Hassled By Coast Guard Aux

[LakeMeadLavey]

So Saturday we took the boat up to Pyramid for the day. Standing at the ramp were two younger CG Auxilary guys. As soon as I backed the boat in the water with my brother at the helm, he approaches with a major attitude.

He informed me that it was illegal to have anyone in the boat when I back it in the water and this is a $700 ticket?? Instead I am to tie dock lines to the boat and back in next to the dock. I was then supposed to walk the boat off, tie the boat up and at that point someone can board? WTF I have never heard of this or seen anyone do this in my 30+ years of boating other than someone launching alone. Has anyone ever been hassled for this?

He then proceeds to hassle me over the AZ regis when I said we have a residence in AZ and the boat is there 90% of the time. Truck and trailer are regis in CA.

Next he says we need to go tie up at the dock for a full inspection. No problem, as we always have everything required. Once he sees we have everything, he said none of the vests can be in the locker or under any seats. Ok fine.

Now he wants to board the boat by stepping on the seats with his filthy boots to do a bilge inspection to check for fuel or oil leaks and a flame arrestor? The boat has 90 hrs and and the bilge is immaculate. Finnaly at this point after 15 min when we said is this really neccessary he sends us on our way after saying he will be checking when we come in for OUI?? Nobody was planning on drinking.

I have no problem with inpections etc but this guy was just a complete DICK. Previous 2 weekends LASO were wathcing everyone launch and never bothered anyone.

I see Sunday they had a fatality jet ski vs boat which is no surprise to me. Idiots everywhere on jet skis. Maybe AUX "J. Ramirez" should have been educating other peeps on safety rather than hassling someone trying to find something.

 

[milkmoney]

and they wonder why they have lost alot of respect over the years...

can they board your boat without you sayin its ok, like the searching of the vehicle???

 

[LakeMeadLavey]

and they wonder why they have lost alot of respect over the years...There is just no reason for them to F-with someone in the way he did.

can they board your boat without you sayin its ok, like the searching of the vehicle???

Not sure?

 

[RitcheyRch]

Sounds like a few people with an authority complex/.

 

[Uncle Dave]

Might I suggest a coast guard safety sticker inspection

Its a hassle to get inspected, but its the closest thing to a get out of jail free card you'll get at inspection time.

BTW the life vest comment was BS- show me where the rules and regs dictate where they need to be stored as long as they can be reached in under 30 second.

BTW the Auxiliary has NO AUTHORITY to detain you. (according to them)
The coast guard itself - can board with the full authority of the military.

Uncle Dave

 

[Stace Case]

I would file a complaint with the CG - He definatly overstepped his boundaries and authority - How dare him threaten you with a OUI at the end of the day. What a POS!

 

[LomitaBob]

they shoulda been paying more attention to the lake lice this weekend, maybe they could have saved a life instead of being dicks!!!!

 

[milkmoney]

Might I suggest a coast guard safety sticker inspection

Its a hassle to get inspected, but its the closest thing to a get out of jail free card you'll get at inspection time.

BTW the life vest comment was BS- show me where the rules and regs dictate where they need to be stored as long as they can be reached in under 30 second.

BTW the Auxiliary has NO AUTHORITY to detain you. (according to them)
The coast guard itself - can board with the full authority of the military.

Uncle Dave

even though there is no probable cause and they are not part of the dept. of defense..??? boat cop help please???:thumbsup

 

[fourtznme]

This was brought up on another site, and yes they can board without PC. I would for sure file a complaint with the local jurisdiction for the way you were treated. Hard to believe you can?t be on the boat when launching.

 

[McRib]

even though there is no probable cause and they are not part of the dept. of defense..??? boat cop help please???:thumbsup

They are a military force and can be merged into the navy when needed. They used to be dept of transportation but fall under homeland security now

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard

 

[Havasu Hangin']

This was brought up on another site, and yes they can board without PC.

I believe the case cited was for a Coast Guard documented vessel. I would think a privately owned vessel would not fall under that case, since documented vessels give up certain rights that privately registered vessels do not.

 

[HALLETT BOY]

All govt agencies are facing major cutbacks , this is their way of going out and hyper - enforcing laws and rules and writing citations to show how valuable they are to society and protect their jobs .

 

[Mr. C]

BTW the life vest comment was BS- show me where the rules and regs dictate where they need to be stored as long as they can be reached in under 30 second.
Uncle Dave

Can't show you the rule/law. But when we had an incident at Powell many years ago.
(Getting gas with a bow tank and the breather hose came loose, which vented right next to the ignition. 3 of us blown out of the boat) The driver was given a ticket for the life vests being under the seats and not readily accessible. I guess if they were on the ski tow I could of grabbed one as i was doing my backflip out of the boat.

