Dallemagne v. Moisan

Background

A French consul in San Francisco asked local authorities to arrest a sailor from a French ship and the city’s chief of police carried out the written requisition. The sailor was later brought before the United States District Court on a writ of habeas corpus and discharged before the statutory two-month limit had run, over the consul’s protest. The dispute raised questions about who may lawfully execute consular detention requests and how long a consul may hold a sailor.

Reasoning

The Court explained that Congress provided a specific procedure in an 1864 law (carried into the Revised Statutes) for enforcing such treaties: the consul’s application should be presented to a United States court, judge, or appointed commissioner, and any warrant should be executed by the United States marshal. Because the chief of police was not the officer designated by that statute, the initial arrest by him was unauthorized. Still, the District Court was one of the authorities named by the statute, so a federal court’s later examination could validate detention. On the treaty text and the statute, the Court concluded that detention applies to the person during his stay in port and is not tied to the ship’s departure, but the statute caps imprisonment at two months.

Real world impact

The ruling means consuls can obtain detention of crew members under the treaty, but they must follow the federal procedure and use federal courts and marshals rather than rely on state police. Detention may continue up to the two-month statutory limit even if the ship leaves port, and expenses fall on the consul. The District Court’s early discharge was reversed and the sailor remanded consistent with the two-month cap.

Dissents or concurrances

Mr. Justice Harlan dissented; the opinion does not state his reasons in the text before the Court.