U.S. v. Dillon, 82-1736

• Decision Date: 01 March 1983
• Docket Number: No. 82-1736,82-1736
• Citation: 701 F.2d 6
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Garret R. DILLON, Defendant, Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

Page 6

701 F.2d 6

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Garret R. DILLON, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 82-1736.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Argued Feb. 1, 1983.

Decided March 1, 1983.

Michael S. Washor, New York City, with whom Joseph J. McCarthy, Jr., and Washor, Greenberg & Washor, New York City, were on brief, for defendant, appellant.

Margaret D. McGaughey, Asst. U.S. Atty., Portland, Maine, with whom Richard S. Cohen, U.S. Atty., Portland, Maine, and William H. Browder, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Bangor, Maine, were on brief, for appellee.

Before ALDRICH and BOWNES, Circuit Judges, and WYZANSKI, ^* Senior District Judge.

BAILEY ALDRICH, Senior Circuit Judge.

Defendant Dillon seeks to persuade this court to reverse its settled rule that the Coast Guard is permitted to board a vessel, in this case the 46' sloop yacht RELENTLESS, for a safety and document check without cause. We are extraordinarily unlikely to reverse our recent and repeated holding that the boarding statute is constitutional. United States v. Arra, 1 Cir., 1980, 630 F.2d 836, 841; United States v. Hilton, 1 Cir., 1980, 619 F.2d 127, 131, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 887, 101 S.Ct. 243, 66 L.Ed.2d 113. Cf. United States v. Piner, 9 Cir., 1979, 608 F.2d 358 (2-1) (boarding after dark). Defendant's motivation stems from his conviction under 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1), (b)(6) & 846, as a result of discovery of a cabin-load of marijuana, which advertised its presence even before the ship's papers could be requested. Allegedly, the court improperly denied his motion to suppress, sub nom. United States v. Whitmore, D.Me., 1982, 536 F.Supp. 1284. We affirm.

Defendant's attempt to analogize a boat with a dwelling because "every sailor considers his ship his home," fails, among other reasons, because a boat is much more than a home; examination of safety equipment and documents may not even involve the living quarters. The slight ultimate invasion in the present case came not only as a result of defendant's failure to produce the paper; it was also the result of following an odor of marijuana noticeable topsides.

Correspondingly, the analogy of random searches of automobiles fails because of the far greater importance of a safety check. Whether a boat has on board registration papers corresponding with her displayed identification may be comparatively insignificant--although much more important than an automobile registration--but safety equipment, approved life preservers, functioning fire extinguishers, fuel storage, etc is a different matter. Law review writers may be impressed by statistics indicating that relatively few marine accidents are due to lack of required equipment, see Note, High on the Seas: Drug Smuggling, the Fourth Amendment, and Warrantless Searches at Sea, 93 Harv.L.Rev. 725, 742 (1980), but, besides implicitly criticizing the value of the safety requirements, this overlooks the fact that realization of being subject to inspection at any place or time may be the best impetus for compliance. If such an inspection leads to the discovery of unlawful cargo, that is the known risk that contraband carriers take, rather than a reason for their invoking the Fourth Amendment.

The note...