U.S. v. Shi
| Decision Date | 24 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-10389.,06-10389. |
| Citation | 525 F.3d 709 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lei SHI, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Marshall H. Silverberg, Assistant United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, argued the cause for the plaintiff-appellee; Thomas J. Brady, Assistant United States Attorney, Honolulu, HI, filed a brief for the plaintiff-appellee; Edward H. Kubo, Jr., United States Attorney, District of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI, was on the brief.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii; Helen Gillmor, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-02-00116-1-HG.
Before: DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, A. WALLACE TASHIMA, and MILAN D. SMITH, Jr., Circuit Judges.
We are called upon to decide whether a foreign national who forcibly seizes control of a foreign vessel in international waters may be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States when such vessel is intercepted by federal authorities.
On March 14, 2002, the Full Means No. 2, a Taiwanese fishing vessel registered in the Republic of the Seychelles, was sailing in international waters off the coast of Hawaii. The Captain of the vessel was Taiwanese, while its 29 crewmembers, including Lei Shi,1 the ship's cook, were mainland Chinese. According to Shi, the Captain and First Mate beat and harassed him repeatedly and, on this date, demoted Shi from the position of cook to deck hand, punctuating the decision with a beating that was particularly severe. A few hours later, Shi responded. He retrieved two large knives from the kitchen, ascended to the deck of the ship, and fatally stabbed both men.
According to the government, Shi then ordered the Second Mate to "drive the ship" and ordered the other crewmembers to throw the captain's body overboard. Shi stated he would kill anyone who disobeyed him and refused to let his fellow crewmates use the radio. Shi retained control of the ship for two days, setting a course for China and threatening to scuttle the vessel if his instructions were not obeyed.
On March 16, 2002, the crew overpowered Shi and imprisoned him in a storage compartment on the ship. The crew then set a course for Hawaii, though they never contacted the ship's parent company, apparently because none of them knew how to operate the radio. After several days of silence, the parent company notified the U.S. Coast Guard that the Full Means No. 2 was missing and requested the Coast Guard's assistance in recovery.
On March 19, 2002, a Coast Guard cutter intercepted the ship approximately 60 miles from Hilo, Hawaii. Two of the Full Means No. 2's crewmembers set out on a raft to meet the cutter, carrying a letter addressed to the Hawaiian government which described Shi's takeover. After the Republic of the Seychelles waived jurisdiction, the ship's acting master permitted the Coast Guard to board. The Coast Guard did not attempt to take control of the ship at the time because the officers decided first to determine whether the crew was staging an emergency to gain entry into the United States or whether a true exigency existed.
Among the officers who boarded the ship was Lt. Junior Grade Hsing-Yen John Fu, who spoke Mandarin Chinese. Lt. Fu came upon the storage compartment where Shi was imprisoned and examined it from the outside. The crew had sealed the door to the compartment shut by welding a metal bar across its doorway. The door contained holes, however, through which Fu could see Shi sitting inside. Shi's hands were bound behind him with wire which appeared to be cutting his wrists. The compartment contained no windows or a toilet. Fu later testified that he believed the crew fed Shi through a hole in the door, although he did not personally witness such acts.
Because the Coast Guard had not yet assumed control of the vessel, the officers still considered Shi to be a prisoner of the crew. Accordingly, they did not immediately instruct the crew to release Shi from the compartment. Still, Lt. Fu insisted that the crew remove the wire restraints from Shi's hands. The crew obliged, and the wires were replaced with handcuffs.
On March 19 and 20, Lt. Fu stood outside the compartment and spoke to Shi through the holes in the door. He later testified that his decision to initiate contact with Shi was an effort to determine whether Shi could corroborate the story told by the crew. In the course of their exchanges, Shi told Lt. Fu that he had killed the Captain and First Mate. Fu never read Shi the Miranda warnings.
On March 21 at approximately 3:00 pm, FBI agents boarded the vessel and arrested Shi for violating 18 U.S.C. § 2280, which prohibits acts of violence that endanger maritime navigation. In addition, the agents obtained a warrant to search Shi's bunk area on the ship, where they discovered several incriminating letters Shi had written to his family.
Immediately upon releasing Shi from the storage compartment, the agents allowed Shi to use the bathroom. Next, they escorted him to the ship's dining area, where Agent Lynelle Torikai, through the assistance of Language Specialist Kipiu Wun, informed Shi of the charges against him and read him his Miranda rights. In addition, the agents furnished Shi with an Advice of Rights waiver written in Mandarin. Shi expressed his willingness to answer questions, but called them "insignificant" and did not sign the form. Agent Torikai and Language Specialist Wun then explained the Miranda rights and the purpose of the form for approximately five minutes, after which Shi signed it.
Thereafter, a Coast Guard health technician examined Shi, treated his wrists with ointment, and wrapped them. The FBI then transported Shi to the federal building in Honolulu, where he was fed, permitted to use the restroom, and given a change of clothing. At approximately 5:30 pm, Shi was escorted to an interrogation room where Agent Torikai questioned him for approximately 4.5 hours. During such time, Shi was fed again, permitted two smoke breaks, and confessed to killing the Captain and First Mate.
The government filed an indictment charging Shi with several violations of § 2280, which proscribes certain acts of violence that endanger maritime navigation. The statute codifies the United States' obligations under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts Against the Safety of Maritime Navigation (the "Maritime Safety Convention"), 27 I.L.M. 672 (1988), which authorizes any signatory state to extradite or prosecute offenders, regardless of where the offender's acts occurred. Accordingly, § 2280 authorizes federal jurisdiction over any offender "later found" in the United States after a prohibited act is committed. 18 U.S.C. § 2280(b)(1)(C). In a published order, the district court concluded that it had jurisdiction under the statute. United States v. Shi, 396 F.Supp.2d 1132 (D.Haw. 2003).
