StudyDaddy Article Writing In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act gave the U.S. president broad powers to combat terrorism. Using these powers and those he claimed were inherent presiden

In the wake of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the USA PATRIOT Act gave the U.S. president broad powers to combat terrorism. Using these powers and those he claimed were inherent presiden

Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317 (Originally published in 1971) American Law Reports | The ALR databases are made current by the weekly addition of relevant new cases.

ALR Federal J. Alan Bock, LL.B. Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers TABLE OF CONTENTS Article Outline IndexTable of Cases, Laws, and RulesResearch References ARTICLE OUTLINE   § 1[a] Scope and related matters—Scope   § 1[b] Scope and related matters—Related matters   § 1[c] Scope and related matters—Applicable statutory provisions   § 2 Summary   § 3[a] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Mere suspicion as sufficient basis for search   § 3[b] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Right to search on informer's tip as depending upon reliability of tip   § 3[c] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Classes of persons subject to search   § 3[d] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Types of areas to which search can extend   § 3[e] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Seizure following unsuccessful search   § 3[f] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Use of electronic sensors to detect border traffic   § 3[g] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Persons authorized to search   § 3[h] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Canine alert as basis for search   § 3.5[a] Effect of Almeida–Sanchez decision—Generally   § 3.5[b] Effect of Almeida–Sanchez decision—Retroactivity of decision   § 4[a] Geographical limitations; time and distance factors as affecting status as border search and seizure—Generally; "totality of circumstances" rule   § 4[b] Geographical limitations; time and distance factors as affecting status as border search and seizure—Search at checkpoint or other location away from border upheld as valid border search   § 4[c] Geographical limitations; time and distance factors as affecting status as border search and seizure—Search at checkpoint or other location away from border held not valid border search   § 5[a] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Generally   § 5[b] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Rectal searches   § 5[c] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Use of laxatives, emetics, or the like   § 5[d] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Vaginal searches   § 5[e] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Requiring person to disrobe   § 6[a] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Prior search or opportunity therefor   § 6[b] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Lack of actual border crossing   § 6[c] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Search of person departing United States Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2   § 6[d] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Permanent or temporary nature of checkpoint   § 6[e] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Unreasonable destruction of property searched   Research References INDEX   Accomplice, search of § 3[a]   Aliens, marijuana search as part of search for § 4[c]   Amphetamine tablets, smuggling of § 4[a]   Appeal, right to counsel on § 3[a]   Arrest as requisite of search § 3[a]   Assault, search as § 5[b]   Baggage search § 3[a]   Balloon, heroin concealed in § 5[b]   Body search, generally § 5   "Brutal and offensive" doctrine § 5[c]   Burglary § 3[a]   Bus depot, search in § 4[b]   Castor oil, administration of § 5[c]   Checkpoint away from border § 4[b] , 4[c]   Cigarettes, marijuana in § 4[b] , 4[c]   Classes of persons subject to search, generally §§ 3[c] , 4[b]   Cocaine, smuggling of § 5[d]   Conspiracy to import heroin § 5[b]   Contraceptives, heroin contained in § 5[b] , 5[c]   Counsel, right on appeal to § 3[a]   Crossing of border, lack of actual § 6[b]   Currency search § 3[a]   Disrobing §§ 3[a] , 5[b] , 5[e]   Distance as factor § 4   Door panels, marijuana as located in § 4[a]   Dress as basis of inference of illegal activity § 5[e]   Emetics, use of § 5[c]   Epsom salt, administration of § 5[c]   Geographical limitations § 4   Glassy condition of eyes as basis of suspicion § 5[b]   Glove compartment, marijuana concealed in § 4[b]   Habeas corpus § 3[a]   Heroin smuggling §§ 3[b] , 4[a] , 4[b] , 5, 6[a]   Hood of car, marijuana concealed under § 4[b]   Identity of informer, disclosure of §§ 3[b] , 4[a] , 4[b]   Immigration inspector as customs officer § 4[b] , 4[c]   Informer's information as basis of search §§ 3[a] , 3[b] , 4[a] , 4[b] , 4[c] , 5[c] , 5[d] , 6[a] , 6[b]   Laxatives, use of § 5[c]   Longshoremen, pilfering of merchandise from ship by § 4[b]   Mail, inspection of § 3[a]   Marijuana smuggling §§ 3[a] , 3[b] , 4, 5[b] , 5[c] , 6[a] , 6[b]   Motor vehicle searches §§ 3[a] - 3[c] , 4[a] , 4[b] , 6[a] , 6[b] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3   Narcotics smuggling §§ 3[a] , 4[a] , 5[e]   Nature of search as affecting validity, generally § 5   Needle marks as basis of suspicion § 5[b]   Nervous condition as basis of suspicion §§ 4[b] , 5[b]   Opium smuggling §§ 3[a] , 5[b]   Panties, heroin concealed in § 5[e]   Parcel post package, search of § 3[a]   Phone call from foreign customs officer as basis for suspicion § 5[e]   Physical condition as basis of suspicion § 5[b]   Physician, examination conducted by §§ 4[b] , 5[b] , 5[c]   Piers, searches on or near § 4[b]   Pockets, marijuana concealed in § 4[b]   Presumptions § 5[e]   Prior search or opportunity as basis of suspicion §§ 5[b] , 6[a]   Privacy, right of § 3[a]   Probable cause, existence of §§ 3[a] , 3[b] , 4, 5[b] , 5[c] , 6[a]   Prophylactic, heroin contained in § 5[b] , 5[c]   Rectal searches § 5[b]   Registration of convicted narcotics user §§ 4[b] , 4[c] , 5[d] , 6[a]   Related matters § 1[b]   Roadblock search § 4[b]   Scope § 1[a]   Seamen, search of §§ 4[b] , 5[b]   Seat of car, marijuana concealed under § 4[b]   Smuggling §§ 3- 6   Statutory provisions, application of, generally § 1[c]   Stolen vehicle, transportation in interstate commerce of § 4[b]   Suitcase, heroin concealed in § 4[b]   Summary § 2   Suppository, administration of § 5[b]   Surroundings of search as factor § 5[b]   Surveillance § 4[a] , 4[c]   Suspicion as basis of search §§ 3[a] , 4[a] , 5[b] , 5[e] , 6[a]   Suspicious activities, search of persons engaged in § 3[c]   Theft §§ 3[a] , 4[b]   Time as factor § 4   Tire in trunk, marijuana hidden in § 6[a]   Tool box, heroin hidden inside § 4[a]   Torso, heroin suspended from surgical tape around § 5[e]   "Totality of circumstances" rule § 4[a]   Transistor radios, smuggling of § 4[b]   Truck search § 3[b]   Trunk panel, marijuana hidden under § 4[c]   Undershorts, heroin concealed in § 3[b]   Vaginal searches § 5[d]   Vaseline around rectal area as basis for suspicion § 5[b]   Vomiting, retrieval of narcotics by inducing § 5[c]   Warrant as required for search §§ 3[a] , 4[a] , 4[c] , 5[b] , 5[c]   Watch movements, smuggling of § 3[a] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4   Weight of marijuana as factor § 4[a]   X–ray examination as method of search § 5[c] Table of Cases, Laws, and Rules United States U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . See 3[a] , 3[c] , 3[f] , 4[a] , 4[b] , 4[c] U.S. Const. Amend. IV . See 3[a] , 3[b] , 3[c] , 3[d] , 3[g] , 3[h] , 4[a] , 4[b] , 5[a] , 5[d] , 5[e] 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357 . See 3.5[b] , 4[b] 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a) . See 3.5[a] , 4[b] , 4[c] 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a)(3) . See 3[d] 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a)(1) and (c. See 4[b] 18 U.S.C.A. § 2 . See 4[a] 18 U.S.C.A. § 1357. See 3.5[b] 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 482 , 1496 . See 3[a] 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 . See 1[c] , 3[a] , 3[d] , 3[e] , 3.5[a] , 4[c] , 5[a] , 5[e] 19 U.S.C.A. § 1581 . See 3[a] , 4[b] 19 U.S.C.A. § 1581(a) . See 3[a] , 4[b] , 4[c] 19 U.S.C.A. § 1582 . See 1[c] , 3.5[a] , 5[a] , 5[e] 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 . See 4[c] 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) . See 4[a] 31 U.S.C.A. § 1058. See 3[a] 31 U.S.C.A. § 1101 (criminalizing exportation of over $5,000 in currency without filing required report). See 6[c] 31 U.S.C.A. § 1105 . See 6[c] Supreme Court Almeida-Sanchez v. U.S., 413 U.S. 266, 93 S. Ct. 2535, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596 (1973) — 3[b] , 3.5[a] , 3.5[b] , 4[c] Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 99 S. Ct. 2586, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235 (1979) — 3[a] Bowen v. U.S., 422 U.S. 916, 95 S. Ct. 2569, 45 L. Ed. 2d 641 (1975) — 1[c] , 3[a] , 3.5[b] , 4[c] Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 124 S. Ct. 885, 157 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2004) — 3[a] McBee v. U.S., 456 U.S. 949, 102 S. Ct. 2020, 72 L. Ed. 2d 474 (1982) — 4[a] , 4[c] Torres v. Com. of Puerto Rico, 442 U.S. 465, 99 S. Ct. 2425, 61 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1979) — 3[a] , 6[b] U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S. Ct. 2574, 45 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1975) — 4[c] U.S. v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 101 S. Ct. 690, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621 (1981) — 3[a] U.S. v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S. Ct. 3074, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1116 (1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 105 S. Ct. 3304, 87 L. Ed. 2d 381 (1985) — 3[a] , 5[a] U. S. v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 95 S. Ct. 2585, 45 L. Ed. 2d 623 (1975) — 3[b] , 3.5[b] , 4[c] U. S. v. Peltier, 422 U.S. 531, 95 S. Ct. 2313, 45 L. Ed. 2d 374 (1975) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 97 S. Ct. 1972, 52 L. Ed. 2d 617 (1977) — 3[a] , 3[d] U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 103 S. Ct. 2573, 77 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1983) — 4[b] First Circuit Rivera v. U.S., 327 F.2d 791 (1st Cir. 1964) — 6[a] U.S. v. Barrow, 448 F.3d 37, 70 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 183 (1st Cir. 2006) — 3[a] U.S. v. Becker, 347 F. Supp. 1039 (D. Mass. 1972) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Berard, 281 F. Supp. 328 (D. Mass. 1968) — 3[a] U.S. v. Carpenter, 403 F. Supp. 361 (D. Mass. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Costoso, 56 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D.P.R. 2014) — 3[a] U.S. v. Emery, 541 F.2d 887 (1st Cir. 1976) — 3[d] U.S. v. Ferrone, 413 F. Supp. 408 (D.P.R. 1975) — 3[a] , 4[c] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5 U.S. v. Flores, 477 F.2d 608 (1st Cir. 1973) — 5[e] U.S. v. Gabriel, 405 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D. Me. 2005) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Kallevig, 534 F.2d 411 (1st Cir. 1976) — 5[e] U.S. v. Mateos-Sanchez, 864 F.2d 232, 27 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 536 (1st Cir. 1988) — 3[c] U.S. v. Miller, 589 F.2d 1117, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1418 (1st Cir. 1978) — 4[a] U.S. v. Momoh, 427 F.3d 137 (1st Cir. 2005) — 3[a] U.S. v. Nunes, 511 F.2d 871 (1st Cir. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Perez Rivera, 247 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.P.R. 2003) — 3[a] U.S. v. Roussel, 278 F. Supp. 908 (D. Mass. 1968) — 3[a] , 5[e] U.S. v. Stornini, 443 F.2d 833 (1st Cir. 1971) — 3[a] U.S. v. Wardlaw, 576 F.2d 932 (1st Cir. 1978) — 5[e] Second Circuit Abidor v. Napolitano, 990 F. Supp. 2d 260 (E.D. N.Y. 2013) — 3[a] Bibicheff v. Holder, 55 F. Supp. 3d 254 (E.D. N.Y. 2014) — 3[a] Essig v. U.S., 675 F. Supp. 84 (E.D. N.Y. 1987) — 6[a] Flagstaff Foodservice Corp., In re, 25 B.R. 856 (Bankr. S.D. N.Y. 1982) — 5[b] Landau v. U.S. Attorney for Southern Dist. of New York, 82 F.2d 285 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1936) — 3[a] Tabbaa v. Chertoff, 509 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) — 3[a] , 3[c] U.S. v. Ajlouny, 476 F. Supp. 995 (E.D. N.Y. 1979) — 3[a] , 6[b] U.S. v. Asbury, 586 F.2d 973 (2d Cir. 1978) — 4[a] U.S. v. Aulet, 618 F.2d 182 (2d Cir. 1980) — 3[a] , 5[e] U.S. v. Barbera, 514 F.2d 294 (2d Cir. 1975) — 4[c] U.S. v. Bishop, 541 F. Supp. 1056 (N.D. N.Y. 1982) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Borello, 766 F.2d 46, 18 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 569 (2d Cir. 1985) — 3[a] U.S. v. Brodzik, 366 F. Supp. 295 (W.D. N.Y. 1973) — 3[e] U.S. v. Caro, 637 F.2d 869 (2d Cir. 1981) — 3[d] U.S. v. Clymore, 515 F. Supp. 1361 (E.D. N.Y. 1981) — 5[b] , 5[c] U.S. v. Cormier, 77 Fed. Appx. 65 (2d Cir. 2003) — 3[a] U.S. v. Doe, 472 F.2d 982 (2d Cir. 1973) — 3[a] U.S. v. Glaziou, 402 F.2d 8, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 302 (2d Cir. 1968) — 3[a] , 3[c] , 4[b] U.S. v. Gonzalez, 483 F.2d 223 (2d Cir. 1973) — 3[a] U.S. v. Grotke, 702 F.2d 49 (2d Cir. 1983) — 3[a] U.S. v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) — 4[b] U.S. v. Irving, 432 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2005) — 3[d] , 5[e] U.S. v. LaFroscia, 485 F.2d 457 (2d Cir. 1973) — 3[a] U.S. v. Levy, 803 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2015) — 3[a] , 5[a] U.S. v. Luc-Thirion, 501 F. Supp. 875 (E.D. N.Y. 1980) — 3[a] U.S. v. Mabie, 580 F. Supp. 1382 (E.D. N.Y. 1984) — 3[a] U.S. v. Maigar, 568 F. Supp. 2d 245 (N.D. N.Y. 2008) — 6[b] U.S. v. Marti, 321 F. Supp. 59 (E.D. N.Y. 1970) — 3[a] U.S. v. Moody, 649 F.2d 124 (2d Cir. 1981) — 5[e] U.S. v. Muench, 694 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1982) — 3[b] U.S. v. Nieves, 609 F.2d 642 (2d Cir. 1979) — 4[a] , 5[a] U.S. v. Ogberaha, 771 F.2d 655 (2d Cir. 1985) — 4[a] , 5[d] U.S. v. Pedersen, 300 F. Supp. 669 (D. Vt. 1969) — 3[a] , 5[e] U.S. v. Saint Prix, 672 F.2d 1077, 9 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1671 (2d Cir. 1982) — 4[c] U.S. v. Sanders, 663 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1981) — 5[e] U.S. v. San Juan, 405 F. Supp. 686 (D. Vt. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Singh, 415 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2005) — 4[c] , 6[d] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6 U.S. v. Sohnen, 298 F. Supp. 51 (E.D. N.Y. 1969) — 3[a] U.S. v. Solimini, 560 F. Supp. 648 (E.D. N.Y. 1983) — 4[a] , 5[e] U.S. v. Tehrani, 826 F. Supp. 789 (D. Vt. 1993) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, Schedule No. 896, 363 F. Supp. 165 (S.D. N.Y. 1973) — 3[a] , 3[d] U.S. v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, Schedule No. 1213, 395 F. Supp. 791 (S.D. N.Y. 1975) — 3[d] U.S. v. Weston, 519 F. Supp. 565 (W.D. N.Y. 1981) — 4[c] U.S. v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012) — 4[b] Third Circuit Bradley v. U.S., 299 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2002) — 5[a] , 5[d] Hurn v. U.S., 221 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D.N.J. 2002) — 5[e] U.S. v. Beck, 483 F.2d 203 (3d Cir. 1973) — 3[a] , 3[c] , 4[b] U.S. v. Bunty, 617 F. Supp. 2d 359, 76 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 910 (E.D. Pa. 2008) — 3[a] U.S. v. Caminos, 770 F.2d 361 (3d Cir. 1985) — 4[b] U.S. v. Chabot, 19 V.I. 28, 531 F. Supp. 1063 (D.V.I. 1982) — 3[a] U.S. v. Diaz, 503 F.2d 1025 (3d Cir. 1974) — 3[a] U.S. v. Hernandez-Mota, 36 Fed. Appx. 38 (3d Cir. 2002) — 4[b] U.S. v. Mirmelli, 421 F. Supp. 684 (D.N.J. 1976) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Murray, 354 F. Supp. 604 (E.D. Pa. 1972) — 4[b] U.S. v. Tussell, 441 F. Supp. 1092 (M.D. Pa. 1977) — 3[a] , 3[f] , 4[a] Fourth Circuit United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2018) — 3[a] , 3.5[a] U.S. v. Ader, 520 F. Supp. 313 (E.D. N.C. 1980) — 4[a] U.S. v. Bilir, 592 F.2d 735 (4th Cir. 1979) — 4[b] U.S. v. Gallagher, 557 F.2d 1041 (4th Cir. 1977) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Harper, 617 F.2d 35 (4th Cir. 1980) — 3[a] U.S. v. Laughman, 618 F.2d 1067 (4th Cir. 1980) — 3[a] , 3.5[a] U.S. v. McGlone, 394 F.2d 75 (4th Cir. 1968) — 4[b] , 6[b] U.S. v. Milroy, 538 F.2d 1033, 36 A.L.R. Fed. 858 (4th Cir. 1976) — 3[d] U.S. v. Napan, 769 F. Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Va. 2011) — 3[a] U.S. v. Saboonchi, 990 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md. 2014) — 3[a] U.S. v. Switzer, 11 Fed. Appx. 65 (4th Cir. 2001) — 3[a] Fifth Circuit Barrera v. U.S., 276 F.2d 654 (5th Cir. 1960) — 3[a] , 5[c] Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District, 891 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2018) — 3[a] , 5[a] Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District, 226 F. Supp. 3d 778 (W.D. Tex. 2016) — 3[a] Canal Zone, Government of v. Eulberg, 581 F.2d 1216 (5th Cir. 1978) — 6[a] Davis v. U.S., 431 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1970) — 4[b] King v. U.S., 258 F.2d 754 (5th Cir. 1958) — 5[c] Lane v. U.S., 321 F.2d 573 (5th Cir. 1963) — 5[c] Leon-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 123 Fed. Appx. 599 (5th Cir. 2005) — 3[a] Mansfield v. U.S., 308 F.2d 221 (5th Cir. 1962) — 3[a] Marsh v. U.S., 344 F.2d 317 (5th Cir. 1965) — 3[a] , 4[c] Morales v. U.S., 378 F.2d 187 (5th Cir. 1967) — 3[a] , 4[b] , 6[a] Patenotte v. U.S., 266 F.2d 647 (5th Cir. 1959) — 3[a] Perel v. Vanderford, 547 F.2d 278, 22 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 1433 (5th Cir. 1977) — 5[e] Ramirez v. U.S., 263 F.2d 385 (5th Cir. 1959) — 4[b] , 5[c] Stassi v. U.S., 410 F.2d 946 (5th Cir. 1969) — 3[a] , 3[b] , 4[b] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7 Thomas v. U.S., 372 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1967) — 3[a] , 3[b] , 4[b] , 6[a] United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944 (S.D. Tex. 2017) — 3[a] , 3.5[a] , 4[b] United States v. Byrd, 494 F.2d 1284 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[b] United States v. Escamilla, 852 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2017) — 4[a] , 4[b] United States v. Garcia, 726 Fed. Appx. 975 (5th Cir. 2018) — 4[a] United States v. Hernandez, 267 F. Supp. 3d 911 (W.D. Tex. 2016) — 3[a] United States v. Mackey, 734 Fed. Appx. 227 (5th Cir. 2018) — 4[b] United States v. Molina-Isidoro, 884 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2018) — 3[a] United States v. Ramirez-Mendoza, 657 Fed. Appx. 298 (5th Cir. 2016) — 4[b] United States v. Ramirez, 839 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2016) — 4[a] , 4[b] United States v. Robles-Avalos, 895 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2018) — 3[a] United States v Rodriguez-Reinosa (1970, CA5 Tex) 427 F2d 150 — 3[a] U.S. v. Adams, 569 F.2d 924 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Afanador, 567 F.2d 1325 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3[b] , 5[e] U.S. v. Aguirre-Valenzuela, 700 F.2d 161 (5th Cir. 1983) — 3[f] U.S. v. Alderete, 546 F.2d 68 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Almand, 565 F.2d 927 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3[f] , 4[b] U.S. v. Alvarado, 635 F. Supp. 2d 586 (W.D. Tex. 2009) — 2 U.S. v. Alvarado, 519 F.2d 1133 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Alvarado Garcia, 781 F.2d 422 (5th Cir. 1986) — 4[b] U.S. v. Alvarez-Gonzalez, 561 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1977) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Alvarez-Gonzalez, 542 F.2d 226 (5th Cir. 1976) — 3[a] , 4[a] U.S. v. Alvarez-Gonzalez, 401 F. Supp. 931 (S.D. Tex. 1975) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Amuny, 767 F.2d 1113 (5th Cir. 1985) — 6[b] U.S. v. Andrade, 545 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Antu, 569 Fed. Appx. 204 (5th Cir. 2014) — 4[b] U.S. v. Arrasmith, 557 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[a] U.S. v. Arredondo-Hernandez, 574 F.2d 1312 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Arroyave, 477 F.2d 157 (5th Cir. 1973) — 3[c] U.S. v. Balderas, 597 F.2d 67 (5th Cir. 1979) — 4[b] U.S. v. Ballard, 600 F.2d 1115 (5th Cir. 1979) — 4[a] U.S. v. Barbin, 743 F.2d 256 (5th Cir. 1984) — 4[a] U.S. v. Barger, 574 F.2d 1283 (5th Cir. 1978) — 5[e] U.S. v. Bates, 526 F.2d 966 (5th Cir. 1976) — 3[a] , 4[a] U.S. v. Bazan-Molina, 544 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Bender, 588 F.2d 200 (5th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Bird, 456 F.2d 1023 (5th Cir. 1972) — 4[b] U.S. v. Blanford, 566 F.2d 470 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Bowman, 502 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] U.S. v. Brennan, 538 F.2d 711 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[a] , 4[c] U.S. v. Briones, 423 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1970) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 5[c] U.S. v. Brom, 542 F.2d 281 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Bursey, 491 F.2d 531 (5th Cir. 1974) — 4[c] U.S. v. Byrd, 483 F.2d 1196 (5th Cir. 1973) — 4[c] U.S. v. Calvillo, 537 F.2d 158 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[c] U.S. v. Canales-Rosales, 67 F. Supp. 3d 791 (S.D. Tex. 2014) — 4[a] U.S. v. Canales, 573 F.2d 908 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Canales, 558 F.2d 1201 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Canales, 