<<

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov.

'\ '". \ \ .

" ..... ~;

...... : ,\,.. ")\'1:1 -......

A '~ U.S, Department of ,)ustic(l Nalionallnslilule of Justice -- nilS duel,!,,&nt lidS bepn replOdlJced eAilGUy as rel81ved from tile pers()n O! c'rgdr:lzatlun Oflglniltlr1g It P,)lflts of view or oplfllons stated In lt1!~ dOCUn1wll die ttlOse of H,e a~thors and do not nrocessanly :.,' ,d. represent the off!clal Pllsltlon or pollLies 0' the ~,atlondl In~'tltLJte of .Justice.

Pt::I"r11I':-- m tu 1~'"'~rodUl.£~ ttmJ UJpyrrgtltet1 materldi tldS th'fm g!antelll'y FBI Law Enforcef.1ent Bulletin

, 'r,: .I' .tll" I (,I~ (~:tlt; d 1i 'I i.t., lH~·; ". ~ tt:'111 fl-.lq,.ill t.:~ pr~rr. I ~ I~),;nqt~[ G:, r'I(":r

!P[ftQ)fiIlJ~~ffftiJf!J)

...~~"~~' .. :." ... , 7" -'''.'~ I F / March 1992 lJ5W1J Volume 61 Bulletin Number 3

Features

Air Passenger Processing 1 By Stephan M. Garich A Name is Just a Name-Or Is It? \ 3 ~ ~ ~ 4 By J. Philip Boller, Jr. A Guide to Chinese Names \.3 ~3i 10 By C. Fredric Anderson and Henriette Liu Levy Page 4 Recruits 13 t-H~ ~ . ~~ 19 By Gary M. Post • Transnational ~.:B 9-\-'19'!3 M CJ ~ Sl 26 By Austin A. Andersen MAR" ~ f ' ' ~ CQ U R~ nT ~'b\~ '$ ,,:-.~

9 Bulletin Reports 18 Book Review

16 Point ofView 24 Police Practices By Glenda' E. Mercer

Page 26

'. unlteds"lI08pa~~"tO."~.tl~ ·Edltpl'-Dr.$teRhenD. GJ~dis Federal B~ ....u of Inv8.tl~tlon· . . Af.nlJglngEdltor~KathrynE. SuleWs\lication oUhis periodicali$.necessarY· PennsyivaniaAvenu~,N~W.,Wa$hington,.·· inthetr~n$8ctlonofthepUbl/c.busines$.· .. ' . D.C.2053S •. Second-Class postagsl?aid at 0' req.·... u.i.red...... b.Ylll.W.·o .. f.th~.Dep. art. me. ot O.f. JUstl.c.e. Washingtor.,D~C •• and additional mallln~ '.' Use.of funds fpr printing this p~riod.ical has offices;Postmari!t~r; send address changes b~en approv~ bythepirector of, th&'· Office .to FBlLawiEnforceinentBulletin, .Federal . of M~nageme!)t a.nd J3udget. .. .'. . , .. ~~~~. of Investigation,Washlngton, D.C.

ISSN 0014-5688 USPS 383-310

1 .... ------.I TransnanonalCritnes A Global Approach By AUSTIN A. ANDERSEN

n estimated $50 billion-a­ year cocaine industry A flourishes in the United States because drug cartels control a transnational criminal mosaic. This mosaic consists of coca plant culti­ vation sites in Peru and Bolivia; processing laboratories for the coca leaves in Colombia, Brazil, and Ar­ gentina; importation networks that ship the drug into the United States; and money laundering channels that direct cashflow into "legitimate" in­ vestments all over the world.' Glob­ al conglomerates dealing in illicit activities survive and flourish be­ cause unilateral enforcement efforts by a single country generally dis­ able only small segments of such operations. Unlike criminal investigations enforce­ of the United coordinated within the jurisdiction ment offi­ States that af­ of a particular country, the interna­ cers in one fect the global tionallaw enforcement community country to in­ approach to transna­ faces two formidable obstacles vestigate and ...... --- .....~tional . Of particular interest when developing prosecutable prosecute criminal activities that are the following developments: In­ cases against criminal enterprises extend into another. creased attention by the U.S. judi­ with tentacles that extend through­ Because of the enormous dam­ cial system to the application of out the world. First, ad­ age caused by international crime constitutional standards to evidence missible in one country may be sup­ cartels, however, legal systems from foreign sources, the passage of pressed in another with more throughout the world are changing statl~tes that provide U.S. courts restrictive procedural standards. to facilitate the international efforts with jurisdiction to try crimes that Second, the doctrine of sovereignty, of police agencies. This article pro­ . occur beyond U.S. boundaries, and or self-government within national vides an overview of recent changes treaties that clarify the ability of boundaries, limits the ability of law in the caselaw, statutes, and treaties some police agencies to assist their