Next, the district court granted Shi's motion to suppress his unwarned statements to Lt. Fu on March 19 and 20, but denied his motion to suppress his subsequent confession to Agent Torikai. The court also denied Shi's motion to exclude the personal letters the FBI agents seized from his bunk space, rejecting Shi's arguments that the warrant was invalid and that the scope of the search was overbroad.
Shi initially pled guilty, but soon withdrew the plea, and the government filed a superseding indictment.2 The new indictment charged Shi with one count of seizing control over a ship by force, in violation of § 2280(a)(1)(A), and two counts of performing an act of violence likely to endanger the safety of the ship, in violation of § 2280(a)(1)(B). The indictment alleged that the acts charged in all three counts "resulted in death," elevating the maximum statutory penalty for each from 20 years to life in prison. The jury convicted Shi on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to 36 years in prison.
Shi timely filed this appeal, challenging (1) the district court's jurisdiction, (2) the sufficiency of the indictment, (3) the admissibility of his statement to Agent Torikai, (4) the admissibility of the letters seized from his bunk, and (5) the constitutionality of his sentence. We now turn to the merits of these claims.
We begin with Shi's contention that the district court lacked jurisdiction because he did not meet the jurisdictional prerequisites set forth in § 2280 and, in the alternative, because § 2280 is unconstitutional as applied to him. We consider Shi's constitutional argument first.
Section 2280 codifies the United States' obligations under the Maritime Safety Convention to extradite or to prosecute those who commit acts of maritime violence. Section 2280(a)(1) lists eight proscribed acts, and § 2280(b)(1) vests federal courts with jurisdiction if certain conditions are met. 18 U.S.C. § 2280. At issue here is the provision which renders jurisdiction proper if the "offender is later found in the United States." Id. § 2280(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added). The district court concluded that § 2280 provided it with jurisdiction over Shi because Shi's arrest and transport to Honolulu rendered him "later found" in the United States as the statute defines that term.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the United States Constitution (the "Offense Clause") empowers Congress to "define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations." Because the high seas, by definition, lie outside United States territory, see United States v. Davis, 905 F.2d 245, 248 (9th Cir.1990), the Offense Clause grants Congress the authority to apply federal law beyond the borders of the United States, see EEOC v Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 244, 248, 111 S.Ct. 1227, 113 L.Ed.2d 274 (1991).
Section 2280 is an exercise of Congress's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pac. Marine Ctr. Inc. v. Silva
...at the time of the search, to contain evidence reasonably related to the purposes of the search,it may be seized); United States v. Shi, 525 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 2008) (a reasonable determination that the documents seized fall within the warrant does not require having a person fluent in Chin......
-
Pacific Marine Ctr., Inc. v. Silva
...at the time of the search, to contain evidence reasonably related to the purposes of the search, it may be seized); United States v. Shi, 525 F.3d 709 (9th Cir.2008) (a reasonable determination that the documents seized fall within the warrant does not require having a person fluent in Chin......
-
Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co.
...a defendant prosecuted in the United States ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in this country.’ " United States v. Shi , 525 F.3d 709, 722 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Moreno-Morillo , 334 F.3d 819, 827 (9th Cir. 2003) ). In contrast, "[u]niversal jurisdictio......
-
Ratha v. Phatthana Seafood Co.
...a defendant prosecuted in the United States ‘should reasonably anticipate being haled into court in this country.’ " United States v. Shi , 525 F.3d 709, 722 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Moreno-Morillo , 334 F.3d 819, 827 (9th Cir. 2003) ). In contrast, "[u]niversal jurisdictio......
-
Chapter 5 - §4. Evidence subject to exclusion under Fourth Amendment
...or recurrent police misconduct, and not egregious enough to be characterized as flagrant misconduct), and U.S. v. Shi (9th Cir.2008) 525 F.3d 709, 727 (statement admissible when Coast Guard's decision to speak to D was not to ascertain guilt but to determine if D would corroborate crew's st......
-
Table of Cases null
...84 L. Ed. 2d 605 (1985)—Ch. 5-A, §2.2.3(2)(b); §3.2.2(1)(b) U.S. v. Shetler, 665 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011)—Ch. 5-A, §4.2.2(1) U.S. v. Shi, 525 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 2008)—Ch. 5-A, §4.2.2(3) U.S. v. Short, 790 F.2d 464, 20 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 949 (6th Cir. 1986)—Ch. 3-A, §3.4.2(3).3 U.S. v. Smi......
-
Laura Halonen, Catch Them if You Can: Compatibility of United Kingdom and United States Legislation Against Financing Terrorism With Public International Law Rules on Jurisdiction
...144 F.3d 1249, 1257 (9th Cir. 1998) (quoting World-WideVolkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980)).183 327 F.3d at 110–11.525 F.3d 709, 723 (9th Cir. 2008); see also United States v. Perez-Oviedo, 281 F.3d 400, 402 (3d Cir.2002); United States v. Martinez-Hidalgo, 993 F.2d 1052, ......
-
The Turtle Bay Pivot: How the United Nations Security Council Is Reshaping Naval Pursuit of Nuclear Proliferators, Rogue States, and Pirates
...is aware of only one other criminal prosecution, unrelated to piracy, which also involved a U.S. proceeding. See United States v. Shi, 525 F.3d 709 (9th Cir. 2008). In total, as of November 2018, there have been six criminal convictions under national-level legislation that implemented the ......