Source: http://openjurist.org/585/f2d/1252
Timestamp: 2015-09-03 04:32:05
Document Index: 63586806

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 963', '§ 846', '§ 89', '§ 1701', '§ 158110', '§ 1401', '§ 7', '§ 89', '§ 963', '§ 952', '§ 963', '§ 89', '§ 89', '§ 89', '§ 1', '§ 115', '§ 139', 'Art. 36', '§ 1', '§ 175', '§ 89']

585 F2d 1252 United States v. Cadena a M | OpenJurist
585 F. 2d 1252 - United States v. Cadena a M Home
585 F2d 1252 United States v. Cadena a M 585 F.2d 1252
Nov. 14, 1978.Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1979.See 588 F.2d 100.
Jack V. Eskenazi, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Michael P. Sullivan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Mervyn Hamburg, Atty., Appellate Section, Crim. Div., U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before SKELTON,* Senior Judge, and FAY and RUBIN, Circuit Judges.
At the heart of this case lies the question: May the United States Coast Guard validly board a foreign vessel carrying contraband intended for delivery to this country while the vessel is in international waters, arrest its crew for conspiracy to violate the laws of the United States, and seize its cargo? Like the seas where the vessel was boarded, the problem is deep and shark-infested. Unlike them, the answer is not clearly charted. We voyage toward a conclusion:
The United States Coast Guard boarded a freighter carrying a cargo of marijuana in international waters and arrested the thirteen Colombian crew members aboard. Their arrest was the culmination of an investigation that began two months before, when federal agents in Florida received a tip that Thomas Albernaz was seeking a vessel to rendezvous with a freighter on the high seas, to receive a large quantity of marijuana from it, and to deliver the shipment to shore in Florida. During the following weeks, Drug Enforcement Administration agents plotted with Albernaz and others to supply such a vessel. The trial of Albernaz and his co-defendants and the on-shore facts of this case are considered in a separate opinion, United States v. Rodriguez, 5 Cir. 1978, 585 F.2d 1234.
After some difficulty, the vessel, Catchalot II, which was secretly provided by the government, found the freighter, the Labrador, on the high seas, about 200 miles off the Florida coast, and signaled a pre-arranged code to it. Appellant Cadena, the master of the Labrador, and the only English-speaking person aboard, declared that he had 1000 bales of marijuana (containing 50 pounds each) to deliver and requested payment of $1000 in cash. Cadena permitted his crew members, who are also appellants herein, to unload 150 bales of the marijuana during daylight hours after protesting that he had "never done anything like this before in daylight."
The Coast Guard vessel, Dauntless, was summoned by the Catchalot II, and arrived on the scene that evening. It hailed the freighter in Spanish and English. Cadena immediately called to the Catchalot II on the Labrador's citizen band radio "Shark! Shark!", a pre-arranged warning signal indicating the presence of law enforcement officers in the vicinity. The Labrador ignored the Dauntless' signals and continued to sail away. Only after the Dauntless resorted to two three-round bursts of machine gun fire and a volley from its cannon did the freighter stop and permit the Coast Guard to board.
The boarding party found plastic and burlap sacks in the holds containing about 54 tons of marijuana. They found a 1975 Canadian registration certificate and a 1976 Colombian certificate indicating that the ship had been inspected for rats. The freighter was sailing without lights; it had shown no flag by day and it was flying none when it hove to. During the chase its crew members had been seen discarding papers and small packages into the ocean.
Appellants were convicted of both counts of a two count indictment charging a conspiracy to import marijuana into the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 963 and a conspiracy to distribute marijuana within the United States in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Appellants challenge those convictions on a number of grounds but focus their fire on the legality of the search and seizure of the vessel. Appellants in the companion case, United States v. Rodriguez, supra, also challenge the search.
Appellants' manifold objections to the search and seizure reduce to several contentions: there was no authority, statutory or otherwise, for seizing, boarding and searching a foreign vessel in international waters; if authority existed, the search and seizure nonetheless violated the Convention on the High Seas1 which overrides any domestic law to the contrary; the Fourth Amendment was violated because no warrant was obtained and because the lack of authority for the search and the violation of the Treaty rendered the search unreasonable for Fourth Amendment purposes. We separately consider and reject each of these theories.
