E.D.Pa.: Reasonable suspicion supported boarding of vessel; log book validly seized

Coast Guard boarded a ship based on a whistleblower’s claim the crew was dumping oily waste at sea. The boarding was based on 14 U.S.C. § 89(a). The Coast Guard asked for the logbook for oily waste, and the crew produced it. United States v. Fleet Mgmt., Ltd., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74277 (E.D. Pa. August 20, 2009).

Reasonable suspicion was the standard for boarding:

Dyachenko’s initial argument is that the warrantless seizure of his notepads violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The government argues that the seizure was valid pursuant to 14 U.S.C. § 89(a), which permits the Coast Guard to make warrantless searches and seizures onboard a ship for “the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States.” Searches conducted pursuant to that statutory authority require only a “reasonable suspicion of criminal activity” to survive Fourth Amendment scrutiny. United States v. Varlack Ventures, Inc., 149 F.3d 212, 216-17 (3d Cir. 1998). The reasonable suspicion, however, “must be based on specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences drawn from those facts ….” Id. at 217 (quoting United States v. Roy, 869 F.2d 1427, 1430 (11th Cir. 1989).

There was no discussion of standing other than the court’s comment that there was no personal information in the book, not that it would matter:

During a series of evidentiary hearings held in early 2008, Marine Science Technician Chief Matthew Jones, an experienced Coast Guard officer, testified that he led the investigation onboard the Valparaiso Star on January 24, 2007. He stated that the Coast Guard boarded the ship only after receiving information from a former crew member, Motorman Gopal Singh, that he had been fired recently for refusing to participate in the illegal dumping of large quantities of the ship’s oily waste at open sea. He further testified that shortly after boarding, he and other Coast Guard personnel uncovered evidence which he believed corroborated the whistleblower’s claim. This included the presence of an unusual hose beneath the deck plates in the engine room, discrepancies between the ship’s “Oil Record Book” and the daily tank sounding log, and the presence of oil in atypical places aboard the vessel.

Armed with that knowledge and the information provided by the whistleblower, Jones and other Coast Guard personnel interviewed the engine room staff, including Dyachenko, regarding the questionable activity. Jones testified that during the interview, and in response to questions about illegal activity, Dyachenko displayed a notepad that had been on his person. According to the investigative report created that same day, Dyachenko stated that the notepad contained sounding logs “for his knowledge on what needs to be done in the engine room.” Nonetheless, he refused to hand over the notepad to the investigators at that time. Dyachenko ended the interview by stating that he wished to disclose “the truth” but was concerned that the investigators would write it down.

Jones responded by seeking the aid of the Captain, defendant Grewal. He informed Grewal that he had authority to seize the notepad and asked for Grewal’s help in obtaining it. Dyachenko produced both that notepad and another for Grewal, who immediately turned them over to the Coast Guard. Both notepads contain detailed technical information relating to maintenance of the engine room and little if any personal information.

We conclude that by the time Dyachenko displayed the notepad to the investigators and stated that it contained information related to maintenance of the engine room, the Coast Guard had a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and was authorized to seize the notebook under § 89(a). Consequently, we will deny the motion of Dyachenko insofar as it requests suppression of the notebooks under the Fourth Amendment.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.