U.S. v. Thompson
| Citation | 928 F.2d 1060 |
| Decision Date | 17 April 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-6301,89-6301 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Michael THOMPSON, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
Thomas F. Almon, Miami, Fla., for defendant-appellant.
Dexter W. Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., Donnal S. Mixon, Linda Collins Hertz, Dawn Bowen, Carol E. Herman, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before KRAVITCH and COX, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
On October 30, 1988, a boarding party from the Coast Guard cutter TAMPA conducted a documents and safety inspection of the vessel MOLLY BETH 1 in the Windward Passage. The Coast Guard found 412 kilograms of cocaine hidden in secret compartments. James Michael Thompson, owner and captain of the MOLLY BETH, was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine while on board a United States vessel, 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(j), and possessing with intent to distribute cocaine while on board a United States vessel, 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(a). Thompson sought to suppress the cocaine seized by the Coast Guard. The district court denied his motion to suppress. We affirm.
Thompson was the owner and captain of the MOLLY BETH. The MOLLY BETH is a 41-foot cabin cruiser-trawler registered as a United States vessel. On October 30, 1988, Thompson and a female companion were traveling on the MOLLY BETH through the Windward Passage, approximately 500 miles from the United States. 2 At about 6:30 P.M., the Coast Guard cutter TAMPA intercepted the MOLLY BETH. The Coast Guard requested permission to board the vessel to conduct a documents and safety check. Thompson agreed to the inspection and a party of four men from the TAMPA boarded the MOLLY BETH. The members of the boarding party were Ensign Brewer, Chief Petty Officer Henderson, Petty Officer Fehnel and Petty Officer Nepert.
Once aboard, Brewer asked Thompson whether anyone else was on board. Thompson said that he had a female friend on board. Brewer then asked Thompson whether he had any firearms on board. Thompson said he did and the female companion showed Fehnel where the firearms were located. Brewer then asked Thompson to produce the vessel's documentation. At this point the other three Coast Guard officers began a safety check of the vessel. A safety check requires the officers to locate and examine all safety equipment on board a vessel. Since Thompson had recently purchased the boat, he was unfamiliar with the location of the various safety devices and thus could not help the officers locate the equipment.
Henderson began his safety check in the aft section of the boat. While there he noticed that the forward bulkhead of the lazaret (bathroom) had been replaced with a new section of plywood and held in place with fiberglass resin of a different character than in other parts of the boat. Additionally, Henderson noticed that there was some unaccounted-for space in the aft cabin. Henderson found that a compartment usually used for storing equipment had been sealed off by a wood panel held in place by screws and nails. Henderson was unable to remove the panel.
At the same time Henderson was conducting a safety check in the aft section of the boat, Fehnel was conducting a search in the forward section of the boat. Fehnel began his check by examining the compartment where the anchor chains were stored. Fehnel then moved to the middle of the forward cabin, which contains two v-berths. Fehnel examined some of the equipment on the bunks and then began to examine a standard storage compartment under the berths. Fehnel lifted one of the v-berth mattresses and found the hatch to the compartment. He removed the hatch and observed several pieces of equipment including some life preservers and sails.
Fehnel also observed that the compartment had been reduced in size. He noticed a strong smell of fiberglass and saw that the bottom of the compartment was constructed differently than the rest of the compartment. He observed that the fiberglass on the bottom of the compartment contained bubbles and was soft, indicating that the fiberglass had been recently installed in a hurried manner. Fehnel attempted to find access to the hidden part of the compartment but could not. He then concluded that the compartment contained unaccounted-for space.
Fehnel informed Henderson of this unaccounted-for space. Henderson examined the compartment and came to the same conclusion. Henderson asked Thompson if there was any way to access this part of the compartment. Thompson said he did not know of any access and did not know what was in that space. Henderson asked that the TAMPA send over a drill and a fiber optic scope. Brewer and Henderson then drilled a small hole into the hidden compartment and inserted the fiber optic scope. The boarding party, using the optic scope, could not see what was in the compartment because some type of white object was blocking their view. At this point, the boarding party decided to cut a larger hole so that a hand could be inserted into the compartment. After the hole was cut, Henderson and Brewer observed a white fabric covering a large number of brick-shaped objects. One of the bricks was opened and a brownish white powder was found. This powder was tested and determined to be cocaine.