A. Authority for Searching Vessels
The Coast Guard2 is empowered to search and seize any vessel on the high seas that is subject to the jurisdiction or operation of any law of the United States. 14 U.S.C. § 89(a).3 This provision authorizes seizures and searches of domestic vessels on the high seas.4 United States v. Warren, 5 Cir. en banc 1978, 578 F.2d 1058; United States v. Odom, 5 Cir. 1976, 526 F.2d 339; United States v. One (1) 43 Foot Sailing Vessel "Winds Will", 5 Cir. 1976, 538 F.2d 694; United States v. Hillstrom, 5 Cir. 1976, 533 F.2d 209, Cert. denied, 1977, 429 U.S. 1038, 97 S.Ct. 734, 50 L.Ed.2d 749; Cf. United States v. Winter, 5 Cir. 1975, 509 F.2d 975, 983-984 n. 30. The Constitution does not forbid such action. See, e. g., United States v. Lee, 1927, 274 U.S. 559, 47 S.Ct. 746, 71 L.Ed. 1202; Maul v. United States, 1927, 274 U.S. 501, 47 S.Ct. 735, 71 L.Ed. 1171.
The statute is not, on its face, limited to domestic vessels or domestic waters. It contemplates that vessels on the high seas will, under some circumstances, be subject to the "jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States," for it specifically provides for "searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas And waters over which the United States has jurisdiction" (emphasis added).5 Because the Act does not further define those vessels that may be seized and searched, we must determine the scope of that clause. This requires a brief excursus into the waters of jurisdiction over the Offense, an issue that is relevant to the authority, Vel non, for the Search.
B. Jurisdiction Over the Offense
That the vessel was outside the territorial waters does not, of course, mean that it was beyond United States jurisdictional limits or the operation of domestic law. Jurisdictional and territorial limits are not co-terminous. The nation has long asserted the objective view, under which its jurisdiction extends to persons whose acts have an effect within the sovereign territory even though the acts themselves occur outside it. Ford v. United States, 1927, 273 U.S. 593, 620, 47 S.Ct. 531, 540, 71 L.Ed. 793, 805; United States v. Winter, supra, 509 F.2d at 980-982; United States v. Fernandez, 5 Cir. 1974, 496 F.2d 1294; Rivard v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 375 F.2d 882, 886, Cert. denied, 1967, 389 U.S. 884, 88 S.Ct. 151, 19 L.Ed.2d 181; Marin v. United States, 5 Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 174; Carmichael, At Sea with the Fourth Amendment, 32 U. Miami L. Rev. 51, 64 (1977).6
In United States v. Winter, supra, therefore, we sustained jurisdiction over a conspiracy involving two non-resident aliens who were arrested on the high seas, had never entered the United States or its territorial limits, but had participated in a conspiracy to import marijuana into the United States by serving as crew members. 509 F.2d at 983. See also Rivard, supra. In Winter, as here, there was proof of overt acts committed within the territorial United States by at least one co-conspirator.7 See Ficken, The 1935 Anti-Smuggling Act Applied to Hovering Narcotics Smugglers Beyond the Contiguous Zone: An Assessment Under International Law, 29 U. Miami L. Rev. 700, 701 n. 5 (1975) on whether crimes defined in the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 19708 fall within the United States special maritime and territorial jurisdiction.
C. Authority for the Search
However, because the court did not determine the validity of the search of a foreign vessel on the high seas, Winter does not sound bottom for us. Jurisdiction over the crime does not necessarily imply jurisdiction over the vessel that is being used to accomplish it.
No statute has been cited to us by the United States, despite an opportunity for reconsidering the issue, and we have found none, expressly asserting "jurisdiction" over the vessel by the United States, to be enforced either by the Coast Guard or any other domestic force. The anti-smuggling statute, 19 U.S.C. § 1701 permits the President to declare portions of the high seas to be customs enforcement areas.9 See Ficken, Supra. Customs enforcement under 19 U.S.C. § 158110 extends to jurisdictional limits defined in 19 U.S.C. § 1401(j) (12 miles or as permitted by treaty). See Carmichael, Supra, at 53, n. 9, 60-61, 65-75. The "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 7 extends to the high seas, but does not cover foreign vessels. United States v. Holmes, 1820, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 412, 5 L.Ed. 122. See also, United States v. Davis, 1837, C.C.D.Mass. 25 F. Cas. 786 (No. 14,932); United States v. Jackson, 1843, C.C.S.D.N.Y., 26 F. Cas. 558 (No. 15,457). None of these extends jurisdiction to a foreign vessel in the area where the Labrador was boarded, which was over 200 miles from shore.
