Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T22:23:00.436Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States v. Biermann

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Bonnie Weinstein
Bonnie Weinstein*
Affiliation:
Of the New York Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Defendants, citizens of the United Kingdom, Bermuda, the Federal Republic of Germany and the United States, were operators of a sailing vessel on the high seas that was registered in the United Kingdom and flying the UK flag. Defendants were indicted for possession of several tons of marijuana, with intent to distribute, following a search and seizure of their vessel by the United States Coast Guard. Initially, the court granted defendants’ request for an evidentiary hearing. However, upon further consideration, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (per Legge, J.) held: that the court had proper jurisdiction, and that defendants’ motions to suppress evidence obtained from the boarding, search and seizure of the vessel and to conduct an evidentiary hearing should be denied.

Keywords

Jurisdiction on the high seasmaritime drug law enforcementcriminal lawsearch and seizurecongressional authority
Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 83 , Issue 1 , January 1989 , pp. 99 - 103
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Agreement to Facilitate the Interdiction by the United States of Vessels of the United Kingdom Suspected of Trafficking in Drugs, Nov. 13, 1981, UK-U.S., TIAS No. 10,296 [hereinafter 1981 Agreement].

2 678 F.Supp. 1437, 1440.

3 Id.

4 In 46 U.S.C. app. §1902 (West Supp. 1988), Congress specifically found and declared “that trafficking in controlled substances aboard vessels is a serious international problem and is universally condemned. Moreover, such trafficking presents a specific threat to the security and societal well-being of the United States.”

5 678 F.Supp. at 1441 (emphasis by court).

6 Id.

7 Id. at 1443. The court noted, id., that in United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486, 493 (9th Cir. 1987), the court of appeals “held that the consent of a foreign government brought the boarding of a ship within the customs waters of the United States.”

8 678 F.Supp. at 1442–43 (citing S. Rep. No. 530, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 15–16 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 5986, 6000–01).

9 See United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d at 492. The court also determined that the Coast Guard was acting under the statutory authority of 14 U.S.C. §89(a), permitting it to prevent, detect or suppress violation of U.S. laws by boarding at any time “any vessel subject to the jurisdiction, or to the operation of any law, of the United States.” The court noted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that section 89(a) requires that “the Coast Guard must act upon reasonable suspicion when it relies on the jurisdictional predicate that a foreign vessel on the high seas is operating in violation of U.S. laws.” 678 F.Supp. at 1443 (citing United States v. Williams, 617 F.2d 1063, 1076 (5th Cir. 1980)). However, the Ninth Circuit in Peterson found that section 89(a), with respect to the enforcement of the statutory predecessor to 46 U.S.C. § 1903, “ ‘specifically applies to the high seas and does not restrict the Coast Guard to actions based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause.’ “ Id. at 1444 (quoting United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d at 493). Following the approach of the Ninth Circuit in Peterson, the court sidestepped the issue of probable cause.

10 678 F.Supp. at 1444.

11 Id.

12 Id. at 1445 (quoting U.S. Const. Art. I, §8, cl. 10, conferring power on Congress “[t]o define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations”).

13 Id. at 1446 (citing Vale v. Louisiana, 399 U.S. 30, 90 (1970)).

14 Id. (citing United States v. Place, 462 U.S. 696 (1938)).

15 Id. (citing United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 557 (1976)).