527 F.2d 440 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8 U.S. v. Cantu, 510 F.2d 1003 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Cantu, 504 F.2d 387 (5th Cir. 1974) — 4[b] U.S. v. Caraballo, 571 F.2d 975 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Caraway, 474 F.2d 25 (5th Cir. 1973) — 4[a] , 4[c] , 6[b] U.S. v. Carroll, 591 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1979) — 4[b] U.S. v. Carter, 590 F.2d 138 (5th Cir. 1979) — 5[a] U.S. v. Cascante-Bernitta, 711 F.2d 36 (5th Cir. 1983) — 4[b] U.S. v. Cervantes, 797 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2015) — 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Chaplinski, 579 F.2d 373 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3[a] U.S. v. Chavarria, 493 F.2d 935 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] U.S. v. Chiarito, 507 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] , 6[a] U.S. v. Cimino, 631 F.2d 57 (5th Cir. 1980) — 3[a] , 6[b] U.S. v. Clay, 581 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Clayton, 374 Fed. Appx. 497 (5th Cir. 2010) — 3[h] U.S. v. Conner, 364 F. Supp. 1168 (S.D. Tex. 1973) — 3[a] , 3.5[a] U.S. v. Corral-Martinez, 592 F.2d 263 (5th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] U.S. v. Cosimo Dimas, 537 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Cristancho-Puerto, 475 F.2d 1025 (5th Cir. 1973) — 3[c] , 5[a] U.S. v. De Gutierrez, 667 F.2d 16 (5th Cir. 1982) — 5[e] U.S. v. Del Bosque, 523 F.2d 1251 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3[f] U.S. v. De Leon, 462 F.2d 170 (5th Cir. 1972) — 4[b] U.S. v. Delgado, 99 Fed. Appx. 493 (5th Cir. 2004) — 3[a] U.S. v. De Witt, 569 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Diaz, 541 F.2d 1165 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Diemler, 498 F.2d 1070 (5th Cir. 1974) — 4[c] U.S. v. Duncan, 547 F.2d 903 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Escamilla, 560 F.2d 1229 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[a] , 4[c] U.S. v. Faulkner, 547 F.2d 870 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Flores, 594 F.2d 438 (5th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] U.S. v. Flores, 531 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1976) — 6[b] U.S. v. Flynn, 664 F.2d 1296 (5th Cir. 1982) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Fogelman, 586 F.2d 337 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[a] , 4[c] U.S. v. Fontecha, 576 F.2d 601 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Forbicetta, 484 F.2d 645 (5th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] U.S. v. Freeman, 579 F.2d 942 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3[a] U.S. v. Frisbie, 550 F.2d 335 (5th Cir. 1977) — 3[f] U.S. v. Fuentes, 379 F. Supp. 1145 (S.D. Tex. 1974) — 4[b] U.S. v. Gandara-Nunez, 564 F.2d 693 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Garcia-Garcia, 319 F.3d 726 (5th Cir. 2003) — 3[a] U.S. v. Garcia, 732 F.2d 1221 (5th Cir. 1984) — 4[b] U.S. v. Garcia, 592 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] U.S. v. Garcia, 452 F.2d 419 (5th Cir. 1971) — 4[b] U.S. v. Garza, 554 F.2d 257 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Garza, 547 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Garza, 544 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Garza, 539 F.2d 381 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Gordon, 712 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1983) — 3[f] U.S. v. Gorthy, 550 F.2d 1051 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Gutierrez, 560 F.2d 195 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9 U.S. v. Hart, 525 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Head, 693 F.2d 353 (5th Cir. 1982) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Henriquez, 483 F.2d 65 (5th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] , 3[c] U.S. v. Hernandez, 477 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 2007) — 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Hill, 430 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1970) — 3[a] , 4[b] , 6[b] U.S. v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] , 5[e] U.S. v. Hinojosa-Echavarria, 250 Fed. Appx. 109 (5th Cir. 2007) — 3[a] U.S. v. Hosch, 577 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Howle, 537 F.2d 1302 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Ivey, 546 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Johnson, 588 F.2d 147 (5th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] , 3.5[a] , 4[c] U.S. v. Johnson, 439 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1971) — 3[a] U.S. v. King, 517 F.2d 350 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] , 3[d] U.S. v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] , 5[a] U.S. v. Laija-Garcia, 347 F. Supp. 2d 350 (W.D. Tex. 2004) — 3[a] , 3[f] U.S. v. Laija-Garcia, 110 Fed. Appx. 411 (5th Cir. 2004) — 3[a] U.S. v. Lara, 271 Fed. Appx. 404 (5th Cir. 2008) — 3[a] U.S. v. Lara, 517 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Leal, 547 F.2d 1222 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Legeza, 559 F.2d 441 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Lockwood, 604 F.2d 7 (5th Cir. 1979) — 4[b] U.S. v. Lonabaugh, 494 F.2d 1257 (5th Cir. 1973) — 3.5[a] , 4[c] U.S. v. Long, 196 F. Supp. 2d 461 (W.D. Tex. 2002) — 3[a] , 5[a] U.S. v. Lopez, 564 F.2d 710 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[c] U.S. v. Love, 413 F. Supp. 1122 (S.D. Tex. 1976) — 3[a] , 4[b] , 5[e] U.S. v. Luddington, 589 F.2d 236 (5th Cir. 1979) — 4[b] U.S. v. Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2001) — 4[a] U.S. v. Macias, 546 F.2d 58 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Madrid-Rodriguez, 88 Fed. Appx. 732 (5th Cir. 2004) — 4[a] U.S. v. Madrid, 531 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Maggard, 451 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1971) — 3[a] , 4[b] , 6[a] U.S. v. Maldonado, 241 Fed. Appx. 198 (5th Cir. 2007) — 3[h] U.S. v. Marez, 569 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Martinez, 597 F.2d 509 (5th Cir. 1979) — 4[b] U.S. v. Martinez, 588 F.2d 495 (5th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] U.S. v. Martinez, 577 F.2d 960 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3[a] U.S. v. Martinez, 481 F.2d 214 (5th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] , 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Maskeny, 609 F.2d 183 (5th Cir. 1980) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. McBee, 659 F.2d 1302 (5th Cir. 1981) — 4[a] , 4[c] U.S. v. McCrary, 543 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. McDaniel, 463 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1972) — 4[b] U.S. v. McGlynn, 496 F.2d 1316 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. McKim, 487 F.2d 305 (5th Cir. 1973) — 4[c] U.S. v. Medina, 543 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Mejia, 720 F.2d 1378 (5th Cir. 1983) — 3[a] , 5[c] U.S. v. Melendez-Gonzalez, 727 F.2d 407 (5th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] , 4[a] U.S. v. Michel, 158 F. Supp. 34 (S.D. Tex. 1957) — 3[a] , 5[c] U.S. v. Miller, 492 F.2d 37 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Miranda-Perez, 764 F.2d 285 (5th Cir. 1985) — 3[d] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10 U.S. v. Mireles, 570 F.2d 1287 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Mitchell, 525 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[c] U.S. v. Moffett, 522 F.2d 1379 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Morales-Rosales, 698 F. Supp. 2d 716 (E.D. Tex. 2010) — 2 U.S. v. Moreno, 579 F.2d 371, 3 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 882 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Moreno, 475 F.2d 44 (5th Cir. 1973) — 2 U.S. v. Morris, 565 F.2d 951 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Moya, 549 F.2d 340 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Neufeld-Neufeld, 338 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2003) — 3[a] U.S. v. Newell, 506 F.2d 401 (5th Cir. 1975) — 4[c] U.S. v. Nichols, 560 F.2d 1227 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Niver, 689 F.2d 520 (5th Cir. 1982) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] , 6[b] U.S. v. Odutayo, 406 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2005) — 6[c] U.S. v. Ogden, 572 F.2d 501 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Olcott, 568 F.2d 1173 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3[a] U.S. v. Olivera, 582 F.2d 24 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Orona-Sanchez, 648 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1981) — 4[a] U.S. v. Outlaw, 134 F. Supp. 2d 807 (W.D. Tex. 2001) — 6[d] U.S. v. Pacheco, 617 F.2d 84 (5th Cir. 1980) — 4[a] U.S. v. Partner, 527 F.2d 1337 (5th Cir. 1976) — 3[f] U.S. v. Payne, 555 F.2d 475 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Perkins, 352 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 2003) — 3[a] U.S. v. Phillips, 496 F.2d 1395 (5th Cir. 1974) — 4[b] U.S. v. Pickett, 598 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2010) — 2 U.S. v. Poindexter, 429 F.2d 510 (5th Cir. 1970) — 4[b] U.S. v. Presas, 543 F.2d 552 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Prince, 491 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1974) — 4[b] U.S. v. Pringle, 576 F.2d 1114 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Quintana-Gomez, 488 F.2d 1246 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Quiroz-Carrasco, 565 F.2d 1328 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Rankin, 572 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Reagor, 441 F.2d 252 (5th Cir. 1971) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Reyes, 349 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2003) — 3[h] , 5[a] U.S. v. Reyna, 79 Fed. Appx. 665 (5th Cir. 2003) — 3[a] U.S. v. Reyna, 572 F.2d 515 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Reyna, 563 F.2d 1169 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[a] U.S. v. Reyna, 548 F.2d 1154 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Reyna, 546 F.2d 103 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Rice, 635 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1981) — 5[a] U.S. v. Richards, 638 F.2d 765 (5th Cir. 1981) — 3[d] , 3.5[a] U.S. v. Richards, 598 F.2d 463 (5th Cir. 1979) — 4[b] U.S. v. Rieves, 584 F.2d 740 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3[a] U.S. v. Rivera-Gonzalez, 413 Fed. Appx. 736 (5th Cir. 2011) — 3[g] U.S. v. Rivera, 595 F.2d 1095 (5th Cir. 1979) — 4[a] U.S. v. Roberts, 274 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 2001) — 3[a] U.S. v. Robinson, 567 F.2d 637 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Rodriguez-Hernandez, 493 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[a] , 3.5[b] , 4[b] U.S. v. Rodriguez-Martinez, 626 F.2d 1232 (5th Cir. 1980) — 3[f] U.S. v. Rodriguez, 556 F.2d 277 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11 U.S. v. Rodriguez, 195 F. Supp. 513 (S.D. Tex. 1960) — 3[a] , 4[b] , 6[a] U.S. v. Rogers, 719 F.2d 767 (5th Cir. 1983) — 4[b] U.S. v. Rogers, 504 F.2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] , 4[c] , 6[b] U.S. v. Rojas, 671 F.2d 159 (5th Cir. 1982) — 3[b] U.S. v. Rojas, 538 F.2d 670 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Saenz, 578 F.2d 643 (5th Cir. 1978) — 3[f] , 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Salinas, 611 F.2d 128, 5 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 753 (5th Cir. 1980) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Salinas, 439 F.2d 376 (5th Cir. 1971) — 3[a] , 6[b] U.S. v. Sandler, 644 F.2d 1163 (5th Cir. 1981) — 3[a] U.S. v. Sandler, 625 F.2d 537 (5th Cir. 1980) — 3[a] U.S. v. Scott, 108 Fed. Appx. 168 (5th Cir. 2004) — 3[h] U.S. v. Serrano-Villalobos, 326 Fed. Appx. 274 (5th Cir. 2009) — 3[a] U.S. v. Sheikh, 654 F.2d 1057 (5th Cir. 1981) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] , 6[a] U.S. v. Shields, 534 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[c] U.S. v. Shute, 402 F. Supp. 1353 (W.D. Tex. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Silva-Rios, 551 F. Supp. 159 (W.D. Tex. 1982) — 4[b] U.S. v. Smith, 557 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977) — 5[e] U.S. v. Soria, 519 F.2d 1060 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Soto, 649 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2011) — 3[a] U.S. v. Soto, 518 F. Supp. 543 (W.D. Tex. 1981) — 4[a] U.S. v. Speed, 497 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Staples, 194 F. Supp. 2d 582 (W.D. Tex. 2002) — 4[a] U.S. v. Steinkoenig, 487 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] , 3[d] , 4[b] , 6[b] U.S. v. Stevenson, 274 F. Supp. 2d 819 (S.D. Tex. 2002) — 3[h] U.S. v. Stone, 659 F.2d 569 (5th Cir. 1981) — 4[b] , 6[b] U.S. v. Storm, 480 F.2d 701 (5th Cir. 1973) — 4[c] U.S. v. Strmel, 574 F. Supp. 793 (E.D. La. 1983) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Thompson, 53 F. Supp. 3d 919 (W.D. La. 2014) — 4[a] U.S. v. Thompson, 390 F. Supp. 337 (S.D. Tex. 1974) — 4[b] U.S. v. Thompson, 475 F.2d 1359 (5th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Torres, 537 F.2d 1299 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Tsoi Kwan Sang, 416 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1969) — 3[a] U.S. v. Valdez, 456 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1972) — 4[b] U.S. v. Vallejo, 541 F.2d 1164 (5th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Vasquez, 298 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2002) — 3[a] U.S. v. Vega, 99 F. Supp. 3d 644 (M.D. La. 2015) — 4[c] U.S. v. Ventura, 447 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2006) — 3[d] U.S. v. Villasenor-Medina, 468 F. Supp. 787 (W.D. Tex. 1979) — 4[b] U.S. v. Walker, 522 F.2d 194 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Walter, 102 Fed. Appx. 873 (5th Cir. 2004) — 3[a] U.S. v. Walters, 591 F.2d 1195 (5th Cir. 1979) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Warner, 441 F.2d 821 (5th Cir. 1971) — 3[a] , 4[a] , 6[a] U.S. v. Warren, 594 F.2d 1046 (5th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Warren, 451 F.2d 582 (5th Cir. 1971) — 4[b] U.S. v. Wilson, 553 F.2d 896 (5th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Wilson, 492 F.2d 1160 (5th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Wilson, 488 F.2d 400 (5th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] U.S. v. Woody, 567 F.2d 1353 (5th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] U.S. v. Wooldridge, 508 F.2d 802 (5th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12 U.S. v. Worthington, 544 F.2d 1275 (5th Cir. 1977) — 3[a] U.S. v. Wright, 476 F.2d 1027 (5th Cir. 1973) — 4[b] Valadez v. U.S., 358 F.2d 721 (5th Cir. 1966) — 3[a] , 3[b] Walker v. U.S., 404 F.2d 900 (5th Cir. 1968) — 3[a] , 4[b] Willis v. U.S., 370 F.2d 604 (5th Cir. 1966) — 4[a] Sixth Circuit D.E. v. John Doe, 834 F.3d 723, 95 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 730 (6th Cir. 2016) — 3[a] , 6[b] U.S. v. Beckley, 335 F.2d 86 (6th Cir. 1964) — 3[a] U.S. v. Burkeen, 350 F.2d 261 (6th Cir. 1965) — 3[a] U.S. v. Corp, 452 F. Supp. 185 (W.D. Tenn. 1977) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Cusanelli, 357 F. Supp. 678 (S.D. Ohio 1972) — 4[c] U.S. v. Lawson, 461 F.3d 697, 2006 FED App. 0315P (6th Cir. 2006) — 3[c] U.S. v. Lawson, 374 F. Supp. 2d 513 (E.D. Ky. 2005) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 6[e] U.S. v. Lowe, 575 F.2d 1193 (6th Cir. 1978) — 3.5[a] Seventh Circuit Anderson v. Cornejo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2003) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 5[e] Illinois Migrant Council v. Pilliod, 540 F.2d 1062 (7th Cir. 1976) — 3[a] Kaniff v. U.S., 351 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 2003) — 5[e] Rahman v. Chertoff, 530 F.3d 622, 70 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1463 (7th Cir. 2008) — 2 U.S. v. Bolin, 514 F.2d 554 (7th Cir. 1975) — 3[d] U.S. v. Brown, 499 F.2d 829 (7th Cir. 1974) — 5[e] U.S. v. Carter, 592 F.2d 402 (7th Cir. 1979) — 4[b] U.S. v. Dorsey, 641 F.2d 1213 (7th Cir. 1981) — 5[a] U.S. v. Kurfess, 426 F.2d 1017, 20 A.L.R. Fed. 405 (7th Cir. 1970) — 6[a] U.S. v. Ruimwijk, 148 F. Supp. 2d 947 (N.D. Ill. 2001) — 3[a] U.S. v. Washington, 586 F.2d 1147 (7th Cir. 1978) — 3[a] U.S. v. Yang, 286 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2002) — 3[a] Eighth Circuit Hogan v. State of Neb., 402 F. Supp. 812 (D. Neb. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Maltais, 403 F.3d 550 (8th Cir. 2005) — 3[a] U.S. v. Udofot, 711 F.2d 831 (8th Cir. 1983) — 3[c] , 4[b] , 6[b] Ninth Circuit Alexander v. U.S., 362 F.2d 379 (9th Cir. 1966) — 3[a] , 4[a] , 4[c] Arciniaga v. U.S., 409 F.2d 513 (9th Cir. 1969) — 5[c] Bible v. U.S., 314 F.2d 106 (9th Cir. 1963) — 3[a] Blackford v. U.S., 247 F.2d 745 (9th Cir. 1957) — 5[b] Blefare v. U.S., 362 F.2d 870 (9th Cir. 1966) — 3[a] , 4[b] , 5[c] Bloomer v. U.S., 409 F.2d 869 (9th Cir. 1969) — 3[a] , 4[a] Castillo-Garcia v. U.S., 424 F.2d 482 (9th Cir. 1970) — 3[a] , 4[a] Cervantes v. U.S., 263 F.2d 800 (9th Cir. 1959) — 4[c] Church of Scientology of California v. Simon, 460 F. Supp. 56 (C.D. Cal. 1978) — 3[d] Contreras v. U.S., 291 F.2d 63 (9th Cir. 1961) — 4[c] Deck v. U.S., 395 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1968) — 3[a] Denton v. U.S., 310 F.2d 129 (9th Cir. 1962) — 5[b] DeVries v. Acree, 565 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1977) — 4[c] Encinas-Sierras v. U.S., 401 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 1968) — 3[a] , 3[b] Fernandez v. U.S., 321 F.2d 283 (9th Cir. 1963) — 4[b] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13 Fumagalli v. U.S., 429 F.2d 1011 (9th Cir. 1970) — 4[b] Gonzalez-Alonso v. U.S., 379 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1967) — 3[a] , 4[a] Hammond v. U.S., 356 F.2d 931 (9th Cir. 1966) — 3[a] , 3[b] Henderson v. U.S., 390 F.2d 805 (9th Cir. 1967) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 5[d] Huguez v. U.S., 406 F.2d 366 (9th Cir. 1968) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 5[b] Hurst v. U.S., 344 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1965) — 3[b] Jones v. U.S., 400 F.2d 134 (9th Cir. 1968) — 3[a] Jones v. U.S., 326 F.2d 124 (9th Cir. 1963) — 3[a] , 3[b] , 4[b] King v. U.S., 348 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1965) — 3[a] , 3[b] , 4[a] Klein v. U.S., 472 F.2d 847 (9th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] Lannom v. U.S., 381 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1967) — 3[a] , 3[b] , 6[b] Lee v. U.S., 376 F.2d 98 (9th Cir. 1967) — 4[a] Leeks v. U.S., 356 F.2d 470 (9th Cir. 1966) — 4[a] Maguire v. U.S., 396 F.2d 327 (9th Cir. 1968) — 3[a] Mienke v. U.S., 452 F.2d 1076 (9th Cir. 1971) — 4[b] Morales v. U.S., 406 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1969) — 5[a] , 5[d] Murgia v. U.S., 285 F.2d 14 (9th Cir. 1960) — 3[a] , 5[b] Ng Pui Yu v. U.S., 352 F.2d 626 (9th Cir. 1965) — 3[a] , 5[b] Nicacio v. U.S. I.N.S., 768 F.2d 1133 (9th Cir. 1985) — 4[c] Plazola v. U.S., 291 F.2d 56 (9th Cir. 1961) — 4[c] Rivas v. U.S., 368 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1966) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 5[b] , 5[c] Rodriguez-Gonzalez v. U.S., 378 F.2d 256 (9th Cir. 1967) — 3[a] , 4[a] , 6[b] Sanchez v. Sessions, 870 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2017) — 3[a] Shorter v. U.S., 469 F.2d 61 (9th Cir. 1972) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 5[e] Taylor v. U.S., 352 F.2d 328 (9th Cir. 1965) — 3[a] , 4[b] Thompson v. U.S., 411 F.2d 946 (9th Cir. 1969) — 5[a] , 5[b] United States v. Caballero, 178 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (S.D. Cal. 2016) — 3[a] United States v Dobson (1986, CA9 Cal) 78 F2d 1374 — 4[b] United States v. Durazo, 727 Fed. Appx. 916 (9th Cir. 2018) — 4[b] United States v Johnson (1970, CA9 Cal) 425 F2d 631 — 5[a] , 5[e] United States v. Mendez, 240 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D. Ariz. 2017) — 3[a] United States v. Ramos, 190 F. Supp. 3d 992 (S.D. Cal. 2016) — 3[a] , 4[a] United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2018) — 3[a] , 4[a] , 4[b] United States v. Saiz, 656 Fed. Appx. 300 (9th Cir. 2016) — 4[b] U.S. v. Abbouchi, 502 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007) — 6[c] U.S. v. Aman, 624 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1980) — 5[b] U.S. v. Ayon-Perez, 150 Fed. Appx. 711 (9th Cir. 2005) — 3[d] U.S. v. Baca, 368 F. Supp. 398 (S.D. Cal. 1973) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Baltazar-Murrieta, 35 Fed. Appx. 478 (9th Cir. 2002) — 3[c] U.S. v. Barclift, 514 F.2d 1073 (9th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Barela, 571 F.2d 1108 (9th Cir. 1978) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Barron, 472 F.2d 1215 (9th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083, 75 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 399 (9th Cir. 2007) — 3[a] U.S. v. Beye, 445 F.2d 1037 (9th Cir. 1971) — 4[b] , 6[a] U.S. v. Botero, 589 F.2d 430 (9th Cir. 1978) — 3[a] U.S. v. Bravo, 295 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2002) — 3[c] U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 499 F.2d 1109 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Brown, 421 F.2d 181 (9th Cir. 1969) — 5[b] U.S. v. Bugarin-Casas, 484 F.2d 853 (9th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14 U.S. v. Caicedo-Guarnizo, 723 F.2d 1420 (9th Cir. 1984) — 4[a] , 6[a] U.S. v. Camacho, 368 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2004) — 3[a] U.S. v. Cameron, 