Maritime Casualties: From Negligence to Strict Liability to Criminalization -- U.S. Perspective Fajardo, Puerto Rico October 31, 2013 Joe Walsh San Francisco Anchorage Long Beach
Jan 02, 2016
Maritime Casualties: From Negligence to Strict Liability to Criminalization --
U.S. Perspective
Fajardo, Puerto Rico
October 31, 2013
Joe Walsh
Seattle San Francisco Anchorage Long Beach Hong Kong
Maritime Casualties: Ghostly Mistakes,
Spooky Prosecutions, and other
Environmental Horror Stories
Fajardo, Puerto Rico
October 31, 2013
Joe Walsh
Seattle San Francisco Anchorage Long Beach Hong Kong
MARPOL & US LAWAnnex Topic US LAW
I Oil APPS 33USC1901, CWA, FWPCA, OPA
II Noxious Bulk Liquid APPS, CERCLA,Ocean Dumping Act
III Hazardous Freight APPS, CERCLA, HMTA, IMDG
IV Sewage Not A party ( * Refuse Act)
V Garbage/plastics APPS, Ocean Dumping Act, Marine Plastic Pollution
Research & Control Act VI Air Emissions APPS, Clean Air Act
“It is difficult to get a person to understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair
Criminal Enforcement Concepts
CIVIL LAW CRIMINAL LAW
Strict Liability Negligence
Actus rea Mens rea
Comparative Superseding cause Intervening cause
United States v. Hanousek Simple Negligence = Criminal Negligence 1% the cause = 100% Criminally Negligent
Justice Thomas’ Dissent Public Welfare Statutes – “penalties commonly are
relatively small, and conviction does no grave damage to
an offender’s reputation.”
Justice Thomas & O’Conner “Whether the CWA is appropriately characterized as
a public welfare statute is an issue on which the Courts of Appeals are divided.”
Criminal Enforcement Concepts
STRICT LIABILITY• Refuse Act• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
NEGLIGENT LIABILITY• Clean Water Act
“penalties are relatively small…” Forfeiture?
National Marine Sanctuary Act
National Park System Resource Protection Act
Response & Investigation Considerations
Understanding and Accepting the Engagement
Avoiding the Risk of Disqualification Timely Appointment of and Dealing with
Individual and Pool Counsel
Interacting With Investigative Authorities.
Representation Who is your client?
“Vessel Interests” Owner, Managers, Operator, Candle- stick Maker
Club or Member?
Multiparty Representation
The Significance of Upjohn Warnings
Avoiding Disqualification Lawyer vs. Witness
Use of surveyors, consultants and experts
Kovel Doctrine United States v. Kovel, 296 F.2d 918 (2nd Cir 1961) United States v. Adlman, 68 F.3d 1495 (2nd Cir.
1995)
Individual and Pool Counsel
Timely appointment is critical! Letters of Representation Pool Counsel → Waivers
Have a “deep” bench
Joint Defense/Common Interest Agreements potential or actual litigation joint defense communication privilege
Investigative Authorities 14 USC § 89a
authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to board vessels subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,
anytime, any place upon the high seas and upon any waterway over which the United States has jurisdiction,
to make inquires, examinations, inspections, searches, seizures, and arrests.
The U.S. Coast Guard does not require a warrant to conduct search, seizures, arrests over any United States Waterway or high seas.
Whistleblowers
“In the discretion of the Court, an amount equal to not more than ½ of such fine may be paid to the person giving information leading to conviction.”
33 USC 1908(a) (APPS)
Seemingly Endless Port State Control Exams
Real Party in Interest status (CG-545 Policy Letter 3-10 )
Right to counsel is NOT obstruction threat of obstruction-- Really?
Investigative Authorities