26/ FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin ------foreign counterparts in investiga­ quired by foreign police for their tions, searches, and seizures. own purposes is admissible in U.S. courts, despite the fact that such APPLYING THE BILL OF evidence, if seized in the same man­ RIGHTS TO FOREIGN ner by American police, would be INVESTIGATIONS excluded as violative of the fourth amendment.7 Searches and Seizures This rule applies even when the The fourth amendment of the evidence is seized from American U.S. requires law en­ citizens.8 An exception to this rule, forcement officers in the United though infrequently applied, occurs States to conduct searches and sei­ when the behavior of the investigat­ zures in a "reasonable"2 manner. ing officers is so inhumane or outra­ The U.S. Supreme Court has held geous that a court, .e~e:~ising its Andersen is Chief of the that as a general rule, a reasonable supervisory responSIbIlIties, sup­ Legal Research Unit, Legal Counsel search is one conducted with a presses evidence obtained pursuant Division, at FBI Headquarters. requiring ajudicially to the offending action.9 approved showing of probable Another exception to the gen­ cause and limitations on the scope eral rule of admissibility of evi­ of the search.3 In addition, the Court dence located by foreign police oc­ border. The next day, the Director of recognized a number of exceptions curs when there is substantial the MFJP, at the request of DBA to the warrant requirement as rea­ participation in the search by U.S. agents, authorized a warrantless sonable, namely, emergency law enforcement agents, thereby search of Verdugo's two residences searches, searches based on consent, converting the investigation into a in Mexico. During the searches, the , and joint venture implicating the fourth conducted by both MFJP officers search incident to .4 amendment and the exclusionary and DBA agents, one of the DBA agents found and seized documents As a deterrent to unreasonable rule. JO Recently, however, the Su­ searches by police officers, the preme Court limited this exception allegedly reflecting the volume of Court adopted the exclusionary by determining that the fourth marijuana smuggled into the United rule, which requires the suppres~ion amendment does not apply to the States by Verdugo's organization. of evidence derived from investIga­ by U.S. authori­ Because the searches, which tions that violate the Constitution.5 ties of owned by a nonresi­ were unrelated to any contemplated Because police in foreign countries dent alien and located in a foreign Mexican prosecution, were initiated are generally unaware of the proce­ country. and participated in by DBA agents dural standards of the American ju­ In United States v. Verdugo­ (who also took custody of the evi­ dence), the lower COutts found that dicial system, the danger exists that Urquidez, II Verdugo-Urquidez, a under certain circumstances, evi­ Mexican national suspected of the the participation of the DBA agents dence collected by foreign police torture-murder of an undercover was substantial enough to make the will be suppressed in this country. DBA agent, became a fugitive after searches joint ventures subject to the strictures of the fourth amend­ In many instances, however, the being charged by the DBA with ~ does not apply to merous drug violations in ftr"e ment. Holding that a warrant was searches and seizures conducted in United States. Based on the out­ required to ensure reasonableness in foreign countries. Because the Bill standing American warrant, the search of the Mexican premises of Rights has been interpreted as Verdugo-Urquidez was atTested in of Verdugo-Urdquidez, the lower applying only to the actions of the Mexico by the Mexican Federal Ju­ courts suppressed the evidence. U.S. Government and its employ­ dicial Police (MFJP) and remanded The Supreme Court reversed, ees,6 evidence independently ac- to U.S. marshals at the California and in a plurality opinion, con-