538 F.2d 254 (9th Cir. 1976) — 5[b] U.S. v. Cardona, 769 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 1985) — 3[a] , 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Carpenter, 496 F.2d 855 (9th Cir. 1974) — 5[b] U.S. v. Carter, 563 F.2d 1360 (9th Cir. 1977) — 5[e] U.S. v. Carter, 480 F.2d 981 (9th Cir. 1973) — 5[e] U.S. v. Casillas-Munoz, 542 F.2d 508 (9th Cir. 1976) — 3[a] U.S. v. Castle, 409 F.2d 1347 (9th Cir. 1969) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 5[b] U.S. v. Castrillon, 716 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1983) — 5[c] U.S. v. Castro-Valenzuela, 33 Fed. Appx. 863 (9th Cir. 2002) — 3[a] U.S. v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2003) — 3[a] , 3[d] U.S. v. Cervantes, 174 F. Supp. 398 (S.D. Cal. 1959) — 4[c] U.S. v. Chase, 503 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1974) — 5[e] U.S. v. Chaudhry, 424 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2005) — 6[e] U.S. v. Clark, 501 F.2d 492 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] U.S. v. Cortez-Rivera, 454 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2006) — 6[e] U.S. v. Cortez-Rocha, 394 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2005) — 3[a] , 6[e] U.S. v. Cortez-Rocha, 383 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2004) — 3[a] , 5[a] U. S. v. Cortez, 281 F. Supp. 888 (S.D. Cal. 1968) — 5[a] , 5[d] U.S. v. Cota-Mora, 339 Fed. Appx. 714 (9th Cir. 2009) — 2 U.S. v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) — 3[a] U.S. v. Cotterman, 637 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2011) — 3[a] U.S. v. Couch, 688 F.2d 599 (9th Cir. 1982) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Cruz-Martinez, 87 Fed. Appx. 644 (9th Cir. 2004) — 3[d] U.S. v. Cruz-Murillo, 256 Fed. Appx. 174 (9th Cir. 2007) — 6[e] U.S. v. Curtis, 562 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1977) — 3[f] U.S. v. Delgado, 136 Fed. Appx. 87 (9th Cir. 2005) — 3[a] U.S. v. Des Jardins, 747 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] U.S. v. Diamond, 471 F.2d 771 (9th Cir. 1973) — 3[a] U.S. v. Driscoll, 632 F.2d 737 (9th Cir. 1980) — 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Dubas, 228 Fed. Appx. 695 (9th Cir. 2007) — 4[b] U.S. v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 82 (9th Cir. 1982) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] , 6[b] U.S. v. Ek, 676 F.2d 379 (9th Cir. 1982) — 3[a] U.S. v. Erwin, 625 F.2d 838 (9th Cir. 1980) — 5[d] U.S. v. Espericueta Reyes, 631 F.2d 616 (9th Cir. 1980) — 4[b] , 6[a] U.S. v. Espinoza, 338 F. Supp. 1304 (S.D. Cal. 1972) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 5[c] , 5[e] U.S. v. Esquer-Rivera, 542 F.2d 521 (9th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Estrada-Rendon, 40 Fed. Appx. 478 (9th Cir. 2002) — 3[g] U.S. v. Faherty, 692 F.2d 1258 (9th Cir. 1982) — 5[e] U.S. v. Feldman, 366 F. Supp. 356 (D. Haw. 1973) — 3[a] U.S. v. Figueroa-Espinoza, 454 F.2d 590 (9th Cir. 1972) — 4[b] U.S. v. Flores-Barajas, 98 Fed. Appx. 600 (9th Cir. 2004) — 3[a] U.S. v. Flores-Montano, 424 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2005) — 3[a] U.S. v. Gabriel, 625 F.2d 830 (9th Cir. 1980) — 4[b] U.S. v. Gamez, 232 Fed. Appx. 651 (9th Cir. 2007) — 3[a] U.S. v. Garcia, 415 F.2d 1141 (9th Cir. 1969) — 4[a] , 6[b] U.S. v. Gil de Avila, 468 F.2d 184 (9th Cir. 1972) — 5[e] U.S. v. Golden, 532 F.2d 1244 (9th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15 U.S. v. Graham, 117 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (W.D. Wash. 2000) — 3[c] U.S. v. Grayson, 597 F.2d 1225 (9th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] U.S. v. Greathouse, 16 Fed. Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2001) — 3[a] U.S. v. Guadalupe-Garza, 421 F.2d 876 (9th Cir. 1970) — 5[e] U.S. v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2009) — 3[a] U.S. v. Guzman, 482 F.2d 272 (9th Cir. 1972) — 3[a] , 3[b] , 4[b] U.S. v. Halprin, 450 F.2d 322 (9th Cir. 1971) — 3[a] U.S. v. Hamilton, 490 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1974) — 4[c] U.S. v. Hanson, 138 Fed. Appx. 39 (9th Cir. 2005) — 6[b] U.S. v. Harrington, 681 F.2d 612 (9th Cir. 1982) — 3[g] U.S. v. Heiden, 508 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Hernandez, 424 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2005) — 6[e] U.S. v. Hernandez, 102 Fed. Appx. 592 (9th Cir. 2004) — 3[d] U.S. v. Hess, 218 Fed. Appx. 635 (9th Cir. 2007) — 4[b] U.S. v. Hickman, 523 F.2d 323 (9th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] , 3[b] U.S. v. Holtz, 479 F.2d 89 (9th Cir. 1973) — 5[d] , 5[e] U.S. v. Hortze, 179 F. Supp. 913 (S.D. Cal. 1959) — 4[c] U.S. v. Jacobson, 647 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1981) — 3[d] U.S. v. Jenkins, 214 Fed. Appx. 678 (9th Cir. 2006) — 3[a] U.S. v. Johnson, 469 F.2d 281 (9th Cir. 1972) — 5[d] U.S. v. Jones, 528 F.2d 303 (9th Cir. 1975) — 4[c] U.S. v. Juarez-Rodriguez, 568 F.2d 120 (9th Cir. 1976) — 3[b] U.S. v. Juarez-Rodriguez, 498 F.2d 7 (9th Cir. 1974) — 4[c] U.S. v. Kessler, 497 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1974) — 4[a] U.S. v. Laird, 511 F.2d 1039 (9th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Larios-Montes, 500 F.2d 941 (9th Cir. 1974) — 4[b] U.S. v. Leverette, 503 F.2d 269 (9th Cir. 1974) — 5[e] U.S. v. Lincoln, 494 F.2d 833 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Lopez-Anaya, 388 F. Supp. 455 (D. Ariz. 1974) — 4[b] U.S. v. Lopez-Ibarra, 362 Fed. Appx. 677 (9th Cir. 2010) — 4[a] U.S. v. Lopez, 581 F.2d 1338 (9th Cir. 1978) — 3[a] U.S. v. Lujan-Romero, 469 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1972) — 4[c] U.S. v. Madueno-Astorga, 503 F.2d 820 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Mahoney, 427 F.2d 658 (9th Cir. 1970) — 4[b] U.S. v. Majourau, 474 F.2d 766 (9th Cir. 1973) — 4[a] , 4[c] U.S. v. Marin, 444 F.2d 86 (9th Cir. 1971) — 4[b] U.S. v. Markham, 440 F.2d 1119 (9th Cir. 1971) — 6[b] U.S. v. Martinez-Miramontes, 494 F.2d 808 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] U.S. v. Mason, 480 F.2d 563 (9th Cir. 1973) — 5[d] U.S. v. Mastberg, 503 F.2d 465 (9th Cir. 1974) — 5[e] U.S. v. Maxwell, 565 F.2d 596 (9th Cir. 1977) — 4[c] U.S. v. Mejias, 452 F.2d 1190 (9th Cir. 1971) — 3[a] , 4[a] , 6[a] U.S. v. Mollet, 510 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 1975) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Moore, 638 F.2d 1171 (9th Cir. 1980) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Mora-Chavez, 496 F.2d 1181 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3[f] , 4[b] U.S. v. Morgan, 501 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Morrison, 546 F.2d 319 (9th Cir. 1976) — 4[c] U.S. v. Murphree, 497 F.2d 395 (9th Cir. 1974) — 5[e] U.S. v. Myers, 127 Fed. Appx. 251 (9th Cir. 2005) — 6[e] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16 U.S. v. Nava, 363 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004) — 3[a] U.S. v. Nunez-Martinez, 443 F.2d 403 (9th Cir. 1971) — 3[a] U.S. v. Nunez-Villalobos, 500 F.2d 1023 (9th Cir. 1974) — 4[b] U.S. v. Oceguerra-Aguirre, 70 Fed. Appx. 473 (9th Cir. 2003) — 3[d] U.S. v. Odneal, 565 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Ojeda-Rodriguez, 502 F.2d 560 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Okafor, 285 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002) — 3[a] U.S. v. One 1967 Cessna Aircraft, Serial No. P206-0318, Registration No. N4718F, Its Tools and Appurtenances, 454 F. Supp. 1352 (C.D. Cal. 1978) — 4[c] U.S. v. Padilla-Noriega, 81 Fed. Appx. 709 (9th Cir. 2003) — 4[b] U.S. v. Palmer, 575 F.2d 721 (9th Cir. 1978) — 4[a] , 5[e] U.S. v. Pannell, 28 Fed. Appx. 696 (9th Cir. 2002) — 3[a] U.S. v. Perez, 644 F.2d 1299 (9th Cir. 1981) — 4[c] U.S. v. Petersen, 473 F.2d 874 (9th Cir. 1973) — 4[a] , 4[c] U.S. v. Portillo, 469 F.2d 907 (9th Cir. 1972) — 4[c] U.S. v. Potter, 552 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1977) — 4[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Preciado-Robles, 954 F.2d 566 (9th Cir. 1992) — 4[a] U.S. v. Price, 472 F.2d 573 (9th Cir. 1973) — 5[e] U.S. v. Pruitt, 719 F.2d 975 (9th Cir. 1983) — 4[b] U.S. v. Quintero-Castro, 705 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir. 1983) — 5[a] U.S. v. Quiroz-Reyna, 500 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3.5[b] U.S. v. Rivera-Marquez, 519 F.2d 1227 (9th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] , 3[b] , 5[e] U.S. v. Robles-Ponce, 58 Fed. Appx. 322 (9th Cir. 2003) — 3[a] U.S. v. Rocha-Lopez, 527 F.2d 476 (9th Cir. 1975) — 3[a] U.S. v. Rodriguez-Alvarado, 510 F.2d 1063 (9th Cir. 1975) — 3[f] , 4[a] U.S. v. Rodriguez-Lopez, 441 F.2d 731 (9th Cir. 1971) — 5[a] U.S. v. Rodriguez, 592 F.2d 553 (9th Cir. 1979) — 5[e] U.S. v. Romero-Bustamente, 337 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2003) — 3[d] U.S. v. Romero-Montiel, 26 Fed. Appx. 765 (9th Cir. 2002) — 3[a] U.S. v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006) — 3[a] , 6[b] U.S. v. Russell, 546 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1976) — 4[b] U.S. v. Salazar-Gaeta, 447 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1971) — 4[b] , 6[a] U.S. v. Sandoval-Ruano, 436 F. Supp. 734 (S.D. Cal. 1977) — 4[c] U.S. v. Saville, 435 F.2d 871 (9th Cir. 1970) — 5[e] U.S. v. Sayer, 579 F.2d 1169 (9th Cir. 1978) — 4[b] , 6[a] U.S. v. Schoor, 597 F.2d 1303 (9th Cir. 1979) — 3[a] U.S. v. Selby, 407 F.2d 241 (9th Cir. 1969) — 4[c] U.S. v. Seljan, 547 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2008) — 3[d] U.S. v. Seljan, 497 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) — 6[c] U.S. v. Shields, 453 F.2d 1235 (9th Cir. 1972) — 5[d] U.S. v. Smith, 629 F.2d 1301 (9th Cir. 1980) — 4[b] , 6[a] U.S. v. Solmes, 527 F.2d 1370 (9th Cir. 1975) — 4[b] U.S. v. Sosa, 469 F.2d 271 (9th Cir. 1972) — 5[a] , 5[b] U.S. v. Soto-Soto, 598 F.2d 545, 61 A.L.R. Fed. 280 (9th Cir. 1979) — 3[g] U.S. v. Spetz, 721 F.2d 1457, 12 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1901 (9th Cir. 1983) — 3[d] U.S. v. Stanley, 545 F.2d 661 (9th Cir. 1976) — 4[a] U.S. v. Summerfield, 421 F.2d 684 (9th Cir. 1970) — 5[b] , 5[e] U.S. v. Sutter, 340 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) — 4[b] U.S. v. Terry, 446 F.2d 579 (9th Cir. 1971) — 4[b] , 6[a] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17 U.S. v. Tilton, 534 F.2d 1363 (9th Cir. 1976) — 3[a] U.S. v. Tolentino, 135 Fed. Appx. 36 (9th Cir. 2005) — 3[d] U.S. v. Topete-Urrea, 110 Fed. Appx. 797 (9th Cir. 2004) — 3[c] U.S. v. Torres-Rios, 534 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1976) — 3.5[b] , 4[b] U.S. v. Torres-Urena, 513 F.2d 540 (9th Cir. 1975) — 4[c] U.S. v. Tsai, 282 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2002) — 3[b] U.S. v. Valdes-Vega, 685 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2012) — 3[a] U.S. v. Vasquez-Cazares, 563 F.2d 1329 (9th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Vasquez-Guerrero, 554 F.2d 917 (9th Cir. 1977) — 4[b] U.S. v. Vigil, 448 F.2d 1250 (9th Cir. 1971) — 4[b] U.S. v. Villasenor, 608 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2010) — 3[a] U.S. v. Vital-Padilla, 500 F.2d 641 (9th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] U.S. v. Walker, 96 Fed. Appx. 561 (9th Cir. 2004) — 3[a] U.S. v. Weil, 432 F.2d 1320 (9th Cir. 1970) — 4[b] , 6[b] U.S. v. White, 766 F.2d 1328 (9th Cir. 1985) — 3[a] U.S. v. Williams, 459 F.2d 44 (9th Cir. 1972) — 5[a] , 5[e] U.S. v. Wilmot, 563 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1977) — 3[a] , 5[e] U.S. v. Yee Ngee How, 105 F. Supp. 517 (N.D. Cal. 1952) — 3[a] U.S. v. Zaccagnini, 357 Fed. Appx. 132 (9th Cir. 2009) — 3[a] U.S. v. Zepeda-Orozco, 82 Fed. Appx. 189 (9th Cir. 2003) — 3[a] U.S. v. Zito, 451 F.2d 361 (9th Cir. 1971) — 4[b] U.S.A. v. Lewis, 295 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (C.D. Cal. 2018) — 3[a] , 4[a] Valenzuela-Garcia v. U.S., 425 F.2d 1170 (9th Cir. 1970) — 3[a] , 4[c] Valenzuela-Hernandez v. U.S., 389 F.2d 460 (9th Cir. 1968) — 3[a] Witt v. U.S., 287 F.2d 389 (9th Cir. 1961) — 3[a] , 5[e] Tenth Circuit U.S. v. Anderson, 468 F.2d 1280 (10th Cir. 1972) — 4[b] U.S. v. Arjon, 573 Fed. Appx. 683 (10th Cir. 2014) — 4[b] U.S. v. Badilla, 383 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2004) — 3[h] U.S. v. Bowman, 487 F.2d 1229 (10th Cir. 1973) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Carrizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2006) — 6[d] U.S. v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2006) — 4[b] U.S. v. Espinosa, 782 F.2d 888 (10th Cir. 1986) — 4[a] U.S. v. Fitzgibbon, 576 F.2d 279 (10th Cir. 1978) — 5[a] U.S. v. Forbes, 528 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2008) — 2, 3[h] U.S. v. Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2003) — 4[b] U.S. v. Guillen-Zapata, 157 Fed. Appx. 75 (10th Cir. 2005) — 3[f] U.S. v. King, 485 F.2d 353 (10th Cir. 1973) — 1[c] , 3[a] , 4[c] U.S. v. Leyba, 627 F.2d 1059 (10th Cir. 1980) — 3[f] , 4[a] U.S. v. Maddox, 485 F.2d 361 (10th Cir. 1973) — 4[c] U.S. v. Maestas, 2 F.3d 1485 (10th Cir. 1993) — 4[b] U.S. v. Martinez-Legarda, 102 Fed. Appx. 652 (10th Cir. 2004) — 3[a] U.S. v. Mendez, 181 Fed. Appx. 754 (10th Cir. 2006) — 4[b] U.S. v. Mendivil, 208 Fed. Appx. 647 (10th Cir. 2006) — 3[h] U.S. v. Morales, 489 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D.N.M. 2007) — 3[h] U.S. v. Moya-Matute, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D.N.M. 2008) — 3[d] U.S. v. Nevarez-Alcantar, 495 F.2d 678 (10th Cir. 1974) — 3[a] , 4[b] U.S. v. Newman, 490 F.2d 993 (10th Cir. 1974) — 4[c] U.S. v. Olivares-Rangel, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D.N.M. 2004) — 3[a] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18 U.S. v. Quintana-Grijalva, 332 Fed. Appx. 487 (10th Cir. 2009) — 3[d] U.S. v. Rascon-Ortiz, 994 F.2d 749 (10th Cir. 1993) — 3[d] U.S. v. Westhoven, 562 Fed. Appx. 726 (10th Cir. 2014) — 4[b] Eleventh Circuit U.S. v. Eleven Thousand Five Hundred and Eighty Dollars ($11,580) in U.S. Currency, 454 F. Supp. 376 (M.D. Fla. 1978) — 3[a] Brent v. Ashley, 247 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2001) — 3[a] , 3[f] Denson v. U.S., 574 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2009) — 3[a] Jasinski v. Adams, 781 F.2d 843 (11th Cir. 1986) — 4[a] United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018) — 3[a] U.S. v. Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720 (11th Cir. 2010) — 3[a] U.S. v. Bacca-Beltran, 741 F.2d 1361 (11th Cir. 1984) — 6[c] U.S. v. Bachner, 706 F.2d 1121 (11th Cir. 1983) — 3[a] U.S. v. Burgos, 484 F. Supp. 605 (S.D. Fla. 1980) — 3[a] U.S. v. Carter, 760 F.2d 1568, 18 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 108 (11th Cir. 1985) — 4[b] U.S. v. Castaneda-Castaneda, 729 F.2d 1360 (11th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] , 5[c] U.S. v. Chemaly, 741 F.2d 1346 (11th Cir. 1984) — 6[c] U.S. v. De Montoya, 729 F.2d 1369 (11th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] , 5[c] U.S. v. Garcia, 672 F.2d 1349, 10 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 359 (11th Cir. 1982) — 3[a] , 3[c] , 4[a] , 6[b] U.S. v. Gollwitzer, 697 F.2d 1357 (11th Cir. 1983) — 4[b] U.S. v. Gordo-Marin, 497 F. Supp. 432 (S.D. Fla. 1980) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Haley, 743 F.2d 862 (11th Cir. 1984) — 6[b] U.S. v. Henao-Castano, 729 F.2d 1364 (11th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] , 5[c] U.S. v. Hernandez-Cuartas, 717 F.2d 552, 14 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 535 (11th Cir. 1983) — 3[a] U.S. v. Hewitt, 724 F.2d 117 (11th Cir. 1984) — 3.5[a] U.S. v. Hidalgo-Gato, 703 F.2d 1267 (11th Cir. 1983) — 4[b] U.S. v. Himmelwright, 406 F. Supp. 889 (S.D. Fla. 1975) — 4[c] , 5[d] U.S. v. Kayser, 322 F. Supp. 52 (S.D. Ga. 1970) — 4[b] U.S. v. Kent, 691 F.2d 1376 (11th Cir. 1982) — 3[b] U.S. v. Lueck, 678 F.2d 895 (11th Cir. 1982) — 3[a] , 3[d] U.S. v. McMurray, 747 F.2d 1417 (11th Cir. 1984) — 5[a] , 5[e] U.S. v. Moreno, 778 F.2d 719 (11th Cir. 1985) — 4[b] U.S. v. Mosquera-Ramirez, 729 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] , 5[c] U.S. v. Padilla, 729 F.2d 1367 (11th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] , 5[c] U.S. v. Pino, 729 F.2d 1357 (11th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] U.S. v. Roberts, 357 Fed. Appx. 226 (11th Cir. 2009) — 5[a] U.S. v. Saldarriaga-Marin, 734 F.2d 1425 (11th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] , 5[c] U.S. v. Vega-Barvo, 729 F.2d 1341 (11th Cir. 1984) — 3[a] , 5[a] , 5[c] Witten v. Pitman, 613 F. Supp. 63 (S.D. Fla. 1985) — 6[b] District of Columbia Circuit Blackie's House of Beef, Inc. v. Castillo, 467 F. Supp. 170 (D.D.C. 1978) — 4[c] United States v. Kim, 103 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2015) — 3[a] Arizona State v. Becerra, 111 Ariz. 538, 534 P.2d 743 (1975) — 3[a] State v. Castro, 27 Ariz. App. 323, 554 P.2d 919 (Div. 1 1976) — 4[a] , 4[b] State v. Martinez, 134 Ariz. 119, 654 P.2d 53 (Ct. App. Div. 1 1982) — 3[a] State v. Sardo, 112 Ariz. 509, 543 P.2d 1138 (1975) — 6[b] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 19 State v. Smith, 121 Ariz. 345, 590 P.2d 461 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1978) — 5[b] State v. Torres, 146 Ariz. 202, 704 P.2d 1347 (Ct. App. Div. 2 1985) — 3[b] , 4[a] California Mitchell, In re, 68 Cal. 2d 258, 65 Cal. Rptr. 897, 437 P.2d 289 (1968) — 3[a] People v. Kosoff, 34 Cal. App. 3d 920, 110 Cal. Rptr. 391 (2d Dist. 1973) — 3[a] People v. Matthews, 112 Cal. App. 3d 11, 169 Cal. Rptr. 263 (2d Dist. 1980) — 3[d] People v. Mitchell, 209 Cal. App. 2d 312, 26 Cal. Rptr. 89 (4th Dist. 1962) — 3[a] People v Valenzuela (1994, 4th Dist) 28 Cal App 4th 817, 33 Cal Rptr 2d 802, 94 CDOS 7452, 94 Daily Journal DAR 13603 — 3[c] Connecticut State v. Jennings, 32 Conn. Supp. 15, 336 A.2d 237 (Super. Ct. 1974) — 3[a] , 3[d] Florida Clark v. State, 395 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 1981) — 3.5[a] Dominguez-Reyes v. State, 913 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) — 6[b] Earnest v. State, 293 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974) — 4[a] , 4[c] I. M. v. State, 400 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981) — 3[a] State v. Schloss, 341 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) — 3[a] Ziegler v. Frank, Strelkow & Gay, 421 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) — 3[a] Hawaii State v. Merjil, 65 Haw. 601, 655 P.2d 864 (1982) — 5[b] Louisiana State v. Ordonez, 395 So. 2d 778 (La. 1981) — 4[b] Maine State v. Allard, 313 A.2d 439 (Me. 1973) — 3[a] Massachusetts Com. v. Aguiar, 370 Mass. 490, 350 N.E.2d 436 (1976) — 3[a] Nebraska State v. Hogan, 194 Neb. 207, 231 N.W.2d 135 (1975) — 3[a] , 3[d] New Jersey State v. Green, 346 N.J. Super. 87, 787 A.2d 186 (App. Div. 2001) — 5[a] New Mexico State v. Franco, 94 N.M. 243, 1980-NMCA-018, 608 P.2d 1125 (Ct. App. 1980) — 3[a] State v. Gonzales, 97 N.M. 182, 1981-NMCA-131, 637 P.2d 1237 (Ct. App. 1981) — 4[b] State v. Munoz, 2008-NMCA-090, 187 P.3d 696 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) — 3[h] State v. Sanchez, 2015-NMSC-018, 350 P.3d 1169 (N.M. 2015) — 3[a] , 3.5[a] , 5[a] New York People v. Bannister, 112 Misc. 2d 770, 447 N.Y.S.2d 829 (Sup 1982) — 3[a] People v. Breidenbach, 90 Misc. 2d 213, 393 N.Y.S.2d 855 (Sup 1977) — 3[a] People v. DeLoach, 58 Misc. 2d 896, 297 N.Y.S.2d 220 (N.Y. City Ct. 1969) — 6[b] People v. Esposito, 37 N.Y.2d 156, 371 N.Y.S.2d 681, 332 N.E.2d 863 (1975) — 3[a] People v. Furey, 42 Misc. 2d 579, 248 N.Y.S.2d 460 (Sup 1964) — 3[a] People v. Johnson, 300 A.D.2d 678, 752 N.Y.S.2d 700 (2d Dep't 2002) — 3[a] People v. LaRose, 5 Misc. 3d 621, 782 N.Y.S.2d 633 (County Ct. 2004) — 4[a] , 4[b] , 6[d] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 20 People v. Mitchell, 72 A.D.2d 589, 421 N.Y.S.2d 13 (2d Dep't 1979) — 3[a] People v. Mitchell, 90 Misc. 2d 463, 395 N.Y.S.2d 340 (Sup 1977) — 3[a] People v. Regnet, 111 Misc. 2d 105, 443 N.Y.S.2d 642 (Sup 1981) — 3[a] People v. Scaffa, 81 Misc. 2d 17, 365 N.Y.S.2d 475 (N.Y. City Crim. Ct. 1975) — 3[a] People v. Siegfried, 116 Misc. 2d 784, 456 N.Y.S.2d 323 (Sup 1982) — 4[b] People v. Warren, 91 A.D.2d 1007, 457 N.Y.S.2d 873 (2d Dep't 1983) — 5[b] People v. White, 8 Misc. 3d 935, 796 N.Y.S.2d 902 (County Ct. 2005) — 3[a] North Carolina State v. Rivard, 57 N.C. App. 672, 292 S.E.2d 174 (1982) — 3.5[a] , 4[b] North Dakota State v. Matthews, 216 N.W.2d 90 (N.D. 1974) — 3[a] Pennsylvania Com. v. DeWitt, 226 Pa. Super. 372, 314 A.2d 27 (1973) — 3[d] South Carolina State v. Lynch, 412 S.C. 156, 771 S.E.2d 346 (Ct. App. 2015) — 3[c] Tennessee State v. Blakely, 677 S.W.2d 12 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) — 4[b] Texas Guadian v. State, 420 S.W.2d 949 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967) — 3[a] , 4[b] Gutierrez v. State, 22 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2000) — 6[d] Pena v. State, 61 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001) — 3[a] Tamez v. State, 534 S.W.2d 686 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976) — 3[b] , 3.5[a] , 4[c] Vermont State v. Lawrence, 175 Vt. 600, 2003 VT 68, 834 A.2d 10 (2003) — 6[a] Wisconsin L. L., In Interest of, 90 Wis. 2d 585, 280 N.W.2d 343 (Ct. App. 1979) — 3[a] § 1[a] Scope and related matters—Scope This annotation collects the federal cases and representative state cases dealing with questions as to the validity of border searches and seizures by United States customs officials. For purposes of the annotation the term " border searches and seizures" refers to searches and seizures made as to travelers crossing international borders and as to their belongings, and includes the search of vehicles.

