Opinion of the Court
In United States v. Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U.S. 531 (1985), the Court had said, "Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant." The Ninth Circuit interpreted this language to mean that reasonable suspicion was required when government agents sought to conduct an "intrusive" search at the border, including searches involving the removal and dismantling of gas tanks. The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning because "the reasons that might support a requirement of some level of suspicion in the case of highly intrusive searches of the person — dignity and privacy interests of the person being searched — simply do not carry over to vehicles." Accordingly, the Supreme Court found the Ninth Circuit's rule to be inconsistent with the meaning of "reasonableness" under the Fourth Amendment.
The Court's ruling in this case rests on the fact that the search at issue in this case took place at the international border. "The Government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border." In light of the Government's interest in protecting its sovereignty and territorial integrity, "searches made at the border... are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border." Indeed, the statute authorizing the search in this case derived ultimately from a statute first passed in 1789. Smugglers frequently attempt to penetrate the border, and using vehicle gas tanks is a common tactic. In the five and a half years preceding the decision in this case, 18,788 drug seizures had occurred at the ports of entry in southern California, and of those involving vehicles, 4,619, or 25%, were from gas tanks. In addition, instances of persons smuggled in and around gas tank compartments are discovered at the ports of entry of San Ysidro and Otay Mesa about once ever 10 days.
Flores argued he had an expectation of privacy in his gas tank. But the Court pointed out that a reasonable expectation of privacy is diminished at the international border. "It is difficult to imagine how the search of a gas tank, which should be solely a repository for fuel, could be more of an invasion of privacy than the search of the automobile's passenger compartment." Flores also pointed to the potential of a search like the one at issue in this case to cause damage to the vehicle. But the Court replied that the searches are not truly destructive, and that there was not a single accident among the "many thousands of gas tank disassemblies that have occurred at the border." A gas tank search is a brief procedure that can easily be reversed without damaging the vehicle, and if by chance the vehicle were damaged in the process, the owner could sue for damages.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. It prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In addition, it sets requirements for issuing warrants: warrants must be issued by a judge or magistrate, justified by probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
A search warrant is a court order that a magistrate or judge issues to authorize law enforcement officers to conduct a search of a person, location, or vehicle for evidence of a crime and to confiscate any evidence they find. In most countries, a search warrant cannot be issued in aid of civil process.
Search and seizure is a procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems by which police or other authorities and their agents, who, suspecting that a crime has been committed, commence a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence found in connection to the crime.
The open-fields doctrine, in the U.S. law of criminal procedure, is the legal doctrine that a "warrantless search of the area outside a property owner's curtilage" does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. However, "unless there is some other legal basis for the search," such a search "must exclude the home and any adjoining land that is within an enclosure or otherwise protected from public scrutiny."
Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard of proof in United States law that is less than probable cause, the legal standard for arrests and warrants, but more than an "inchoate and unparticularized suspicion or 'hunch'"; it must be based on "specific and articulable facts", "taken together with rational inferences from those facts", and the suspicion must be associated with the specific individual. If police additionally have reasonable suspicion that a person so detained is armed and dangerous, they may "frisk" the person for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. However, if the police develop probable cause during a weapons frisk, they may then conduct a full search. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the totality of circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.
In United States constitutional law, expectation of privacy is a legal test which is crucial in defining the scope of the applicability of the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It is related to, but is not the same as, a right to privacy, a much broader concept which is found in many legal systems. Overall, expectations of privacy can be subjective or objective.
United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), was a U.S. Supreme Court case regarding the Fourth Amendment's border search exception and balloon swallowing.
Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that the use of a drug-sniffing police dog during a routine traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, even if the initial infraction is unrelated to drug offenses.
United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266 (2002), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously reaffirmed the proposition that the Fourth Amendment required courts to analyze the reasonableness of a traffic stop based on the totality of the circumstances instead of examining the plausibility of each reason an officer gives for stopping a motorist individually.
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing regimen implemented by the local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon. Under that regimen, student-athletes were required to submit to random drug testing before being allowed to participate in sports. During the season, 10% of all athletes were selected at random for testing. The Supreme Court held that although the tests were searches under the Fourth Amendment, they were reasonable in light of the schools' interest in preventing teenage drug use.
In United States criminal law, the border search exception is a doctrine that allows searches and seizures at international borders and their functional equivalent without a warrant or probable cause. Generally speaking, searches within 100 miles of the border are more permissible without a warrant than those conducted elsewhere in the U.S. The doctrine also allows federal agents to search people at border crossings without a warrant or probable cause. The government is allowed to use scanning devices and to search personal electronics. Invasive bodily searches, however, require reasonable suspicion.
United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.
United States v. Arnold, 533 F.3d 1003, is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching laptops or other digital devices at the border, including international airports.
Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a strip search of a middle school student by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case holding that the search of an automobile by the United States Border Patrol without a warrant or probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment. The vehicle was stopped and searched for illegal aliens twenty-five miles (40 km) from the Mexican border. The Court approached the search from four views: automobile search, administrative inspection, heavily regulated industry inspection, and border search. As to the validity of the search under the automobile exception, the Court found no justification for the search under the Carroll doctrine because there was no probable cause. As to the validity of the search under various administrative inspection doctrines, the Court found that the officers lacked an area warrant. As to the validity of the heavily regulated industry inspection, the Court found that the doctrine is not applicable to traveling on a state highway. As to the validity of a border search, the Court found that the site of the stop and the entirety of the road on which the stop occurred was too far from the border to be considered a border search.
O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the Fourth Amendment rights of government employees with regard to administrative searches in the workplace, during investigations by supervisors for violations of employee policy rather than by law enforcement for criminal offenses. It was brought by Magno Ortega, a doctor at a California state hospital after his supervisors found allegedly inculpatory evidence in his office while he was on administrative leave pending an investigation of alleged misconduct. Some of what they uncovered was later used to impeach a witness who testified on his behalf at the hearing where he unsuccessfully appealed his dismissal.
United States v. Pineda-Moreno, 591 F.3d 1212 (2010) was a 2010 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case regarding the use of GPS devices. The court ruled that a placing a GPS tracking device a personal vehicle without a warrant did not violate a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights, even if the vehicle was parked in the defendant's driveway at the time the device was placed. The case was reversed and remanded by the United States Supreme Court in light of United States v. Jones.
United States v. Cotterman,, is a United States court case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that property, such as a laptop and other electronic storage devices, presented for inspection when entering the United States at the border may not be subject to forensic examination without a reason for suspicion, a holding that weakened the border search exception of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
House v. Napolitano is a United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts case involving David House, a known supporter of Chelsea Manning and co-founder of the Manning Support Network, who brought action against Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the United States Department of Homeland Security(DHS), Alan Bersin, Commissioner of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection(CBP), and John T. Morton, Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement(ICE) for the search and seizure of his electronic devices by federal agents at the border. Defendants moved to dismiss, and the court denied the motion on First Amendment and Fourth Amendment grounds. House subsequently reached a settlement with the government in May 2013, to return or destroy all information obtained from the investigation.
United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411 (1981), was a United States Supreme Court decision clarifying the reasonable suspicion standard for the investigative stop of a vehicle.