March 1992 / 27 cluded that the use of the words "the gal alien voluntarily enters the ings in accordance with Miranda v. people" in the fourth amendment United States and "accepts some Arizona. 19 was intended as a term of art refer­ societal obligations,"17 fourth Several years ago, the Supreme ring to a class of persons who are amendment protections extend to Court rejected the claim that aliens part of a national community or who criminal prosecutions. are entitled to fifth amendment pro­ have otherwise developed sufficient At the same time, Verdugo­ tections outside the United States.20 connection with the United States to Urdquidez does not alter the ap­ The Court in Verdugo-Urquidez, be considered part of that commu­ plicability of fourth amend­ however, observes that the "privi­ nity.l2 Therefore, the Court rea­ ment protections for U.S. lege against self-incrimination soned that the protections of the citizens in foreign countries guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment fourth amendment were not in­ with respect to searches and sei­ is a fundamental trial right of crimi­ tended by the framers of the Consti­ ____ zures by U.S. officials. nal defendants"21 as opposed to a tution to apply to US. Gov­ The US. Government, fourth amendment violation that is ernment action against whether it acts at " 'fully accomplished' at the time of foreign nationals on for­ home or abroad, is the unreasonable intrusion."22 eign soil. l3 subject to the limita­ A lower Federal court has taken It is important to tions placed on its this reasoning a step further: note, however, that the power by the "[I]t is not until the statement Verdugo-Urquidez de­ Bill of Rights as is received in evidence that the cision does not ad­ far as its rela­ violation of the Fifth Amend­ dress the fourth tionship with ment becomes complete. For amendment rights its own citi­ this reason we believe that if of foreign nation­ zens is con- the statement is not voluntarily 18 als or aliens sub­ cerned. There­ given-whether given to a ject to search fore, U.S. agents, who United States or foreign and seizure by participate to a substantial officer-the defendant has law enforcement degree in a search or seizure been compelled to be a witness officials within the of a U.S. citizen with foreign police against himself when the United States. In general, after an in a foreign country, must comply statement is admitted."23 alien lawfully enters and resides in with the U.S. Constitution or risk Foreign officials certainly cannot be the United States, "he becomes in­ exclusion of any evidence obtained required to adopt the criminal proce­ vested with the rights guaranteed by thereby in American courts. dure of the United States during the the Constitution to all people within Interrogation questioning of . However, ... the borders [of the United in the absence of succinct judicial States]."14 The Supreme Court has not guidance concerning the extraterri­ The fourth amendment applica­ clearly addressed the issue of torial application of the Bill of tion to illegal aliens is less clear. whether US. officials interrogating Rights during interrogations con­ While illegal aliens are protected by foreign nationals outside the United ducted by US. officials abroad, it the Equal Protection Clause of the States must comply with the U.S. would seem prudent to consider the U.S. Constitution,15 neither the Constitution's fifth amendment protection against self-incrimina­ fourth amendment nor the exclu­ protection against self-incrimina­ tion as a necessary constitutional sionary rule apply in a civil deporta­ tion. This protection requires that all l6 principle whenever confessions in­ tion hearing. However, without confessions must be voluntary and tended for prosecutions in the deciding the issue, the Supreme that custodial interrogations must United States are sought. Court has implied that once an iUe- be preceded by constitutional warn-

