duct ed ▁Ker ▁and ▁brought ▁him ▁to ▁Illinois . ▁The ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁ruled ▁that ▁the ▁kid n apping ▁had ▁not ▁viol ated ▁Ker ' s ▁right ▁to ▁due ▁process ▁as ▁long ▁as ▁he ▁had ▁been ▁properly ▁ind icted ▁and ▁tried . ▁At ▁the ▁time ▁of ▁J aff e ' s ▁kid n apping , ▁the ▁U . S . ▁recognized ▁only ▁limited ▁exceptions ▁to ▁the ▁general ▁rule ▁in ▁Ker ; ▁specifically , ▁in ▁the ▁ 1 9 3 2 ▁case ▁Cook ▁v . ▁United ▁States , ▁the ▁Supreme ▁Court ▁had ▁ruled ▁that ▁where ▁a ▁treat y ▁provision ▁sets ▁explicit ▁territorial ▁limits ▁to ▁juris diction , ▁se iz ure ▁or ▁arrest ▁in ▁viol ation ▁of ▁that ▁provision ▁meant ▁that ▁a ▁court ▁could ▁not ▁exercise ▁juris diction ▁over ▁the ▁def endant ▁so ▁seized ▁or ▁arrested . ▁In ▁that ▁case , ▁the ▁U . S . ▁Coast ▁Guard ▁had ▁seized ▁a ▁British ▁vessel ▁at ▁sea ▁for ▁liqu or ▁sm ugg ling ▁ ▁off ▁the ▁coast ▁of ▁Massachusetts , ▁beyond ▁the ▁" one - hour ▁sail ing ▁limit " ▁within ▁which ▁the ▁Coast ▁Guard ▁could ▁leg ally ▁se ize ▁the ▁vessel ▁under ▁the ▁relevant ▁ 1 9 2 4 ▁U . K . – U . S . ▁treat y , ▁and ▁the ▁court ▁ordered ▁that ▁the ▁vessel ▁be ▁released ▁to ▁its ▁own ers . ▁However , ▁as ▁Kath ry n ▁S elle ck ▁of ▁Boston ▁College ▁Law ▁School ▁observed , ▁the ▁U . S .' ▁extr ad ition ▁treat y ▁with ▁Canada ▁did ▁not ▁explicitly ▁state