Allure - Our room was raided and tossed!

[ramja96]

On 3/30/2019 at 10:54 AM, Merion_Mom said:

I have been on a $hitload of cruises,

 

I hadn't realized you've been on Carnival Triumph. 😁

[wgeo]

This has been an interesting thread.  OP - very sorry that you had to go through this, I too would be very embarrased to stand in the hallway in a bathrobe surrounded by officers.  I think you've been remarkably calm dealing with some posts here as well.

 

 

Just out of curiosity - what is the point of an officer blocking the peephole? I am guessing that maybe the theory is, if someone saw it was an officer than they could someone hide something?  But that doesn't make sense, as multiple people have said how quickly the officers would open your door even if you didn't open it for them, so again why not at least hold up a badge or something to show you they have the right to enter your room?

 

I'm sure I'd be too shocked in that situation to do much else than open the door, but I feel like it would be less scary for me if I could at least identify who was there before opening the door.

[John&LaLa]

6 minutes ago, wgeo said:

This has been an interesting thread.  OP - very sorry that you had to go through this, I too would be very embarrased to stand in the hallway in a bathrobe surrounded by officers.  I think you've been remarkably calm dealing with some posts here as well.

 

 

Just out of curiosity - what is the point of an officer blocking the peephole? I am guessing that maybe the theory is, if someone saw it was an officer than they could someone hide something?  But that doesn't make sense, as multiple people have said how quickly the officers would open your door even if you didn't open it for them, so again why not at least hold up a badge or something to show you they have the right to enter your room?

 

I'm sure I'd be too shocked in that situation to do much else than open the door, but I feel like it would be less scary for me if I could at least identify who was there before opening the door.

 

Seems like the RCL security guy should have been the one doing the knocking. The raiding team could have stayed out of view. I guess drug dealers might panic over security guy as well.

[Pratique]

3 hours ago, chengkp75 said:

Please advise what part of the OP's experience constitutes "unreasonable search and seizure"?  Please give some legal justifications for this, like Big_G did which includes the statement:

 

"The Supreme Court decisions have upheld the doctrine that CBP's search authority is unique and does not violate the fourth amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures."

We need to be careful interpreting this. The Fourth Amendment prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Fourth Amendment is alive and well at the border, but with a different standard for what constitutes "unreasonable." In United States v. Ramsey, 431 US 606 (1977), the Court said that "[the] longstanding recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless 'reasonable' has a history as old as the Fourth Amendment itself."

 

There are statutes that still require CBP to have reasonable suspicion or belief that a law is being violated before detaining a person or property. Quoting from the linked document above: "Routine border searches are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border and consist of only a limited intrusion, while non-routine searches generally require 'reasonable suspicion' and vary in technique and intrusiveness."

 

When the OP said they told him that the dog had alerted, that was probably how they established reasonable suspicion, otherwise there would be no reason to mention what the dog did. And if the search was truly random, they would not have had any reasonable suspicion when they knocked on the door. The part about basically asking his life story chilled me. Did that happen before or after they mentioned the dog? They are not allowed to go on a fishing expedition to find reasonable suspicion.

Edited April 1, 2019 by Pratique

[Aquahound]

40 minutes ago, Pratique said:

There are statutes that still require CBP to have reasonable suspicion or belief that a law is being violated before detaining a person or property. Quoting from the linked document above: "Routine border searches are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border and consist of only a limited intrusion, while non-routine searches generally require 'reasonable suspicion' and vary in technique and intrusiveness."

 

When the OP said they told him that the dog had alerted, that was probably how they established reasonable suspicion, otherwise there would be no reason to mention what the dog did. And if the search was truly random, they would not have had any reasonable suspicion when they knocked on the door. The part about basically asking his life story chilled me. Did that happen before or after they mentioned the dog? They are not allowed to go on a fishing expedition to find reasonable suspicion.

 

Pratique, this still is not totally accurate.  CBP needs zero suspicion to inspect belongings.  Just the mere fact a person is entering the US subjects that person to inspection.  On a ship with thousands of people, perhaps they use the dog to help them pinpoint the best targets but in truth, it is not required.  It is still totally within CBP's rights to knock on the OP's door, with or without the dog, and perform this inspection.  

[Pratique]

1 minute ago, Aquahound said:

 

Pratique, this still is not totally accurate.  CBP needs zero suspicion to inspect belongings.  Just the mere fact a person is entering the US subjects that person to inspection.  On a ship with thousands of people, perhaps they use the dog to help them pinpoint the best targets but in truth, it is not required.  It is still totally within CBP's rights to knock on the OP's door, with or without the dog, and perform this inspection.  

