Opinion ID: 362454
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Absence of a Warrant

Text: 30 We have dealt with other issues before reaching the constitutional question. Having concluded that the search was not invalidated by lack of authority to make it, we must consider whether the Coast Guard was required by the Fourth Amendment to obtain a warrant before proceeding. It is almost too obvious to require reiteration that the mere existence of statutory authority to make a search does not obviate the need for Fourth Amendment compliance. 15 This constitutional issue was involved both in Warren, supra, and in Cadena, supra. In each of these cases there was a warrantless search by the Coast Guard. The Warren majority, whom we have already quoted, recognized in Section 89(a) a grant of plenary authority to stop and board United States vessels on the high seas for either a safety-and-document inspection or to check for obvious customs and narcotics violations. Once aboard, if probable cause arises to suspect the presence of narcotics, a search can then be made of the vessel. Judge Fay dissented from the suggestion he found in the opinion that the statute gives plenary authority to search; nevertheless he began: 31 No one can question that the Coast Guard may stop and search an American vessel on the high seas when it has probable cause to believe a crime has been or is being committed. (578 F.2d at 1079.) 32 Neither opinion speaks directly to the question whether probable cause alone justifies the warrantless search of an entire vessel as compared to boarding for purposes of a safety-and-document inspection and a check for obvious customs and narcotics violations. 33 In Cadena a foreign vessel was intercepted on the high seas pursuant to Section 89(a) authority. The vessel's subsequent flight created probable cause to search without regard to any prior knowledge of the Coast Guard of the vessel's activities. 34 We find Cadena persuasive precedent. Here, as in Warren and Cadena, the Coast Guard had plenary authority to stop and board the ship. The DAUNTLESS was indeed lying in wait for the NAHOA. There was previously existing probable cause to believe the vessel was engaged in smuggling; we may assume, arguendo, that a warrant would have been necessary had the NAHOA docilely continued on its course, approached the DAUNTLESS and, upon being hailed, submitted to a search. 16 However, the NAHOA's flight of itself created exigent circumstances that, coupled with the antecedent probable cause, justified the subsequent warrantless search of the vessel. 17