holding that United States jurisdiction “embraces offenses having an effect within its sovereign territory, even though the acts constituting the offense occur outside the territory”
How later courts described this case
- holding that United States jurisdiction “embraces offenses having an effect within its sovereign territory, even though the acts constituting the offense occur outside the territory”
- observing that constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure “extends only to the areas in which he has a legitimate expectation of privacy, including his person, his cabin and his personal effects”
- indicating that where the government can point to no statutory or independent executive authority, a court must conclude that a search is unconstitutional
- “Ramsey indicates that the source of authority for a seizure or search need not be statutory....”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
R. LANIER ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but for different reasons. I find *1100 that the actions of the Coast Guard in this case were authorized by § 89(a) and by Panama’s consent. I find no Fourth Amendment violation because there was probable cause to stop, board, and search the vessel, and' because the circumstances were exigent. I, therefore, do not reach the other issues discussed by my brothers.