Routine inspection, yes. More intrusive inspection, no.

[2Long2NxtCrz]

1 hour ago, wgeo said:

I'm sure I'd be too shocked in that situation to do much else than open the door, but I feel like it would be less scary for me if I could at least identify who was there before opening the door.

I totally agree.  While I always feel safe on a cruise, I realize crime does happen on ships so it'd be nice to be accorded a little respect in the case of a "random" search. Guess that's too much to expect nowadays. 

[Milwaukee Eight]

10 hours ago, steevo L said:

 

Police said numerous drugs were found inside the men’s luggage, including suspected MDMA, ketamine, *****, Adderall, and GHB

 

Are you sure they were Men and not Gender X?

Edited April 1, 2019 by Milwaukee Eight

[El Abuelo]

After reading all the posts again, the view that this was a search targeted toward people looking to avoid potential additional scrutiny associated with the 2nd cruise makes sense. In that case, RCI might have suggested (or requested)  it.

 

It’s also a clever way to enlist CBP to conduct the search, as they typically would not be inspecting luggage of initial bording  passengers. That would be TSA and RCI Security. Another possibility would be the suspicion that crew members and passengers were working together to sell drugs.

 

Has this happened to any “spring break” cruises?

[Trickie Dickie]

 
Are you sure they were Men and not Gender X?

That’s not funny. Obviously you have a problem with the gay community if you think that joke is remotely acceptable.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cruiser_1977]

On 3/30/2019 at 10:39 PM, BND said:

 

 

Also, OP said something about their current clearances and their "former career".  The two don't go together.  Clearances go away when you're no longer working in that field. 

You are incorrect. Clearances are good for a certain period of time. You don't lose your clearance once you leave a job. Ask James Comey. You can have a clearance revoked.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Pratique said:

Routine inspection, yes. More intrusive inspection, no.

But where is the line between "routine inspection" and "intrusive inspection", and what constitutes "detention" of a person at a border search (which is when you say they need reasonable suspicion).  I suspect this is set out either in the CFR's or in CBP operational rules, but I don't care to look them up.

 

A somewhat similar situation to the debate of "routine" and "intrusive" and "reasonable suspicion", is the requirement under the ISPS code (International Ship and Port Security), which the US has adopted, for ships to implement security measures for people boarding the ship.  Everyone who boards a ship can be searched (person and belongings), and how the amount and "intrusiveness" of the search is determined by the MarSec (maritime security) level of the port.  For instance, my company's ISPS policy says that at MarSec level 1, 25% of those boarding get their bags searched, and 75% merely get a visual once over.  Now, is the bag search "intrusive" or "routine", since it is not based on who you are or what your appearance is, merely on whether you are the 4th person to board the ship?  There is no "reasonable suspicion", since it is completely random as to who gets searched.  At higher MarSec levels, the number of searches increases, and the intensity of the search increases, so again, is this "routine" or "intrusive", and there is no "reasonable suspicion".

[steevo L]

11 hours ago, Trickie Dickie said:

There was a drug bust but it wasn’t on the Allure. They intended to board the Allure, but they were careless and pretty stupid and got caught. Thank goodness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

same thing,  they were busted trying to get on the allure which was where they planned to sell those drugs that week. Makes sense that there may be extra security inspections in rooms if they stopped that amount of drugs trying to be brought on the ship.  Seems there has been quite a few drug busts on cruise ships as well as a few people dying from drug overdoses on the ships over the years.

 

As I stated before, it sucks what happened to you, personally if it happened to me I wouldnt have been embarrassed. But i am more immune to things than some people. I would rather  be safe than sorry as I HATE Illegal drug users as much as I do drug dealers, to me they are bottom feeders ( nicest i could say without getting kicked off here ).

 

and its the internet...so... 50% of the people are tough guys, 50% of the people are liars and the other 50% talk smack and of course a few good ones mixed in as well.....

[BND]

42 minutes ago, JennyB1977 said:

You are incorrect. Clearances are good for a certain period of time. You don't lose your clearance once you leave a job. Ask James Comey. You can have a clearance revoked.

Not true.  You are incorrect.   When you leave a job that requires a clearance, you no longer have that access and are debriefed.  Very Senior leadership are usually allowed to keep theirs when they leave their jobs as a courtesy.  I know of what I speak and as I said, I'll leave it at that. 

Edited April 1, 2019 by BND

[Pratique]

9 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

But where is the line between "routine inspection" and "intrusive inspection", and what constitutes "detention" of a person at a border search (which is when you say they need reasonable suspicion).  I suspect this is set out either in the CFR's or in CBP operational rules, but I don't care to look them up.

