## Facts

- Peter Malcolm Davis, a non-United States citizen, was the captain of the *Myth*, a sailing vessel registered in the United Kingdom.
- The *Myth* departed from Hong Kong and was believed by U.S. authorities to be involved in drug smuggling.
- While the *Myth* was on the high seas outside United States territorial waters and headed in a suspicious manner toward San Francisco, a United States Coast Guard vessel stopped it.
- Coast Guard officers requested permission to board; Davis refused and asserted the Coast Guard lacked authority to board a U.K.-registered vessel outside U.S. territory.
- Davis stated that instead of continuing toward San Francisco, the *Myth* would sail to the Caribbean by way of Mexico.
- The Coast Guard sought permission from the United Kingdom to board the *Myth* under an agreement between the United States and the United Kingdom.
- The United Kingdom granted permission, and Coast Guard officers boarded the *Myth*.
- During the boarding, the Coast Guard found packages of marijuana on the vessel.
- Davis was charged with (1) possession of marijuana on a vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States with intent to distribute and (2) conspiracy to commit that offense, in violation of the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA).
- Davis moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the MDLEA did not apply to persons on foreign vessels outside U.S. territory; the district court denied the motion.
- Davis was convicted and appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the MDLEA could be applied to a nonresident alien on a United Kingdom-flag vessel on the high seas, consistent with Congress’s constitutional authority and the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause.
2. Whether due process required a “sufficient nexus” between Davis’s conduct and the United States for this extraterritorial prosecution, and if so, whether that requirement was met on these facts.
3. Whether the Fourth Amendment applied to the Coast Guard’s search of a foreign-flag vessel on the high seas where the crew were nonresident aliens, such that the marijuana evidence should have been suppressed.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed Davis’s convictions.
- The court held Congress may give extraterritorial effect to criminal statutes like the MDLEA, subject to due process limits.
- The court applied a due process “sufficient nexus” requirement for prosecuting a defendant extraterritorially and concluded the nexus was satisfied because Davis’s smuggling activity was directed at the United States market.
- The court held the Fourth Amendment did not apply to the search of a foreign-flag vessel on the high seas when the defendant was a nonresident alien without substantial connections to the United States; therefore, suppression was not warranted on Fourth Amendment grounds.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may provide extraterritorial reach for federal criminal statutes, including drug-trafficking offenses on the high seas, when Congress clearly intends that reach and the application is consistent with the Constitution.
- The MDLEA is within Congress’s authority to define and punish felonies on the high seas under Article I, Section 8, Clause 10.
- For extraterritorial application of a federal criminal statute to satisfy the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause, there must be a “sufficient nexus” between the defendant and the United States so the prosecution is not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.
- A sufficient nexus exists when a defendant’s conduct is aimed at causing effects in the United States, such as trafficking drugs intended for importation or distribution in the United States.
- Nonresident aliens on a foreign-flag vessel in international waters generally are not protected by the Fourth Amendment with respect to U.S. law-enforcement searches conducted there.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Davis’s MDLEA convictions arising from the Coast Guard’s boarding of the U.K.-registered *Myth* on the high seas after the United Kingdom authorized the boarding. The court ruled that Congress could apply the MDLEA extraterritorially, that due process required a sufficient U.S. nexus and that Davis’s conduct satisfied it because the smuggling operation was directed at the United States, and that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to Davis as a nonresident alien on a foreign vessel in international waters, so the marijuana evidence was properly admitted.


United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245 (1990)