28/ FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin ------__ u.s. STATUTES THAT person who violates this or the hostage taker is a U.S. PROVIDE section shall be tried in the national (§ 1203); terrorist acts EXTRATERRITORIAL United States district court at against U.S. nationals (§2331). JURISDICTION the point of entry where such • Federal conspiracy statutes 24 The traditional limitations on person enters the United may often allow prosecution of a sovereign state to assign criminal States, or in the United States foreign nationals who have liability to conduct committed out­ District Court for the District engaged in a conspiracy side its territorial jurisdiction has of Columbia." outside the United StatesY undergone dramatic changes in the One of the best methods of com- United States. In his dissenting bating large-scale international opinion to Verdugo, Justice crime, however, is through the sei­ Brennan cautioned that "[f]oreign zure and forfeiture of assets associ­ nationals must now take care not to In many instances... the ated with illegal activity. Among violate our drug laws, our anti­ "exclusionary rule does the most effecti ve statutes providing trust laws, our securities laws, and a for the forfeiture of assets in the host of other federal criminal not apply to searches and seizures United States are those associated statutes ...." 25 with drug violations28 and money Congress enhanced the exl:rater­ conducted in foreign laundering.29 ritorial subject matter jurisdiction of countries. Although the U.S. Government U.S. courts through the passage of a 26 cannot lawfully seize assets located wide variety of statutes. The fol­ within the territorial borders of lowing are among those that appear " other countries, foreign criminals most useful to the international law • Title 18 of the U.S. Code often attempt to hide illegally enforcement community: provides American courts with gain~d profits from the authorities • Subchapter II, entitled "Import jurisdiction to try cases of their countries by transferring and Export," of the Controlled involving several types of funds to the United States. To attack Substances Act (Title 21, U.S. violent acts occurring outside this problem, Congress enacted 18 Code) regulates the methods the United States. This U.S.C. §981(a)(l)(B), which per­ by which controlled sub­ provision covers crimes falling mits the forfeiture of assets located stances enter and leave the within the special maritime inside the United States that are de­ United States. Of particular and telTitorial jurisdiction of rived from drug trafficking abroad. interest is §959, which is the United States, including This section does not require a intended to permit extraterrito­ any place "outside the jurisdic­ violation of U.S. law and permits rial application of laws pro­ tion of any nation with respect the civil fOlfeiture of any property, scribing the distribution or to an offense by or against a real or personal, within the jurisdic­ manufacture of controlled national of the United States." tion of the United States. The prop- substances outside the United (§7[7]); crimes aboard aircraft . erty forfeited must be derived from States intended for importation (§32); murder or attempted or traceable to any proceeds ob­ to the United States. Section murder of certain Federal tained directly or indirectly from an 959(b) reaches any person employees (§ 1114); kidnaping offense against a foreign nation in­ aboard an American aircraft of certain Federal employees volving the manufacture, importa­ anywhere in the world who or "internationally protected" tion, sale, or distribution of a con­ possesses a controlled sub­ persons (§1201); hostage trolled substance for which the stance with intent to distribute. taking outside the United offense is punishable by death or According to the statute, "any States when either the hostage imprisonment exceeding 1 year.

