Coast Guard Drug Cases in Florida: The Eleventh Circuit Just Lowered the Jurisdiction Burden and Let a Judge Believe a Witness Caught Lying

If you or a family member was taken off a boat by the Coast Guard and brought to South Florida, the first fight in the case is usually whether the United States had jurisdiction over that boat at all. On October 8, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit made that fight harder. In a published opinion deciding three consolidated appeals from the Southern District of Florida (Nos. 23-13262, 23-13307 and 23-13333), the court held that the government has to prove jurisdiction only by a preponderance of the evidence, and that a judge may believe a boarding officer on the decisive point after finding he lied about another one.

The crew ran, threw 19 bales holding 623 kilograms of cocaine overboard, and stopped only after a helicopter fired warning shots and then disabling fire.

Key Takeaways

• On October 8, 2026, the Eleventh Circuit held that MDLEA jurisdiction under 46 U.S.C. § 70504(a) needs proof only by a preponderance of the evidence.
• The ruling abrogates a 1996 Eleventh Circuit decision that had treated jurisdiction as an element for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt.
• A federal judge may credit a witness on the dispositive fact after finding that witness lied about something else.
• Most Coast Guard interdiction cases are prosecuted in the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, so this opinion now governs a large share of them.
• Penalties under 46 U.S.C. § 70506 follow 21 U.S.C. § 960: ten years to life for five kilograms or more of cocaine.

What the Eleventh Circuit Decided

In October 2022, Coast Guard aircraft spotted a go-fast vessel about 128 nautical miles off Colombia, inside that country's exclusive economic zone. The crew ran. They threw 19 bales holding 623 kilograms of cocaine overboard and stopped only after a helicopter fired warning shots and then disabling fire. Three men were indicted in Miami for conspiracy and possession with intent to distribute under 46 U.S.C. § 70506(b) and 46 U.S.C. § 70503(a)(1).

They moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and got an evidentiary hearing. The question was whether the boat was a vessel without nationality. Under 46 U.S.C. § 70502(d)(1)(B), a vessel qualifies when the master or person in charge fails, on an officer's request, to make a claim of nationality. The boarding team's interpreter testified that he asked each man individually and that each made no claim. The district court believed him on that point, even though it found he had lied about whether he asked each man if he was the person in charge.

The boarding team's interpreter testified that he asked each man individually and that each made no claim. The district court believed him on that point.

The defendants lost the motion, pleaded guilty to the conspiracy count without conceding jurisdiction, and received 96 months each against a guideline range of 135 to 168 months.

Why the Burden of Proof Matters

A 1996 Eleventh Circuit decision, 90 F.3d 459, had treated jurisdiction as an element the jury had to find beyond a reasonable doubt. The court held that the statute plainly abrogates that decision on this point.

The defense position was narrower: let the judge decide, but hold the government to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The court rejected it. It read the statute's phrase "preliminary questions" against Federal Rule of Evidence 104 and the Supreme Court's 1987 holding, 483 U.S. 171, that preliminary factual questions are decided by a preponderance. The Eleventh Circuit now stands with the First Circuit on the standard.

The government's jurisdiction case in a stateless-vessel prosecution usually rests on a few minutes of conversation on a moving boat: who asked, in what language, of whom, and what was said back. Under a preponderance standard, a thin or inconsistent boarding record can still carry the day. The defense now wins these motions by showing the question was never put to the person in charge, or that the record of the answer cannot be trusted at all, not by showing reasonable doubt.

Exposure and Charges

The penalties do not change because the case started at sea. Section 70506(a) imports the penalty scheme of 21 U.S.C. § 960, so five kilograms or more of cocaine carries a ten-year mandatory minimum and a maximum of life. The conspiracy count works the way a domestic 21 U.S.C. § 846 conspiracy does, and drug quantity is fixed by whatever the Coast Guard recovered or saw thrown overboard.

The court also affirmed the two-level enhancement under § 3C1.2 of the Sentencing Guidelines for recklessly creating a substantial risk of death or serious injury while fleeing. Flight alone is not enough. Here the court found far more: the crew dumped cargo at speed and forced the helicopter to fire on the boat. Crews who run should expect that enhancement in the presentence report.