This annotation includes cases dealing with searches of persons, baggage, and merchandise discharged from vessels, but does not include cases involving a boarding of, and search and seizure on, a vessel. 1 For purposes of this annotation the term "international border" includes not only the Canadian and Mexican borders, but also inland checkpoints and the "border" crossed by a traveler who has come ashore from a ship at a port or who has alighted from an airplane at an airport after an international flight. Cases which merely sustain the legality of a bordersearch without discussion are not considered herein. § 1[b] Scope and related matters—Related matters Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 21 Related Annotations are located under the Research References heading of this Annotation.

§ 1[c] Scope and related matters—Applicable statutory provisions [Cumulative Supplement] 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 , concerning the search of vehicles and persons, provides: "Any of the officers or persons authorized to board or search vessels may stop, search, and examine, as well without as within their respective districts, any vehicle, beast, or person, on which or whom he or they shall suspect there is merchandise which is subject to duty, or shall have been introduced into the United States in any manner contrary to law, whether by the person in possession or charge, or by, in, or upon such vehicle or beast, or otherwise, and to search any trunk or envelope, wherever found, in which he may have a reasonable cause to suspect there is merchandise which was imported contrary to law; and if any such officer or other person so authorized shall find any merchandise on or about any such vehicle, beast, or person, or in any such trunk or envelope, which he shall have reasonable cause to believe is subject to duty, or to have been unlawfully introduced into the United States, whether by the person in possession or charge, or by, in, or upon such vehicle, beast,or otherwise, he shall seize and secure the same for trial. R.S. § 3061." 19 U.S.C.A. § 1582 , concerning the search of persons and baggage and regulations concerning such search, provides:

"The Secretary of the Treasury may prescribe regulations for the search of persons and baggage and he is authorized to employ female inspectors for the examination and search of persons of their own sex; and all persons coming into the United States from foreign countries shall be liable to detention and search by authorized officers or agents of theGovernment under such regulations. June 17, 1930, c. 497, Title IV, § 582, 46 Stat. 748." For implementing regulations governing search and seizure in connection with enforcement of the customs laws, see 19 CFR §§ 23.1, 23.5, 23.11 (as of January 1, 1970). CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Federal statute empowering United States Attorney General to define what is a reasonable distance from an external boundary of the United States within which a border search may be conducted without probable cause and without warrant is not unconstitutional for failing to require such determination to be made by a neutral and detached magistrate. United States v King (CA10 NM) 485 F2d 353 (disapproved on other grounds Bowen v United States 422 US 916, 45 L. Ed. 2d 641, 95 S Ct 2569 ). [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 2. Summary [Cumulative Supplement] Synopsis Border searches , whether made at the border itself or at some point inland, may be made without probable cause on the basis of mere suspicion alone, although they are restricted by the constitutional requirement of reasonableness. Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 22 It appears to be well settled that customs officers may stop and subject persons to a "border search" on the basis of mere suspicion alone. Unlike other types of searches, border searches do not require a showing of probable cause. 2 That is not to say, however, that the restrictions of the Fourth Amendment that searches and seizures may not be unreasonable are inapplicable to border searches . On the contrary, border stops and searches, like all stops and searches by public officials, are restricted by the requirement that they be reasonable. 3 Since border searches may be made on mere suspicion alone, the right to search at the border is not dependent upon the reliability of an informer's tip, and therefore the government is not required to disclose the name of an informer to the defendant. 4 In at least one case the court has enumerated the classes of persons who may be subject to border searches .5 While there is some disagreement concerning the proper "border area," it seems that generally border searches are not limited to the actual checkpoint at an international boundary. Depending upon circumstances, such as the time and distance from the border, the extent of surveillance, and the like, searches made away from the border, sometimes even a considerable distance inland, have been sustained as valid border searches .6 In this connection the courts in a number of cases have set forth the rule that the legality as a border search of a search not made in the immediate vicinity of the border is tested by the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the time and distance elapsed and the manner of surveillance. 7 In a number of cases involving searches at checkpoints or other locations away from the border, the courts have variously determined the legality 8 or illegality 9 of the search, depending upon the surrounding circumstances.

While mere suspicion alone is sufficient to give customs agents the right to make a search at the border, it seems that the nature and extent of the search that may be made under the circumstances are governed by the constitutional requirement of reasonableness. This factor takes on significance where the border search goes beyond a mere inspection of a person's clothing, luggage, or vehicle and entails an intrusive search of his body. The courts in a number of recent cases have taken the view that in order to justify an intrusive body search, mere suspicion alone is insufficient, but rather there must be a "clear indication" or "plain suggestion" of criminal activity. 10 The validity of intrusive body searches has been variously determined in cases involving an inspection or probing of defendant's rectal area, 11 cases wherein a defendant was given a laxative or emetic to produce swallowed contraband, 12 cases involving a search of a female's vagina, 13 and strip and search cases. 14 It has been held that the validity of a border search is not affected by the fact that defendant may have been subjected to a prior search and escaped detection, 15 and is not dependent upon a showing that defendant actually crossed the border. 16 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

The border search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement permits a government officer at an international border to conduct a routine search and seizure, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into the United States. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.