March 1992 / 29 In an effort to encourage inter­ cilitate international cooperation by subpoena or court order cannot national cooperation, Congress en­ requesting certain types of assist­ usually be obtained through acted several Federal statutes that ance from foreign authorities, as interagency liaison. permit the sharing of the proceeds of well as accommodating requests for U.S. forfeiture actions with coun­ investigation in the United States by Formal Channels of Assistance tries that facilitate the seizure of Federal agencies,3l Assistance to foreign countries those assets under U.S. law.30 The Examples of frequently re­ that requires compulsory measures sharing process requires recognition quested assistance coordinated or intervention by the judiciary will by the Federal prosecutor and inves­ through Legats32 are name checks in necessitate the use of formal chan­ tigative agency that the foreign investigative files, name and finger­ nels of legal assistance-letters country's involvement was of mate­ print searches in the files of the rogatory, requests under treaties, rial assistance. The Asset Forfeiture FBI's Identification Division, inter­ and requests for compliance under Office and the Office of Interna­ views with witnesses, and determi­ specific executive agreements. Ex­ tional Affairs, U.S. Department of nation of the location of suspects or amples of assistance requiring for­ Justice, coordinate international assets. Informal requests for assist­ mal requests are the transmittal of forfei ture-sharing agreements, ance have the advantage of being certain types of business docu­ which require approval by the U.S. more expeditious and flexible than ments, such as bank or telephone Attorney General and the Depart­ formal channels, but they have im­ records; executing a search or arrest ment of State. portant limitatations. warrant; freezing assets; and com­ For instance, matters occurring pelling testimony. INTERNATIONAL before the grandjury, because of the Letters rogatory35 are written COOPERATION secret nature of Federal requests to the judiciary of another The doctrine of sovereignty proceedings,33 and interceptions of country for the performance of offi­ generally prevents police officers cial acts. Such requests not only of one country from conducting in­ involve the cooperation of judges or vestigations in another. In fact, un­ magistrates but also require ap­ authorized overseas investigations proval by the Office ofInternational can result in denial of access to the Affairs at the U.S. Department of evidence, diplomatic protest, or "Congress enhanced Justice and the Department of State, even the arrest of the visiting agent. the extraterritorial as well as their foreign counterparts. Fortunately, a number of formal and subject matter Because a letter rogatory involves informal methods have been devel­ jurisdiction of U.S. diplomatic channels, the procedure oped for criminal investigators to courts through the often results in a slower response obtain assistance from their col­ than desired by police agencies con­ leagues in other countries. passage of a wide ducting criminal investigations. variety of statutes. Fortunately, a number of coun­ Informal Assistance tries have entered into treaties or Many Federal agencies have executive agreements with the representatives-FBI legal attaches United States for the purpose of de­ (Legats) and DEA country attaches, wire, oral, and electronic communi­" fining and expediting the obligation for instance-stationed in Ameri­ cations under the provisions of the to provide reciprocating assistance. can embassies abroad for the pur­ Electronic Communications Pri­ Perhaps the most promising of these pose of maintaining liaison with for­ vacy Act34 cannot be furnished to agreements are mutual legal assist­ eign police. While such personnel foreign police without a court order. ance treaties (MLATs),36 which per­ have no investigative jurisdiction in As a general rule, testimony or evi­ mit prosecutors to expedite interna­ their host countries, they often fa- dence that must be compelled by tional cooperation by eliminating ,

many of the time-consuming diplo­ dition by unilateral actions, such as it is likely that courts will refuse to matic requirements of letters ruses to lure the fugitive to the pros­ admit statements that were involun­ rogatory. ecuting country or arranging for the tarily made, whether by a U.S. citi­ Another important step toward deportation of the either to zen or foreign national. reconciling the diversity of legal the United States or to a country A wide range of statutes now systems of the international com­ from which is more provide U.S. courts with juris­ munity was the United Nations feasible. diction over illegal activities that Convention Against the Illicit Traf­ More drastic measures, how­ take place outside U.S. borders fic in Narcotic Drugs and Psycho­ ever, may backfire. Some Federal and territories. U.S. courts can try tropic Substances, or the "Vienna courts41 recently decided that they these cases, however, Convention," in which 40 signatory lacked jurisdiction to try only when there is per­ countries agreed to adopt an interna­ individuals abducted from sonal jurisdiction of the tional stance with respect to drug Mexico by U.S. authori­ defendant, that is, trafficking, money laundering, and ties in violation of the ex­ when the defendant is forfeiture. In addition, several ex­ tradition treaty in force physically present in ecutive agreements covering between the United the courtroom. In ground rules for multinational drug States and Mexico.42 the event the de­ forfeitures and asset sharing have fendant must be been established to promote effec­ CONCLUSION brought to trial tive law enforcement by the United The urgency in the United States in conjunction with specific to respond to States from an- countries.37 transnational other country, the crime has cre­ international law enforce­ ated pressure to ment community must seek The removal of a person from balance the doc­ mutually acceptable means one country to another for trial or trine of sovereignty for securing the rendition of the de­ punishment is governed by treaty with the need for the international fendant to the forum of prosecution. and usually requires formal process­ law enforcement community to in­ ing through diplomatic channels. teract and cooperate. However, it is E For a number of reasons, many in­ important to plan the international Footnotes ternational fugitives avoid extradi­ approach to global criminal activity 1 Oakley Ray and Charles Ksir, Drugs, tion. The United States, for in­ very carefully. Society, & Human Behavior (St. Louis, stance, lacks extradition treaties One of the first considerations Missouri: College Publishing, 1990), p. 83. with about one-third of the nations should be the admissibility of evi­ 2 U.S. Const. amend. IV reads: "The right of of the world.38 Procedures for extra­ dence in the forum of prosecution. the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable dition are complex, vary from coun­ The fourth amendmen't is not impli­ searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and try to country, and are subject to a cated during searches and seizures no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable number of defenses.39 Additionally, by foreign officers actine 'ldepend­ cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and in the event that the fugitive is at ently with respect to U.S. citizens or particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." large during the time-consuming foreign nationals. However, when 3 Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967). negotiations for extradition, it will U.S. authorities are invited to par­ 4 Id. at pp. 557-8; see also Califomia v. become necessary to request a pro­ ticipate in searches and seizures Acevedo, III S,Ct. 1982 (1991), J, Scalia, visional in order to abroad, the fourth amendment will concurring, for a comprehensive list of exceptions to the warrant requirement currently secure the suspect until rendition is apply to U.S. citizens (and possibly recognized by the Supreme Court. 40 accomplished. others who have a significant rela­ 5 Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 Occasionally, efforts are made tionship to the United States), but (I 914)(establishes the exclusionary rule in to circumvent obstacles to extra- not to foreign nationals. In addition, Federal courts); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (l96 l)(extends the rule to State courts).

