Opinion ID: 702515
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: applicability of the hostage taking act to alien smuggling

Text: 42 Appellants argue that the facts of this case do not warrant application of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1203 because the Hostage Taking Act was never intended to cover alien smuggling, and that the crimes of harboring and transporting illegal aliens are already adequately addressed in Title 8 of the U.S.Code. While the appellants correctly note that the specific facts of this case could have supported other charges under either state or federal law, the issue is whether the Hostage Taking Act sets forth elements that clearly encompass the conduct at issue in this case. We hold that it does. 43 Application of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1203 to a similar case involving alien smuggling has been upheld by the only other circuit to have considered this issue. In United States v. Carrion-Caliz, 944 F.2d 220 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 503 U.S. 965, 112 S.Ct. 1573, 118 L.Ed.2d 217 (1992), the defendant had helped Mexican citizens cross from Mexico into the United States and thereafter held them hostage to compel their relatives to make payments for their release. The government prosecuted the defendant under the Hostage Taking Act. The Fifth Circuit identified the essential elements of a hostage taking conviction and found them met by the facts of that case: 44 [B]y the plain terms of the statute, a conviction under the Hostage Taking Act requires the Government to show that the defendant 1) seized or detained another person, 2) threatened to kill, injure, or continue to detain that person, 3) with the purpose of compelling a third person or governmental entity to act in some way, or to refrain from acting in some way. 45 Id. at 223. 46 Although alien smuggling was not expressly considered in the Hostage Taking Act's legislative history, testimony during hearings acknowledged that Senate Bill 2624 would cover more than terrorist acts: 47 As defined, the term covers hostage-taking whether or not perpetrated by terrorists. 48 .... 49 Although the bill is not limited to hostage-taking by terrorists, in keeping with the purpose of the international Convention, we do not intend to assume jurisdiction where there is no compelling federal interest. 50 Legislative Initiatives Hearings, 98th Cong., 2nd Sess. 48-49 (1984) (statement of Victoria Toensing, Deputy Assistant Attorney General). Here the federal interests are very great. We join the Fifth Circuit in holding that the Hostage Taking Act can be applied to alien smugglers whose conduct involves holding aliens for ransom. 51 Appellants Lopez-Flores and Ortiz-Mejia also argue that the Hostage Taking Act is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because the language of section 1203 is not sufficiently specific to notify an offender of when a garden variety alien smuggling case turns into a hostage taking case. The immigration laws targeting garden variety alien smuggling, however, do not involve nonconsensual detention. See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1323 (Unlawful bringing of aliens into United States); 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1324 (Bringing in and harboring certain aliens). When an alien smuggler detains an alien against his will and in a manner intended to coerce the payment of money by a third party above the amount the victim had originally agreed to pay, the smuggler is no longer engaged in consensual smuggling. Section 1203 is sufficiently specific to provide the ordinary person notice of what conduct is prohibited and to provide government officials minimum guidelines for enforcement. See United States v. Van Hawkins, 899 F.2d 852, 854 (9th Cir.1990) (statute must 'define the criminal offense with sufficient definitiveness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited'  and must  'establish minimum guidelines to govern law enforcement' ) (quoting Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357-58, 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858-59, 75 L.Ed.2d 903 (1983)).