Vienna Convention (Consular Relations)

• Author: International Law Group

Agents arrested Jose Lombera-Camorlinga, a Mexican national, when he arrived in California with 39.4 kilograms of marijuana in his vehicle. Although the officers did warn him of his Miranda rights, they neither informed him about his rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations [April 24, 1963, 21 U.S.T. 77] nor notified Mexican authorities of his arrest. Under Article 36 of the Convention law enforcement officials "shall inform" arrested foreign nationals of their Convention rights. Lombera-Camorlinga later moved to suppress his incriminating post-arrest statements because agents had obtained them in violation of Article 36.

An appellate panel held that a defendant's post-arrest statements made before being advised of his Convention rights are inadmissible in a later criminal prosecution if the defendant can show prejudice. [See 1999 Int'l Law Update 40.] The Court later withdrew the opinion and reheard the case en banc. Ultimately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a divided opinion, decides that suppression of the evidence is not an appropriate remedy.

The Court finds nothing in the language or operation of the Convention to suggest that Article 36 was intended to create an exclusionary rule with protections similar to Miranda. (The Court declines to decide whether the Convention creates individual rights that are...