March 1992/31 6 Burdeau v. McDowell, 256 U.S. 465 22 Verdugo-Urquidez, id., quoting from rogatory or request) and 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (1921). See Andersen, "The Admissibility of United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338 (1974). (assistance to foreign and international tribunals Evidence Located in Searches by Private 2.1 Brulay v. United States, 383 F.2d 345 (9th and to litigants before such tribunals). Persons," FBI Law Enjorcement Bulletin, April Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 986 (1967). See 36 The United States has mutual legal 1989, pp. 25-29 and May 1989, pp. 26-31; and also, United States v. Yunis, 859 F.2d 953 assistance treaties with Anguilla, the Bahamas, Andersen, "Foreign Searches and the Fourth (D.C.Cir. 1988). the British Virgin Islands, Canada, the Cayman Amendment," FBI Law Enjorcemelll Bulletin, 24 The recognized sources under interna­ Islands, Italy, Mexico, Montserrat, the February 1990, pp. 23-29. tional law for criminal statutes that affect the Netherlands, Switzerland, Turkey, and the 7 See, e.g., United States v. Mount, 757 F.2d world community have traditionally been the Turks and Caicos Islands. 1315,1317 (D.C. Cir. 1985); United States v. following five principles of jurisdiction: I) 37 For instance, the United States has an Rose, 570 F.2d 1358, 1361-2 (9th Cir. 1978). Location of the offense; 2) nationality of the asset sharing agreement with Colombia, a drug 8 See, e.g., Birdsell v. United States, 346 victim; 3) nationality of the offender; 4) forreiture agreement with Hong Kong, and a F.2d 775, 782 (5th Cir. 1965) cert. denied, 382 protection of governmental [unctions; and 5) drug trafficking agreement with the United U.S. 963 (1965). universally repugnant crimes, such as piracy. Kingdom. 9 See, e.g., United States v. Toscanino, 500 For discussion, see Empson, "The Application 38 Kesler, "Some Myths of United States F.2d 267 (2d Cir. 1974)(kidnaping combined of to Acts Committed Outside the Extradition Law," 76 Geo. L.J. 1441, 1489 with long periods of torture violated due Jurisdiction," 6 American Criminal Law (1988). process); Cf Rochin v. Calijomia, 342 U.S. Quarterly 32 (1967); and Petersen, "The 39 Among the common obstacles to 165 (1952)(forcing an emetic solution into the Extraterritorial Effect of Federal Criminal extradition and prosecution are the following: defendant's mouth to recover two morphine Statutes: Offenses Directed at Members of (1) The fugitive's country refuses to comply tablets that had been swallowed shocked the Congress," 6 Hastings International and with extradition requests for its own nationals; conscience of the court and resulted in Comparative Law Review 773 (1983). (2) political offenses generally bar extradition; suppression). 25 Verdugo, supra note 11, at pp. 1068-69. (3) the crime and punishment must match in the 10 See, e.g., United Srates v. Rosenthal, 793 26 One reason for doing so may be reflected requesting and sending countries (dual F.2d 1214, 1230-31 (lIth Cir. 1984), cert. in United States v. Bowman, 67 L.Ed. 2d 145, criminality); and (4) once extradited, the denied, 107 S.Ct. 1377 (1987); United States v. 151 (1922), in which the Court finds authority fugitive may be tried only for those specific Patemina-Vergara, 749 F.2d 993,998 (2d Cir. to criminalize certain extraterritorial acts charges on which the extradition was based 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1217 (1985); "because of the right of the government to (doctrine of specialty). United States v. Marzano, 537 F.2d 257, 269-71 defend itself against obstruction or fraud, 40 In addition to outstanding foreign process (7th Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1038 wherever perpetrated." for a fugitive, provisional arrest warrants must (1977). 