## Facts

- A Japanese fishing vessel, F/V Taiyo Maru No. 28, was observed by the U.S. Coast Guard fishing about 16.25 miles off the Maine coast, within the U.S. “contiguous fisheries zone” established by federal statute.
- The Coast Guard signaled the vessel to stop; the vessel accelerated toward the high seas.
- The Coast Guard pursued continuously and seized the vessel on the high seas about 67.9 miles from the U.S. mainland.
- The United States filed (1) an in rem civil forfeiture action against the vessel and (2) a criminal information against the vessel’s master, Masatoshi Kawaguchi, alleging violations of federal fisheries statutes and seeking statutory sanctions.
- The owner and the master moved to dismiss both actions for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the high-seas seizure violated international law and treaty limits on enforcing domestic fisheries laws against foreign vessels.

## Issues

1. Whether international law, including the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, permitted the United States to seize a foreign vessel on the high seas under the doctrine of hot pursuit when the alleged fisheries violation began within the U.S. contiguous fisheries zone.
2. Whether the United States could lawfully assert and enforce fisheries controls in a contiguous zone beyond the territorial sea consistent with applicable treaties and international law, such that the district court had jurisdiction over the forfeiture and criminal proceedings.

## Decision

- The court denied the motions to dismiss in both the civil forfeiture case and the criminal case.
- The court held that U.S. statutes authorized regulation and enforcement against foreign fishing within the contiguous fisheries zone.
- The court held that the Coast Guard’s seizure on the high seas was lawful because it followed continuous hot pursuit that began while the vessel was within the contiguous zone.
- The court rejected the argument that treaties limited hot pursuit from the contiguous zone to non-fisheries matters (e.g., customs or immigration), finding no such restriction in the relevant treaty text.

## Legal Principles

- Congress may authorize fisheries regulation and enforcement within a contiguous fisheries zone beyond the territorial sea, and federal courts may exercise jurisdiction over enforcement actions arising from violations within that zone.
- Under the 1958 Convention on the High Seas, hot pursuit may begin when a vessel is within a coastal state’s contiguous zone and may continue onto the high seas if pursued without interruption and the initial pursuit is lawfully initiated.
- Treaty interpretation focuses on text and context; absent a clear treaty prohibition, domestic fisheries enforcement measures will not be treated as barred by international law solely because they operate beyond the territorial sea.
- A seizure effected through lawful hot pursuit does not defeat jurisdiction over related in rem forfeiture proceedings or criminal charges against the vessel’s master.

## Conclusion

The court held that the United States could enforce its fisheries laws in the contiguous fisheries zone and could seize a foreign fishing vessel on the high seas through continuous hot pursuit that began within that zone, so the forfeiture and criminal cases could proceed.


United States v. F/V Taiyo Maru, No. 28, 395 F. Supp. 413 (D. Me. 1975)