Petitioner
United States
Respondent
Lee, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the Coast Guard's search and seizure of an American vessel on the high seas more that 12 miles from land and the subsequent arrest of persons on thevessel for violations of the Tariff Act and the National Prohibition Act waslawful.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
John G. Sargent, U.S. Attorney General
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
None
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis (writing for the Court), Pierce Butler, Oliver Wendell Holmes, James Clark McReynolds, Edward Terry Sanford, Harlan Fiske Stone, GeorgeSutherland, William Howard Taft, Willis Van Devanter
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
31 May 1927
Decision
The search and seizure of the vessel on the high seas and the arrest of persons on the vessel was lawful because probable cause existed to believe that revenue laws were being violated.
Significance
The ruling resolved the question of whether the U.S. Coast Guard could boardand search American vessels on the high seas and arrest persons on the vessels for violations of the Tariff Act of 1922 and the National Prohibition Act.The Court concluded that if probable cause existed to believe that the vesseland persons in it were violating U.S. revenue laws, the Coast Guard could seize, board, and search the vessel beyond the U.S. territorial waters and thehigh seas 12 miles outward from the coast. The case was also significant forits ruling that the Coast Guard's use of a searchlight to view the contents of the vessel on the high seas did not constitute a search and thus did not warrant Fourth Amendment protections. The ruling allowed the U.S government tointensify its effort to enforce prohibition by preventing the smuggling of liquor.
In the early twentieth century, individual states and the U.S. government made numerous attempts to control the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages by its citizens. The most ambitious and well-known attempt was the passagein 1919 of the Eighteenth Amendment, establishing nationwide prohibition. TheEighteenth Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes and authorized both Congress and the states to enact enforcing legislation. Congresssubsequently passed the National Prohibition Act to prevent the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage. The act made it unlawful to have or possess anyliquor intended for beverage use and provided that a person possessing suchliquor had no property rights to the liquor. The act also authorized issuanceof search warrants under which such liquor could be seized and destroyed. Asubsequent amendment to the act, the Stanley Amendment, allowed warrantless searches of automobiles or vehicles of transportation, as opposed to private dwellings, if the search was not malicious or without probable cause. The passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and the National Prohibition Act did not, however, stop commerce in liquor, but simply drove it underground.
In 1925, the U.S. Coast Guard seized, boarded, and searched a motorboat 24 miles off the coast of Massachusetts, and after finding cans of alcohol on theboat, arrested the persons on board for violation of the Tariff Act and the National Prohibition Act. Two of those arrested were convicted. One of the convicted respondents sued via a writ of error complaining that the seizure, boarding, and search of the motorboat on the high seas violated the Fourth Amendment, and, consequently, that the evidence found during the search--includingthe liquor--could not be used to convict him. The circuit court of appeals,with one judge dissenting, agreed with the respondents and vacated or cancelled the conviction. The circuit court held that the Coast Guard was not authorized to visit, search, and seize an American vessel on the high seas more than 12 miles from the coast. The circuit court also held that the failure of the government to ratify the seizure by instituting legal forfeiture proceedings against the boat and liquor rendered the seizure illegal, barring use in evidence of any knowledge gained as a result of the search. The United States petitioned for a writ of certiorari seeking review by the U.S. SupremeCourt, which the Supreme Court granted.
Search on High Seas Lawful
The Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Justice Brandeis, reversed the circuit court of appeals. In the Supreme Court, the government argued that theCoast Guard has authority to visit, search, and seize an American vessel onthe high seas beyond the 12-mile limit when probable cause exists that a U.S.law is being violated. The government also argued that the Coast Guard has authority to arrest persons on such vessels when reason exists to believe thata felony is being committed. The government argued further that, in this case, probable cause existed that the Tariff Act and National Prohibition Act were being violated, justifying the seizure of the boat and arrest of the respondents. Regarding the subsequent search of the boat, the government argued that any search made before the boat reached port was valid as an incident of alawful arrest. However, the government also claimed that the Coast Guard didnot search the boat.
The Supreme Court agreed with the government's contentions. Referring to itsholding in Maul v. United States (1927), decided on the same day, theCourt stated that Coast Guard officers are authorized by federal statute to seize on the high seas beyond the 12-mile limit any American vessel subject toforfeiture for violation of any law respecting the revenue. From that power,Justice Brandeis inferred that Coast Guard officers were also "authorized toboard and search such vessels when there is probable cause to believe them subject to seizure for violation of revenue laws, and to arrest persons thereon engaged in such violation." Justice Brandeis drew a distinction between authority based on probable cause and the "belligerent right to visit and searcheven without probable cause."