 

[ONE-A-DAY]

All govt agencies are facing major cutbacks , this is their way of going out and hyper - enforcing laws and rules and writing citations to show how valuable they are to society and protect their jobs .

The CG auxiliary is a volunteer force, they dont get paid, and most are either retirees or young folks trying to add something nice to their resume.

 

[LakeMeadLavey]

All govt agencies are facing major cutbacks , this is their way of going out and hyper - enforcing laws and rules and writing citations to show how valuable they are to society and protect their jobs .

I was under the impression being AUX he only gets to be "that guy" on hulidays etc. This was his day to shine and be a DICK.

 

[Uncle Dave]

They are a military force and can be merged into the navy when needed. They used to be dept of transportation but fall under homeland security now

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Coast_Guard

I interviewed to be a member of the Coast Guard Auxilliary.
Seemed fun and I always liked giving back to the boating community.

I was told under no conditions does the Auxiliary have authority to detain, cite, or stop, or intervene in any way other than to warn boaters they may be cited by the authorities is they did this or that, but that wasnt what they wanted us doing. They wanted us checking buoys for proper position, and giving flare classes and safety classes, and in my case helping to chase down boats in trouble (I have a full electronics suite that allows me to find boats in bad weather that most do not have)

Be curious t know if the rules have changed

Uncle Dave

 

[Havasu Hangin']

Can't show you the rule/law. But when we had an incident at Powell many years ago.
(Getting gas with a bow tank and the breather hose came loose, which vented right next to the ignition. 3 of us blown out of the boat) The driver was given a ticket for the life vests being under the seats and not readily accessible. I guess if they were on the ski tow I could of grabbed one as i was doing my backflip out of the boat.

Like any LEO, they can cite you for whatever they want. Whether it holds up by a judge, (or the court of public opinion) is another story.

 

[Uncle Dave]

Can't show you the rule/law. But when we had an incident at Powell many years ago.
(Getting gas with a bow tank and the breather hose came loose, which vented right next to the ignition. 3 of us blown out of the boat) The driver was given a ticket for the life vests being under the seats and not readily accessible. I guess if they were on the ski tow I could of grabbed one as i was doing my backflip out of the boat.

I would bet that it wasnt the Coast Guard Auxiliary that wrote the ticket.

Coast Guard Aux's arent issued ticket books.

What the law says in Utah about life jackets I couldn't tell you, but the CG safety class has no such provision in it, and I have passed the test 3 years with the jackets under the seat or in the cabin.

 

[Havasu Hangin']

...and I have passed the test 3 years with the jackets under the seat or in the cabin.

I have several dealing with both Coast Guard and The Auxilary. All my dealings with the Coast Guard have been positive, so I think these guys may have been the exception and not the norm.

Too bad they don't realize that they are representing the entire Coast Guard whenever they make contact with any boater.

PS- I have been inspected more than once, and they told me that the lifejackets under the backseat were fine. They were more concerned with a throw cushion being accessable.

 

[fourtznme]

I believe the case cited was for a Coast Guard documented vessel. I would think a privately owned vessel would not fall under that case, since documented vessels give up certain rights that privately registered vessels do not.

I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.

I spoke to soon.Thanks Boat Cop for the clarification.

 

[McRib]

I interviewed to be a member of the Coast Guard Auxilliary.
Seemed fun and I always liked giving back to the boating community.

I was told under no conditions does the Auxiliary have authority to detain, cite, or stop, or intervene in any way other than to warn boaters they may be cited by the authorities is they did this or that, but that wasnt what they wanted us doing. They wanted us checking buoys for proper position, and giving flare classes and safety classes, and in my case helping to chase down boats in trouble (I have a full electronics suite that allows me to find boats in bad weather that most do not have)

Be curious t know if the rules have changed

Uncle Dave

Dave scroll down to the coast guard aux. In the last paragraph it might answer ur question. Somethin about 1997 & mission changes about direct law enforcement. I could be reading it wrong though

 

[McRib]

http://cgaux.org/vsc/

Found this. According to this a written reporr is issued in how to correct dicripancies. To help u from reciving fines from other agencies.

 

[BoatCop]

1. Coast Guard Auxiliary has absolutely NO law enforcement authority whatsoever (except when acting in conjunction with a Coast Guard permitted marine event, ie America's Cup race Safety Zone)

2. The Coast Guard and/or Auxiliary has absolutely NO authority on a sole state waterway, that is, a lake contained completely within a state boundary, with no connection to another state or not open to the ocean or another Federal Waterway.