27 Verdugo-Urquidez, supra note II, be obtained for in the United States. II 11 0 S.Ct. 1056 (1990). p. 1069, n.4, quoting from Ford v. United These warrants are issued by American judges 12/d., pp. 1060-1061. States, 273 U.S. 595. pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3184. 131d. 28 See 21 U.S.C. §§ 853 and 881. 41 United States v. Caro-Quilllero, 745 14 Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 161 29 See 18 U.S.C. §981 (a)(I)(A). F.Supp. 599 (C.D. Cal. 1990); United States v. (1945). 30 See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. §981 (i) (I); 19 U.S.C. Alvarez-Machain, 946 F.2d 1466 (9th Cir. 15Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). §1616a(c) (2); and 21 U.S.C. §881 (e) (I) (E). 1991); United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 16 Immigration and Naturalization Service v. 31 Upon request by the host country, U.S. F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. 1991). Lopez-Mendoza, 104 S.Ct. 3479 (1984). officials, in matters of mutual interest, may 42 Courts have viewed the effect of 17 Verdugo-Urquidez, supra note 11, at p. engage in joint investigations, in which case unilateral rendition on jurisdiction over the 1065. efforts should be taken to ensure that evidence person from different perspectives. Compare, 18 Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1,5-6 obtained will be admissible in the courts of both Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886) and Frisbe (1957)("When the government reaches out to countries. v. Collil/s, 342 U.S. 519 (1952) with United punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield which 32 Although informal, such cooperation States v. Toscal/il/o, 500 F.2d 267 (2d Cir. the Bill of Rights and other parts of the should not be initiated by individual investiga­ 1974), United States v. Caro-Quil1lero, 745 Constitution provide to protect his life and tors; instead, coordination should be effected F.Supp. 599 (C.D. Cal. 1990), and United States liberty should not be stripped away just because through appropriate agency channels or with the v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir. he happens to be in another land.") assistance of the Office of International Affairs, 1991). 19 384 U.S. 436 (1966). U.S. Department of Justice. 20 Johnson v. Eiselltrager, 139 U.S. 763 33 For a discussion of grand jury secrecy and (1950). See also, the so-called Insular Cases, obstacles to sharing subpoenaed material with Law enforcement officers of other which are DOlVnes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 other agencies, see Andersen, "The Federal than Federal jurisdiction who are (1901); Hawaii v. Mankick, 190 U.S. 197 Grand Jury: Exceptions to the Rule of Secrecy," interested in this article should consult (1903); Dorr v. United States, 195 U.S. 138 FBI Law Enjorcell1elll Bulletin, August 1990, their legal advisor. Some police (1904); Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 pp. 26-31, and September 1990, pp. 27-32. procedures ruled permissible under (1922). 34 18 U.S.C. §§251O-252 I. Federal constitutional law are of 21 Verdugo-Urquidez, supra note II, at p. 35 The statutory basis for authorizing the questionable legality under State law 1060, quoting from Kastigar v. United States, production of evidence for use in a foreign or are not permitted at all. 406 U.S. 441 (1972). forum is 28 U.S.C. §1781 (transmittal of letter

32 / FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin