WHATEVER FLOATS YOUR BOAT … THE RANDOM, SUSPICIONLESS STOPS OF BOATS FOR SAFETY INSPECTIONS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The PA Superior Court has decided the case of Commonwealth v. Karash, F., No. 1440 WDA 2016 (August 21, 2017), holding that the random, suspicionless stop of Appellant’s boat to conduct a safety inspection violates the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Karash, representing himself, appealed to the Superior Court from the judgment of sentence imposed after he was found guilty of a summary offense for not having the required safety equipment on his boat. A Waterway Conservation Officer (WCO) stopped and boarded Karash’s boat to conduct a “license check” as permitted by statute. The WCO determined that there were not enough personal flotation devices (PFDs) for the number of individuals aboard and Karash was issued a citation for the safety violation.
Karash appealed, arguing that the WCO did not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to conduct a stop and that the stop violated his rights to “be free of illegal search and seizure.”
The Superior Court framed the issue as follows: “The issue in this case is not whether Pennsylvania has a legitimate and important interest to promote, because it does, but whether the only or best way to promote that legitimate interest is through the random, suspicionless stoppage of boats [in order to inspect them for compliance with the rules and regulations regarding boats and boating].”
The Court concluded that there is “a clearly established legitimate government interest” in ensuring recreational boater safety on Pennsylvania’s many bodies of water and that suspicionless searches are a proven means of promoting that interest. However, the Court also recognized that there are still safeguards that must be put in place in order for a stop or search to pass constitutional muster.
Citing previous case law, the Court acknowledged that using the boating safety statutes to stop and board a boat to conduct a document or safety check as a pretext to investigate criminal activity was already declared unconstitutional under the PA Constitution.
By way of further analysis, the Court looked to the decisions of other states regarding the same issue and found that the other states are split in assessing the random, suspicionless stopping of boats.
Lastly, the Court analogized the random stops of boats on the waterways with the random, DUI roadblocks on the roadways of the Commonwealth. Specifically, the Court noted procedural safeguards have been put in place for DUI roadblock stops in order for them to pass constitutional muster. Therefore, for boat safety checks, as in DUI roadblock cases, “where there is a clearly established legitimate government interest, and suspicionless searches are a proven means of promoting that interest, there are still safeguards that must be put in place in order for a stop or search to pass constitutional muster.”
And, because the Commonwealth did not demonstrate that it is unable to set up a system of inspection similar to what is done on roadways the random, suspicionless stop of Appellant’s boat to conduct a safety inspection violates the Fourth Amendment and Article I, Section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
DISCLAIMER – The information contained in this article is for general guidance on the subject matter only. The application and impact of laws can vary widely based on the specific facts involved. Given the changing nature of laws, rules and regulations, and the inherent hazards of electronic communication, there may be delays, omissions or inaccuracies in information in this article. Case summaries are primarily excerpted directly from the decisions authored by the Courts. The decisions are cited and linked and the reader is encouraged to read the entire decision. Accordingly, the information in this article is provided with the understanding that the authors and publishers are not herein engaged in rendering legal or other professional advice and services. As such, it should NOT be used as a substitute for consultation with a McMahon Winters Soto-Ortiz Law Firm attorney. Before making any decision or taking any action, you should always consult with a McMahon Winters Soto-Ortiz Law Firm attorney.
