1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

SUPPRESS- 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

HENRY C. ROSENAU,

Defendant.

CASE NO. CR06-157MJP

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO SUPPRESS 

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s motion to suppress all evidence and 

statements obtained during the allegedly warrantless search and seizure conducted by the Royal 

Canadian Mounted Police (“RCMP”) in Yale, British Columbia, on Sept. 21, 2001 (Dkt. No. 32). 

Having reviewed the motion, the Government’s consolidated response (Dkt. No. 36), and all 

supporting papers, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion to suppress. 

Background

On Sept. 21, 2005, Canadian authorities entered Defendant’s leased property in Yale, 

British Columbia, and questioned him about a series of unauthorized helicopter trips into the 

United States. (Dkt. No. 32). Canadian authorities detained Defendant and searched a building 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

SUPPRESS- 2

and a helicopter on the premises. (Id.). The operation was conducted as part of the Integrated 

Border Enforcement Teams, an inter-agency partnership composed of the RCMP, the Canada 

Border Services Agency, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Bureau of Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and the U.S. Coast Guard. (Id.).

Defendant alleges that ICE “had the RCMP personnel travel to certain properties located 

in Yale, Canada.” (Dkt. No. 32, Platt Decl. at ¶ 11). He further alleges the RCMP entered the 

property after driving past a gate with a large sign that read “private property.” (Id. at ¶ 13). He 

asserts that the RCMP never read him his Miranda rights, and proceeded to question him about 

alleged illegal helicopter journeys into the United States. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-18). He also alleges the 

RCMP officials conducted a warrantless search of his helicopter and his leased property. (Id. at 

¶¶ 20-22). Defendant argues that the search and seizure was in violation of the Canadian Charter 

of Rights and Freedoms, and the Fourth Amendment by virtue of the joint venture doctrine. (Id.).

Discussion

Generally, neither the Fourth Amendment nor the judicially created exclusionary rule 

applies to searches conducted by foreign authorities in their own countries. See United States v. 

Rose, 570 F.2d 1358, 1361 (9th Cir. 1978). The Ninth Circuit, however, has recognized two very 

limited exceptions to the general rule that Fourth Amendment protections are inapplicable to 

actions of foreign agents conducted in foreign countries. The first is “if the circumstances of the 

foreign search and seizure are so extreme that they shock the judicial conscience.” United States 

v. LaChapelle, 869 F.2d 488, 489 (9th Cir. 1989). The second applies when “United States 

agents’ participation in the investigation is so substantial that the action is a joint venture 

between United States and foreign officials.” United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486, 490 

(1987). 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

SUPPRESS- 3

First, Defendant’s assertion that the RCMP conducted a warrantless search of his 

property and his helicopter (Dkt. No. 32), even if true, cannot be said to shock the judicial 

conscience. This is an exacting standard, where exclusion is not based on Fourth Amendment 

jurisprudence, but rather on the recognition the Court may employ supervisory powers when 

“absolutely necessary to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system.” United States v. 

Barona, 56 F.3d 1087, 1091 (9th Cir. 1995). Defendant offers no facts indicating that his 

treatment by Canadian officials rises to the level requiring judicial intervention to protect the 

integrity of the criminal justice system. 

Second, the Court need not reach the issue of whether a joint venture existed, because the 

exclusionary rule applies only if it was objectively unreasonable for U.S. officers to rely on the 

assurances of their foreign counterparts. Peterson, 812 F.2d at 492. In Peterson, the Ninth Circuit 

directed courts to consider whether American law enforcement officers were in an advantageous 

position to judge whether the foreign search was lawful, and whether it serves the purpose of 

deterring unlawful behavior to hold U.S. agents strictly liable for the failings of their foreign 

associates. Id. Here, Defendant offers no facts indicating that it was objectively unreasonable for 

U.S. authorities to rely on the assurances of Canadian officers. Therefore, there is no basis for the 

Court to suppress evidence obtained by the Canadian authorities.

Conclusion

The Court finds that Defendant has made no showing that the conduct of Canadian 

authorities shocks the judicial conscience or that it was objectively unreasonable for U.S. officers 

to rely on the assurances of Canadian authorities. The Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s 

motion to suppress. 

The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 

SUPPRESS- 4

Marsha J. Pechman

United States District Judge

Dated this 18th day of October, 2011.

A