What enforcement powers did the act grant to the Coast Guard and Navy?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The 1988 congressional package (variously titled the Coast Guard Drug Enforcement Act of 1988 and the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement and Enhancement Act of 1988) sharpened maritime interdiction by authorizing the Navy to lend specific surveillance assets and by formalizing operational and legal arrangements that let Coast Guard law‑enforcement teams operate aboard Navy ships and use traditional policing powers at sea [1] [2] [3]. It also extended indemnification and interagency funding and cooperation rules to smooth joint Navy–Coast Guard drug‑interdiction missions, while leaving core Coast Guard arrest, search and seizure authorities anchored in Title 14 of the U.S. Code [2] [1] [4].
1. Navy assets made available to Coast Guard operations
The legislation directed the Secretary of the Navy to make three E‑2C Hawkeye radar surveillance aircraft available on a continuing basis to the Secretary of Transportation for Coast Guard law enforcement activities and to assign qualified Navy pilots and crew to operate them until Coast Guard personnel could assume those duties [1] [5]. This was an explicit statutory authorization to use Navy airborne surveillance capability to augment Coast Guard maritime detection and interdiction efforts, not a blanket transfer of command, and it was framed as an interdepartmental support arrangement [1] [5].
2. Legal protections and indemnification for Navy personnel
The Acts extended indemnification protections to Naval commanding officers and personnel who acted under orders aboard Navy vessels carrying Coast Guard law enforcement detachments, shielding them from certain penalties or damages when such vessels fired at or into another vessel that failed to stop after orders to do so [1] [2] [5]. In short, when Coast Guard law enforcement teams were embarked, the statutory package reduced legal exposure for Navy personnel who were following those interdiction orders — a change designed to lower operational friction and legal risk during forcible encounters at sea [1] [2].
3. Embarkation of Coast Guard law‑enforcement detachments on Navy ships
Congress entrenched a practice reflected in later codification: Coast Guard members trained in law enforcement were to be assigned to appropriate surface naval vessels in drug‑interdiction areas and empowered to exercise Coast Guard authorities, including making arrests and conducting searches and seizures, while aboard those Navy platforms [3]. The statute required assignment levels and specified that the duties performed would be those agreed upon by Defense and the relevant civilian authorities and that remained within Coast Guard jurisdiction [3].
4. Statutory scope of Coast Guard enforcement powers that the act reinforced
The 1988 measures operated against an existing legal backdrop: Title 14 identifies the Coast Guard’s broad mandate to enforce federal laws “on, under, and over the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” and to conduct maritime surveillance and interdiction [4] [6]. Title 14 and related sections (e.g., 14 U.S.C. §522) explicitly deem Coast Guard officers to be agents of the executive departments that administer particular federal laws and affirm their authority to arrest, search, seize, and pursue suspects and vessels when violations are detected [7] [8]. The 1988 acts therefore strengthened practical capacity and interservice arrangements rather than inventing novel arrest powers for either service [4] [7].
5. Interagency and international cooperation, and limits to authority
The legislative package also pushed for expanded cooperation — for example, coordinated interdiction efforts with U.S. Customs on the Great Lakes and encouragement of information‑sharing negotiations with Canada — and for access to forfeiture funds to support seizure and interdiction costs, underscoring that the reforms were as much bureaucratic and fiscal as operational [2] [5]. Importantly, the acts did not convert the Navy into a domestic law‑enforcement force; rather they enabled Navy assets and platforms to support Coast Guard law enforcement and protected Navy personnel when acting under Coast Guard law‑enforcement orders, while leaving statutory limits and departmental roles intact [3] [1]. Scholarly and policy literature continues to stress that forcible measures at sea must respect proportionality, due process, and the legal boundaries that separate military from civilian policing functions [9].