Criminal Defense Lawyers

DEA Defense Attorneys Explain the Role of Jurisdiction in Drug Crime Cases

DEA Defense Attorneys Explain the Role of Jurisdiction in Drug Crime Cases

When someone is charged with a federal drug crime, one of the first things their defense attorney will look at is whether the court handling the case has proper jurisdiction. Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to hear and rule on a case. For federal criminal cases like drug crimes, jurisdiction involves two main issues – whether the offense violates federal (as opposed to state) law and whether it occurred within the geographic boundaries of the court’s district.

According to DEA defense attorneys, establishing jurisdiction is a critical first step in any federal drug case. If the court lacks jurisdiction, the case could potentially be dismissed on those grounds alone. Here’s an overview of how jurisdiction works in federal drug crime cases and why it matters.

The Role of Federal vs. State Law

Most drug crimes are defined and handled at the state level. But the federal government also has a number of drug statutes under Title 21 of the U.S. Code. This includes laws prohibiting the manufacture, distribution, and possession of controlled substances as defined by the Controlled Substances Act.

For a federal court to have jurisdiction over a drug crime case, the charges must be based on a violation of federal law rather than state law. As federal prosecution guidelines explain, “It is essential in drug prosecutions to carefully review the jurisdictional basis for the prosecution to ensure the case is properly brought in federal court.”

There are a few key reasons why federal drug cases end up in federal rather than state court:

• The offense involves interstate trafficking or distribution across state lines.
• The drugs involved are imported into the U.S. from another country.
• The offense occurs in areas subject to federal jurisdiction like military bases or national parks.
• There is a valid reason the state cannot or will not prosecute the case.

However, many drug crimes – even serious ones like possession with intent to distribute – can still potentially be charged at the state level if they don’t meet these federal jurisdictional requirements.

The Relevance of Geographic Jurisdiction

In addition to the law being federal rather than state, the specific location where the alleged crime occurred also determines which federal court has jurisdiction. The 94 federal judicial districts are organized by geographic boundaries within each U.S. state and territory. For a federal court to have jurisdiction:

• Some part of the criminal offense must have been committed within that district’s geographic boundaries.
• For continuing offenses like conspiracy, at least one alleged overt act in furtherance of the crime must have occurred within the district.

Federal courts follow the “continuing offense doctrine,” which allows jurisdiction as long as any single act in furtherance of the crime happened within district boundaries. As one appeals court explained, “It does not matter that the conspiracy was formed outside the district, that many overt acts were committed outside the district, or that conspirators reside outside the district.”

But the geographic nexus requirement still excludes cases where no part of the offense conduct whatsoever links to that district. This can be a successful jurisdictional challenge strategy according to DEA defense lawyers. It forces prosecutors to prove the offense has a legitimate connection to that specific court’s district.

How Attorneys Challenge Jurisdiction in Drug Cases

There are three main ways criminal defense attorneys can challenge jurisdiction in federal drug crime cases:

1. File a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction – This asks the judge to dismiss the case because the court lacks authority to hear it based on jurisdictional defects. The motion must show the charges violate state rather state law or lack any geographic nexus to that district.
2. Seek to transfer venue to another district – If the crime has a stronger geographic connection to another district, the attorney can file a motion asking the court to transfer the case there in the interest of justice.
3. Suppress evidence due to lack of jurisdiction – If law enforcement improperly exercised federal authority to gather evidence, a motion can ask the judge to suppress any resulting evidence because it was obtained illegally outside the court’s jurisdiction.

These motions are often effective, according to DEA defense lawyers. Courts will dismiss or transfer cases that lack a clear jurisdictional basis. However, prosecutors do have broad authority to choose between federal and state prosecution. Judges tend to defer to these charging decisions unless the jurisdictional defect is clear.

Why Jurisdiction Matters for Defendants

Fighting federal jurisdiction can help drug crime defendants in a few key ways:

• Avoid harsh federal sentences – Federal drug sentences tend to be longer than state ones due to strict mandatory minimums.
• Gain better plea options – Prosecutors often offer more favorable plea deals to resolve jurisdictional challenges efficiently.
• Improve chances of acquittal – Jurisdictional defects can weaken the prosecution’s case and create doubt for the jury.

In some cases, defendants may essentially get a “second bite at the apple” if the federal case is dismissed but authorities opt to refile charges at the state level. This allows the defense to re-litigate issues like search and seizure or statements given to investigators.

That’s why DEA defense attorneys view jurisdiction as such a pivotal issue. These pre-trial challenges can potentially knock out the whole case or at least strengthen the defense’s hand if it proceeds to trial or plea bargaining.

Conclusion

Jurisdiction may seem like a minor technicality, but it’s a fundamental requirement for any prosecution. Federal courts have limited authority to hear drug crime cases only when they involve federal law and a geographic nexus to that specific district. Smart DEA defense lawyers challenge jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity. If successful, it can limit sentencing exposure, improve plea offers, and sometimes even get charges dismissed outright. By focusing closely on the jurisdictional defects in a drug crime case, the defense may be able to achieve a much better outcome for the accused.

Sources:

• Federal Jurisdiction in Drug Prosecutions
• U.S. v. Barnard
• Jurisdiction in Federal Drug Conspiracy Cases