At about the same time the boarding party discovered the cocaine in the hidden compartment, Thompson made an incriminating statement to Fehnel. Thompson stated, "Do you want to put the handcuffs on me now?" Fehnel then asked Thompson whether he had any illegal drugs on board. Thompson replied that he had two hundred kilograms of cocaine in the front of the boat and two hundred kilograms in the back of the boat. Thompson was placed under arrest and transferred to the TAMPA. The Coast Guard took Thompson, his female companion and the MOLLY BETH to Miami. A full search of the MOLLY BETH ultimately revealed 412 kilograms of cocaine hidden on the boat.
Thompson was indicted on one count of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute while on board a United States vessel at least five kilograms of cocaine, 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(j), and one count of possessing with intent to distribute while on board a United States vessel at least five kilograms of cocaine, 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 1903(a). Thompson moved to suppress the 412 kilograms of cocaine claiming that the Coast Guard's search of his boat violated the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. Additionally, Thompson claimed the Coast Guard violated the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone 3 by boarding his vessel.
The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion to suppress. The government introduced the testimony of the four Coast Guard officers who were members of the boarding party. The court denied Thompson's motion. The court found that Fehnel, while statutorily authorized to be on board the boat, developed reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (drug smuggling). R.2-178. According to the court, this reasonable suspicion authorized the Coast Guard to search the storage compartment and ultimately drill and cut a hole into the hidden compartment. Id. at 182.
Additionally, the court held: first, that Thompson did not have any expectation of privacy in the storage compartment searched by the Coast Guard; and, second, that after searching the storage compartment the Coast Guard had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity allowing them to search the hidden compartment. Id. at 183. The court further held that Thompson did not have standing to challenge the search of the boat on the grounds that the search violated the Geneva Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. R.2-185. The court determined that because the treaty was not self-executing, creating enforcement rights in favor of private citizens, Thompson did not have standing to allege a violation of the treaty. Id.
Following the denial of his motion to suppress, Thompson entered a conditional plea of guilty to both counts of the indictment, reserving the right to appeal the court's denial of his motion to suppress pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(a)(2). 4 Thompson now appeals the court's denial of his motion.
In cases involving the denial of a motion to suppress, we are bound by the district court's factual determinations unless they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Morales, 889 F.2d 1058, 1059 (11th Cir.1989). As we recently stated:
Absent clear error, we are bound by the district court's findings of fact and credibility choices at the suppression hearing. We construe all facts in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.... A finding of fact is clearly erroneous only when we are left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
United States v. Roy, 869 F.2d 1427, 1429 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 110 S.Ct. 72, 107 L.Ed.2d 38 (1989). However, we "independently apply legal principles to the district court's findings of fact." Id.
The district court held that the Coast Guard officers had a reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was occurring and this reasonable suspicion permitted the Coast Guard to examine the storage compartment. R.2-178. After searching the storage compartment the Coast Guard strengthened its reasonable suspicion and thus was permitted to drill a small hole and later cut a larger hole into the hidden compartment. Id. The district court found as an alternative basis for its decision that Thompson had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the storage compartment searched and therefore could not challenge the search of that compartment, and that the search of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. DSD Shipping
...(Harlan, J., concurring)). Privacy interests at sea may be more restrictive than those applicable on land. United States v. Thompson, 928 F.2d 1060, 1064 (11th Cir. 1991) ("At sea, a person's expectation of privacy may be severely restricted compared with expectations of privacy on land.") ......
-
U.S. v. Cardona-Sandoval
...United States v. Peterson, 812 F.2d 486, 494 (9th Cir.1987) (crew has no privacy interest in cargo hold); United States v. Thompson, 928 F.2d 1060, 1065 (11th Cir.) (recognizing difference between private areas or footlockers versus cargo holds), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 270, ......
-
IgartÚa v. U.S.
...and inactions of the United States, the other elements of standing are clearly satisfied in this case. See, e.g., United States v. Thompson, 928 F.2d 1060, 1066 (11th Cir.1991) (explaining that a self-executing treaty confers standing on "an individual citizen to ... protest a violation of ......
-
Mexican Gulf Fishing Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Commerce
...512, 514 (5th Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Whitmire , 595 F.2d 1303, 1312 (5th Cir. 1979) ); see also United States v. Thompson , 928 F.2d 1060, 1064 (11th Cir. 1991) ("At sea, a person's expectation of privacy may be severely restricted compared with expectations of privacy on land.......
-
Restraining U.s. Violations of International Law: an Attempt to Curtail Stun Belt Use and Manufacture in the United States Under the United Nations Convention Against Torture
...court's duty to enforce a treaty on behalf of an individual depends on whether the treaty is self-executing); United States v. Thompson, 928 F.2d 1060, 1066 (11th Cir. 1991) ("[A] treaty must be self-executing in order for an individual citizen to have standing to protest a violation of the......