Opinion ID: 543006
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Restrictions on the United States' Authority to Punish Davis' Conduct

Text: 16 We next examine what limitations exist on the United States' power to exercise that authority. 17 Contrary to Davis' assertions, compliance with international law does not determine whether the United States may apply the Act to his conduct. 1 Only two restrictions exist on giving extraterritorial effect to Congress' directives. We require Congress make clear its intent to give extraterritorial effect to its statutes. United States v. Pinto-Mejia, 720 F.2d 248, 259 (2nd Cir.1983). And secondly, as a matter of constitutional law, we require that application of the statute to the acts in question not violate the due process clause of the fifth amendment. Thomas, at 1068. 18 In this case, Congress explicitly stated that it intended the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act to apply extraterritorially. 46 U.S.C. app. Sec. 1903(h) (Supp.IV 1986) (This section is intended to reach acts of possession, manufacture, or distribution outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States). Therefore, the only issue we must consider is whether application of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act to Davis' conduct would violate due process. 19 In order to apply extraterritorially a federal criminal statute to a defendant consistently with due process, there must be a sufficient nexus between the defendant and the United States, see United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486, 493 (9th Cir.1987), so that such application would not be arbitrary or fundamentally unfair. 2 20 In the instant case, a sufficient nexus exists so that the application of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act to Davis' extraterritorial conduct does not violate the due process clause. Where an attempted transaction is aimed at causing criminal acts within the United States, there is a sufficient basis for the United States to exercise its jurisdiction. Id. The facts found by the district court in denying Davis' motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction support the reasonable conclusion that Davis intended to smuggle contraband into United States territory. At the time of its first detection, the Myth was 35 miles away from, and headed for, San Francisco. As the Coast Guard approached, the Myth changed its course for the Caribbean by way of Mexico, although the Myth was many miles from the Great Circle route from Hong Kong to Acapulco. The Myth is on a list of boats suspected of drug smuggling. It is unusual for a 58 foot sailing vessel to have sailed from the Myth 's asserted point of departure, Hong Kong. The foregoing evidence is sufficient to establish a nexus between the Myth and the United States. We therefore find that the Constitution does not prohibit the application of the Marijuana Drug Law Enforcement Act to Davis. 21