Federally (USCG) Documented or state registered doesn't matter. The Coast Guard has authority over ANY vessel on Federal Waterways, US Territorial Seas or US flagged or owned vessels on the High Seas.

The CG Auxiliary is a civilian volunteer sub-organization of the US Coast Guard with their sole mission being recreational boating safety. They conduct search and rescue, emergency towing, teach boating safety classes, and do COURTESY boat safety examinations of vessels.

What this clown did was against every rule and regulation of the Coast Guard and Auxiliary.

You need to file a complaint at the 11th CG District Office of Auxiliary:

http://diraux.d11nuscgaux.info/StaffOfficeHours.htm

(NOTE: If the CG Auxiliary vessel is flying the Official CG Ensign [see below] there is a COAST GUARD official on board and that vessel and official have full USCG enforcement powers.)

 

[Lunatic Fringe]

^^^^That's the info I wanted to see.^^^^

I have no problem with polite safety inspections but as soon as there is any abusive tone or language, we're done.

 

[ductape1000]

Thanks again BoatCop for being here. Your information is very helpful. :thumbup:

sent from a van at the waters edge.

 

[LakeMeadLavey]

1. Coast Guard Auxiliary has absolutely NO law enforcement authority whatsoever (except when acting in conjunction with a Coast Guard permitted marine event, ie America's Cup race Safety Zone)

2. The Coast Guard and/or Auxiliary has absolutely NO authority on a sole state waterway, that is, a lake contained completely within a state boundary, with no connection to another state or not open to the ocean or another Federal Waterway.

Federally (USCG) Documented or state registered doesn't matter. The Coast Guard has authority over ANY vessel on Federal Waterways, US Territorial Seas or US flagged or owned vessels on the High Seas.

The CG Auxiliary is a civilian volunteer sub-organization of the US Coast Guard with their sole mission being recreational boating safety. They conduct search and rescue, emergency towing, teach boating safety classes, and do COURTESY boat safety examinations of vessels.

What this clown did was against every rule and regulation of the Coast Guard and Auxiliary.

You need to file a complaint at the 11th CG District Office of Auxiliary:

http://diraux.d11nuscgaux.info/StaffOfficeHours.htm

(NOTE: If the CG Auxiliary vessel is flying the Official CG Ensign [see below] there is a COAST GUARD official on board and that vessel and official have full USCG enforcement powers.)

Thank you for another very informative post Alan. I will proceed with the link and file a complaint most difinitely. I am all for safety and LE but this was a bit much IMO.

 

[DaveC]

I was kinda wondering about passengers in the boat while backing up? Is that BS?

 

[Havasu Hangin']

Federally (USCG) Documented or state registered doesn't matter. The Coast Guard has authority over ANY vessel on Federal Waterways, US Territorial Seas or US flagged or owned vessels on the High Seas.

Has authority? Absolutely.

What about boarding a privately registered vessel without "Reasonable Suspicion"?

 

[BoatCop]

Has authority? Absolutely.

What about boarding a privately registered vessel without "Reasonable Suspicion"?

18 USC 89 (United States Code)

(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.

 

[BoatCop]

I was kinda wondering about passengers in the boat while backing up? Is that BS?

It may be a local regulation, but that would be under a vehicle code or park regulation, but not any Federal or California Harbors & Navigation code.

 

[GRADS2009]

I think I have more moderator power at RDP than the Coast Guard Auxiliary has power on the water.

 

[Havasu Hangin']

18 USC 89 (United States Code)

(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.

I understand the enforcing compliance (above), but what about boarding without any "Reasonable Suspicion" of any documentation and/or compliance issues?

 

[Wheeler]

18 USC 89 (United States Code)

(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.

How does this apply to your office?

 

[CoolCruzin]

I was kinda wondering about passengers in the boat while backing up? Is that BS?

Me too !

 

[BoatCop]

I understand the enforcing compliance (above), but what about boarding without any "Reasonable Suspicion" of any documentation and/or compliance issues?

The Supreme Court, under US v Villamonte-marquez determined that a suspicionless stop and search of a vessel does not violate the 4th Amendment: (We just hashed this all over a few weeks ago)

Vessel Searches .--Not only is the warrant requirement inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are necessary predicates to stops of vessels. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. The boarding was authorized by statute derived from an act of the First Congress, and hence had ''an impressive historical pedigree'' carrying with it a presumption of constitutionality. Moreover, ''important factual differences between vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and automobiles on principal thoroughfares in the border area'' justify application of a less restrictive rule for vessel searches. The reason why random stops of vehicles have been held impermissible under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained, is that stops at fixed checkpoints or roadblocks are both feasible and less subject to abuse of discretion by authorities. ''But no reasonable claim can be made that permanent checkpoints would be practical on waters such as these where vessels can move in any direction at any time and need not follow established 'avenues' as automobiles must do.'' Because there is a ''substantial'' governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, ''especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,'' the Court found the ''limited'' but not ''minimal'' intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable

How does this apply to your office?

