Court Upholds Broad Coast Guard Authority in Maritime Pollution Investigations

On November 12, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed the broad authority of the Coast Guard to carry out examinations of foreign vessels in U.S. waters, to interview vessel personnel on board, and to impose conditions on the clearance of a vessel suspected of violating the U.S. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, abbreviated as “APPS.” That statute implements into U.S. law the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, commonly known as “MARPOL.”

The decision came in the case of U.S. v. Evridiki Navigation, Inc., Liquimar Tankers Management Services, Inc., and Nikolaos Vastardis, the owner, operator, and chief engineer respectively, of the Liberian-flagged motor tanker Evridiki. The government alleges that during the vessel’s port call in the Delaware Bay in March 2019, the Coast Guard found that the crew had been misusing the vessel’s oily water separator equipment and making false entries in the required oil record book. They also allege that the chief engineer lied to the Coast Guard about the handling of oily bilge water on board.

The defendants complained that the Coast Guard’s warrantless search of the vessel violated their rights against unreasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that the Coast Guard’s questioning of the Chief Engineer violated their rights against self-incrimination. They further complained that the Coast Guard also violated their rights against self-incrimination by requiring the corporate defendants, as a condition for the release of the vessel to resume trading, to enter into an “Agreement on Security” that forced them to continue paying crewmembers detained by the government to testify against the companies. The court’s decision (available here) was a “no” on all issues.

The court began by quoting the Coast Guard’s statutory grant of authority to make “inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction … .” The court noted that the Coast Guard is authorized to make warrantless searches of vessels if it develops a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, such as, among other things, violations of APPS.

With regard to the Coast Guard’s questioning of the Chief Engineer behind closed doors by two unarmed and “non-hostile” officers, the court found that the circumstances were not sufficiently “custodial” as to require “Miranda” warnings of the right against self-incrimination (the well-known warning that “you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in a court of law …”).

Finally, the court held that the “Agreement on Security” did not violate due process. The court noted that the Coast Guard’s conduct in imposing certain conditions on the release of the vessel from detention was “not so shocking or outrageous as to render it intolerable,” pointing out that the Coast Guard “is not under an obligation to release the ship at all.” That holding is consistent with the rulings of other courts that have considered the reasonableness of such agreements.

The court’s decision underscores that vessel owners and operators would be wise to carry out thorough environmental compliance audits and training on a regular basis to discourage MARPOL violations before they happen. Also, because the United States’ legal system and law enforcement procedures may be significantly different from the experience of most seafarers, companies should ensure that crewmembers know their rights before sitting down with Coast Guard investigators, and the critical importance of being truthful in any statements to the authorities.