19 U.S.C. § 1587

Examination of hovering vessels

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 19 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Boarding and examination

Any hovering vessel, or any vessel which fails (except for unavoidable cause), at any place within the customs waters or within a customs-enforcement area established under the Anti-Smuggling Act [19 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.], to display lights as required by law, or which has become subject to pursuit as provided in section 1581 of this title, or which, being a foreign vessel to which subsection (h) of section 1581 of this title applies, is permitted by special arrangement with a foreign government to be so examined without the customs waters of the United States, may at any time be boarded and examined by any officer of the customs, and the provisions of said section 1581 shall apply thereto, as well without as within his district, and in examining the same, any such officer may also examine the master upon oath respecting the cargo and voyage of the vessel, and may also bring the vessel into the most convenient port of the United States to examine the cargo, and if the master of said vessel refuses to comply with the lawful directions of such officer or does not truly answer such questions as are put to him respecting the vessel, its cargo, or voyage, he shall be liable to a penalty of not more than $5,000 nor less than $500. If, upon the examination of any such vessel or its cargo by any officer of the customs, any dutiable merchandise destined to the United States is found, or discovered to have been, on board thereof, the vessel and its cargo shall be seized and forfeited. It shall be presumed that any merchandise (sea stores excepted), the importation of which into the United States is prohibited, or which consists of any spirits, wines, or other alcoholic liquors, so found, or discovered to have been, on board thereof, is destined to the United States.

(b) Unexplained lightness of vessel or discharge of cargo

If any vessel laden with cargo be found at any place in the United States or within the customs waters or within a customs-enforcement area established under the Anti-Smuggling Act [19 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.] and such vessel afterwards is found light or in ballast or having discharged its cargo or any part thereof, and the master is unable to give a due account of the port or place at which the cargo, or any part thereof, consisting of any merchandise the importation of which into the United States is prohibited or any spirits, wines, or other alcoholic liquors, was lawfully discharged, the vessel shall be seized and forfeited.

Nothing contained in this section shall be construed to render any vessel liable to forfeiture which is bona fide bound from one foreign port to another foreign port, and which is pursuing her course, wind and weather permitting.

(June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, § 587, 46 Stat. 749; Aug. 5, 1935, ch. 438, title II, § 206, 49 Stat. 525.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Anti-Smuggling Act, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (b), is act Aug. 5, 1935, ch. 438, 49 Stat. 517, which is classified principally to chapter 5 (§ 1701 et seq.) of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1711 of this title and Tables.

Prior Provisions

Provisions similar to those in this section were contained in act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 588, 42 Stat. 981. That section was superseded by section 588 of act June 17, 1930, comprising this section, and repealed by section 651(a)(1) of the 1930 act.

Provisions substantially the same as those in this section, except that they applied only to ports on the northern, northeastern and northwestern frontiers, were contained in R.S. § 3110, prior to repeal by act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title IV, § 642, 42 Stat. 989.

Amendments

1937—Act Aug. 5, 1935, amended section generally.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1980–2000 · leading case: United States v. Luis Enrique Gonzalez, 875 F.2d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

United States v. Luis Enrique Gonzalez, 875 F.2d 875 (D.C. Cir. 1989). · cites it 5× “After assessing these provisions, we conclude that the only statutory basis for the stop is 19 U.S.C. § 1587 (a), authorizing Customs to stop and board “hovering vessels” as defined by 19 U.”

United States v. Luis Cariballo-Tamayo, 865 F.2d 1179 (11th Cir. 1989). · cites it 8× “9 *1183 19 U.S.C.A. § 1587 (a) (emphasis added). *1184 Before proceeding, one further observation is appropriate.”

United States v. Albert Green, 671 F.2d 46 (1st Cir. 1982). “§ 1587 (a) establishes that the Coast Guard may board and examine vessels pursuant to a section 1581(h) special arrangement and applies the provisions of section 1581 generally to the boarding and subsequent search: (a) Any hovering vessel, or any vessel which fails (except for…”

United States v. Streifel, 507 F. Supp. 480 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). · cites it 2× “§ 1581 and 19 U.S.C. § 1587 (a) work together to permit the Coast Guard to board a foreign flag vessel when it obtains permission from the flag state.”

United States v. Santa-Lara, 783 F.2d 989 (11th Cir. 1986). “2d at 52 (citing 19 U.S.C. § 1587 (a)) (emphasis added). No other circuit has had the issue of the proper construction of section 955a(c) placed squarely before it.”

Sorrells v. Gattison, 644 F. Supp. 124 (N.D. Ohio 1986). “may at any time be boarded and examined by any officer of the customs, and the provisions of said section 1581 shall apply thereto____ Upon review of the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s search of plaintiff’s boat on August 18, 1984, the Court finds that the defendant…”

United States v. Valdes-Santana, 87 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.P.R. 2000). “The United States retorts that under 19 U.S.C. § 1587 (a), Customs agents have the authority to board hovering vessels as defined in 19 U.”

Seizure of Foreign Ships on the High Seas Pursuant to Special Arrangements (OLC 1980). “408 It also added 19 U.S.C. § 1587 (a): [A]ny vessel . . . which, being a foreign vessel .”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.