We also have this authority under AZ state law and various court rulings, however there's no reason for us to do it, and I discourage my officers from doing it, due to the abundance of obvious violations that are out there.

If I wanted to stop a particular vessel, I can guarantee I could find probable cause to do so. Even simple things like registration numbers not block, 3" letters/numbers. Not contrasting color to hull. No spaces. Decal placement in the wrong spot.

I'll bet at least 3/4 of the members here have screwed up registration numbers.

 

[Wheeler]

Thanks Alan! :thumbsup

 

[Havasu Hangin']

The Supreme Court, under US v Villamonte-marquez determined that a suspicionless stop and search of a vessel does not violate the 4th Amendment: (We just hashed this all over a few weeks ago)

Vessel Searches .--Not only is the warrant requirement inapplicable to brief stops of vessels, but also none of the safeguards applicable to stops of automobiles on less than probable cause are necessary predicates to stops of vessels. In United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. The boarding was authorized by statute derived from an act of the First Congress, and hence had ''an impressive historical pedigree'' carrying with it a presumption of constitutionality. Moreover, ''important factual differences between vessels located in waters offering ready access to the open sea and automobiles on principal thoroughfares in the border area'' justify application of a less restrictive rule for vessel searches. The reason why random stops of vehicles have been held impermissible under the Fourth Amendment, the Court explained, is that stops at fixed checkpoints or roadblocks are both feasible and less subject to abuse of discretion by authorities. ''But no reasonable claim can be made that permanent checkpoints would be practical on waters such as these where vessels can move in any direction at any time and need not follow established 'avenues' as automobiles must do.'' Because there is a ''substantial'' governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, ''especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,'' the Court found the ''limited'' but not ''minimal'' intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable
.

Under United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. Under the ruling, the court found "because there is a ''substantial'' governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, ''especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,'' the Court found the ''limited'' but not ''minimal'' intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable."

Understanding that the court ruled that random boardings are necessary in areas where open water cannot support checkpoints in US open waters against smuggling.

A couple quick questions:

1. Are you implying that the Colorado River is "waters offering ready access to the open sea" as in the ruling?
2. The vessel in this ruling was Coast Guard documented, as such, the court ruled that the documentation could be verified. Are you implying that this applies to state-registered vessels?
3. Is the Colorado River system known for smuggling?
4. Are you implying that the Colorado River system cannot support checkpoints?

Thanks.

 

[ONE-A-DAY]

I think I have more moderator power at RDP than the Coast Guard Auxiliary has power on the water.

Debatable


MedicalPlanQuotes.com / IPhone

 

[BoatCop]

Under United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, the Court upheld a random stop and boarding of a vessel by customs agents, lacking any suspicion of wrongdoing, for purpose of inspecting documentation. Under the ruling, the court found "because there is a ''substantial'' governmental interest in enforcing documentation laws, ''especially in waters where the need to deter or apprehend smugglers is great,'' the Court found the ''limited'' but not ''minimal'' intrusion occasioned by boarding for documentation inspection to be reasonable."

Understanding that the court ruled that random boardings are necessary in areas where open water cannot support checkpoints in US open waters against smuggling.

A couple quick questions:

1. Are you implying that the Colorado River is "waters offering ready access to the open sea" as in the ruling?
2. The vessel in this ruling was Coast Guard documented, as such, the court ruled that the documentation could be verified. Are you implying that this applies to state-registered vessels?
3. Is the Colorado River system known for smuggling?
4. Are you implying that the Colorado River system cannot support checkpoints?

Thanks.

The Villamonte decision has standing on all Federal Waterways. State Courts have applied the Villamonte ruling to sole state waters, as have various Federal Circuit Courts. The below link shows one such ruling State ruling.

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/152999a.htm

 

[Havasu Hangin']

The Villamonte decision has standing on all Federal Waterways. State Courts have applied the Villamonte ruling to sole state waters, as have various Federal Circuit Courts. The below link shows one such ruling State ruling.

http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/152999a.htm

Well, this applies to Texas, and even they have concerns with the 4th ammendment. I guess I am struggling how this applies to the Coloado River.

A couple quick questions:

1. This ruling applies to Texas- does it apply to the Colorado River?
2. Once again, the court is weighing checkpoints vs rights, and allowing a boarding stop because a checkpoint in not feasable in this area. Do you believe that checkpoints are not doable in the Colorado River?
3. Are there any rulings from the Superme Court on non-documented vessels for "Reasonable Suspicion" stops?

