United States v. Varlack Ventures, Inc.
| Decision Date | 20 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1996–229,1996–230.,s. 1996–229 |
| Citation | 37 V.I. 266 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. VARLACK VENTURES, INC. and Hubert Fredericks, Defendants. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Clifton Ashley Boynes, Sr. and Interisland Boat Services, Inc., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Virgin Islands |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Kim Chisolm, Stanley DeJongh, St. Thomas, VI, for plaintiff.
Samuel H. Hall, St. Thomas, VI, for defendants Clifton Ashley Boynes, Sr. and Interisland Boat Service.
Charles B. Herndon, St. Thomas, VI, for defendant Hubert Fredericks.
Alan D. Smith, St. Thomas, VI, for defendant Varlack Ventures, Inc.
I. FACTSA. United States v. Varlack Ventures, Inc. and Hubert Fredericks
On March 26, 1995, the St. Thomas Coast Guard Marine Safety Detachment Office [”MSD”] received a telephone call reporting an oil spill in Red Hook Harbor on the east end of the island. A commissioned officer in the United States Coast Guard [”USCG”] was dispatched. He arrived at Red Hook at 11:35 A.M., and met with an employee of a marina, who brought the officer to the dock and pointed out a sheen where the oil spill had occurred. The officer took a sample of the sheen.
The officer spoke with a person who had witnessed the spill and advised it was the M/V Venture Pride which had discharged the oil. The Venture Pride is a multipassenger vessel owned by Varlack Ventures, Inc. [”Varlack”], and is operated as a commercial ferry in the waters of the United States Virgin Islands and elsewhere under a certificate issued by the USCG. As the eye witness was giving a written statement, the Venture Pride returned and docked at the Red Hook ferry dock. The officer sketched the side of the Venture Pride and the witness noted on the diagram the opening from which the oil had been discharged.
The officer immediately boarded the Venture Pride and asked the crew to have the captain return to the ship. The Coast Guard officer was granted access to the engineroom, found oil in the bilge, and collected a sample. He then left the ship and proceeded in a dinghy with the first witness to take a sample from an overboard discharge fitting which had what looked like fresh oil on and around it. He also took photographs of the discharge fitting and the Venture Pride itself.
The officer re-boarded the vessel and spoke with Hubert Fredericks [[[”Fredericks”], the captain of the Venture Pride, with whom he was acuainted from previous USCG inspections. The officer handed Fredericks a letter of federal interest, which Fredericks signed. He also took statements from Fredericks about the incident, including statements that a spill may have occurred in Cruz Bay and that no reports had been made about any of the spills. On the spot, the officer revoked the Venture Pride's certificate of inspection, which effectively withdrew the ship's authority to carry passengers.
On March 27, 1995, the officer called Varlack Ventures and spoke with Captain Thomas [”Thomas”], told Thomas not to make any changes to the Venture Pride and advised Thomas that the Coast Guard would be photographing and collecting evidence on the Venture Pride on March 28, the next day. Having learned from Thomas where the Venture Pride was docked, the officer and a chief petty officer boarded the Venture Pride on March 28, 1995 and took video and still photos of the interior and the exterior of the ship.
An indictment was returned by the Grand Jury against Varlack Ventures and Hubert Fredericks for criminal violations of environmental statutes. Fredericks filed a motion to suppress (1) the statements made by him on March 26, as taken in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, (2) statements of other crew members on March 26, also taken in violation of Miranda, (3) water samples and photographic evidence taken on March 26 on Fourth Amendment 1 grounds, and (4) photographic and video evidence taken on March 28, also on Fourth Amendment grounds. A hearing on the motion to suppress was held on April 11, 1997, at the close of which the Court dictated findings into the record. The Court has done further research and wishes to memorialize its findings in writing. To the extent that the findings of the Court in this Opinion differ from those dictated into the record on April 11, the findings in this Opinion are controlling.
B. United States v. Clifton Ashley Boynes, Sr. and Interisland Boat Services
On February 1, 1995 at 6:00 A.M., Clifton Ashley Boynes, Sr. [”Boynes”], captain of the M/V Mona Queen and sole owner of Interisland Boat Services [[[”Interisland”], was at the Red Hook ferry dock preparing for his regular 6:30 A.M. trip to Caneel Bay. USCG officers present in Red Hook were seen and recognized by Boynes. Interisland operates an Interisland ferry service in the waters of the United States Virgin Islands and elsewhere under a USCG certificate of authority.
