## Facts

- The U.S. Coast Guard observed a ship owned/operated by Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. discharging oil into the United States’ territorial sea off the coast of Puerto Rico.
- The vessel flew the flag of Norway, while Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. was a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in Miami, Florida.
- A federal grand jury in the District of Puerto Rico returned a ten-count indictment charging Royal Caribbean and two ship engineers with offenses tied to the alleged discharge and the ensuing Coast Guard investigation.
- Royal Caribbean moved to dismiss pollution-related counts for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that customary international law’s “law of the flag” principle gave Norway exclusive authority over acts committed by the ship.
- Defendants also raised additional pretrial challenges, including that a prior Coast Guard civil/administrative penalty barred at least one count under the Double Jeopardy Clause, that certain counts failed to allege an offense, that some false-statement counts were barred by the “exculpatory no” doctrine, that two counts were impermissibly duplicative, and that evidence from the Coast Guard boarding/inspection should be suppressed under the Fourth Amendment.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States may exercise criminal jurisdiction over an alleged oil discharge into U.S. territorial waters by a foreign-flag vessel, despite the flag state’s general authority over its ships on the high seas.
2. Whether a prior Coast Guard civil/administrative penalty for the same incident barred subsequent criminal prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
3. Whether the challenged counts sufficiently alleged federal offenses, including pollution-related crimes and offenses based on false statements or falsified records provided to the Coast Guard.
4. Whether the “exculpatory no” doctrine shielded defendants from liability for alleged false statements to federal officials during the Coast Guard investigation.
5. Whether evidence obtained during the Coast Guard boarding and inspection must be suppressed as the product of an unreasonable search or seizure.
6. Whether the court should require the government to choose between two allegedly duplicative counts before trial.

## Decision

- The court denied the motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the United States, as a coastal state, may enforce its laws against pollution occurring in its territorial sea and that international law did not require exclusive deference to the flag state in these circumstances.
- The court denied the Double Jeopardy-based motion to dismiss, concluding that the earlier Coast Guard civil/administrative sanction was remedial in nature and did not constitute criminal punishment barring later prosecution.
- The court denied the motions to dismiss for failure to allege an offense, finding the indictment adequately set out the charged crimes and provided sufficient notice of the alleged conduct.
- The court denied dismissal of the false-statement counts based on the “exculpatory no” doctrine, determining it did not bar prosecution for the type of alleged misrepresentations and record-related conduct charged.
- The court denied the motion to suppress, concluding the Coast Guard’s boarding/inspection and related investigative activity was authorized and reasonable under the Fourth Amendment in the maritime regulatory context.
- The court denied the request to compel the government to elect between the challenged counts prior to trial.

## Legal Principles

- A coastal state may apply and enforce its criminal laws for pollution occurring within its territorial sea, even when the vessel is foreign-flagged; the flag-state principle does not automatically bar coastal-state enforcement for territorial-sea discharges.
- An administrative or civil monetary penalty does not necessarily trigger Double Jeopardy; a later criminal prosecution is not barred when the earlier sanction is primarily remedial rather than punitive.
- An indictment is generally sufficient if it alleges the essential elements of the offense and enough factual detail to inform the defendant of the charge and allow preparation of a defense.
- The “exculpatory no” doctrine does not provide a broad exemption from 18 U.S.C. § 1001 liability, particularly where the charges involve affirmative misrepresentations or deceptive conduct during an agency investigation.
- Coast Guard boardings and inspections conducted under statutory authority for safety and environmental compliance can qualify as reasonable searches under the Fourth Amendment.
- A court may decline to force a pretrial election between counts where the indictment does not improperly charge the same offense in a way requiring election at that stage.

## Conclusion

United States v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd. sustained federal criminal jurisdiction over alleged oil pollution in Puerto Rico’s territorial sea by a Norwegian-flag vessel and rejected a series of pretrial challenges, including claims based on the law-of-the-flag theory, Double Jeopardy, alleged pleading defects, the “exculpatory no” doctrine, duplicative counts, and Fourth Amendment suppression, allowing the prosecution to proceed.


United States v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 24 F. Supp. 2d 155 (1997)