Opinion ID: 362346
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Coast Guard's Authority

Text: 92 The defendants contend that the Coast Guard lacks statutory authority to act against foreign vessels on the high seas beyond the twelve-mile limit. 36 This argument was squarely rejected by our recent decision in United States v. Cadena, 585 F.2d 1252 (5th Cir. 1978). There we held that 14 U.S.C. § 89(a) (1976) authorized the seizure of a foreign vessel some 200 miles at sea and the arrest of its crew. Id. at 1259. Section 89(a) empowers the Coast Guard to 93 make inquiries, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests upon the high seas and waters over which the United States has jurisdiction, for the prevention, detection, and suppression of violations of laws of the United States. For such purposes, commissioned, warrant, and petty officers may at any time go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States, address inquiries to those on board, examine the ship's documents and papers, and examine, inspect, and search the vessel and use all necessary force to compel compliance. 94 In Cadena we held that vessels become subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States within the meaning of section 89(a) if they are engaged in a conspiracy to violate federal narcotics statutes. 585 F.2d at 1259. Here there was probable cause to believe the defendants were conspiring to smuggle contraband, and therefore the second boarding and seizure of the La Rosa and the defendants' arrests were authorized by section 89(a). 95 The defendants make a related argument concerning the authority of the Coast Guard in effecting the boarding of the La Rosa beyond the twelve-mile limit. They claim that customs regulations invalidate boardings of foreign vessels in violation of treaty obligations of the United States. 37 This argument may be dismissed on alternative grounds, first, under the Ker-Frisbie doctrine the lack of authority of an arresting officer does not affect the jurisdiction of the court. Moreover, a lack of such authority is not of constitutional magnitude and therefore would be an inappropriate occasion for invoking the exclusionary rule. See United States v. Cadena, 585 F.2d at 1264 & n.28. Second, since the Coast Guard boarded the La Rosa under the authority of section 89, it is immune from regulations infringing the plenary authority granted by this section. Although section 89(b) subjects the Coast Guard officers to customs regulations, section 89(c) provides that (t)he provisions of this section are in addition to any powers conferred by law upon such officers, and not in limitation of any powers conferred by law upon such officers, or any other officers of the United States. In United States v. Warren, 578 F.2d 1058, 1068 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc), we held that section 89(c) was intended to give the Coast Guard the broadest authority available under law and therefore interdicted any contrary regulations. We find Warren controlling here.