Without aid from any other jurisdictional statute, then, the authority of the Coast Guard to act upon the high seas must depend upon whether a vessel sailing there is "subject to . . . the operation of any law, of the United States." 14 U.S.C. § 89(a). The defendants were engaged in a violation of the domestic conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. § 963, which we have applied extraterritorially and to non-resident aliens. Winter, supra. The Coast Guard detained the vessel and searched it to detect and prevent a violation of the laws of the United States, thus acting in accordance with the purpose of the statute as set forth in its opening sentence.11
Because importation necessarily originates in an act in a foreign country, it is apparent that Congress intended that 21 U.S.C. § 952 and § 963 apply to persons who commit acts or a series of acts that at least commenced outside the territorial limits of the United States. See Winter, supra; See also United States v. Bowman, 1922, 260 U.S. 94, 97-98, 43 S.Ct. 39, 41, 67 L.Ed. 149. Moreover, as noted previously, others who were co-conspirators with these defendants committed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy within these territorial limits. We find statutory authority for the search and seizure implicit in 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) by virtue of its application to the search and seizure of vessels and individuals on the high seas if they are "subject . . . to the operation of any law, of the United States."12
D. Jurisdiction Over the Person
Because a defendant in a criminal trial may not challenge the court's jurisdiction over his person on the ground that his presence was unlawfully secured, Winter, supra, 509 F.2d at 983-989, we need not determine the validity of the arrest of the defendants outside of territorial waters, Id. at 983-84, n. 30, or whether the construction of 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) adopted with respect to the search and seizure would apply with respect to the arrest of individuals aboard the vessel.
E. Effect of the Convention On the High Seas
It is generally settled that, whether he is an alien or a citizen, even a person abducted from beyond the territorial limits of the United States may not successfully challenge the jurisdiction of the trial court over his person on the grounds that his presence was unlawfully secured. See United States v. Winter, supra, 509 F.2d at 986-989, discussing Frisbie v. Collins, 1952, 342 U.S. 519, 72 S.Ct. 509, 96 L.Ed. 541; Ker v. Illinois, 1886, 119 U.S. 436, 7 S.Ct. 225, 30 L.Ed. 421.13 As to the rights of aliens, See United States v. Winter, supra; United States v. Herrera, 5 Cir. 1974, 504 F.2d 859, 860.
If an arrest is made in clear violation of a treaty limiting the right of the United States to board vessels of other sovereign nations and a timely plea contesting jurisdiction is made, then the court will, for purposes of giving force to the treaty, dismiss the indictment. Ford v. United States,supra (no timely objection); United States v. Winters, supra, 509 F.2d at 988-989 (dictum); United States v. Schouweiler, S.D.Cal.1927, 19 F.2d 387; United States v. Ferris, N.D.Cal.1927, 19 F.2d 925; See also Cook v. United States, 1933, 288 U.S. 102, 121-122, 53 S.Ct. 305, 312, 77 L.Ed. 641 (no jurisdiction over the vessel). Here, the motion contesting jurisdiction, although made after a plea, Cf. Ford v. United States, supra was timely; the strict pleading requirements in Ford, if still viable, were satisfied by an order of the court extending the time for pretrial motions. The court's obligation to give effect to a binding treaty may also require suppression of any evidence seized in violation of it, See Cook v. United States, supra, whether or not that same violation mandates suppression for Fourth Amendment reasons. But there is no authority for dismissal of the indictment in the absence of a clear violation of a treaty. Winter, supra.
