## Facts

- Gerard Raven, a Dutch citizen, was indicted in the United States for heroin-importation offenses involving an attempted importation of approximately 50 kilograms of heroin from Belgium.
- Raven was arrested and held in Belgium and was questioned there by Belgian authorities and U.S. law-enforcement agents, during which he made inculpatory statements.
- Belgian law did not allow counsel to be present during police questioning.
- Before questioning Raven without counsel present, U.S. agents confirmed the Belgian rule, obtained authorization from a Belgian magistrate, and proceeded under a U.S. court order issued via letter rogatory.
- As trial approached, Raven moved to suppress his Belgian custodial statements, arguing violations of his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights to counsel.
- Raven also sought relief based on an alleged failure to notify him of his right to contact his consulate under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

## Issues

1. Whether a foreign national interrogated while in custody abroad may invoke Fifth and Sixth Amendment counsel protections to suppress statements obtained by foreign and U.S. officers overseas.
2. Whether an alleged violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires suppression of statements or other relief in a federal criminal case.

## Decision

- The court denied the motion to suppress.
- The court held that a foreign national questioned overseas does not receive Fifth or Sixth Amendment protections for that interrogation; the absence of counsel during Belgian questioning did not require suppression.
- The court denied the Vienna Convention-based motion for relief.
- The court held that, even assuming an Article 36 violation, the Vienna Convention did not provide a suppression remedy or other relief on the facts presented.

## Legal Principles

- U.S. constitutional protections, including the Fifth Amendment (and, on the court’s analysis, Sixth Amendment counsel protections), do not generally apply to a foreign national’s custodial interrogation conducted outside U.S. territory.
- When U.S. agents participate in an overseas interrogation conducted under foreign law and with appropriate foreign and judicial authorization, the lack of counsel required by U.S. practice does not itself trigger suppression in a U.S. prosecution.
- An asserted Article 36 Vienna Convention consular-notification violation does not, without more, require suppression of evidence; the treaty does not prescribe suppression as a remedy in domestic criminal proceedings.

## Conclusion

The court permitted use of Raven’s Belgian custodial statements at his U.S. trial, ruling that Fifth and Sixth Amendment counsel protections did not apply extraterritorially to his overseas interrogation and that an alleged Vienna Convention Article 36 violation did not justify suppression or other relief.


United States v. Raven, 103 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D. Mass. 2000)