Opinion ID: 468119
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Scope of Inspections Under the Magnuson Act

Text: 29 As we have earlier noted, the Act directs the Secretary of Commerce, with the assistance of Regional Fishery Management Councils, to develop regional fishery management plans and to promulgate regulations to implement those plans. 16 U.S.C. Secs. 1853 and 1854. A plan may prescribe all measures, requirements, or conditions and restrictions as are determined to be necessary and appropriate for the conservation and management of the fishery. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1853(b)(8). Moreover, the Secretary is directed to promulgate each regulation that is necessary to carry out a plan. 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1855(c). 30 Pursuant to this broad authority, Part 651 of the regulations implements the Interim Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Groundfish (i.e., Cod, Haddock, and Yellowtail Flounder). Included in that Part are the prohibitions against denying access to areas of custody and forcibly interfering with the inspection in such areas. It seems to us that the Secretary was well within his authority in determining that inspection of dock areas where groundfish are unshipped was necessary in order to monitor compliance with the requirements of the plan and obtain necessary management data. 31 If inspecting officials were able only to observe fish remaining on board a vessel, the agency's efforts to gather accurate information would be substantially frustrated. Those wishing to evade inspection would be aware that once the fish have reached the dock, they are safe from inspection unless the official has previously obtained a search warrant, a difficult task where the fishermen keep to no prearranged schedule. Furthermore, access by land to the fishing vessel itself would become much more difficult were officials required to obtain a warrant before being able to cross over docks to reach the vessel. This interpretation would thus significantly hamper those officials charged with the protection of our scarce fishing resources. 32 Lovgren does not dispute that inspection of his dock would facilitate implementation of the Atlantic Groundfish Plan. His argument is rather that the Act, by expressly mentioning only the warrantless search of vessels 5 , impliedly denied dock inspections to the Secretary and that such an intention should be attributed to Congress because a contrary one would create serious fourth amendment problems. We disagree. 33 The negative implication which Lovgren would have us draw is not a necessary one. Given the broad regulatory authority conferred upon the Secretary it seems to us unlikely. Moreover, we believe the legislative history of the Act counsels against accepting Lovgren's argument. The Senate bill provided only for seizure of fish found on fishing vessels. S. 961, 94th Cong., 1st Sess., Sec. 10(b)(4) [Sec. 311(b)(4) ]. 6 Both the House bill, H.R. 200, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. Sec. 314(b)(5), [Sec. 311(b)(5) ], and the bill as enacted authorized officials to seize fish wherever found. 7 The change from the Senate bill's language to that of the bill as enacted suggests that Congress consciously extended the authority to seize fish without a warrant beyond the confines of a vessel and, a fortiori, that Congress anticipated that agents might look for those fish without a warrant wherever they could be seized. 34