The Convention on the High Seas, 450 U.N.T.S. 82, 13 U.S.T. 2312, T.I.A.S. No. 5200, is a codification of international law,14 and a treaty that purports to be binding upon all signatories. It prohibits the boarding of a foreign merchant ship on the high seas by a warship unless there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the ship is engaged in piracy, slave trade, or, although flying a foreign flag or refusing to show its flag,15 is of the same nationality as the warship. Article 22, Convention on the High Seas.16 The Convention of 1958, if applicable, supersedes prior domestic law to the contrary, Cook v. United States, supra, including the authority provided by 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) (enacted in 1949).17 See also Chae Chan Ping v. United States (The Chinese Exclusion Case), 1889, 130 U.S. 581, 9 S.Ct. 623, 32 L.Ed. 1068. If applicable, its express terms were violated by the search, seizure and arrest.
Neither Canada nor Colombia is a party to the Convention. In United States ex rel. Lujan v. Gengler, 2 Cir. 1975, 510 F.2d 62, 67, Cert. denied, 1975, 421 U.S. 1001, 95 S.Ct. 2400, 44 L.Ed.2d 668, a case involving abductions from foreign soil, the Second Circuit adopted the view that only signatory nations to a treaty, and not their individual citizens, can protest its violation. See also Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 1 comment (f), and § 115 comment (e) (1965). Even if individuals have standing to raise treaty violations, their personal rights are derived from the rights of a signatory state. Article 32 of the Convention provides that it is subject to ratification,18 and, although representatives for both Canada and Colombia signed the Convention, neither country has ratified it. See Treaties in Force (1978) at 326; 13 U.S.T. 2312; British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Developments in the Law of the Sea 1958-1964 at 43 (1965); 6A Benedict on Admiralty at 567-568 and 1977 supplement thereto. The treaty is not an act of disinterested benevolence for the peoples of the world. There is no indication in the treaty, or elsewhere, that it was intended to confer rights on non-member nations or on vessels of non-member nations, let alone on citizens of non-member nations. Compare Edye v. Robertson, 1884, 112 U.S. 580, 598-99, 5 S.Ct. 247, 254, 28 L.Ed. 798; Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States § 139(a) (1965); See, e. g., The Vienna Convention on The Law of the Treaties, Art. 36 (May 23, 1969).
Appellants contend that, because the treaty merely restates, as it recites, principles of international law, they have standing to assert those underlying doctrines that are part of the corpus juris of nations. But see United States ex rel. Lujan v. Gengler, supra, 510 F.2d at 68; Restatement (Second) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States, § 1 comment (f), § 175 (1965). Even if we accept these premises, there is no basis for concluding that violation of these international principles must or should be remedied by application of the exclusionary rule or by dismissal of the indictment unless Fourth Amendment interests are violated. Indeed that would be a singular application for none of the other signatory nations appears to have a similar exclusionary rule or to attach such consequences to a violation of the Convention.
The violation of international law, if any, may be redressed by other remedies and does not depend upon the granting of what amounts to an effective immunity from criminal prosecution to safeguard individuals against police or armed forces misconduct. Article 22 of the Convention, for example, specifies the right to compensation for damages suffered as a consequence of its violation; if only this remedy is available to citizens or vessels of member nations, citizens of non-member nations ought not enjoy the benefits of greater prophylaxis, such as exclusion or dismissal of indictments, by virtue of their nation's failure to ratify. In the absence of a foreign state's ratification that would ensure reciprocal respect for these principles of international law, neither comity, domestic law, nor concepts of due process and fundamental fairness, require such a purging. See United States ex rel. Lujan v. Gengler, supra, 510 F.2d at 68 n. 9. Indeed, such unilateral enforcement of the terms of the treaty with respect to non-member nations might ultimately undermine its effectiveness by reducing the incentive for ratification. Congress or the Executive might decide that this nation should unilaterally enforce those principles, but, in the absence of such a directive, we find no authority for granting the relief requested.
F. The Fourth Amendment
Finally, appellants contend that the Fourth Amendment was violated by the failure to procure a warrant; alternatively it is suggested that, because international law was violated by the search and seizure, the actions of the Coast Guard were unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment.19
Although the search and seizure were authorized by 14 U.S.C. § 89(a), this does not establish that the government's conduct, or that law, are not in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 1973, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures and the issuance of warrants but upon probable cause.20 Its applicability is not limited to domestic vessels or to our citizens; once we subject foreign vessels or aliens to criminal prosecution, they are entitled to the equal protection of all our laws, including the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Winter, supra; Noro v. United States, 5 Cir. 1945, 14