it was within jury's province to resolve factual dispute as to whether captain misunderstood question when asked nationality of ship in determining whether defendants were claiming two nationalities according to convenience
How later courts described this case
- it was within jury's province to resolve factual dispute as to whether captain misunderstood question when asked nationality of ship in determining whether defendants were claiming two nationalities according to convenience
- conspiracy defendant was crewman on seventy-five foot shrimping vessel with over 26,000 pounds of marijuana; Coast Guard personnel could smell marijuana as they boarded; captain claimed there was no cargo and gave inconsistent answers about crew and registration
- evidence that captain initially stated vessel was Costa Rican, then stated that it was Honduran, together with conflicting testimony as to whether vessel was flying a flag, was sufficient to support jury instruction regarding assimilation to statelessness
- United States has jurisdiction if defendants “intended to use two flags or nationalities ‘according to convenience’ ”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLARK, Circuit Judge, specially
concurring:
I concur in the affirmance of the conviction. I would go further than the majority and hold that the Fourth Amendment does not apply to the stopping and boarding of a stateless vessel by the Coast Guard. Without such a right, the Coast Guard has no way of determining the vessel’s nationality, which could be United States. This is certainly true of a vessel displaying the name “Ocean Lady,” but I do not limit my opinion to vessels with an English language name.
*1368 21 U.S.C.A. § 955b subjects to the jurisdiction of the United States “a vessel without nationality.” 14 U.S.C.A. § 89 authorizes the Coast Guard “upon the high seas” to “go on board of any vessel subject to the jurisdiction ... of the United States.”
Thus, I have no problem interpreting these statutes to authorize the actions of the Coast Guard in this case. To accept the argument of appellants, the Coast Guard could not go on the vessel until a search warrant was obtained. This would require a delay. After boarding, as done here, there would be another delay while awaiting verification of the vessel’s Honduran registration. In my opinion, the defendant’s rights were protected when there was no arrest until the Coast Guard verified the lack of Honduran registration and that the vessel was in fact stateless. See United States v. Marino-Garcia, 679 F.2d 1373 at 1379 (11th Cir.1982).