That's the $100,000 question. There's no clear line because it depends on the circumstances of the inspection. But I do think that asking for your life story is beyond the scope of a routine inspection, and maybe even beyond the scope of a more intrusive inspection. They are initially only supposed to ask immigration questions, not go on a long fishing expedition looking for reasonable suspicion where none has arisen in the course of a routine inspection. If they can't find reasonable suspicion within some normal amount of time (whatever that is), then they need to let you go. And people shouldn't feel compelled to answer every question they ask, at least not until they have told you that they have reasonable suspicion (and even then I would be careful).

 

I also want to say that I don't have enough information to form an opinion as to whether or not the OP's situation was "reasonable." The only point I wanted to make was that you still have some rights at the border against unreasonable searches.

[John&LaLa]

Life story is often an expression, not a resume' 😉

[Trickie Dickie]

Life story is often an expression, not a resume' [emoji6]

They asked questions like where we live, careers and our relationship to each other. Things like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[John&LaLa]

5 minutes ago, Trickie Dickie said:

They asked questions like where we live, careers and our relationship to each other. Things like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I've been asked where I work when pulled over for a traffic violation. Relationship and where you live seem normal questions. 

 

Just curious, how many B2B passengers were on the 1st leg?

[Tree_skier]

14 minutes ago, Trickie Dickie said:

They asked questions like where we live, careers and our relationship to each other. Things like that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

These are normal questions that you could be asked anytime you cross the Canada US Border. Hardly intrusive, I would think.

[mayleeman]

5 hours ago, nelblu said:

Don't sweat it as we only have 12 more years before the World ends. 

Oh, crap, is that going to happen again?

[Cruiser_1977]

39 minutes ago, BND said:

Not true.  You are incorrect.   When you leave a job that requires a clearance, you no longer have that access and are debriefed.  Very Senior leadership are usually allowed to keep theirs when they leave their jobs as a courtesy.  I know of what I speak and as I said, I'll leave it at that. 

You no longer have access to the information on that job/case/files. For example, if I have TS (normally good for 5 years) in 2000 on a job at FBI then in 2002 get a job at DHS, I am "debriefed" of my current FBI "files" and can begin work at the DHS with the same clearance. I don't need to get a new one, unless I need a higher clearance or something significant has changed.

[Aquahound]

32 minutes ago, Pratique said:

 But I do think that asking for your life story is beyond the scope of a routine inspection, and maybe even beyond the scope of a more intrusive inspection. They are initially only supposed to ask immigration questions, not go on a long fishing expedition looking for reasonable suspicion where none has arisen in the course of a routine inspection.

 

I think that's a gross exaggeration considering what questions the OP said he was asked.  Career, residence and relationship are pretty standard questions.  And again, this wasn't an Immigration inspection.  It was a Customs inspection.  There's a difference.  

[mayleeman]

Broad and even specific questions are totally legitimate. Not only do they provide simple background information, they also can give the agents a chance to assess whether people are acting unduly nervous or evasive, or even if the answers seem oddly rehearsed (agents are aware most people will likely be nervous).  Sometimes people who have something to hide start talking themselves into all types of trouble. And not all documents are legit, so casual questions can reveal discrepancies.

[ShillyShally]

1 hour ago, steevo L said:

same thing,  they were busted trying to get on the allure which was where they planned to sell those drugs that week. Makes sense that there may be extra security inspections in rooms if they stopped that amount of drugs trying to be brought on the ship.  Seems there has been quite a few drug busts on cruise ships as well as a few people dying from drug overdoses on the ships over the years.

 

As I stated before, it sucks what happened to you, personally if it happened to me I wouldnt have been embarrassed. But i am more immune to things than some people. I would rather  be safe than sorry as I HATE Illegal drug users as much as I do drug dealers, to me they are bottom feeders ( nicest i could say without getting kicked off here ).

 

and its the internet...so... 50% of the people are tough guys, 50% of the people are liars and the other 50% talk smack and of course a few good ones mixed in as well.....

Agree, I really think it had everything to do with the second leg - I do wonder if they employed any additional searches to luggage coming on board and/or carry-ons of the chartered cruise.

 

[ShillyShally]

8 minutes ago, mayleeman said:

Broad and even specific questions are totally legitimate. Not only do they provide simple background information, they also can give the agents a chance to assess whether people are acting unduly nervous or evasive, or even if the answers seem oddly rehearsed (agents are aware most people will likely be nervous).  Sometimes people who have something to hide start talking themselves into all types of trouble. And not all documents are legit, so casual questions can reveal discrepancies.

So true!