Appellate Law

CA1: perhaps the MDLEA is constitutional

By S. COTUS

USA v. Vilches-Navarrete, 06-1942.  This is another high-seas drug stop under the  Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act ("MDLEA"), 46 U.S.C. § 70503.  As to the constitutionality of the MDLEA, Torruella says that issue can be avoided under the doctrine of harmless error, and others say it must be addressed.  Under this logic, the MDLEA?s provisions that appear to put the question of jurisdiction (of capture) solely in the hands of the judge were correctly construed to require a jury instruction tell the jury not to worry about. Lynch and Howward says that under McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 86 (1986), the MDLEA is constitutional, and that the place where the vessel is captured is not an element.  Unfortunately, because of this fractured opinion, this fairly interesting dispute isn?t going to be properly vetted, and because most people want to decide the issue on political grounds, nobody is going to seriously analyze the issue of ?what is jurisdiction.? 

Somewhat more disturbing, is the comfort with which the court is able to say that non-resident aliens in international waters have no Fourth Amendment rights.  (Of course, this does mean that Americans in international waters DO have such rights.)  And, even if they did apply, the plurality says that the objections failed on standing grounds.  And, even the defendant had an expectation of privacy, it wasn?t objectively reasonable. And, whatever the case, the USCG appears to have statutory authority (even if it reflags a British vessel). 

Regarding a 365 month sentence, the First says that it is reasonable enough, especially in view of how the District Court didn?t count a bunch of prior convictions.

Sufficiency challenges are pretty much routine. 

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on April 10, 2008 (boomark / email).