4 . U.S. v. Pickett, 598 F.3d 231 (5th Cir. 2010) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 23 See U. S. v Moreno (CA5 Tex) 475 F2d 44 (citing annotation), cert den 414 US 840, 38 L. Ed. 2d 76, 94 S Ct 94 .

Factors that may be considered in considering whether Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle include: (1) the characteristics of the area in which the vehicle is encountered; (2) the arresting agent's previous experience with criminal activity; (3) the area's proximity to the border; (4) the usual traffic patterns on the road; (5) information about recent illegal trafficking in aliens or narcotics in the area; (6) the appearance of the vehicle; (7) the driver's behavior; and, (8) the passengers' number, appearance and behavior. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Morales- Rosales, 698 F. Supp. 2d 716 (E.D. Tex. 2010) .

Factors that may be considered in determining whether border patrol agent acted with reasonable suspicion in detaining vehicle include: (1) proximity to the border; (2) characteristics of the area; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) agent's previous experience in detecting illegal activity; (5) behavior of the driver; (6) particular aspects or characteristics of the vehicle; (7) information about recent illegal trafficking in aliens or narcotics in the area; and (8) the number, appearance, andbehavior of the passengers. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Alvarado, 635 F. Supp. 2d 586 (W.D. Tex. 2009) .

Executive has plenary authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant, in order to regulate the collection of duties and to prevent the introduction of contraband into this country. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . Rahman v. Chertoff, 530 F.3d 622 (7th Cir. 2008) .

Border patrol agents had reasonable certainty that defendant's vehicle recently crossed the border and that criminal activity was a foot, supporting stop of vehicle; defendant's vehicle emerged from northern outlet of valley outlined with sand dunes from its origin in Mexico to terminus in United States, vehicle visibly lacked modifications required to pass through dunes, two all-terrain vehicles preceded defendant's vehicle be several minutes, and agent observed that defendant's vehicle did not have front passenger seat, there appeared to be something full or flat between driver and door, vehicle lacked flag required for recreation use of dunes, and vehicle was proceeding directly for freeway entrance. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cota-Mora, 339 Fed. Appx. 714 (9th Cir. 2009) .

Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government extends to those entering the United States at border checkpoints. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Forbes, 528 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2008) . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 3[a] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Mere suspicion as sufficient basis for search [Cumulative Supplement] By virtue of federal statutes all persons coming into the United States from foreign countries are liable to detention and search by authorized officers or agents of the government. 17 These " border searches ," while they must meet the constitutional test of reasonableness, are in a separate and distinct category from other types of searches, since generally mere suspicion alone is sufficient to sustain the validity of the search. Comment A distinction should be noted between the right to make a "search" and the nature and extent of the search that may be made under the circumstances. Thus, it appears to be well settled that a search of a person's vehicle or baggage, or the like, may be made at the border on the basis of the merest suspicion. On the other hand, if the search of the person is Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 24 to go further, it seems that something more is required. It has been held that to justify a search of body cavities there must be a "clear indication" or "plain suggestion" of smuggling and that mere suspicion is not enough. Rivas v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 368 F2d 703, infra § 5[b] , cert den 386 US 945, 17 L Ed 875, 87 S Ct 980 ; and Henderson v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 390 F 2d 805, infra § 5[d] .

It has been held or recognized in numerous cases that no question of whether there is probable cause for a search exists where the search is incidental to the crossing of an international border, for there is reason and probable cause to searchevery person entering the United States from a foreign country, by reason of such entry alone. First Circuit U. S. v Stornini (CA1 Puerto Rico) 443 F2d 833 , cert den 404 US 861, 30 L. Ed. 2d 104, 92 S Ct 162 United States v Roussel (1968, DC Mass) 278 F Supp 908 United States v Berard (1968, DC Mass) 281 F Supp 328U. S. v Becker (DC Mass) 347 F Supp 1039United States v Carpenter (DC Mass) 403 F Supp 361 Second Circuit Landau v United States Atty. (1936, CA2 NY) 82 F2d 285 , cert den 298 US 665, 80 L Ed 1389, 56 S Ct 747 United States v Glaziou (1968, CA2 NY) 402 F2d 8, 6 ALR Fed 302 , cert den 393 US 1121, 22 L Ed 2d 126, 89 S Ct 999 United States v Aulet (1980, CA2 NY) 618 F2d 182 . U. S. v Marti (DC NY) 321 F Supp 59 United States v Sohnen (1969, DC NY) 298 F Supp 51 (dictum) United States v Pedersen (1969, DC Vt) 300 F Supp 669 United States v Luc-Thirion (1980, ED NY) 501 F Supp 875United States v Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, etc. (DC NY) 363 F Supp 165 Third Circuit United States v Beck (CA3 Pa) 483 F2d 203 , cert den 414 US 1132, 38 L. Ed. 2d 757, 94 S Ct 873 United States v Diaz (CA3 Pa) 503 F2d 1025 Fourth Circuit United States v Harper (1980, CA4 NC) 617 F2d 35 United States v Laughman (1980, CA4 SC) 618 F2d 1067 , cert den (US) 65 L. Ed. 2d 1117, 100 S Ct 3018 Fifth Circuit Patenotte v United States (1959, CA5 Miss) 266 F2d 647 (dictum) Barrera v United States (1960, CA5 Tex) 276 F2d 654 Mansfield v United States (1962, CA5 La) 308 F2d 221Marsh v United States (1965, CA5 Tex) 344 F2d 317 (dictum) Valadez v United States (1966, CA5 Tex) 358 F2d 721 Thomas v United States (1967, CA5 Tex) 372 F2d 252Morales v United States (1967, CA5 Tex) 378 F2d 187Walker v United States (1968, CA5 Tex) 404 F2d 900Stassi v United States (1969, CA5 Tex) 410 F2d 946United States v Tsoi Kwan Sang (1969, CA5 La) 416 F2d 306United States v Briones (1970, CA5 Tex) 423 F2d 742 See also United States v Rodriguez-Reinosa (1970, CA5 Tex) 427 F2d 150 , infra United States v Sandler (1981, CA5 Fla) 644 F2d 1163 United States v Head (1982, CA5 Tex) 693 F2d 353United States v Mejia (1983, CA5 La) 720 F2d 1378United States v Melendez-Gonzalez (1984, CA5 Tex) 727 F2d 407U. S. v Hill (CA5 Fla) 430 F2d 129U. S. v Salinas (CA5 Tex) 439 F2d 376U. S. v Johnson (CA5 Tex) 439 F2d 885 , cert den 404 US 880, 30 L. Ed. 2d 161, 92 S Ct 213 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 25 U. S. v Reagor (CA5 Tex) 441 F2d 252 U. S. v Warner (CA5 Tex) 441 F2d 821 , cert den 404 US 829, 30 L. Ed. 2d 58, 92 S Ct 65 U. S. v Maggard (CA5 Tex) 451 F2d 502 , cert den 405 US 1045, 31 L. Ed. 2d 587, 92 S Ct 1330 U. S. v Martinez (CA5 Tex) 481 F2d 214 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 481 F2d 1404 and cert den 415 US 931, 39 L. Ed. 2d 489, 94 S Ct 1444 United States v Henriquez (CA5 Fla) 483 F2d 65 , cert den 414 US 1095, 38 L. Ed. 2d 553, 94 S Ct 728 United States v Steinkoenig (CA5 Tex) 487 F2d 225 United States v Chavarria (CA5 Tex) 493 F2d 935 United States v Rogers (CA5 Tex) 504 F2d 1079 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 509 F2d 576 , and cert den 422 US 1042, 45 L. Ed.

2d 693, 95 S Ct 2655 United States v Chiarito (CA5 Fla) 507 F2d 1098 , cert den 423 US 824, 46 L. Ed. 2d 40, 96 S Ct 38 United States v Martinez (CA5 Fla) 577 F2d 960 , cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 262, 99 S Ct 288 United States v Chaplinski (CA5 Fla) 579 F2d 373 , cert den 439 US 1050, 58 L. Ed. 2d 711, 99 S Ct 731 United States v Rieves (CA5 Fla) 584 F2d 740 United States v Johnson (CA5 Tex) 588 F2d 147United States v Martinez (CA5 Tex) 588 F2d 495United States v Corral-Martinez (CA5 Tex) 592 F2d 263United States v Klein (CA5 Fla) 592 F2d 909United States v Flores (CA5 Tex) 594 F2d 438United States v Warren (CA5 Tex) 594 F2d 1046 United States v Michel (1957, DC Tex) 158 F Supp 34 , affd King v United States (CA5) 258 F2d 754 , cert den 359 US 939, 3 L Ed 2d 639, 79 S Ct 652, infra § 5[c] United States v Rodriguez (1960, DC Tex) 195 F Supp 513 , affd (CA5) 292 F2d 709 United States v Burgos (1980, SD Fla) 484 F Supp 605 United States v Alvarez-Gonzalez (SD Tex) 401 F Supp 931 , remanded (CA5 Tex) 542 F2d 226 , later app (CA5 Tex) 561 F2d 620 and (disagreed on other grounds with United States v Garcia (1982, CA11 Fla) 672 F2d 1349 ) U. S. v Shute (DC Tex) 402 F Supp 1353 United States v Eleven Thousand Five Hundred & Eighty Dollars in United States Currency (MD Fla) 454 F Supp 376 Sixth Circuit United States v Beckley (1964, CA6 Mich) 335 F2d 86 , cert den 380 US 922, 13 L Ed 2d 807, 85 S Ct 921 (dictum) United States v Burkeen (1965, CA6 Tenn) 350 F2d 261 , cert den 382 US 966, 15 L Ed 2d 369, 86 S Ct 457 (impliedly recognizing rule) Seventh Circuit Illinois Migrant Council v Pilliod (1976, CA7 Ill) 540 F2d 1062 , on reh (CA7 Ill) 548 F2d 715 , later proceeding (ND Ill) 531 F Supp 1011 , later proceeding (ND Ill) 672 F Supp 1072, 46 CCH EPD ¶ 37997 Ninth Circuit Garcia Murgia v United States (1960, CA9 Cal) 285 F2d 14 , cert den 366 US 977, 6 L Ed 2d 1265, 81 S Ct 1946 Witt v United States (1961, CA9 Cal) 287 F2d 389 , cert den 366 US 950, 6 L Ed 2d 1242, 81 S Ct 1904 Bible v United States (1963, CA9 Cal) 314 F2d 106 , cert den 375 US 862, 11 L Ed 2d 89, 84 S Ct 131 Jones v United States (1963, CA9 Cal) 326 F2d 124 , cert den 377 US 956, 12 L Ed 2d 499, 84 S Ct 1635 (per concurring opinion of Duniway, J.) King v United States (1965, CA9 Cal) 348 F2d 814 , cert den 382 US 926, 15 L Ed 2d 339, 86 S Ct 314 Taylor v United States (1965, CA9 Cal) 352 F2d 328 Ng Pui Yu v United States (1965, CA9 Cal) 352 F2d 626Hammond v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 356 F2d 931Alexander v United States (1966, CA9 Ariz) 362 F2d 379 , cert den 385 US 977, 17 L Ed 2d 439, 87 S Ct 519 Blefare v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 362 F2d 870 Rivas v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 368 F2d 703 , cert den 386 US 945, 17 L Ed 2d 875, 87 S Ct 980 Rodriguez-Gonzalez v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 378 F2d 256 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 26 Gonzalez-Alonso v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 379 F2d 347 Lannom v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 381 F2d 858 , cert den 389 US 1041, 19 L Ed 2d 833, 88 S Ct 784 Henderson v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 390 F2d 805 Valenzuela-Hernandez v United States (1968, CA9 Ariz) 389 F2d 460Deck v United States (1968, CA9 Ariz) 395 F2d 89Maguire v United States (1968, CA9 Cal) 396 F2d 327 , cert den 393 US 1099, 21 L Ed 2d 792, 89 S Ct 897 Jones v United States (1968, CA9 Cal) 400 F2d 134 , vacated on other grounds 395 US 462, 23 L Ed 2d 445, 89 S Ct 2022 Encinas-Sierras v United States (1968, CA9 Ariz) 401 F2d 228 Huguez v United States (1968, CA9 Cal) 406 F2d 366Bloomer v United States (1969, CA9 Cal) 409 F2d 869 United States v Castle (1969, CA9 Ariz) 409 F2d 1347 , cert den 396 US 975, 24 L Ed 2d 443, 90 S Ct 443 , reh den 396 US 1063, 24 L Ed 2d 757, 90 S Ct 760 Castillo-Garcia v United States (1970, CA9 Cal) 424 F2d 482Valenzuela-Garcia v United States (1970, CA9 Cal) 425 F2d 1170U. S. v Nunez-Martinez (CA9 Cal) 443 F2d 403U. S. v Mejias (CA9 Cal) 452 F2d 1190Shorter v U. S. (CA9 Hawaii) 469 F2d 61 , cert den 411 US 918, 36 L. Ed. 2d 310, 93 S Ct 1555 Klein v U. S. (CA9 Ariz) 472 F2d 847 U. S. v Barron (CA9 Cal) 472 F2d 1215 , cert den 413 US 920, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3063 United States v Bugarin-Casas (CA9 Cal) 484 F2d 853 , cert den 414 US 1136, 38 L. Ed. 2d 762, 94 S Ct 881 United States v Lincoln (CA9 Cal) 494 F2d 833 United States v Vital-Padilla (CA9 Cal) 500 F2d 641United States v Clark (CA9 Cal) 501 F2d 492 , cert den 419 US 899, 42 L. Ed. 2d 144, 95 S Ct 180 United States v Ojeda-Rodriguez (CA9 Cal) 502 F2d 560 , cert den 420 US 910, 42 L. Ed. 2d 839, 95 S Ct 830 United States v Barclift (CA9 Cal) 514 F2d 1073 , cert den 423 US 842, 46 L. Ed. 2d 63, 96 S Ct 76 United States v Lopez (CA9 Cal) 581 F2d 1338 United States v Botero (CA9 Cal) 589 F2d 430 , cert den 441 US 944, 60 L. Ed. 2d 1045, 99 S Ct 2162 United States v Grayson (CA9 Cal) 597 F2d 1225 , cert den 444 US 873, 62 L. Ed. 2d 99, 100 S Ct 153 and cert den 444 US 875, 62 L. Ed. 2d 102, 100 S Ct 157 United States v Yee Ngee How (1952, DC Cal) 105 F Supp 517U. S. v Espinoza (DC Cal) 338 F Supp 1304United States v Feldman (DC Hawaii) 366 F Supp 356 Tenth Circuit United States v King (CA10 NM) 485 F2d 353 (disapproved on other grounds Bowen v United States, 422 US 916, 45 L. Ed. 2d 641, 95 S Ct 2569 ) Eleventh Circuit United States v Bachner (1983, CA11 Fla) 706 F2d 1121 , cert den (US) 78 L. Ed. 2d 235, 104 S Ct 247 United States v Hernandez-Cuartas (1983, CA11 Fla) 717 F2d 552, 14 Fed Rules Evid Serv 535 , reh den (CA11 Fla) 721 F2d 822 Cal People v Mitchell (1962) 209 Cal App 2d 312, 26 Cal Rptr 89 , cert den 374 US 845, 10 L Ed 2d 1065, 83 S Ct 1902 , later app 275 Cal App 2d 351, 79 Cal Rptr 764 , cert den 397 US 1053, 25 L Ed 2d 669, 90 S Ct 1394 People v Kosoff, 34 Cal App 3d 920, 110 Cal Rptr 391 Conn State v Jennings (Conn Supp) 336 A2d 237 Me State v Allard (Me) 313 A2d 439 Neb State v Hogan, 194 Neb 207, 231 NW2d 135 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 27 NY People v Mitchell (1979, 2d Dept) 72 App Div 2d 589, 421 NYS2d 13 People v Furey (1964) 42 Misc 2d 579, 248 NYS2d 460People v Mitchell, 90 Misc 2d 463, 395 NYS2d 340 Tex Guadian v State (1967, Tex Crim) 420 SW2d 949 Wis In Interest of L. 90 Wis 2d 585, 280 NW2d 343 Where a search of defendant's baggage after he had left a vessel eventually led to his conviction for smuggling Swiss watch movements into the country, the court in Landau v United States Atty. (1936, CA2 NY) 82 F2d 285 , cert den 298 US 665, 80 L Ed 1389, 56 S Ct 747 , affirming an order denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence and upholding the validity of the search, said that the necessity of enforcing the customs laws has always restricted the rights of privacy of those engaged in crossing international boundaries, and that neither a warrant nor an arrest is needed to authorize a search in these circumstances. The court also said that the search which customs agents are authorized toconduct upon entry is of the broadest possible character and any evidence received might be used. In United States v Tsoi Kwan Sang (1969, CA5 La) 416 F2d 306 , the evidence established that customs agents received information from an informer that a Chinese seaman from a certain named vessel would be bringing opium ashore on the afternoon of November 5, that the agents thereafter stationed themselves outside the docking area to await the port ship service launch, that defendant was the only Chinese among the group of seamen that arrived aboard the launch at the time in question, that as he walked from the docking area to a bus stop the agents observed that he was carrying a package under his coat, and that they thereupon searched him approximately 25 yards from the docking area and within a matter of minutes after he had disembarked from the launch, the search disclosing that he was carrying a packet of opium. While reversing a smuggling conviction on other grounds, the court said that the circumstances in this case, combined with the informant's tip, established a basis for suspecting that defendant was bringing ashore merchandise which could not legally be imported into the United States, and they also demonstrated that the requisite reasonableness existed. In this connection the court observed that pursuant to statutes, customs officials are authorized to stop and examine any person arriving in the United States, on suspicion that merchandise is concealed which is subject to duty or which cannot legally be imported into the United States, and stated that this statute created a class of searches exempt from the rigors of the traditional notion of probable cause. The court said that suspicion that a person is carrying merchandise unlawfully imported into the United States is sufficient provided that the Fourth Amendment requirement of reasonableness is met.

Attention is also called to United States v Rodriguez-Reinosa (1970, CA5 Tex) 427 F2d 150 , where the court, while reversing a narcotics conviction on other grounds, said only that a warrantless border search of defendant's automobile and the seizure of marijuana concealed therein were constitutional.

See also United States v Beckley (1964, CA6 Mich) 335 F2d 86 , cert den 380 US 922, 13 L Ed 2d 807, 85 S Ct 921 , where the court, affirming a conviction for smuggling marijuana, held that the opening of an air parcel post package by customs officers did not constitute an illegal search. The court said: "There seem to be no adjudicated cases dealing with the necessity of probable cause and search warrants for inspection of imports by mail, but there are many cases holding or indicating that such is not required generally for searches by customs agents at the borders of the country." Observing that the right of border search does not depend upon probable cause, and that searches of persons entering the United States from a foreign country are in a separate category from searches generally and are totally different things from a search for and seizure of a man's private books and papers, the court said that there seemed to be no reason why these principles should not apply to mail coming into the country, especially where, as here, there is a representation on thepackage that it contains merchandise.

