United States v. Bennett

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2004 · Evidence

363 F.3d 947 (9th Cir. 2004)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceBorder searchesBest evidence ruleHarmless errorSentencing remandborder searchfunctional equivalentreasonably certain

Facts

Task force officers spotted Bennett's boat north of the U.S.-Mexico border traveling quickly north while hugging the California coastline, and boarded it at the entrance to San Diego Bay. During the boarding, officers noted mismatched registration paperwork, an outstanding state warrant, the boat riding unusually low in the water, a new high-performance engine, and unaccounted-for space on the vessel. After docking, officers searched extensively, including drilling holes and later x-raying the boat at a Coast Guard facility, ultimately finding 1,541.5 pounds of marijuana. At trial, the government introduced testimony from a customs officer describing GPS data on the boat as showing travel from Mexican waters into San Diego Bay, but it did not introduce the GPS device, a printout, or any other output of the data.

Issue

Whether the marijuana was discovered through a valid border search at the functional equivalent of the border, and whether testimony describing the contents of the boat's GPS data without producing the GPS or its output was admissible under the best evidence rule. The court also considered whether any evidentiary error prejudiced Bennett's importation conviction and whether resentencing was required after partial reversal.

Rule

A search of a vessel in U.S. waters or at a U.S. dock is a search at the functional equivalent of the border when officers are reasonably certain the vessel came from outside U.S. territorial waters; absolute certainty or direct observation of the crossing is not required. Even if a border search is especially destructive or extended so that reasonable suspicion is assumed to be required, reasonable suspicion exists where officers observe facts such as mismatched vessel paperwork, suspicious vessel configuration, inconsistent explanations, and the boat riding low in the water. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 1002, when a party seeks to prove the contents of computer-generated GPS data, the original device output, printout, or other admissible substitute must be produced or its absence explained; oral testimony describing those contents is inadmissible when offered to prove the event shown by the data.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A marine interdiction team in San Diego spots a small fishing boat just north of the U.S.-Mexico maritime boundary. The boat is moving quickly north while hugging the Southern California coastline, and officers board it at the mouth of Mission Bay without ever having seen the exact moment it crossed the boundary.

Is the boarding most likely at the functional equivalent of the border?

Explanation. A search of a vessel in U.S. waters may qualify as occurring at the functional equivalent of the border when officers are reasonably certain the vessel came from outside U.S. territorial waters. Direct observation of the crossing is not required, and the boat's northbound course from the direction of Mexico while hugging the coastline supports reasonable certainty.