United States v. Knowles, Crim. Action No. 12-266 (2), (3) (ABJ)
| Decision Date | 16 June 2016 |
| Docket Number | Crim. Action No. 12-266 (2), (3) (ABJ) |
| Citation | 197 F.Supp.3d 143 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Dwight KNOWLES, Oral George Thompson, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Jamie Brinkmeyer Perry, Paul Joseph, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Danielle Courtney Jahn, Federal Public Defender for D.C., Joseph Roll Conte, Law Offices of J.R. Conte, P.L.L.C., Washington, DC, for Defendant.
Defendants Dwight Knowles and Oral George Thompson are charged in a one-count indictment with conspiring to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute at least five kilograms of cocaine on board an aircraft registered in the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 959(b) (2012)1 (substantive offense); 21 U.S.C. § 963 (conspiracy); and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting). See Redacted Indictment [Dkt. # 17]. The crimes for which defendants have been charged carry a mandatory minimum sentence of ten years of incarceration and a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. 21 U.S.C. § 960(b)(1)(B).
The defendants have each filed motions to dismiss the indictment. Def. Thompson's Mot. to Dismiss Indictment [Dkt. # 120] ("Thompson Mot."); Def. Knowles's Mot. to Dismiss Indictment [Dkt. # 128] ("Knowles Mot."). Both point out that until their arrest and detention in this case, they had never stepped foot in the United States, and that the drugs that the government alleges that they conspired to transport were not destined for the United States. So the only nexus to the United States in this case is that the airplane that defendants allegedly used in furtherance of the conspiracy was registered in the United States.
Both defendants argue that bringing them before a court in the United States to answer charges of United States law violates the Due Process Clause. Thompson Mot. at 1; Knowles Mot. at 10–12. Knowles has also advanced the position—which Thompson has adopted—that the statute involved in this case does not authorize an exercise of extraterritorial jurisdiction over the offense of possession with intent to distribute, as opposed to distribution, and that Congress lacked the power to "criminalize criminal activity with no nexus to the United States" in any event. Knowles Mot. at 1–2; Mot. to Join & Adopt Mot. of Codefendant [Dkt. # 137]; Min. Entry (May 19, 2016) ( that the Court granted Thompson's motion to adopt Knowles's motion). The government opposes both motions. Gov't's Mem. in Opp. to Thompson Mot. [Dkt. # 123] ("Opp. (Thompson)"); Gov't's Mem. in Opp. to Knowles Mot. [Dkt. # 130] ("Opp. (Knowles)"). Defendant Knowles replied in support of his motion; Thompson did not file a reply. See Def. Knowles Reply in Supp. of Knowles Mot. [Dkt. # 132] ("Knowles Reply").
Defendants have raised important questions about the proper interpretation of 21 U.S.C. § 959 (2012), the limits of Congress's enumerated powers to criminalize acts that take place on foreign soil, and whether prosecutions based on the statute comport with due process. But the Court finds that both of the motions to dismiss must be denied. The text of the provision that creates extraterritorial jurisdiction—criminalizing an "act of distribution" that occurs on foreign soil, see 21 U.S.C. § 959(c) (2012)—and the structure of the statute as a whole reflect Congress's intention to reach possession with intent to distribute. Further, the commerce clause of the United States Constitution gave Congress the authority to enact section 959(b). Finally, defendants' due process arguments fail because an international treaty placed both on notice that the alleged conduct in this case could subject them to prosecution in a foreign state. The Court notes that its ruling on the due process question rests on its reading of United States v. Ali , 718 F.3d 929 (D.C.Cir.2013), and the existence of the treaty, and that the government has not pointed to any facts other than the registration of the airplane to justify the exercise of United States jurisdiction over these particular defendants. See Notice of Gov't's Position [Dkt. # 131] ("Gov't Notice") at 1.
The government alleges that the defendants "are members of a high-level drug transportation organization responsible for conspiring to transport on board aircraft registered in the United States multi-thousand kilogram quantities of cocaine." Status Report Regarding Gov't's Extradition Reqs. to Colombia [Dkt. # 22] ¶ 2. The government's evidence at trial will consist of "email communications obtained pursuant to federal search warrants in this investigation, lawful wiretaps in Colombia, information from confidential sources, consensually-recorded conversations, and documents and photographs provided to the Government by Bahamian, Haitian, and Colombian law enforcement authorities." Id. That evidence will allegedly show that "between May 2011 and December 2012, the Defendants and others arranged to transport between 2,400 and 4,500 kilograms of cocaine on-board the United States registered aircraft bearing tail number N157PA ... from the Colombia-Venezuela border to Honduras." Id.