A conviction for illegally importing narcotics was affirmed in Bible v United States (1963, CA9 Cal) 314 F2d 106 , cert den 375 US 862, 11 L Ed 2d 89, 84 S Ct 131 , where it was held that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 28 suppress certain evidence obtained as the result of a search of defendant's accomplice, it appearing that the accomplice attempted to cross the Mexican–United States border with narcotics which had been given him by the defendant, that a customs inspector noticed that the accomplice appeared nervous, and detained him for disrobing and a personal search.

The court said that it must be borne in mind that the accomplice was crossing the border from Mexico into the United States when he was detained and searched, and that no question of whether there is probable cause for a search exists when the search is incidental to the crossing of an international border, for there is reason and probable cause to search every person entering the United States from a foreign country, by reason of such entry alone. Mere suspicion, said the court, has been held enough cause for a search at the border. The court noted that in this case the accomplice's demeanor while crossing the border and before the search of his person was sufficient to cause suspicion on the part of the inspector,and that a border search under such circumstances, if for no other reason, was not unreasonable.

The judgment in the Mitchell Case (Cal) supra, became final in 1963. However, on February 23, 1968, the California Supreme Court, on writ of habeas corpus, ordered the California Court of Appeals to recall its remittitur and reinstate the appeal on the ground that defendant had not been represented by counsel on appeal ( Re Mitchell (1968) 68 Cal 2d 258, 65 Cal Rptr 897, 437 P2d 289 ). On the later appeal (1969) 275 Cal App 2d 351, 79 Cal Rptr 764 , cert den 397 US 1053, 25 L Ed 669, 90 S Ct 1394 , the court, affirming the conviction, said that further examination of the evidence in the case supported the previous conclusion of the court. With respect to the validity of the border search the court said merely that a border search by a United States customs officer is lawful, does not depend upon probable cause, and isnot governed by state law. People v Mitchell (1962) 209 Cal App 2d 312, 26 Cal Rptr 89 , cert den 374 US 845, 10 L Ed 2d 1065, 83 S Ct 1902 , was a prosecution for burglary where the evidence showed that on March 1 or 2, 1961, a company safe in Colton, California, was burglarized and several thousand dollars in currency obtained. On March 4, 1961, a customs officer observed defendant approaching the United States border from Mexico dressed in a pair of levis and a field jacket, cap, and boots, and upon questioning him defendant showed a sales slip and an expensive wrist watch. Because of the price of the watch ($450), defendant was asked to identify himself and he produced a wallet made in Mexico. Defendant was then requested to undergo a further search, which he did without protest, and during this search the customs officers found a sheath knife with a large blade, two other watches, some rings, two bracelets, some 38 cartridges, a jail receipt showing his release less than a month before from an El Centro, California, jail, and over $5,300 in his wallet. Subsequently, the currency was identified as that obtained from the company safe in the Colton, California, burglary. Affirming conviction, the court rejected defendant's contention that the evidence had been obtained as the result of an illegal search. In this connection the court said that the customs inspector properly became suspicious when he observed defendant's dress, his expensive watch, the large amount of money in his Mexican wallet, and heard defendant's explanation. The court said that the search which customs officers are authorized to conduct upon entry is of the broadest possible character and does not depend on probable cause. Rather, it was said, searches of persons entering the United States from a foreign country are in a separate category from searches generally and are totally different things from a search for and seizure of a man's private books and papers. In conclusion the court said that all persons coming into the United States fromforeign countries are liable to detention and search by authorized agents of the government Where defendant was ostensibly cleared by customs agents after his arrival at John F. Kennedy International Airport, but was later stopped and questioned in the normal course of procedure by another customs agent while still within the area under the jurisdiction and control of the United States Customs Bureau, not yet having passed through the customs barrier, the search disclosing 2 ounces of marijuana, the court in People v Furey (1964) 42 Misc 2d 579, 248 NYS2d 460 , denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, held that under the circumstances this was a "border" search and not a search after a completed entry. In the case of a border search, said the court, it is clear that the right to search "can lawfully be based on mere suspicion." The court said that there was no requirement, as there is in the ordinary search and seizure case, that the searching officers have probable cause for making the search as that term is used in the Fourth Amendment, nor is it a prerequisite that they have such reasonably trustworthy information as would warrant a man of reasonable caution to believe that defendant was guilty of the commission of a crime. The search which customs agents Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 29 are authorized to conduct upon entry, said the court, is of the broadest possible character. In conclusion the court said that in this case the defendant's "bulky" look was sufficient to supply the mere suspicion necessary in a border search. CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Special law enforcement concerns, such as a sobriety checkpoint or a border patrol checkpoint, will sometimes justify highway stops without individualized suspicion. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . Illinois v. Lidster, 124 S. Ct. 885 (U.S. 2004) .

Customs inspectors are justified in initially detaining woman arriving in country on flight from Bogota, Colombia, where facts, and their rational inferences, known to inspectors support a reasonable suspicion that woman is smuggling narcotics in her alimentary canal; furthermore, under circumstances, her detention for almost 16 hours is notunreasonably long. United States v Montoya de Hernandez (1985) 473 US 531 87 L. Ed. 2d 381, 105 S Ct 3304 .

In prosecution for transporting illegal aliens, Border Patrol Agent considering totality of circumstances, had formed particularized objective basis for suspecting defendant of criminal activity where officers stopped only vehicle that fit officers' analysis determining where and when vehicle would pick up illegal aliens; sufficient cause to stop person under totality of circumstances theory exists when two elements yield particularized suspicion that individual is engaged in criminal activity: (1) assessment that individual is engaged in illegal activity must be based upon all circumstances including permitting officer to assess circumstances in light of his past experience, and (2) assessment of whole picture must yield particularized suspicion that particular individual being stopped is engaged in wrongdoing. United States v Cortez, 449 US 411, 66 L. Ed. 2d 621, 101 S Ct 690 .

Personal property brought into the United States may be searched at the border under circumstances that would not otherwise justify a warrantless search. Arkansas v Sanders, 442 US 753, 61 L. Ed. 2d 235, 99 S Ct 2586 .

The authority of the United States to search the baggage of arriving international travelers is based on its inherent sovereign authority to protect its territorial integrity, and by reason of that authority it is entitled to require that whoever seeks entry must establish the right to entry and to bring into the country whatever he may carry. Torres v Puerto Rico, 442 US 465, 61 L. Ed. 2d 1, 99 S Ct 2425 .

Under 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 , customs official had "reasonable cause to suspect" in opening envelopes subsequently found to contain narcotics, where customs official knew that envelopes were from country which had been known source of narcotics, observed that envelopes were bulky, felt something in envelopes other than plain paper, and weighed envelopes and found them substantially heavier than normal mail; provisions of 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 provide customs official with authority to search envelope without warrant if he shall have such "reasonable cause to suspect". United States v Ramsey, 431 US 606, 52 L. Ed. 2d 617, 97 S Ct 1972 .

Because of the unique considerations concerning the entry of persons into the United States, routine searches at an international border are reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and do not require a warrant, probable cause, or evena reasonable suspicion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Barrow, 448 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2006) .

Under border search exception to Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, routine searches of persons and effects at borders, or at functional equivalents of borders, are permitted without probable cause.

U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.

4 . U.S. v. Momoh, 427 F.3d 137 (1st Cir. 2005) .

Where plane landed for emergency refueling at San Juan during flight to British Virgin Islands from Jamaica, search of aircraft by customs officials was improper border search and ignored provisions of 19 CFR § 6.3(g), which provided Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 30 that aircraft making emergency or forced landings was not required to make entry at custom house so long as plane was landing no cargo or passengers and was pursuing its emergency refueling with announced intention to depart. United States v Nunes (CA1 Puerto Rico) 511 F2d 871 .

Although full blown searches at inland Border Patrol checkpoints and by roving patrols must be supported by consent or probable cause, lesser intrusions by inland roving patrols need be supported only by a reasonable suspicion-that is, the officer must have a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing given the totality of thecircumstances. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Gabriel, 405 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D. Me. 2005) .

Because an individual's expectation of privacy is at its lowermost at border entry points, a Customs officer need not possess any level of suspicion to stop an individual seeking entry in the United States and conduct a preliminary bordersearch. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Costoso, 56 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D.P.R. 2014) .

When an individual has direct contact with a border area, or an individual's movements are reasonably related to the border area, that individual is a member of a class of persons that Customs officers may, if their suspicions are aroused,stop and search. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Perez Rivera, 247 F. Supp. 2d 108 (D.P.R. 2003) .

Where Custom officers had no reason to believe that incoming flight was international flight and of extraterritorial origin, there was no reason for such officers to infer that contraband might be found aboard plane and warrantless search of packages unloaded from plane was therefore unjustified. United States v Ferrone (DC Puerto Rico) 413 F Supp 408 .

In deciding a motion to suppress, when the evidence at issue derives from a border search, the court recognizes the federal government's broad plenary powers to conduct so-called "routine" searches at the border even without reasonable suspicion that the prospective entrant has committed a crime. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Levy, 803 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2015) .

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) suspicionless searches of United States citizens at border while returning from Islamic conference in Canada were routine, and thus did not violate citizens' Fourth Amendment rights, even though citizens were removed to separate building with other Muslims and subjected to intrusive questioning, photographing, and fingerprinting, where questions were not materially different than types of questions border officers typically asked prospective entrants, searches were minimally invasive, and photographs and fingerprints were used solely to verify entrants' identities and then were discarded from government's databases. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . Tabbaa v. Chertoff, 509 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) .

Border patrol agents had sufficient specific and articulable facts to justify stop and brief detention of defendant's vehicle; defendant was stopped, late at night, at remote location near Canadian border after arriving at arrest scene only minutes after three men carrying duffel bags full of marijuana came to the road, claiming they were waiting to be picked up, and agents knew, based on months of surveillance, that it was common practice for drug smugglers to wait at that spot for a vehicle to pick them up and drive them out of the area. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Cormier, 77 Fed. Appx.

65 (2d Cir. 2003) .

In prosecution for attempting to introduce "adult" films into United States by means of false statements in connection with five cartons of films containing some 771 so–called hard–core pornographic films, opening of cartons and screening of films by customs officers were plainly permissible steps in reasonable border search, where customs inspectors were not satisfied with request for waiver of screening of films which failed to identify films in any way, and where, during spot check, customs inspectors located pornographic films concealed in box containing more traditional films, thus giving rise to reasonable suspicion that defendant had falsified "request for waiver of screening" document. United States v Borello (1985, CA2 NY) 766 F2d 46, 18 Fed Rules Evid Serv 569 , on remand (ED NY) 624 F Supp 150 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 31 No reasonable suspicion was required to justify search of cowboy boots defendant was wearing. United States v Grotke (1983, CA2 NY) 702 F2d 49 .

Policy of customs officials to search all cars arriving in New York from foreign origin is plainly lawful. United States v La Froscia (CA2 NY) 485 F2d 457 .

Inspection of luggage at ports of entry by customs agents requires no search warrant. United States v Gonzalez (CA2 NY) 483 F2d 223 .

Search of package mailed from Colombia was valid "border search," where mail–entry aide was aware that packages labeled "old clothing" often contained new clothing subject to duty, which amounted to reasonable suspicion justifyingsearch. U. S. v Doe (CA2 Conn) 472 F2d 982 , cert den 411 US 969, 36 L. Ed. 2d 691, 93 S Ct 2160 .

Routine border searches are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant. U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend. 4 . Bibicheff v. Holder, 55 F. Supp. 3d 254 (E.D. N.Y. 2014) .

The government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border, and, accordingly, the Fourth Amendment's balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior; routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant, and first-class mail may be opened without a warranton less than probable cause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . Abidor v. Napolitano, 990 F. Supp. 2d 260 (E.D. N.Y. 2013) .

Searches by customs officials of passengers arriving in United States on international flights constitute valid border searches , which need not be supported by a warrant or probable cause; search of defendant's boots and luggage and subsequent seizure of cocaine is accordingly not unconstitutional. United States v Mabie (1984, ED NY) 580 F Supp 1382 .

In prosecution for transporting stolen telecommunications equipment in foreign commerce, warrantless search with less than probable cause of defendant's cargo container in customs area on Brooklyn pier, one day prior to container's loading on vessel destined for Middle East, was proper where customs agent had justifiable suspicion for ordering search; export search in customs area, like import search, is proper even in absence of warrant and probable cause. United States v Ajlouny (1979, ED NY) 476 F Supp 995 , affd (CA2 NY) 629 F2d 830 , cert den 449 US 1111, 66 L Ed 2d 840, 101 S Ct 920 .

It was proper for customs official to open 3 envelopes where (1) first envelope, though of letter size, evoked reasonable suspicion that it was not merely letter because addressee's name and address were affixed by stenciled label, pasted on, of kind which is commonly seen on periodicals, (2) second envelope was not only larger than normal letter, but quite apparently from touch contained commercial material, and, in fact, had commercial address, and (3) third envelope contained similar indices of commercial use; opening of fourth letter by officials was not valid, however, where envelope was letter–sized and there was nothing apparent from examination of envelope which would raise one's suspicion that it in fact did not contain letter; court would order obscene material contained in 3 properly opened envelopes to bedestructed. United States v Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, etc. (DC NY) 363 F Supp 165 .

Examination of baggage is permitted upon entry at border whether or not customs officer is suspicious of owner of baggage, and customs inspector was therefore within his power in examining bag of individual entering country and brown paper packages contained in bag even without suspicion since either container might have held contraband or dutiable goods; even if suspicion were needed to justify inspection of brown paper packages, such suspicion was amply supplied by traveler's extremely nervous behavior upon being asked to accompany inspector into customs station. United States v San Juan (DC Vt) 405 F Supp 686 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 32 Magnitude of smuggling and theft problems on international borders and numerous international airports and seaports has led to formulation of special, pragmatic standards for judging legality of stops and searches in or around such border areas or international port facilities; instead of usual requirement of probable cause to believe that individual possesses contraband or that he has committed crime demanded by Fourth Amendment, customs officer need only have reasonable suspicion of illegal activity; this does not, of course, exempt border searches from constitutional test of reasonableness. United States v Beck (CA3 Pa) 483 F2d 203 , cert den 414 US 1132, 38 L. Ed. 2d 757, 94 S Ct 873 .

Some quantum of individualized suspicion is prerequisite to constitutional search and seizure in border searches , although Fourth Amendment [ U.S. Const. Amend. 4 ] imposes no irreducible requirement of such suspicion; and, whether it is labeled "reasonable" suspicion or "founded" suspicion, requirement is that officers be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion; and, upon customs officers having reasonable basis to stop and question persons acting under suspicious circumstances, it is necessary to find probable cause thereafter for search of goods carried by defendant. United States v Mirmelli (DC NJ) 421 F Supp 684 , affd without op (CA3 NJ) 556 F2d 569 , cert den (US) 54 L. Ed. 2d 92, 98 S Ct 115 .

The Fourth Amendment's balance of reasonableness is qualitatively different at the international border than in the interior; routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Bunty, 617 F. Supp. 2d 359, 76 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 910 (E.D. Pa. 2008) .

Small, noncommercial airport in Pennsylvania constituted functional equivalent of border for purposes of search of aircraft, where aircraft's flight originated outside United States and, without proper entry formalities, proceeded directlyto Pennsylvania airport. United States v Tussell (MD Pa) 441 F Supp 1092 . Border searches by customs officers could be based on reasonable rather than probable cause and without necessity of warrant, and inspector had probable cause to conduct search of airplane where airplane landed after midnight at closed airport, it came to stop at cargo area of commercial airline, although it was clearly not commercial airline's plane, where pilot admitted he had no clearance to land, had none of documentation required and had filed no flight plan, and where bundles of packages were clearly visible to inspector from his position on ground. United States v Chabot (1982, DC VI) 531 F Supp 1063 .

While suspicionless border searches generally are reasonable simply by virtue of fact that they occur at the border, there is a category of nonroutine border searches that are constitutionally reasonable only if based on individualized suspicion. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2018) , as amended, (May 18, 2018).

Routine border searches may be conducted without warrant or showing of reasonable suspicion or probable cause. U.S.

v. Switzer, 11 Fed. Appx. 65 (4th Cir. 2001) .

A border search that goes beyond the routine is justified merely by reasonable suspicion, a lesser standard than required for analogous non- border searches . U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Saboonchi, 990 F. Supp. 2d 536 (D. Md. 2014) .

The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement is per se satisfied in border searches ; thus, border searches are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Napan, 769 F.

Supp. 2d 969 (E.D. Va. 2011) .

The court considers several factors relevant to determine if a border patrol agent on roving patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle, including: (1) the area's proximity to the border; (2) the characteristics of the area; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) the agents' experience in detecting illegal activity; (5) the driver's behavior; (6) the aspects or characteristics of the vehicle; (7) information about recent illegal trafficking of aliens or narcotics in the area; and (8) Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 33 the number of passengers and their appearance and behavior. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Robles-Avalos, 895 F.3d 405 (5th Cir. 2018) .

The "border search doctrine" allows a governmental officer at the international border to conduct routine stops and searches without a warrant or probable cause. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District, 891 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2018) .

Routine border searches may be conducted without any suspicion. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Molina- Isidoro, 884 F.3d 287 (5th Cir. 2018) .

Factors that may be considered in determining reasonable suspicion required for roving border control agent to conduct temporary investigative stop of a vehicle include: (1) the area's proximity to the border, (2) characteristics of the area, (3) usual traffic patterns, (4) the agents' experience in detecting illegal activity, (5) behavior of the driver, (6) particular aspects or characteristics of the vehicle, (7) information about recent illegal trafficking of aliens or narcotics in the area, and (8) the number of passengers and their appearance and behavior. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Soto, 649 F.3d 406 (5th Cir. 2011) .

Border patrol agent's stop of vehicle was justified by reasonable suspicion; agent observed vehicle exiting from ranch that bordered the Rio Grande, numerous seizures of aliens and narcotics had occurred in this area, agent had worked in the area for more than four years and had made arrests in the area, and agent had seen only the ranch owner on the property and did not recognize the vehicle or its occupants. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Serrano-Villalobos, 326 Fed. Appx. 274 (5th Cir. 2009) .

A border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle in which defendant was traveling as a passenger; agent testified that he initially observed the vehicle approximately 25 miles from the Mexican border, that the vehicle had entered the United States from Mexico two days earlier, that the road on which he saw the vehicle was notoriously used by alien and narcotic smugglers to circumvent an immigration checkpoint, that there were no major metropolitan areas along that road, which was predominantly used by local ranch vehicles, that it was unusual for a local vehicle to be traveling on the road at 11:23 p.m. on a weeknight, that he did not recognize the vehicle, that the vehicle was not equipped for ranch work, and that the vehicle was riding low. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Lara, 271 Fed. Appx.

404 (5th Cir. 2008) .

During routine immigration check at border patrol checkpoint, border patrol agent developed sufficient reasonable suspicion to justify extension of the stop for a secondary inspection in which agent and drug-sniffing dog conducted search of exterior of defendant's vehicle; defendant began to get nervous and his voice started cracking when he noticed that agent was conducting a visual inspection, defendant said he was traveling to Houston to pick up a truck, and that he bought and sold cars for a living, but he had no towing equipment with him, and did not answer when agent asked him about lack of towing equipment, and the stated purpose of defendant's trip was inconsistent with his tourist visa. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Hinojosa-Echavarria, 250 Fed. Appx. 109 (5th Cir. 2007) , cert. denied, 128 S. Ct.

