Opinion ID: 754615
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dominion and Control.

Text: 120 The government bore the burden of proving that the crew members (1) knowingly, (2) possessed the cocaine, (3) with an intent to distribute it. United States v. Ocampo, 937 F.2d 485, 488 (9th Cir.1991). Although possession of a large quantity of cocaine alone may be sufficient to infer both knowledge and intent to distribute, the inferences depend on proof of possession--i.e. dominion and control. Id. at 488-489. Mere proximity to contraband, presence on property where it is found, and association with a person or persons having control of it are insufficient to establish possession. Sanchez-Mata, 925 F.2d at 1169; United States v. Savinovich, 845 F.2d 834, 837 (9th Cir.1988); United States v. Disla, 805 F.2d 1340, 1351 (9th Cir.1986). A defendant who constructively possesses narcotics has the ability to assure their production, without difficulty, to a customer. Ramos-Rascon, 8 F.3d at 712 (quoting Disla, 805 F.2d at 1352 and United States v. Batimana, 623 F.2d 1366, 1369 (9th Cir.1980)). 121 Thus, other circuits have consistently found that the mere presence of a large bulk of contraband on a ship will not establish the crew members' knowledge of the contraband. See United States v. Garate-Vergara, 942 F.2d 1543, 1549 (11th Cir.1991); United States v. Vidal-Hungria, 794 F.2d 1503, 1514-1515 (11th Cir.1986); United States v. Bland, 653 F.2d 989, 997 (5th Cir.1981); United States v. Willis, 639 F.2d 1335, 1339 (5th Cir.1981). Rather, as the majority concedes, additional evidence is needed to support conviction. Such evidence might include: suspicious behavior or diversionary tactics, inculpatory statements, obviousness of contraband, absence of equipment necessary for the intended use of the vessel, and a long voyage on a small vessel with a close relationship between captain and crew. See Vidal-Hungria, 794 F.2d at 1515 (citing United States v. Cruz-Valdez, 773 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir.1985)); United States v. Robinson, 843 F.2d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1988). 122 First, I disagree with the majority that the facts of this case support a finding that the rank and file crew members knowingly participated in drug trafficking. The cocaine was hidden inside a secret compartment in two of the ship's fuel tanks. The cocaine was so well hidden that it took the Coast Guard three days to find it. Unlike the ship's captain and the chief engineer, the rank and file crew members had no reason to know the configuration or contents of the fuel tanks. The parties stipulated that the weight of cocaine in lieu of fuel caused no noticeable difference in the depth at which the ship rode in the water or in the amount of time it took the ship to roll from side to side. Despite extensive government testing, no traces of cocaine were found on the crew members' clothes or belongings. The lack of the DEA agent's surprise at these test results does not qualify as expert opinion and cannot be considered evidence. Finally, the fact that certain crew members exchanged glances, shook their heads, or gave looks of resignation is understandable given that they had been confined and under surveillance by armed, foreign authorities for three days. 123 Secondly, and more importantly, I dissent because the majority has stretched the suspicious behavior/diversionary tactics factor beyond recognizable bounds. Contrary to the majority's suggestion, United States v. Garate-Vergara, 942 F.2d 1543 (11th Cir.1991), does not stand for the proposition that lack of cooperation can be used against criminal defendants. In that case, crew members actively tried to hamper the authorities' investigation by throwing duffel bags containing cocaine overboard. Id. at 1546. Tellingly, even this evidence was insufficient to convict all of the crew members. Id. at 1549-50. Similarly, in United States v. Sandoval, 787 F.Supp. 275 (D.Puerto Rico 1992), although the court cited the crew's failure to respond to radio or loud hailer communications (transmitted in both Spanish and English), it did so in connection with noting that the defendants had changed course and attempted to evade the authorities. Thus, the cases relied on by the majority involved affirmative, evasive action. We must keep in mind Justice Cardozo's observation that a principle tends to expand itself to the limit of its logic. If the crew member's alleged lack of cooperation can be used against them, why not a refusal to confess? The majority has set new and dangerous precedent. 124 Moreover, the fact that crew members did not respond to a request made in a foreign language can hardly be deemed lack of cooperation. Viewing the evidence in the government's favor, the most that can be inferred is that the crew knew that they were not on a fishing trip. There is still no particularized evidence indicating that the crew knew that the ship contained cocaine, that they exercised dominion and control over the cocaine, or that they intended to distribute the cocaine. 125