Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act

MDLEA

Menu
  • MDLEA
    • § 70501 – Findings and Declarations
    • § 70502 – Definitions
    • § 70503 – Prohibited acts
    • § 70504 – Jurisdiction and Venue
    • § 70505 – Failure to comply with international law as a defense
    • § 70506 – Penalties
    • § 70507 – Forfeitures
    • § 70508 – Operation of submersible vessel or semi-submersible vessel without nationality
  • Related Laws
    • 14 U.S.C. § 522 – Law Enforcement
    • 21 U.S.C. § 952 – Importation of controlled substances
    • 21 U.S.C. § 955 – Possession on board vessel
    • 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f) – Safety Valve Provision
  • International Law
    • UNCLOS
      • Preamble
      • Part I – Intro
      • Part II – TS and CZ
      • Part III – Int’l Straits
      • Part IV – Archipelagic
      • Part V – EEZ
      • Part VI – CS
      • Part VII – High Seas
      • Part VIII – Islands
      • Part IX – Enclosed Seas
      • Part X – Land-locked
      • Part XVI – General
      • Signatories
    • 1988 Convention
    • Other Maritime Treaties & Agreements
  • Blog Posts
  • Full Decisions
  • Other
    • Advertise
    • Donate
    • Contact
Menu

Section 70504(b) permits prosecution for violations of the MDLEA “in any district” for vessels interdicted on the high seas

Posted on Mar 10Mar 10 by Sean Gajewski

At times it is hard to understand why a defendant who is caught violating the MDLEA in the Pacific Ocean (i.e. near Columbia) is brought over 2000 miles to the east coast of the United States (i.e. Florida or Puerto Rico) for prosecution. The justification? As explained in a recent decision by a District Court of the Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John, in United States v. Munoz, the venue for prosecutions under the MDLEA can be “in any district” if the vessel is interdicted on the high seas.

On November 26, 2020, USCG Cutter James intercepted a vessel approximately one hundred and fifteen (115) nautical miles off the coast of Isla De Malpelo, Columbia. The vessel was eventually deemed without nationality, a law enforcement boarding was conducted, and eleven (11) bales containing approximately 383 kilograms of cocaine were found on board.  Just over one (1) week later, on December 4, 2020, a complaint was filed in District Court of the Virgin Islands.1The Government also filed a three-count Information charging the defendants with violations of the MDLEA. Five (5) days later, on December 9, 2020, the three defendants and cocaine were transported to Miami where the defendants made their initial appearance in the Southern District of Florida. on April 15, 2021, a Grand Jury in the District of the Virgin Islands returned an Indictment against the defendants charging them with violations of the MDLEA.

Defendant Munoz thereafter filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the case had to be dismissed due to it being tried in the improper venue. In particular, he argued that “the Government effectively manufactured venue by prosecuting the defendants in St. Thomas as opposed to Miami where the defendants were taken for their initial appearance in hopes of obtaining a longer sentence from this Court.”

In accessing the defendant’s argument, the court first acknowledged the long-standing precedent that the “Government must always ‘prosecute an offense in a district where the offense was committed[.]’” The court then stated, however, that where a statute says otherwise or the offense was not committed within a state or territory, then “the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 18; U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 3. The MDLEA is one such statute where Congress has permitted the Government to prosecute in jurisdictions other than where the alleged offense was committed. More specifically, pursuant to Section 70504(b), “[a] person violating section 70503 or 70508(1) shall be tried in the district in which such offense was committed; or (2) if the offense was begun or committed upon the high seas, or elsewhere outside the jurisdiction of any particular State or district, may be tried in any district.” 46 U.S.C. § 70504(b) (emphasis added).

In responding to defendant’s contention that the Government was essentially forum shopping (or “manufacturing venue”), the trial court made three points:

  • Citing to persuasive precedent in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, and D.C. Circuits, “Federal courts have rejected such arguments and have concluded that manufactured venue is almost never a viable theory for relief;”
  • “…even if manufactured venue was a valid theory to proceed upon, it would be inapplicable in this context. The defendants were not ‘lured’ out of Florida and into St. Thomas to commit a crime. Nor does the Government rely on some obscure and miniscule fact to establish jurisdiction in St. Thomas while the overwhelming amount of the relevant events took place in Florida. The defendants were detained thousands of miles from the Southern District of Florida and were, purportedly, arrested closer to St. Thomas than they were to Miami. The defendants’ only connection to Florida was their initial appearance there. In other words, there was no factual basis to try the case in Florida, and thus, holding a trial outside of Florida cannot constitute manufactured venue[;]” and
  • Since the defendants are being prosecuted for prohibited acts under Section 70503 that occurred on the high seas, Section 70504(b)(2) permits the Government to prosecute in any district that it chooses.

This case is a good example of how the MDLEA permits the Coast Guard to continue its mission without having to act an Uber for defendants. In other words, the Coast Guard does not have to make significant operational/logistics changes when defendants are not brought directly to the district where they are being prosecuted. It also permits U.S. Attorney’s Offices with any investigative investment in the interdiction or drug trafficking organization (DTO) to pursue the matter further without losing the ability to prosecute simply because the Coast Guard was unable to bring the defendants directly to the venue where the investigation is taking place.

The full decision can be found here.

United States v. Munoz, No. 3:21-CR-0001, 2023 WL 1997379 (D.V.I. Feb. 14, 2023)

  • 1
    The Government also filed a three-count Information charging the defendants with violations of the MDLEA.

Recent Blog Posts

  • The 5th Circuit Weighs in on Determining Jurisdiction Before Change of Plea
  • Florida Court Rules that MDLEA Can Snare Drug Traffickers Who Never Set Sail
  • Supreme Court Denies Davila-Reyes Defendants’ Petition
  • District of Puerto Rico Addresses Jurisdiction for a Third Time in U.S. v. Thomas Chalwell
  • Happy Fourth of July!

Latest Decisions

  • United States v. Velez-Acosta, No. 22-13528, 2024 WL 806537 (11th Cir. Feb. 27, 2024)
  • U.S. v. Osvaldo Gonzalez, No. 22-cr-20350-ALTMAN, 2023 WL 4580901 (S.D.Fla. July 18, 2023)
  • U.S. v. Barbosa-Rodriguez, — F.Supp.3d —-, 2023 WL 4230143 (D.P.R. June 28, 2023)
  • U.S. v. Mariani-Romero, et al., No. 22-313 (FAB), 2022 WL 20184569 (D.P.R. June 22, 2023)
  • U.S. v. Iona-Dejesus, No. 22-20473-CR, 2023 WL 3980082 (S.D. Fla. May 4, 2023)

Disclaimer

This blog is written by an attorney employed by the U.S. Government. However, all views expressed on this website are mine and should not be construed as the views of the U.S. Government, including the U.S. Coast Guard.

©2025 Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act