Proposed amendment to Rule 41(b)(5) to allow limited extraterritorial searches involving U.S. jurisdiction

The U.S. Judicial Conference has proposed an esoteric addition to Rule 41(b)(5) to abrogate a case holding that a U.S. Magistrate Judge could not issue a warrant for evidence held in a U.S. Embassy outside the country, a problem that seldom arises in our everyday practices. The main link to the current rule changes is here.

As currently written, Rule 41(b) does not provide magistrate judges with the authority to issue warrants for such locations. See, e.g., United States v. Wharton, 153 F. Supp. 2d 878, 882 (W.D. La. 2001) (“clearly, Rule 41 did not empower any United States District Court to issue a search warrant for the defendant’s property when it was located at the United States Embassy in Port-au-Prince, Haiti.”). Although the USA PATRIOT Act amended Rule 41(b) to provide magistrate judges with the authority to issue warrants outside the magistrate’s district, this authority is applicable only in cases involving certain terrorism offenses. See Rule 41(b)(3).

The language of the proposed amendment was based upon Rule 41(b)(3), which was added by the USA PATRIOT Act, and upon the definition of the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States contained in 18 U.S.C. § 7, which includes U.S. consulates and embassies. The proposed amendment provides for jurisdiction in any district in which activities related to the crime under investigation may have occurred, or in the District of Columbia, which is the default jurisdiction for venue under 18 U.S.C. § 3238.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.