The Supreme Court found probable cause to believe that the revenue laws werebeing violated by the American vessel and the persons on it in such a manneras to render the vessel subject to forfeiture. Comparing the motorboat to anautomobile, the Court stated, "search and seizure of the vessel and arrest ofthe persons thereon, by the Coast Guard on the high seas, is lawful, as likesearch and seizure of an automobile and arrest of the persons therein, by prohibition officers on land is lawful." The Court also rejected the respondents' contention that the government's subsequent failure to institute proceedings for forfeiture of the motorboat and liquor rendered the seizure and the search illegal.
Was There a High Seas Search?
The Supreme Court further concluded that if the Coast Guard conducted a search of the vessel on the high seas, the search was constitutional because it was an incident of a lawful arrest. However, the Court agreed with the government's contention that the evidence did not establish that the Coast Guard had,in fact, conducted a `search' on the high seas that would trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The Coast Guard boatswain testified that he used a searchlight to view the motorboat and no testimony was given that exploration below decks or under hatches took place. It appeared to the Court thatthe cases of liquor may have been on deck and may have been discovered when the boatswain shone the searchlight on the motorboat before it was boarded. The Court stated, "[s]uch use of a searchlight is comparable to the use of a marine glass or a field glass. It is not prohibited by the Constitution."
Impact
The Court's ruling in this case and in Maul v. United States, legalized expansion of the U.S. Coast Guard's jurisdiction to enforce the Tariff Actand the National Prohibition Act beyond the territorial waters and the high seas 12 miles outward from the coast. The ruling reflected the government's efforts to intensify the pressure against "rum-runners" who circumvented the prohibition laws by smuggling liquor into and out of the United States. Despitethe broad powers given the government, prohibition was ultimately unsuccessful. In 1933, ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment and rendered the National Prohibition Act inoperative. Other courts subsequently agreed that the use of artificial means to illuminate a darkened area does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The rulinghas also been used to support the proposition that an arresting officer maylook around at the time of the arrest and seize evidence of crime or contraband articles that are in plain sight and in his immediate and discernible presence. This proposition is the basis for what is commonly known as the "plainview" exception to the general requirement of a valid search warrant to legitimize a search or seizure.
Related Cases
United States
Respondent
Lee, et al.
Petitioner's Claim
That the Coast Guard's search and seizure of an American vessel on the high seas more that 12 miles from land and the subsequent arrest of persons on thevessel for violations of the Tariff Act and the National Prohibition Act waslawful.
Chief Lawyer for Petitioner
John G. Sargent, U.S. Attorney General
Chief Lawyer for Respondent
None
Justices for the Court
Louis D. Brandeis (writing for the Court), Pierce Butler, Oliver Wendell Holmes, James Clark McReynolds, Edward Terry Sanford, Harlan Fiske Stone, GeorgeSutherland, William Howard Taft, Willis Van Devanter
Justices Dissenting
None
Place
Washington, D.C.
Date of Decision
31 May 1927
Decision
The search and seizure of the vessel on the high seas and the arrest of persons on the vessel was lawful because probable cause existed to believe that revenue laws were being violated.
Significance
The ruling resolved the question of whether the U.S. Coast Guard could boardand search American vessels on the high seas and arrest persons on the vessels for violations of the Tariff Act of 1922 and the National Prohibition Act.The Court concluded that if probable cause existed to believe that the vesseland persons in it were violating U.S. revenue laws, the Coast Guard could seize, board, and search the vessel beyond the U.S. territorial waters and thehigh seas 12 miles outward from the coast. The case was also significant forits ruling that the Coast Guard's use of a searchlight to view the contents of the vessel on the high seas did not constitute a search and thus did not warrant Fourth Amendment protections. The ruling allowed the U.S government tointensify its effort to enforce prohibition by preventing the smuggling of liquor.
In the early twentieth century, individual states and the U.S. government made numerous attempts to control the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages by its citizens. The most ambitious and well-known attempt was the passagein 1919 of the Eighteenth Amendment, establishing nationwide prohibition. TheEighteenth Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, transportation, importation, and exportation of intoxicating liquors for beverage purposes and authorized both Congress and the states to enact enforcing legislation. Congresssubsequently passed the National Prohibition Act to prevent the use of intoxicating liquor as a beverage. The act made it unlawful to have or possess anyliquor intended for beverage use and provided that a person possessing suchliquor had no property rights to the liquor. The act also authorized issuanceof search warrants under which such liquor could be seized and destroyed. Asubsequent amendment to the act, the Stanley Amendment, allowed warrantless searches of automobiles or vehicles of transportation, as opposed to private dwellings, if the search was not malicious or without probable cause. The passage of the Eighteenth Amendment and the National Prohibition Act did not, however, stop commerce in liquor, but simply drove it underground.