2423 (U.S. 2008) .

Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to make automobile stop, where truck did not stop at stop sign, occupants of truck avoided making eye contact with agent and did not wave to him like ranchers from area did, and smugglers often used road on which truck was traveling. U.S.C.A.Const.Amend. 4 . Leon-Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 123 Fed. Appx.

599 (5th Cir. 2005) .

Under totality of circumstances, border patrol agent had reasonable articulable suspicion required to stop automobile; agent observed defendant driving slowly near the border, at approximately one o'clock in the morning, in an area frequented by drug traffickers on a dead-end road typically only used by ranchers during daylight hours, and when agent Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 34 shone a flashlight on defendant, his eyes opened wide, he turned his body away, and he accelerated past agent towards the dead end. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Laija-Garcia, 110 Fed. Appx. 411 (5th Cir. 2004) .

Border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to believe defendant was smuggling illegal aliens, justifying stop of vehicle; agent observed that vehicle was parked with its lights off at darkened corner of shopping center parking lot which had previously been site of approximately six cases concerning loading of illegal aliens at approximately same time of night, agent had worked as border patrol agent for seven years prior to incident and had specialized in offense of smuggling illegal aliens, parking lot at issue was approximately five miles from border, and vehicle, a tractor–trailer, was atypical of the types of trucks that unloaded merchandise at center. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Walter, 102 Fed. Appx.

873 (5th Cir. 2004) .

Border Patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop drug defendant's truck, even though there was nothing in his behavior to create suspicion, and the record did not establish his proximity to the border when he was stopped; sensor triggered by the truck was placed there because the road was known as a detour used to smuggle illegal aliens and narcotics, the road was rarely used by vehicles other than those on local ranches, and the truck appeared to be riding lower than could beexpected of a truck without a visible load. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Delgado, 99 Fed. Appx. 493 (5th Cir. 2004) .

Border Patrol agents had "reasonable suspicion" of criminal activity, of kind necessary to justify their investigatory stop of recreational vehicle traveling from direction predicted by confidential informant and at around same time, based on informant's tip that such a vehicle was being loaded with illegal narcotics and would depart shortly; Border Patrol agent had received accurate information from informant in past and considered him to be reliable. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Perkins, 352 F.3d 198 (5th Cir. 2003) .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion, under totality of circumstances, justifying investigatory stop of vehicle; agents encountered vehicle 35 miles north of border with Mexico, on highway that crossed border and was known to be route preferred by drug smugglers, and, upon seeing one agent's marked patrol car, driver appeared stiff, stared straight ahead, failed to acknowledge agent, and slowed down considerably. U.S. v. Neufeld-Neufeld, 338 F.3d 374 (5th Cir.

2003) .

Border patrol agents at immigration checkpoint had, at a minimum, sufficient reasonable suspicion to permit them to prolong stop of bus traveling through the checkpoint's inspection lane to explore further the potential source of drug– sniffing dog's alert to the presence of narcotics where the dog alerted in luggage bin in undercarriage of the bus before agent questioning passengers on the bus completed his questioning of the passengers. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v.

Garcia-Garcia, 319 F.3d 726 (5th Cir. 2003) .

Border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle; area in which stop took place was known for illegal activity, agent saw two vehicles traveling in tandem which in agent's experience indicated smuggling, agent did not recognize either of the vehicles, both vehicles had bed covers which were not used by those who regularly used the road, bed covers made it possible to conceal cargo, prior to stop another agent reported that driver of stopped vehicle was looking all around, and vehicle was riding low, as if carrying a heavy weight. U.S. v. Reyna, 79 Fed. Appx. 665 (5th Cir. 2003) .

Border Patrol agent acted with reasonable suspicion when he made investigatory stop of vehicle, where agent observed vehicle traveling highway which was known corridor for illegal immigration and drug trafficking, vehicle was of the type used by traffickers, and vehicle was observed detouring on to a private dirt ranch road known for use by alien and drugtraffickers to evade Border Patrol checkpoints. U.S. v. Vasquez, 298 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 2002) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 35 Government agents may conduct routine search, i.e., one that does not seriously invade traveler's privacy, at international border or its functional equivalent without probable cause, warrant, or any suspicion to justify search. U.S. Const.

Amend. IV . U.S. v. Roberts, 274 F.3d 1007 (5th Cir. 2001) .

Fact that only passenger in automobile could not prove citizenship and existence of dime–sized hole in trunk, which agents believed to be air hole, were not sufficient to lead reasonable person to conclude that there were illegal aliens in trunk and did not present probable cause for search of trunk. United States v Melendez-Gonzalez (1984, CA5 Tex) 727 F2d 407 .

Customs officials had sufficient suspicion to warrant X–ray search of foreign national who entered United States from country known to be source of narcotics, where defendant matched 10 of 11 points on drug courier profile, and where his ticket did not match his declared itenary, his appearance did not comport with his stated occupation, and he wasabnormally calm. United States v Mejia (1983, CA5 La) 720 F2d 1378 .

Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized from his vehicle, where customs officer on duty in national park along Mexican border observed defendants parked in area 100 yards from border where previous arrest for narcotics violations had taken place and when he approached area he heard large plastic bags being loaded into trunk of vehicle; although reason to believe that border crossing has occurred is traditional element in test for investigatory customs stop, it is not absolute requirement where other facts create reasonable suspicion of presence of illegal aliens or contraband. United States v Cimino (1980, CA5 Tex) 631 F2d 57 , cert den 450 US 1005, 68 L Ed 2d 209, 101 S Ct 1718 .

Standard for determining validity of warrantless border search is reasonable suspicion; reasonable suspicion demands more than generalized suspicion of criminal activity such as that which is fostered when one closely resembles "smugglingprofile." United States v Sandler (1980, CA5 Fla) 625 F2d 537 .

Probable cause, or even reasonable or articulable suspicion is not necessary at functional equivalent of border for agent to conduct preliminary search by leaning into car. United States v Garcia (CA5 Tex) 592 F2d 259 .

Notwithstanding that first of two vehicles had already been passed through checkpoint equivalent to border, discovery of marijuana in trunk of second vehicle, together with fact that both vehicles' CB radios were tuned to channel 6 justifiedorder of first vehicle to return to checkpoint and subsequent search. United States v Bender (CA5 Tex) 588 F2d 200 .

Customs agents, acting under authority conferred them by 19 U.S.C.A. § 1581 , to board vessels within customs water for purpose of conducting routine document check need not have even modicum of suspicion to either stop or search vessels in customs waters. United States v Freeman (CA5 Fla) 579 F2d 942 .

Customs officials must have reasonable suspicion in order to conduct strict search at border, and such requirement is met where experienced customs officer observed female defendant entering country from Columbia, known exportation point for cocaine, and who purported to be returning to United States from buying trip for her business, but was without significant quantities of merchandise, and who wore thick clothing so as to appear bulky, moved awkwardly,and appeared apprehensive. United States v Olcott (CA5 Fla) 568 F2d 1173 .

Customs officers could make investigatory stop of suspect, without probable cause, upon reasonable suspicion based on tip, actions of suspect in rapid airport hopping, and transporting of empty boxes, and, upon making such justified stop, where customs officers observed burlap sacks containing brick–shaped objects in plain view in aircraft, there was probable cause to conduct search of aircraft for marijuana. United States v Worthington (CA5 Tex) 544 F2d 1275 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 548 F2d 356 and cert den (US) 54 L. Ed. 2d 72, 98 S Ct 55 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 36 Although border patrol officers may stop vehicles at permanent checkpoints to conduct citizenship checks without probable cause, requirement that border patrol officers have probable cause to proceed further and search vehicle so detained is not abrogated; only at border or its functional equivalent may border patrol officials conduct searches withoutprobable cause. United States v Alvarez-Gonzalez (CA5 Tex) 542 F2d 226 , later app (CA5 Tex) 561 F2d 620 .

Reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify border search under auspices of customs agent of automobile entering United States from Mexico was presented where driver had violated conditions of his bond in previous narcotics case by entering Mexico and spare tire of automobile had distinctive appearance in that there was grease on tire indicating that tire had been recently handled and tire was too heavy for tire filled only with air. United States v Bates (CA5 Tex) 526 F2d 966 .

Marijuana found by border patrol agents in trunk of car which had crossed border was admissible where agents had reasonable suspicion that car contained illegal aliens and therefore had authority to stop car, agents requested defendants to open trunk and defendants complied, and once trunk was opened, agents detected odor of marijuana which furnished requisite probable cause to justify search which followed; agents were not required to give defendants "miranda warnings" before they could request defendants to open trunk since precepts of Miranda are not applicable to Fourth Amendmentsearch and seizure claim. United States v Moffett (CA5 Tex) 522 F2d 1379 .

Marijuana found in trunk of automobile by border patrol officers would not be suppressed where officers had reasonable belief that vehicles crossing border contained illegal aliens, officers were therefore justified in stopping one of cars and odor of marijuana emanating from this car gave officers probable cause to search car and upon finding marijuana tostop and search another car which had been traveling with first car. United States v Walker (CA5 Tex) 522 F2d 194 .

Search of vehicle at permanent border checkpoint was constitutional where cumulative impact of strong scent of strawberry emanating from car, apparent lewdness of passenger's demeanor, and unavailability of trunk key, clearly formed reasonableness basis for suspicion that trunk contained contraband. United States v Alvarado (CA5 Tex) 519 F2d 1133 , cert den 424 US 911, 47 L. Ed. 2d 315, 96 S Ct 1107 .

"Reasonable cause to suspect" existed where numerous card size envelopes from small group of senders with indentical overseas addresses began arriving addressed to defendant at his box number and where the envelopes were of unusualthickness and powdery cushion appeared when envelopes were tapped. United States v King (CA5 Ala) 517 F2d 350 .

Warrantless search of defendant's vehicle's trunk was properly made by border patrol at checkpoint, where officer detected odor of marijuana as passenger rolled down window of vehicle. United States v Cantu (CA5 Tex) 510 F2d 1003 .

Where border patrol agent stopped car observed to be riding in abnormally low fashion at permanent checkpoint 90 miles from Mexican border and immediately detected strong odor of marijuana, circumstances established probable cause that car contained contraband, and exigent circumstance of movable vehicle on highway justified warrantless search. United States v Wooldridge (CA5 Tex) 508 F2d 802 .

A border search was based on sufficient probable cause where the suspects had made a long and expensive trip from St.

Louis, Missouri, to Neuvo Laredo, a Mexican border town described as the "mecca of the narcotics user," carried no luggage to speak of, stayed only a couple of hours, and returned to the U.S. carrying only 2 empty suitcases, and statingtheir intent to return directly to St. Louis.

United States v Bowman (CA5 Tex) 502 F2d 1215 .

Border search of crewmen on banana boat was supported by reasonable suspicion where (1) boat had been staked out because of its history of carrying drugs from Colombia and because of anonymous tip, and (2) defendants' behavior was sufficiently suspicious because they made series of phone calls from bar, were picked up by unknown driver, proceeded along twisting, evasive route, eventually losing customs officers who were tailing them, went to ship and departed again about 1½ hours later, went to another bar, made another call, hailed taxi, and went with another unknown man to point Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 37 about 2 miles from dock, where they waited several minutes in front of closed furniture store, at which point they were apprehended and searched. United States v Quintana-Gomez (CA5 Fla) 488 F2d 1246 .

Border search of female defendant's body was supported by sufficient suspicion where it was known that she and codefendant were traveling together, search of codefendant's luggage had already revealed marijuana seed, cocaine–like powder, and miniature spoon of type used by narcotics users, and where she was wearing long dress, which, though not rare item of attire, can nevertheless trigger suspicion because of possibility it may conceal contraband attached to legs; cocaine and marijuana discovered in her boot would not be suppressed. United States v Wilson (CA5 Fla) 488 F2d 400 , cert den 416 US 989, 40 L. Ed. 2d 767, 94 S Ct 2397 .

Customs agent had reasonable suspicion to believe automobile contained contraband where he was acting on informant's tip, followed by surveillance period during which agent saw 3 suspects enter Mexico, with only 1 returning, and where one who returned quickly departed for Rio Grande River after picking up companion and changing vehicles, returning to motel after being parked by border for more than 2 hours; such activity could easily foster suspicion that 2 persons remained in Mexico to smuggle contraband across Rio Grande after dark. United States v Steinkoenig (CA5 Tex) 487 F2d 225 .

There was sufficient basis for border search of female at Miami International Airport when (1) she arrived from Bogota, Colombia, (2) was traveling alone, (3) had only 1 suitcase and no items requiring customs inspection, (4) was young, clean–looking, and attractive, and (5) was wearing loose–fitting dress, all facts which customs agents had learned, through experience, fit profile of typical narcotics smuggler at that airport; since woman was at border, in act of entering country, border search was justified. United States v Forbicetta (CA5 Fla) 484 F2d 645 , reh den (CA5 Fla) 486 F2d 1403 , cert den 416 US 993, 40 L. Ed. 2d 772, 94 S Ct 2404 , reh den 417 US 959, 41 L. Ed. 2d 676, 94 S Ct 3087 .

Where search by federal officers, acting as border patrol officers, of car at place 55 miles north of Mexican border was justified as border search for aliens, same officers, in their capacity as customs officers, could make valid border search for contraband upon reasonable suspicion aroused after search for aliens was begun, although initial facts that justified stopping car to search for illegal aliens might not have justified stopping car to search for contraband. U. S. v Thompson (CA5 Tex) 475 F2d 1359 .

United States Border Patrol agents' experience in detecting illegal activity weighed in favor of finding that their suspicion that defendants were engaged in criminal activity was reasonable, so as to support investigatory stop of defendants' vehicle; one agent was veteran agent with eight years' experience, including assignment as a field training officer and to the highway interdiction team, other agent had nine years' experience in the area where vehicle was stopped with duties that included highway interdiction, check point patrol, and tracking illegal aliens in the brush, and both agents received specialized training in highway interdiction, including the legality of traffic stops. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944 (S.D. Tex. 2017) .

For inbound traffic, customs agents may conduct non-routine searches at the border or its functional equivalent without a warrant and without violating the Fourth Amendment provided they reasonably suspect the traveler is smugglingcontraband. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District, 2016 WL 8138804 (W.D. Tex. 2016) .

"Reasonable suspicion" of misconduct, of kind required to support non-routine border search, entails some minimal level of objective justification that consists of more than inchoate or unparticularized suspicion or hunch, but less than the level of suspicion required for probable cause. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Molina-Isidoro, 267 F. Supp.

3d 911 (W.D. Tex. 2016) .

Whether a Border Patrol agent or a customs agent has reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory detention near the United States border with Mexico depends on several factors, including: (1) proximity to the border; (2) Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 38 characteristics of the area; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) agent's previous experience in detecting illegal activity; (5) behavior of the driver; (6) particular aspects or characteristics of the vehicle; (7) information about recent illegal trafficking in aliens or narcotics in the area; and (8) the number, appearance, and behavior of the passengers; no one factor is dispositive and enumerated factors are not an exhaustive list of factors a court may consider. U.S. v. Laija- Garcia, 347 F. Supp. 2d 350 (W.D. Tex. 2004) , judgment aff'd, 110 Fed. Appx. 411 (5th Cir. 2004) , cert. denied (U.S.

Jan. 24, 2005).

Border Patrol agents do not need reasonable suspicion to refer vehicles to secondary. U.S. v. Long, 196 F. Supp. 2d 461 (W.D. Tex. 2002) .

Each border search is somewhat different and must be considered in that light, rather than attempting to fit circumstances into indefinite expressions such as "unfettered discretion," "mere suspicion," "reasonable suspicion," "real suspicion," and "probable cause;" such expressions are merely attempts to express more precisely degree of reasonableness which is in fact ultimate constitutional test to measure permissibility of search and seizure. United States v Love (DC Tex) 413 F Supp 1122 , affd without op (CA5 Tex) 538 F2d 898 .

Investigatory stop of van which had been observed on levee one–half mile from Rio Grande River (Mexican border) by agents who were patrolling levee at approximately 11:45 p.m. was constitutional; proximity to river, time of night, and automobile's presence on levee together gave border patrol agents well–founded suspicion to make stop of van. United States v Conner (DC Tex) 364 F Supp 1168 , affd without op (CA5 Tex) 492 F2d 1241 .

Under the border-search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements, routine searches of vehicles at the border do not require a warrant or any level of suspicion. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . D.E. v. John Doe, 834 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2016) .

Probable cause is not needed for customs officials to start a primary or secondary inspection; this includes personal baggage, which may be searched at the border without the slightest suspicion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Lawson, 374 F. Supp. 2d 513 (E.D. Ky. 2005) .

Memphis, Tennessee Airport could not be regarded as "functional equivalent of border" to justify search without probable cause because Customs Officer's conclusion that flight was international in origin was insufficiently strong; pilot's passport merely indicated that pilot had been out of country, and there was no way to know or to determine that aircraft had landed at airport following international flight border–crossing. United States v Corp (WD Tenn) 452 F Supp 185 .

Routine searches without a warrant at the United States' international borders are per se reasonable. U.S. Const. Amend.

IV . U.S. v. Yang, 286 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2002) .

Since Canal Zone was equivalent of foreign country for purposes of search and seizure, inspection without probable cause of mail from Zone at point of entry was permissible. United States v Washington (CA7 Ill) 586 F2d 1147 .

Performing a standard pat–down search at border, consistent with Fourth Amendment, requires some level of suspicion that the incoming person has contraband on his or her person, with the level of suspicion required being balanced against the level of indignity imposed on the traveler. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . Anderson v. Cornejo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D.

Ill. 2003) .

A routine border search absent reasonable suspicion is a reasonable search. U.S. v. Ruimwijk, 148 F. Supp. 2d 947 (N.D.

Ill. 2001) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 39 Border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, justifying investigative detention, where agent, upon approaching suspect during early morning hours in remote area 500 yards from Canadian border, knew that truck and trailer matching defendant's had previously gone through border inspection, that several hidden compartments had been found in trailer, and that farmer had reported truck and trailer driving in the area, and agent had been provided with background information concerning defendant and suspected drug ring. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Maltais, 403 F.3d 550 (8th Cir. 2005) .

Search of letter addressed to accused by custom inspector was not unreasonable where inspector testified letter had unusual thickness and where other evidence established fact that letter was opened during usual examination of mails under obscenity program conducted in accordance with federal regulations. Hogan v Nebraska (DC Neb) 402 F Supp 812 , affd (CA8 Neb) 535 F2d 458 .

Border Patrol Agents on roving border patrols may conduct brief investigatory stops without violating the Fourth Amendment if the stop is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot. U.S. Const.

Amend. 4 . United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2018) .

Generally, a border search is by its very nature reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, and requires neither a warrant, probable cause, nor even articulable suspicion. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . Sanchez v. Sessions, 870 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2017) .

Because the government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border, border searches are generally deemed reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cotterman, 709 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2013) .

Border Patrol agents did not have a reasonable suspicion to believe that defendant was smuggling drugs or aliens, as required to justify stopping his pick-up truck on a major interstate, 70 miles from the Mexican border; although defendant was driving ten miles per hour faster than the flow of traffic, braking unexpectedly in front of other drivers, and making lane changes without signaling, and his vehicle had Mexican license plates, the agents did not have the authority to enforce California traffic laws, defendant's driving behavior was not highly probative of smuggling drugs or aliens, it was not significant that defendant did not make eye contact with agent when he pulled his vehicle alongside defendant's, and there were no specific and particularized characteristics of defendant's truck supporting an inference it was more suspicious than an average truck of the same make and model. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 ; Immigration and Nationality Act, § 287, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357 ; 8 C.F.R. § 287.5 ; West's Ann.Cal.Penal Code § 830.8 . U.S. v. Valdes-Vega, 685 F.3d 1138 (9th Cir. 2012) .

