User:Rosiepether/sandbox

= Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act =

Lead Section
The Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA), implemented in 1986 by the United States, is a piece of legislation combatting the illegal drug trade. The act is notable for its extraterritorial jurisdiction and its lack of nexus requirement. Enacted through congress, the MDLEA establishes that it is illegal for anyone on board a vessel belonging to the United States or within their jurisdiction to deliberately produce or disseminate psychotropic substances. The MDLEA is notable as it provides that the United States jurisdiction reaches any vessel "registered in a foreign nation where the flag nation has consented or waived objection to the enforcement of the United States law by the United States." In recent years the MDLEA has been met with controversy as it permits the U.S. Coast Guard the authority to reach and imprison drug traffickers who are operating over international waters and foreign citizens who are not located on board the watercraft but are operating overseas as a conspirator.

History
The United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Dugs and Psychotropic Substances held in 1988 established how drug trafficking should be criminalised and presented comprehensive measures of international cooperation arguing that drug traffickers and any individual involved in the delivery and distribution of drugs be charged and extradited. The United States, in an effort to control these drug-related crimes, implemented a series of acts which focus on the reduction of both supply and demand. These acts have been accomplished through the creation of bilateral maritime agreements, allowing the United States to enforce U.S. law against vessels of foreign registry.

The predecessor to MDLEA, although intended to stop narcotic importation, failed in their lack of jurisdiction. In some cases allowed individuals to escape liability when found on the high seas with drugs by arguing that evidence of conspiracy could not be found. Additionally, in other cases individuals were able to escape liability by remaining in international waters and transferring drugs into small speed boats that were not as easy to catch. In 1986 the United States found it imperative to implement this legislation in an effort to overcome the problems of law enforcement and jurisdiction over international waters. Enacted within a larger body of legislation as part of the 1986 Anti-Drug Abuse, the act received bipartisan support.

Amendments
Since its enactment in 1986, the Act has been amended a number of times. The Act was first revised in 1996 to increase U.S. jurisdiction. A small provision was added to clarify jurisdiction and extraterritoriality.

The Act was further amended on October 3rd of 2008 to include what is now item 70508. The amendment included that the use of submersible and semi-submersible vessels without nationality be within U.S. jurisdiction. The amendment defined a 'semi-submersible' vessel as any kind of water vessel that is "capable of operating with most of its hull and bulk under the surface of the water" no matter whether the watercraft be manned or unmanned. The amendment defined a 'submersible' vessel as a watercraft able to operate "completely below the surface of the water", disregarding whether the vessel be manned or unmanned. In addition to these definitions the amendment stated that any person in violation of the act will be liable to a civil penalty of up to $1,000,000 paid to the United States.

The Act was amended for a third time on the 8th of February 2016 to include some minor changes surrounding the phrasing of different sections of the legislation. These amendments included striking "watch program" in the heading of 70122 and replacing it with "Watch Program" and inserting a period at the end of item 70508. Additionally, former item of 7053 was struck out and replaced with new item 7053 detailing "Manufacture, distribution, or possession of controlled substances on vessels."

United States v. Aragon
This case concerned a number of defendants who on April 14th of 2015 were found attempting to smuggle 550 kilograms of cocaine into the United States from Columbia and Ecuador. Daniel German Sanchez Alarcon, a Colombian drug trafficker, was one of the eight individuals responsible for this crime. Although not being present at the scene of the crime or being located within the United Sates itself during the time of the crime, Alarcon ended up being arrested and held within the United States prison. On the 5th of July 2017 Defendant Sanchez's motion to dismiss charges under the MDLEA was denied by the Southern District of New York for a lack of jurisdiction. The MDLEA which states that “[w]hile on board a covered vessel, an individual may not knowingly or intentionally. . . manufacture or distribute, or possess with intent to manufacture or distribute, a controlled substance”. However, Sanchez proposed that, although within the MDLEA conspirators can be prosecuted, that conspiracy provisions only reach individuals operating within the United States or on board the vessel.

United States v. Suerte
This case concerned Defendant Nestor Suerte, a Philippine citizen residing in Colombia who captained a Malta registered freight ship property of an infamous Venezuelan/Colombian drug trafficking ring. Suerte had coordinated the smuggling of 4900 kilograms of cocaine from Venezuela to be distributed in Europe. Suerte argued that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution requires a nexus between the charged individual and the United States, being connected either by being on the smuggling vessel, on international waters, in the United States or attempting to smuggle drugs into the United States. Suerte, who has never stepped foot within the United States, is not a United States citizen, was not on the vessel when it was seized and was attempting to smuggle drugs into Europe was charged even though he remained in Colombia the whole time was charged and convicted by the United States and imprisoned within the United States. Suerte's case is notable for analaysiing the constitutionality of the MDLEA, the MDLEA's relationship with international law and its jurisdictional and extraterritorial scope.

Controversy
The MDLEA has been scrutinised since its enactment in 1986 as many of the cases operating under the laws of the MDLEA have lacked consistency regarding the need of a nexus to the United States as a condition to the United States having proper jurisdiction.