Boynes boarded passengers and began his first ferry run. As he moved away from the dock, he was alerted by passengers that Coast Guard officers were in a dinghy along the starboard side of the Mona Queen. The officers retrieved a sample of oil and water which was being pumped from the starboard side discharge port of the Mona Queen. Due to mechanical problems with the dinghy, the officers backed off and returned to Red Hook instead of pursuing the Mona Queen.
Upon return to Red Hook after his run across Pilsbury Sound to Caneel Bay, St. John, U.S.V.I., Boynes received a three-page fax from the Coast Guard directing him to report to the United States Coast Guard's Marine Safety Detachment Office [”MSD Office”] in Charlotte Amalie Harbor in St. Thomas at 1:00 P.M. that day for questioning. At 8:30 A.M., as Boynes continued to operate his ferry service and the Mona Queen, he encountered the officers at Red Hook, at which time they boarded and inspected the Mona Queen. They ascertained that a bilge pump was connected to the starboard discharge port from which the oil and water sample had been obtained earlier that morning. No water samples were taken of the bilge pump, however, because the officers did not have any clean sample jars with them. The Coast Guard revoked the Mona Queen's certificate of inspection and directed Boynes to have the boat repaired. They again ordered him to report to the MSD Office at 1:00 P.M. for questioning.
Boynes took the Mona Queen to a boat repair facility at Nanny Cay on Tortola, British Virgin Islands [”BVI”], for repairs, and then traveled to the MSD Office. In response to questioning by the Coast Guard, Boynes discussed the incident, gave a written statement and drew a diagram of the bilge system. When asked, Boynes stated that the Mona Queen had been taken to Tortola. The Coast Guard told him to cease all repairs and advised him that they would travel to Nanny Cay the next day to gather photographic and physical evidence. The next day, February 2, 1995, the Coast Guard went on board the Mona Queen at dry dock at Nanny Cay Marina. They took photographs and videos, made written notes and gathered samples from the bilge room. Neither Boynes nor anyone from Interisland Boat Services were present when the Coast Guard boarded the vessel in the British Virgin Islands.
The grand jury returned an indictment against Mr. Boynes and Interisland Boat Services. The defendants filed a joint motion to suppress Mr. Boynes' statements made at the MSD Office on February 1 because the USCG had violated his rights under Miranda, and to suppress all evidence and testimony resulting from the search of February 2, 1997, because the USCG violated the defendants' rights guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. The Court held a hearing on this motion on January 15, 1997, and the parties have filed supplemental briefs. Since this motion to suppress presents many issues similar to those in Criminal No.1996–229, both are addressed together in this Opinion.
II. DISCUSSIONA. Miranda Claims
Both Boynes and Fredericks have moved to suppress certain statements made to employees of the USCG due to alleged violations of the rule in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). Miranda comes into play only in the context of custodial interrogation. As long as a person is not in custody, as that term is defined by the cases, she may be questioned about a criminal matter without first being advised of her Miranda rights. Whether a defendant was in custody at the time of questioning is determined on a case-by-case basis. Patterson v. Cuyler, 729 F.2d 925, 930 (3d Cir.1984); United States v. Mesa, 638 F.2d 582, 584 (3d Cir.1980). Absent a formal arrest, a person is in ‘custody’ when the person's freedom of action has been restrained in some meaningful and significant manner. Yount v. Patton, 710 F.2d 956, 961 (3d Cir.1983) (), rev'd on other grounds,467 U.S. 1025, 104 S.Ct. 2885, 81 L.Ed.2d 847 (1984). The mere fact that a person is suspected by the police to have committed a crime does not automatically render any questioning ‘custodial interrogation’. Id. at 960 ().
The Court finds that the Coast Guard did not violate Miranda's strictures in their questioning of either Fredericks or Boynes. Fredericks was on the Venture Pride, and merely answered questions asked by the officers. At that stage, the USCG was engaged in a lawful administrative boarding and inspection authorized by 14 U.S.C. § 89(a), the scope of which will be discussed later. There is no evidence to even hint that Fredericks was restrained, coerced or even intimidated. He and the Coast Guard officer knew each other, and the Court finds that the questioning was not hostile or coercive in any way. The evidence presented is woefully insufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial