Opinion ID: 1770805
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State's Sovereign Authority the Effects Doctrine

Text: Finding that the exercise of jurisdiction in this case does not conflict with the constitution or federal law, our inquiry turns to whether the State's exercise of jurisdiction is within the State's traditional police powers. The State asserts that the effects doctrine provides a proper basis for the State to assert jurisdiction in this case although the criminal acts were committed outside the State's territorial waters. As Justice Holmes, writing for the United States Supreme Court, recognized, Acts done outside a jurisdiction, but intended to produce and producing detrimental effects within it, justify a State in punishing the cause of the harm as if he had been present at the effect, if the State should succeed in getting him within its power. Strassheim v. Daily, 221 U.S. 280, 285, 31 S.Ct. 558, 55 L.Ed. 735 (1911); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U.S. 764, 113 S.Ct. 2891, 125 L.Ed.2d 612 (1993) (applying effects doctrine to allow states to bring a Sherman Act claim in federal court against foreign defendants). The Restatement of Foreign Relations provides that a state may exercise its jurisdiction over criminal acts committed outside its territorial boundaries of the State if the acts have significant effects within the state. See Restatement, supra, § 402. [13] Likewise, the Supreme Court of Alaska has relied upon the principles incorporated in the effects doctrine to exercise criminal jurisdiction in the waters outside the geographical boundaries of that state. See State v. Sieminski, 556 P.2d 929 (Alaska 1976); see also State v. Bundrant, 546 P.2d 530, 555-56 (Alaska 1976). In fact, the Fifth District acknowledged the effects doctrine as a basis for asserting jurisdiction beyond the state's geographic boundaries. See Stepansky, 707 So.2d at 878. As properly explained by the Fifth District, The state may ... exercise criminal jurisdiction over acts committed beyond this three mile limit, at least where such acts have an effect in this state and there is no conflict with federal law and no foreign nation has criminal jurisdiction over said acts. Id. at 877-78. Accordingly, we conclude that Florida's sovereign authority includes the ability to exercise criminal jurisdiction over acts committed outside the territorial limits of the State under the effects doctrine as long as the exercise of jurisdiction does not conflict with federal law and the exercise of jurisdiction is a reasonable application of the effects doctrine. [14] The stated purpose of section 910.006 as set forth in the legislative findings and intent is as follows: (1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. (a) The State of Florida is a major center for international travel and trade by sea. (b) The state has an interest in ensuring the protection of persons traveling to or from Florida by sea. (c) The state has an interest in cooperating with the masters of ships and the governments of the United States and the other states in the maintenance of law and order on board ship. (d) The interests of the state do not in principle require a general assertion of primary jurisdiction over acts or omissions at sea that would duplicate or conflict with the execution of any law enforcement responsibility of any other jurisdiction. (e) The State of Florida should establish special maritime criminal jurisdiction extending to acts or omissions on board ships outside of the state under the circumstances delimited in this section. § 910.006(1). Thus, the State asserts that if the federal government and the foreign government under whose flag the cruise ship sails fail to prosecute crimes on cruise ships, Florida's tourism industry will suffer a significant adverse effect. Federal courts have recognized that a criminal act having a similar adverse effect on the United States will justify the exercise of federal jurisdiction over crimes on cruise ships that would otherwise go unprosecuted. See Roberts, 1 F.Supp.2d at 608; Pizdrint, 983 F.Supp. at 1113. In those cases, the federal courts found a significant effect on the United States because the cruise lines conducted substantial business in the United States, the cruises began and ended in the United States, and federal law enforcement agents were required to become involved in prosecution. See Roberts, 1 F.Supp.2d at 608; Pizdrint, 983 F.Supp. at 1113. Similarly, in this case the Legislature has determined that the State of Florida is a major center for international travel and trade by sea and that the state has an interest in ensuring the protection of persons traveling to or from Florida by sea. § 910.006(1)(a), (c). Florida's tourism industry could be significantly affected if crimes that occur on board cruise ships where a majority of the fare-paying passengers embark and disembark in Florida were to go unprosecuted. We emphasize that pursuant to this statute the State exercises limited jurisdiction by operating only where the crime has not been prosecuted by any other government entity, including the federal government or the foreign country in which the ship is registered.