In 1925, the U.S. Coast Guard seized, boarded, and searched a motorboat 24 miles off the coast of Massachusetts, and after finding cans of alcohol on theboat, arrested the persons on board for violation of the Tariff Act and the National Prohibition Act. Two of those arrested were convicted. One of the convicted respondents sued via a writ of error complaining that the seizure, boarding, and search of the motorboat on the high seas violated the Fourth Amendment, and, consequently, that the evidence found during the search--includingthe liquor--could not be used to convict him. The circuit court of appeals,with one judge dissenting, agreed with the respondents and vacated or cancelled the conviction. The circuit court held that the Coast Guard was not authorized to visit, search, and seize an American vessel on the high seas more than 12 miles from the coast. The circuit court also held that the failure of the government to ratify the seizure by instituting legal forfeiture proceedings against the boat and liquor rendered the seizure illegal, barring use in evidence of any knowledge gained as a result of the search. The United States petitioned for a writ of certiorari seeking review by the U.S. SupremeCourt, which the Supreme Court granted.
Search on High Seas Lawful
The Supreme Court, in a decision authored by Justice Brandeis, reversed the circuit court of appeals. In the Supreme Court, the government argued that theCoast Guard has authority to visit, search, and seize an American vessel onthe high seas beyond the 12-mile limit when probable cause exists that a U.S.law is being violated. The government also argued that the Coast Guard has authority to arrest persons on such vessels when reason exists to believe thata felony is being committed. The government argued further that, in this case, probable cause existed that the Tariff Act and National Prohibition Act were being violated, justifying the seizure of the boat and arrest of the respondents. Regarding the subsequent search of the boat, the government argued that any search made before the boat reached port was valid as an incident of alawful arrest. However, the government also claimed that the Coast Guard didnot search the boat.
The Supreme Court agreed with the government's contentions. Referring to itsholding in Maul v. United States (1927), decided on the same day, theCourt stated that Coast Guard officers are authorized by federal statute to seize on the high seas beyond the 12-mile limit any American vessel subject toforfeiture for violation of any law respecting the revenue. From that power,Justice Brandeis inferred that Coast Guard officers were also "authorized toboard and search such vessels when there is probable cause to believe them subject to seizure for violation of revenue laws, and to arrest persons thereon engaged in such violation." Justice Brandeis drew a distinction between authority based on probable cause and the "belligerent right to visit and searcheven without probable cause."
The Supreme Court found probable cause to believe that the revenue laws werebeing violated by the American vessel and the persons on it in such a manneras to render the vessel subject to forfeiture. Comparing the motorboat to anautomobile, the Court stated, "search and seizure of the vessel and arrest ofthe persons thereon, by the Coast Guard on the high seas, is lawful, as likesearch and seizure of an automobile and arrest of the persons therein, by prohibition officers on land is lawful." The Court also rejected the respondents' contention that the government's subsequent failure to institute proceedings for forfeiture of the motorboat and liquor rendered the seizure and the search illegal.
Was There a High Seas Search?
The Supreme Court further concluded that if the Coast Guard conducted a search of the vessel on the high seas, the search was constitutional because it was an incident of a lawful arrest. However, the Court agreed with the government's contention that the evidence did not establish that the Coast Guard had,in fact, conducted a `search' on the high seas that would trigger the protections of the Fourth Amendment. The Coast Guard boatswain testified that he used a searchlight to view the motorboat and no testimony was given that exploration below decks or under hatches took place. It appeared to the Court thatthe cases of liquor may have been on deck and may have been discovered when the boatswain shone the searchlight on the motorboat before it was boarded. The Court stated, "[s]uch use of a searchlight is comparable to the use of a marine glass or a field glass. It is not prohibited by the Constitution."
Impact
The Court's ruling in this case and in Maul v. United States, legalized expansion of the U.S. Coast Guard's jurisdiction to enforce the Tariff Actand the National Prohibition Act beyond the territorial waters and the high seas 12 miles outward from the coast. The ruling reflected the government's efforts to intensify the pressure against "rum-runners" who circumvented the prohibition laws by smuggling liquor into and out of the United States. Despitethe broad powers given the government, prohibition was ultimately unsuccessful. In 1933, ratification of the Twenty-first Amendment repealed the Eighteenth Amendment and rendered the National Prohibition Act inoperative. Other courts subsequently agreed that the use of artificial means to illuminate a darkened area does not constitute a search under the Fourth Amendment. The rulinghas also been used to support the proposition that an arresting officer maylook around at the time of the arrest and seize evidence of crime or contraband articles that are in plain sight and in his immediate and discernible presence. This proposition is the basis for what is commonly known as the "plainview" exception to the general requirement of a valid search warrant to legitimize a search or seizure.
Related Cases
- Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. 146 (1919).
- Rhode Island v. Palmer, 253 U.S. 350 (1920).
- Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921).
- Maul v. United States, 274 U.S. 501 (1927).
- United States v. Chambers, 291 U.S. 217 (1934).
- United States v. Frankfort Distilleries, 324 U.S. 293 (1945).
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
- Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 (1983).
- United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987).
User Comments Add a comment…