen other articles before. . . don’t know why I missed this one.
Thank you!
Tripler
I’ll heave to.
So the entire premise of that Simpsons episode “The Mansion Family” (S11E12) where they go into international waters to dodge a Sunday “blue law” and then taunt the Coast Guard… Was for comedy purposes only?
DAMN
So I can’t just go 12 miles from the coastline to begin rebroadcasting Major League Baseball games based on “implied oral consent” alone?!