The sentences show where the defense value sat. A range of 135 to 168 months became 96 months. Safety valve eligibility under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f), mitigating role and a 3553(a) variance built on who these men were and what they were paid are what move these numbers.

The Credibility Ruling Reaches Far Beyond Boats

The second holding will be cited in cases that have nothing to do with the ocean. The defendants argued that once the judge found the interpreter lied, the court could not believe the rest of what he said. The court called the old maxim, falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, one it has never required judges to apply. A factfinder may believe part of a witness's testimony and reject another part.

The defendants argued that once the judge found the interpreter lied, the court could not believe the rest of what he said. The court rejected that argument.

Federal judges sit as factfinders at suppression hearings, jurisdiction hearings and sentencing hearings. In white collar and healthcare fraud sentencings, a cooperating witness often supplies the loss figure or the role evidence. This opinion confirms that a judge can find that witness lied about one thing and still adopt his number.

Critical Mistakes People Make Early

Talking on the cutter. Crews are often held aboard for days, and what they say is recorded. Even a one-word answer to a nationality question becomes the government's jurisdiction proof.

Crews are often held aboard for days, and what they say is recorded.

Treating the jurisdiction motion as the whole defense. It still matters and should be preserved, but after this opinion it is a harder motion to win, and the sentencing work cannot wait for the ruling.

Attacking credibility in general terms. Proving the officer was wrong about a form or a side question will not carry the motion. The impeachment has to reach the dispositive exchange.

Waiting on role and safety valve. Proving a limited role and a truthful disclosure takes months, and much of the evidence sits in another country.

Strategic Defense Approach

Demand the complete boarding record early: the right of visit form, the incident reports, translation notes, radio logs and any video. Conflicts between officers about the forms are what a preponderance hearing turns on.

Plead in a way that keeps jurisdiction alive for appeal if the motion is lost. These defendants did not concede it, and the court reached the merits.

Build the sentencing case in parallel: mitigating role, safety valve eligibility, cooperation and 5K1.1 if it fits the client, and PSR objections to quantity and the § 3C1.2 enhancement. In a multi-defendant federal case, the first accurate proffer session is worth more than the third.

Why Timing Matters

The facts that decide jurisdiction are created in the first hours of a boarding and written down within days. The facts that decide the sentence are gathered in the months after. A federal criminal defense attorney who is involved before arraignment can push for preservation of the boarding record and start the role and safety valve work while witnesses can still be found.

For the earlier ruling on land-based conspirators abroad, see our August analysis of the MDLEA.

Common Questions

Facing a Federal Drug Conspiracy or Maritime Case in Florida?

If a family member has been brought to Florida after a Coast Guard interdiction, if you have received a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office or a grand jury subpoena, or if you are facing federal charges in the Southern or Middle District of Florida, AMC Defense Law offers confidential consultations. The firm handles federal investigation defense, federal drug conspiracy and white collar defense matters, and federal sentencing, from its Boca Raton office and nationwide. Every case turns on its own facts, and early involvement gives counsel the most room to work. Call 561.542.5494.

The facts that decide jurisdiction are created in the first hours of a boarding and written down within days. The facts that decide the sentence are gathered in the months after.

If you or your loved ones have been arrested after a Coast Guard interdiction or are facing federal drug conspiracy charges in Florida, call Aaron M. Cohen for a confidential consultation, 24 hours a day to get help.

About the author. Aaron M. Cohen is the founder and principal attorney of AMC Defense Law, a criminal defense firm in Boca Raton, Florida, with more than 30 years of experience in state and federal courts. He is admitted to practice in Florida, New York, New Jersey, and the District of Columbia, and before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida, the Southern, Eastern, and Western Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, and the Northern District of Texas. He appears pro hac vice in other federal districts nationwide. The firm represents clients in federal investigations and prosecutions involving healthcare fraud, Anti-Kickback Statute matters, DME and telemedicine fraud, peptide and compounded-drug enforcement, controlled-substance and drug conspiracy cases, financial crimes, and complex federal litigation, in Florida and nationwide.

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Laws and Sentencing Guidelines change, and the description of any case reflects the published opinion as of the date above. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Consult a licensed attorney about your specific situation.