The defendants were indicted on an attempt to import cocaine into the United States. On 8 September 2020, a United States Coast Guard (USCG) Law Enforcement Team conducted drug-trafficking surveillance in the Caribbean Sea on the Dutch naval ship HNLMS Groningen. A Dutch maritime patrol aircraft observed a go-fast vessel approximately 47 nm north of La Guajira, Venezuela. This vessel displayed no indicia of nationality.

The USCG apprehended the defendants and a minor on board the go-fast vessel. The defendants claimed to be citizens of the Dominican Republic. The USCG recovered approximately 390 brick-shaped packages, containing 454.8 kg of cocaine.

The USCG subsequently contacted the Dominican Republic, requesting that it verify the defendants' claim of vessel registration. The Dominican Republic responded that it 'could not confirm or deny registration of vessel', prompting the USCG to detain the defendants.

The defendants contended, among other things, that the Court lacked jurisdiction because US law enforcement agents apprehended them within Venezuela's exclusive economic zone (EEZ).

Held: The defendants' motion to dismiss the indictment is denied.

Pursuant to art 55 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 'exclusive economic zone is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea'. This zone extends 200 nautical miles from land. The defendants maintain that Venezuela's EEZ 'does not correspond to the "high seas"'. Because the Constitution cannot substantiate a criminal prosecution for acts committed within a foreign State's EEZ, the defendants argue, the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA) 46 USC §§ 70502(c)(1) ff is unconstitutional as applied to them. This argument is unavailing.

The term 'high seas' includes Venezuela's EEZ. See United States v Matos-Luchi 627 F 3d 1, 2 n 1 (1st Cir 2010) holding that the Dominican Republic's EEZ is 'considered the "high seas" for purposes of the Coast Guard's enforcement jurisdiction", affirming the defendant's MDLEA conviction; United States v Beyle 782 F 3d 159, 167 (4th Cir 2015) (CMI462) holding that a nation's EEZ is 'merely part of the high seas'; United States v Iona De Jesús, Case No 22-20473, 2023 WL 3980082 *3, 2023 US Dist LEXIS 103411 *7-8 (SD Fla, 4 May 2023): 'A vessel outside the recognized 12-mile limit of a nation's territorial seas is a "vessel located within international waters" subject to the United States' jurisdiction under the MDLEA'; United States v Berroa, Case No 21-20359, 2022 WL 1166535 *4, 2022 US Dist LEXIS 72670 *9 (SD Fla, 20 Apr 2022): '[A] nation's exclusive economic zone does not constitute territorial waters but rather remains part of the high seas. Therefore, the Court finds the MDLEA constitutional as applied in this case.' The defendants' EEZ argument has no merit.