Opinion ID: 757291
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Application of Mexican Law

Text: 36 It seems clear to us from the undisputed facts that American Airlines and its employees cannot be considered to have acted illicitly or against good customs and habits. For this reason, the plaintiff's claim cannot survive American's motion for summary judgment. 37 Rather than acting in a manner contrary to the standards set forth in the pertinent Civil Code provision, American's employees acted in strict compliance with specific regulatory requirements governing the conduct and operation of aircraft in Mexican airspace. Without question, Mexico has sovereign jurisdiction over its own airspace. See Ley de Vias Generales de Communicacion, Libro Cuatro, Articulo 306 (Mex.), translated in Staff of Senate Comm. on Commerce, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., Air Laws and Treaties of the World, 1, 1721 (Comm. Print 1965) (hereinafter Communications Law) (Translation of Communications Law is found at pp. 1721-43); see also Chicago Convention, 15 U.N.T.S. 21, art. 1 (The contracting states recognize that every State has complete and exclusive sovereignty over the airspace above its territory.). Moreover, the Mexican federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over issues relating to the inspection, supervision and control of civil air navigation, [including] all civil aircraft in Mexican territory or which fly over it, as well as their crew, passengers and goods transported. Communications Law, art. 308. 38 The United States has recognized this jurisdiction by international convention and treaty. According to Article 5B of the Agreement between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States, August 15, 1960, T.I.A.S. No. 4675, and Article 13 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation, December 7, 1944, T.I.A.S. No. 1591, 15 U.N.T.S. 21, a United States airline is required to respect Mexican law governing commercial air travel while operating in Mexico. See, e.g., Barkanic v. General Admin. of Civil Aviation of the People's Republic of China, 923 F.2d 957, 961 (2d Cir.1991) (holding that the Agreement between the Government of the United States and the Government of the People's Republic of China Relating to Civil Air Transport, September 17, 1980, T.I.A.S. No. 10326, art. 5, requires that a United States airline must respect Chinese laws when operating within Chinese territory). 39 Pilots in command of aircraft operating in Mexico are responsible for the directi[on], care, order and safety of the aircraft, the crew, [and] passengers .... [until] ... the end of the flight . Communications Law, art. 321. Article 322 of the Communications Law requires the pilot in command to log and make known to Mexican federal authorities upon landing in Mexico all incidents which might have legal consequences and which take place during the flight . It is clear that bringing narcotics into Mexico is an incident that might have legal consequences. A pilot's duty to report suspected in-flight drug use or possession is further established by Article 556 of the Communications Law, which provides that a pilot may be subject to fines for acts or omissions which, actively or passively, contribute to the act of smuggling.American's submissions following oral argument included an affidavit by Eduardo Ramos Gomez, who is an attorney licensed to practice in Mexico and a registered foreign legal consultant in the State of New York. Attached to this affidavit were copies of certain provisions of the Codigo Penal para el Distrito Federal or Mexican Penal Code, including Articles 5 and 194, in both the original Spanish version and Mr. Gomez's English translation. The parties do not dispute the accuracy of these provisions or the illegality of importing marijuana into Mexico. Article 194 of the Mexican Penal Code provides that one who [b]rings in ... narcotics ... even if it is momentarily or while in transit is subject to a term of imprisonment of tip to 25 years. Article 5 of the Mexican Penal Code specifically provides that acts on flights in Mexican airspace are considered to be committed in Mexico for penal code purposes. 40 Neither the parties' submissions of Mexican law nor our own research have uncovered any law that could be read to require a commercial airline pilot or crew to question or search any passenger suspected of in-flight drug use or possession prior to reporting the suspicion to the authorities. Curley's contention that there is such a duty therefore is without foundation. The obligation of the captain to report suspected drug importation can be performed by those who act at his direction. Here, Captain Kummire identified Curley for the American ground crew as one suspected of possessing and using marijuana in the lavatory while in Mexican airspace. The ground crew notified the Mexican authorities. All of this was in furtherance of the captain's obligation to report occurrences that might result in a legal action. 41 Under the circumstances, it was reasonable for the captain, as well as the Mexican authorities, to suspect that Curley was bringing at least some quantity of marijuana into Mexico. The part played by Duenas was merely a continuation of the discharge of the responsibilities imposed upon the captain. Duenas acted routinely in assisting the Mexican officials with identification and processing matters prior to the official search and examination of Curley. Accordingly, neither his activities nor the act of any American employee can in any way be considered illicit or contrary to good habits and customs in Mexico.