The government has summarized defendants' roles in the alleged conspiracy as follows:
[F]rom on or about at least May 2011 to December 12, 2012, Defendants Thompson and Knowles, while based in Santa Marta, Colombia, entered into an agreement with various co-conspirators, to include, but not limited to, pilot Dario Davis and drug-trafficker Trevor Ferguson, both based in Nassau, Bahamas, to transport large quantities of cocaine. Defendant Thompson utilized his contacts in Colombia and Venezuela—to include cocaine brokers, investors, sources of supply, and members of drug trafficking organizations—to attempt to arrange various cocaine transportation transactions, including the transportation of large quantities of cocaine via boat, aircraft, and shipping containers in furtherance of this conspiracy. As part of this conspiracy, Defendants Thompson and Knowles worked together to attempt to utilize various aircraft to traffic cocaine, including U.S. registered and foreign registered aircraft, primarily located in the United States, the Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Belize. One aircraft, among others, that the Defendants conspired to use to traffic narcotics was a U.S. registered aircraft with tail number N157PA that was ultimately detained and seized in Haiti, resulting in the arrest of Dario Davis and Trevor Ferguson.
The defendants were indicted, under seal,2 on December 12, 2012, and charged with one count of conspiring, "in the Bahamas, Colombia, Haiti, Honduras, Venezuela, the Dominican Republic, and elsewhere ... to knowingly and intentionally, on board an aircraft registered in the United States or owned by a United States citizen, distribute, and possess with intent to distribute, five kilograms or more of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine," in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 959(b) (2012), 960(b)(1)(B), 963, and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Sealed Indictment [Dkt. # 3]. Defendant Thompson—a Jamaican citizen residing in Colombia—was extradited to the United States on or around March 28, 2014, see Arrest Warrant (Thompson) [Dkt. # 39], and defendant Knowles—a Bahamian citizen also residing in Colombia—was extradited on or around September 25, 2014. See Arrest Warrant (Knowles) [Dkt. # 49].
Defendant Thompson filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on February 12, 2016, Thompson Mot., and defendant Knowles filed a motion to dismiss the indictment on April 11, 2016. Knowles Mot. The government has opposed both motions. Opp. (Thompson); Opp. (Knowles). The Court held a hearing on the motions on May 19, 2016. Min. Entry (May 19, 2016).
Defendant Thompson initially challenged the indictment on due process grounds. He asserts that "under the circumstances, bringing Thompson before a court in the United States to answer charges of United States law violates the Due Process Clause," because he "could not have ‘reasonably anticipate[d]’ that his conduct could result in ‘being haled into court in this country.’ " Thompson Mot. at 1, 6, quoting Ali , 718 F.3d at 944. He maintains that there is "no nexus between his actions abroad and the United States," and he submits that the prosecution in the United States is unfair under the particular factual circumstances of the case:
[H]e is a Jamaican citizen residing in Colombia, not the United States. Prior to his extradition, he had neither entered the United States nor had any contact with the United States. None of the alleged criminal conduct occurred within the United States. None of the alleged communications occurred with anyone located in the United States. No financial assets were deposited into, withdrawn from, or interacted with the United States monetary system. No alleged coconspirators were recruited from, nor managed by, any person located in the United [S]tates. In fact, it appears that none of the conspiratorial conduct occurred within the United States.
Defendant Knowles raised three challenges to his prosecution in the United States. First, he argues that the indictment must be dismissed insofar as it alleges conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to distribute because while the substantive provision, 21 U.S.C. § 959(b) (2012), proscribes manufacture, distribution, and possession aboard an aircraft registered in the United States, the provision that provides for extraterritorial jurisdiction, 21 U.S.C. § 959(c) (2012), reaches only "acts of manufacture or distribution." Knowles Mot. at 3–7. Second, Knowles contends that section 959(b) is unconstitutional because Congress lacked the enumerated power to criminalize "drug trafficking on board a United States registered airplane without limitation." Id. at 7–10.3 Finally, Knowles asserts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Earl v. Boeing Co.
...(listing the NTSB's modern mission, among other aims, as part of Congress's goal "to foster air commerce"); United States v. Knowles , 197 F. Supp. 3d 143, 155–56 (D.D.C. 2016). Because Congress not only spoke directly to the precise issue currently before the Court but also acted on a matt......
-
Earl v. Boeing Co.
...(listing the NTSB's modern mission, among other aims, as part of Congress's goal "to foster air commerce"); United States v. Knowles, 197 F. Supp. 3d 143, 155-56 (D.D.C. 2016). Because Congress not only spoke directly to the precise issue currently before the Court but also acted on a matte......
-
United States v. Joseph Ricky Park
...must rightly presume that Congress acts consistent with its duty to uphold the Constitution."); see also United States v. Knowles , 197 F.Supp.3d 143, 152 (D.D.C. 2016) ("The Court must presume that a federal statute is constitutional."). Notwithstanding this presumption, Congress's power t......
-
United States v. Marv (In re Reed)
...v. United States, 286 U.S. 427, 434 (1932); Russell Motor Car Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 514, 521 (1923); United States v. Knowles, 197 F. Supp. 3d 143, 154 (D.D.C. 2016) (explaining that the Supreme Court "has indicated that the foreign commerce power is at least as broad as the power ......
-
Seeking Warrants for Unknown Locations: the Mismatch Between Digital Pegs and Territorial Holes
...engaging in foreign enterprises when they affect commerce involving the United States).123. See, e.g., United States v. Knowles, 197 F. Supp. 3d 143, 147, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (holding that a U.S. statute criminalized a Jamaican citizen's conspiracy to distribute narcotics using an aircraft......