Sorry to be such a pain.

 

[Guest]

Well, this applies to Texas, and even they have concerns with the 4th ammendment. I guess I am struggling how this applies to the Coloado River.

A couple quick questions:

1. This ruling applies to Texas- does it apply to the Colorado River?
2. Once again, the court is weighing checkpoints vs rights, and allowing a boarding stop because a checkpoint in not feasable in this area. Do you believe that checkpoints are not doable in the Colorado River?
3. Are there any rulings from the Superme Court on non-documented vessels for "Reasonable Suspicion" stops?

Sorry to be such a pain.

He's gonna Taze your ass......I hope he brings the Tazer mount Go Pro....

 

[Flyinbowtie]

To the OP...
If you did not get this buffoons name,
please do us all a real favor, and take the time at some point to go back and get it, or call the local CG aux. and find out what his name was, then get the forms to file a proper formal complaint against this bozo.
Alan is right, no one benefits from people with attitudes like this being in positions where they "assume" authority.
Furthermore, this dude is probably looking for a career in the CG or in law enforcement, and we don't need these kinds of clowns in uniform. Please, please don't let this boner get away with this.

 

[Josh909]

I'm betting our buddy was some gun ho, weekend warrior, e-4 reservists. If this was my boat he did this on, I would have been more then willing to pull rank on his ass.

 

[Flyinbowtie]

whomever he is, he needs an aw-shit letter in his jacket to follow him around and be available to a background investigator so he doesn't wind up in uniform doing this full time.

 

[Waterheater]

About having people in the boat when lanching. I would like to know if this is real or not. I ask a park ranger once at our local lake, and he said it was fine to have people in the boat. Could you imagine the cluster fuck this would make if it was an actual law.

 

[DaveC]

We just went through this CG search thing a couple weeks ago. Lol

 

[DaveC]

Local. Check :thumbsup

Thx again

It may be a local regulation, but that would be under a vehicle code or park regulation, but not any Federal or California Harbors & Navigation code.

 

[Summer Boater Winter Offroader]

Very helpfull information. Thanks:thumbsup

 

[plaster dave]

So Saturday we took the boat up to Pyramid for the day. Standing at the ramp were two younger CG Auxilary guys. As soon as I backed the boat in the water with my brother at the helm, he approaches with a major attitude.

He informed me that it was illegal to have anyone in the boat when I back it in the water and this is a $700 ticket?? Instead I am to tie dock lines to the boat and back in next to the dock. I was then supposed to walk the boat off, tie the boat up and at that point someone can board? WTF I have never heard of this or seen anyone do this in my 30+ years of boating other than someone launching alone. Has anyone ever been hassled for this?

He then proceeds to hassle me over the AZ regis when I said we have a residence in AZ and the boat is there 90% of the time. Truck and trailer are regis in CA.

Next he says we need to go tie up at the dock for a full inspection. No problem, as we always have everything required. Once he sees we have everything, he said none of the vests can be in the locker or under any seats. Ok fine.

Now he wants to board the boat by stepping on the seats with his filthy boots to do a bilge inspection to check for fuel or oil leaks and a flame arrestor? The boat has 90 hrs and and the bilge is immaculate. Finnaly at this point after 15 min when we said is this really neccessary he sends us on our way after saying he will be checking when we come in for OUI?? Nobody was planning on drinking.

I have no problem with inpections etc but this guy was just a complete DICK. Previous 2 weekends LASO were wathcing everyone launch and never bothered anyone.

I see Sunday they had a fatality jet ski vs boat which is no surprise to me. Idiots everywhere on jet skis. Maybe AUX "J. Ramirez" should have been educating other peeps on safety rather than hassling someone trying to find something.

That is total BS. I remember last year they were doing inspections at Castaic. CGA asked me can I inspect your boat? I said NO. He looked at me with a confused look on his face. I said can I go now? He said yes and rolled his eyes at me.

 

[BoatCop]

I'm betting our buddy was some gun ho, weekend warrior, e-4 reservists. If this was my boat he did this on, I would have been more then willing to pull rank on his ass.

Not even that. Reservists are Military and have the exact same authority as Active CG, while on orders for Active Duty for Training, or Inactive Duty Training (drills) or Title 10 (extended) Active Duty.

Auxiliary have NO LE powers! Cannot order you to stop. Cannot board your boat. Nothing. If you look, they are using their own personal boats, or an Auxiliary vessel, but have amber overhead lights, vs. blue lights for LE boats.