Government is not required to categorically demonstrate reasonable suspicion to continue a search initiated at the border to a secondary site; so long as property has not been officially cleared for entry into the United States and remains in the control of the Government, any further search is simply a continuation of the original border search, the entirety of which is justified by the Government's border search power. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cotterman, 637 F.3d 1068 (9th Cir. 2011) .

Most border searches need not be justified by a search warrant or by any level of individualized suspicion. U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Villasenor, 608 F.3d 467 (9th Cir. 2010) .

Under the "border search doctrine," law enforcement may conduct certain searches and seizures at the border without any suspicion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Guzman-Padilla, 573 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2009) .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify investigatory border stop; agents were reasonably certain that vehicle had entered from Mexico, because watching agents had not seen vehicle enter frontage from only two possibly entry points on American side of border, entry was in remote area near Mexican border Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 40 where there was no border fence and through which illegal entries were common, agents knew that smugglers typically drove four-wheel drive vehicles, and defendant was driving four-wheel drive vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Zaccagnini, 357 Fed. Appx. 132 (9th Cir. 2009) , petition for cert. filed (U.S. Mar. 6, 2010).

In the context of border patrol stops of vehicles, the totality of the circumstances, which the Court of Appeals considers in determining whether a stop was justified by a reasonable suspicion, may include: (1) characteristics of the area; (2) proximity to the border; (3) usual patterns of traffic and time of day; (4) previous alien or drug smuggling in the area; (5) behavior of the driver, including obvious attempts to evade officers; (6) appearance or behavior of passengers; (7) model and appearance of the vehicle; and (8) officer experience. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Berber-Tinoco, 510 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2007) .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop vehicle in which defendant was riding as passenger; vehicle was traveling in an area known for alien and drug smuggling, and the drivers engaged in evasive driving after they noticed the marked border patrol agent's vehicles, and agents also noticed white covering draped over the top of the back seat, which agent testified was similar to coverings used in previous cases to shield both aliens and drugs. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.

4 . U.S. v. Gamez, 232 Fed. Appx. 651 (9th Cir. 2007) .

Under the border search exception to the warrant requirement, the government may conduct routine searches of persons entering the United States without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or a warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S.

v. Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006) .

No reasonable suspicion was required for search of defendant's van at border. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Jenkins, 214 Fed. Appx. 678 (9th Cir. 2006) .

Federal statute requiring any officer authorized to conduct search to have "reasonable cause to suspect" that item to be searched was improperly imported into the country does not apply to border searches , but only to searches of items that have already entered into the country; border agents need no suspicion to search incoming persons or vehicles at border. 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 482 , 1581(a) . U.S. v. Flores-Montano, 424 F.3d 1044 (9th Cir. 2005) .

Border search of defendant's vehicle, which included a border investigator cutting open defendant's spare tire, did not require reasonable suspicion; cutting of spare tire did not result in significant damage to the vehicle, or undermine thevehicle's operation or safety. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cortez-Rocha, 394 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2005) .

Border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop truck, which he had seen drive, in tandem with another vehicle, out onto sand dunes just miles from international border in area known for smuggling activity, and return thirty minutes later with black tarp over originally-empty truck bed; combination of otherwise innocent factors gave rise to reasonablesuspicion of smuggling. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Delgado, 136 Fed. Appx. 87 (9th Cir. 2005) .

Border search of defendant's vehicle, which included a border investigator cutting open defendant's spare tire, did not require reasonable suspicion; cutting of spare tire did not result in significant damage to the vehicle, or undermine thevehicle's operation or safety. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cortez-Rocha, 383 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2004) .

Mere speculation about border search's risks, without supporting evidence, cannot support reasonable suspicion requirement. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Camacho, 368 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2004) .

Government at border may remove, disassemble, and reassemble vehicle's fuel tank without reasonable suspicion. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Nava, 363 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2004) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 41 Defendant's detention, when he attempted to enter the United States from Mexico, for purpose of searching his car after a drug dog alerted on it, was not illegal; reasonable suspicion was not required for a search at an international border.

U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Flores-Barajas, 98 Fed. Appx. 600 (9th Cir. 2004) .

Removing and disassembling vehicle's gas tank during a border search did not require reasonable suspicion. U.S. v.

Walker, 96 Fed. Appx. 561 (9th Cir. 2004) .

Border patrol agents' search of defendant's gas tank, which uncovered cocaine defendant was smuggling into United States, was supported by reasonable suspicion; defendant was nervous and evasive in response to routine questioning, certified narcotics detector dog alerted on gas tank, and agent who tapped on gas tank heard solid sound consistent withpresence of something other than liquid in tank. U.S. v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2003) .

Even if border patrol officers did actually detain suspect, there was reasonable suspicion for officers to detain and briefly question suspect in light of the information known to the officer, coupled with his substantial experience, which indicated that suspect's truck might have been the one that had recently slipped across the border. U.S. v. Zepeda-Orozco, 82 Fed.

Appx. 189 (9th Cir. 2003) .

Factual findings concerning the degree of intrusiveness the search posed and the existence of reasonable suspicion sufficient to justify a nonroutine search were necessary in order to determine validity of border search of defendant'svehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Robles-Ponce, 58 Fed. Appx. 322 (9th Cir. 2003) .

A border search can be conducted without a warrant and without any articulable level of suspicion, so long as the search is routine. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Okafor, 285 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002) .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop driver, where there was an exact match between driver's truck and detailed description in a tip, driver was present in an area notorious for smuggling, truck had Arizona license plates but was registered to a Mexican address, driver's posture was stiff and rigid and he significantly decelerated his truck when the agents pulled their vehicle alongside his, and agent sighted rectangular shapes consistent with the size and shape ofbales of marijuana. U.S. v. Castro-Valenzuela, 33 Fed. Appx. 863 (9th Cir. 2002) .

Border patrol agent had "reasonable suspicion" to stop defendant's vehicle, even though it had been two hours since last sighting of car, where vehicle initially was seen traveling in tandem with car that was subsequently apprehended and found to contain marijuana, both cars were initially seen together in location known for alien smuggling, and agent suspected, based on prior experience, that vehicle was being hidden until border patrol's shift change and, indeed, carreemerged around anticipated time. U.S. v. Pannell, 28 Fed. Appx. 696 (9th Cir. 2002) .

Customs agents had reasonable suspicion that defendant was smuggling contraband, and thus non–routine border search of defendant's truck by drilling into it did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, where, en route from Mexico, defendant's truck registered "narcotics hit" in computer, inspector with training in detecting false compartments suspected existence of such compartment in truck, wall "density measurer" confirmed agent's suspicion, and drug dogscratched at false wall. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Romero-Montiel, 26 Fed. Appx. 765 (9th Cir. 2002) .

Searches conducted at fixed border patrol checkpoints are constitutional only if justified by consent or probable cause. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Greathouse, 16 Fed. Appx. 625 (9th Cir. 2001) .

See United States v Cardona (1985, CA9 Cal) 769 F2d 625 , § 4[b] . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 42 Border patrol agent's pushing down on automobile trunk several times is reasonable where agent has noticed that car stopped at border checkpoint is riding low in rear and agent notes that driver matches common profile of drivers usedby alien smugglers. United States v White (1985, CA9 Cal) 766 F2d 1328 .

Conviction for violation of Bank Secrecy Act, 31 U.S.C.A. § 1058, would be affirmed, despite defendant's contention that pat–down search of her person by customs official at airport was unlawful, since pat–down search was permissible if minimal suspicion was present, and fact that defendant's suitcase contained objects frequently used in narcotics smuggling was sufficient to support minimal suspicion necessary to justify initial pat–down search. United States v Des Jardins (1984, CA9 Cal) 747 F2d 499 , different results reached on reh (CA9 Cal) 772 F2d 578 .

Neither warrant nor probable cause was needed to detain persons for search at border so long as period of detention did not exceed what was reasonably necessary to conduct valid search. United States v Ek (1982, CA9 Cal) 676 F2d 379 .

Suspicion of customs officials is alone sufficient justification for border search and source of suspicion is irrelevant in sustaining search; customs officers are authorized to search for material subject to duty or otherwise introduce illegally into United States and if they discover instrumentalities or evidence of crimes, they may seize same. United States v Schoor (CA9 Cal) 597 F2d 1303 .

Searches made at border, pursuant to right of sovereign to protect itself by stopping and examining persons and property crossing into country, are reasonable simply by virtue of fact that they occur at border, and every person crossing border may be required to disclose contents of his baggage, and mere crossing of border is sufficient cause for search, and even "mere suspicion" is not required, and court would assume that same rule would apply to contents of person's purse,wallet, or pocket. United States v Wilmot (CA9 Cal) 563 F2d 1298 .

Probable cause is required for search of vehicle leaving country; search of vehicle and seizure of weapons found therein was justified on basis of probable cause where vehicle had been under observation since occupants had purchased weapons until time of search except for 1 hour 15 minute interval. United States v Casillas-Munoz (CA9 Cal) 542 F2d 508 .

Search without probable cause pursuant to 19 U.S.C.A. § 1581(a) of vessel in harbor may be valid as border search at functional equivalent of border where (1) there was evidence to support finding that boat actually came from international or foreign waters, or (2) where there were articulable facts to support reasonably certain conclusion by customs officers that vessel had crossed border and entered territorial waters of United States; thus, latter provision looks not to whether vessel actually crossed into United States territory, but whether searching customs officers werereasonably certain that it did. United States v Tilton (CA9 Cal) 534 F2d 1363 .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion that vehicle was involved in smuggling thereby justifying stop and search of vehicle where area in which agent encountered vehicle was only 1½ miles from border in area notorious for smuggling; normal traffic for that time of day was light, and agents, who knew almost all local residents and their automobiles, did not recognize defendant; and vehicle came to unnecessary sudden stop at intersection and later, upon seeing marked patrol car, suddenly braked down to about 10 miles per hour. United States v Rocha-Lopez (CA9 Cal) 527 F2d 476 , cert den 425 US 977, 48 L. Ed. 2d 802, 96 S Ct 2181 .

Customs agents had founded suspicion to stop and question persons on boat arriving in United States waters from Mexico which boat was ultimately found to be carrying marijuana where agents had discovered that individuals were involved with 2 identical boats with same, supposedly unique registration number; agents had tip from assertedly reliable informer that boat with defendants aboard had earlier arrived in US waters under suspicious circumstances which tip was corroborated by registration number on arriving boat and identification of defendants by motor vehicle and hotel registration data, and defendants had engaged in unusual activities in area noted for high number of smuggling violations. United States v Hickman (CA9 Cal) 523 F2d 323 , cert den 423 US 1050, 46 L. Ed. 2d 639, 96 S Ct 778 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 43 There is reason and probable cause to search every person entering United States from foreign country by reason of such entry alone. United States v Rivera-Marquez (CA9 Cal) 519 F2d 1227 , cert den 423 US 949, 46 L. Ed. 2d 285, 96 S Ct 369 .

Signal from sensor device tripped by defendant's vehicle on narrow dirt road near Mexican border gave rise to founded suspicion sufficient to stop vehicle, particularly where short dirt extension from road led to large hole in border fence. United States v Laird (CA9 Ariz) 511 F2d 1039 .

Search by border patrol agent of trunk of car was valid after agent observed passengers of car park it along road and begin to walk away from it, and after, upon inquiry, passengers told agent that they were out of gas, they did not know who owned car, that stranger had offered them money to drive vehicle to certain parking lot in nearby city, and that they did not have either ignition key or trunk key, and agent observed that rear end of car was riding low, indicating extra weight in trunk; since agent had encountered people leaving car in remote area 5 miles north of Mexican border and had received bizarre answers to his inquiries, border patrolman had right and probable duty to make inquiry; marijuana found by agent during his search would not be suppressed. United States v Martinez-Miramontes (CA9 Cal) 494 F2d 808 , cert den 419 US 897, 42 L. Ed. 2d 141, 95 S Ct 176 .

By provisions of 19 U.S.C.A. § 1581 , Congress has declared that search which would be "unreasonable" within meaning of Fourth Amendment, if conducted by police officers in ordinary case, would be reasonable search if conducted by customs officials in lawful pursuit of unlawful imports. United States v Guzman (CA9 Cal) 482 F2d 272 , cert den 414 US 911, 38 L. Ed. 2d 150, 94 S Ct 251 .

Where suspect had just crossed border on foot carrying automobile ignition and key, customs officers' suspicions as to ownership of car which suspect subsequently entered were reasonably aroused and justified initial stopping of car; subsequent detection of smell of marijuana justified search of car. U. S. v Diamond (CA9 Cal) 471 F2d 771 , cert den 412 US 932, 37 L. Ed. 2d 161, 93 S Ct 2751 .

No probable cause is required to make border search reasonable. U. S. v Halprin (CA9 Cal) 450 F2d 322 , cert den 405 US 994, 31 L. Ed. 2d 462, 92 S Ct 1267 .

The government has authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border, without probable cause or a warrant. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Mendez, 240 F. Supp. 3d 1005 (D. Ariz. 2017) .

Officers on roving border patrols may conduct brief investigatory stops without violating the Fourth Amendment if the officer's action is supported by reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity may be afoot; however, as federal officers, border patrol agents are limited to their statutory powers. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . U.S.A. v. Lewis, 295 F. Supp.

3d 1103 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .

Detention and questioning during routine searches at the border are considered reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Ramos, 190 F. Supp. 3d 992 (S.D. Cal. 2016) . Border searches are generally deemed reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border. U.S. Const.

Amend. 4 . United States v. Caballero, 178 F. Supp. 3d 1008 (S.D. Cal. 2016) .

Border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion that defendant's vehicle was smuggling aliens, justifying stop of vehicle; in hours prior to stop, agent received reliable information that vehicle matching defendant's was being used to smuggle aliens, route upon which defendant was traveling was one of two possible routes for avoiding border patrol checkpoint, defendant was approximately 50 miles north of border, and defendant, upon encountering agent, tapped her brakes for no apparent reason, increased her speed by approximately 15 miles per hour when agent made u-turn to follow her, and Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 44 appeared stiff and did not make eye contact with agent when he drove next to her. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Martinez-Legarda, 102 Fed. Appx. 652 (10th Cir. 2004) .

If border officers have probable cause to believe that law is being violated in their presence (illegal entry into U.S.), they may conduct search of person and portable personal effects in his immediate possession if it is impracticable to secure warrant in those cases in which warrant would otherwise be required. United States v Nevarez-Alcantar (CA10 NM) 495 F2d 678 , cert den 419 US 878, 42 L. Ed. 2d 117, 95 S Ct 141 .

Border patrol agent lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or probable cause to support stop of motor vehicle in which defendant was riding, and thus, stop and subsequent arrest of defendant for illegal reentry after deportation violated the Fourth Amendment, where agent had no reliable information that anyone in the vehicle was committing a crime or was illegally present in the United States. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Olivares-Rangel, 324 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D.N.M. 2004) .

Searches at the border of the country never require probable cause or a warrant. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Touset, 890 F.3d 1227 (11th Cir. 2018) .

Searches are reasonable simply by virtue of the fact that they occur at the border. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Alfaro-Moncada, 607 F.3d 720 (11th Cir. 2010) .

Entrant into the United States is subject to border search even in absence of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . Denson v. U.S., 574 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2009) .

Routine border searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . Brent v. Ashley, 247 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2001) .

See United States v Saldarriaga-Marin (1984, CA11 Fla) 734 F2d 1425 , § 5[c] .

Customs inspectors must have reasonable suspicion that person is carrying contraband internally before person's stomach may be searched by x–ray or detained until he excretes stomach's contents; reasonable suspicion standard requires showing of articulable facts that are particularized as to person and as to place to be searched. United States v Vega-Barvo (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1341 ; United States v Mosquera-Ramirez (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1352 ; United States v Pino (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1357 ; United States v Castaneda-Castaneda (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1360 , cert den (US) 84 L Ed 2d 345, 105 S Ct 1202 ; United States v Henao-Castano (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1364 ; United States v Padilla (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1367 ; United States v De Montoya (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1369 .

Search of automobile parked inside hangar near airplane, which had previously been spotted by customs officials and which was not emitting transponder code and had not filed flight plan, constituted valid border search where testimony revealed that defendant's airplane and car were only few feet away from each other, front door of car was open, indicating that someone or something had recently entered it, defendant volunteered statement that he had transferred coat and briefcase from craft to car, odor of marijuana emanated from both craft and packages found in trunk of car and defendant had exclusive control over hangar space as its lessee. United States v Lueck (1982, CA11 Fla) 678 F2d 895 , reh den (CA11 Fla) 695 F2d 566 .

Routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants at international border are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Kim, 103 F. Supp. 3d 32 (D.D.C. 2015) , appeal dismissed, (DC Circ. 15-3035)(Aug. 14, 2015). Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 45 Experienced border patrol officer had probable cause to search trunk of automobile where, car appeared to be heavily loaded in back and time and place were those often chosen for illegal crossing by aliens. State v Becerra, 111 Ariz 538, 534 P2d 743 .

In prosecution for burglary and theft of property, court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence seized during border search on grounds that United States Border Patrol agent had insufficient articulable facts upon which to stop vehicle in which defendant was passenger, where agent testified that border station in question was closed, no one would have any legitimate business in that area at that time of night, area was known as notorious smuggling area through which large number of aliens were smuggled, vehicle was observed at 3 a.m., and where vehicle itself was considered "profile vehicle" in that it was capable of carrying fairly large number of aliens. State v Martinez (1982, App) 134 Ariz 119, 654 P2d 53 .

Searches by U.S. customs agents of packages coming into nation's borders do not require probable cause; this principle is also applied to mail coming into country, especially where there is representation on package that it containsmerchandise. People v Kosoff, 34 Cal App 3d 920, 110 Cal Rptr 391 .

Trial court erred in denying motion to suppress marijuana found by Customs officers in search under 19 U.S.C.A. § 1581 of fishing boat owned and operated by defendant, where (1) stop was not justified by evidence giving rise to reasonable suspicion of illegal activity by defendant, (2) boarding of boat stopped inside United States coastline was unauthorized in absence of evidence that boat had crossed border into United States, and (3) search by ripping bait box from deck, revealing marijuana hidden below was without probable cause to believe crime was being committed. Chi v State (1982, Fla App) 421 So 2d 671 .

Search of shoe containing cocaine was valid where customs officer at international airport had reasonable suspicion that shoe contained contraband based on officer's past experience and his observation that defendant wore shoes of same type which had been worn by other persons who had concealed contraband, and that defendant was walking stiffly. M.v State (1981, Fla App D3) 400 So 2d 826 .

Customs officials derive their authority to search luggage of persons entering United States from foreign countries from provisions of 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 ; under that section, reasonable suspicion alone is sufficient to authorize customs search. State v Schloss (Fla App D3) 341 So 2d 1024 .

Mail coming into United States is generally subject to search without any necessity for probable cause to conduct search since constitutional right to be secure from unlawful searches and seizures, as it applies to domestic mail, does not apply to search of incoming foreign mail; at least at point of entry, constitutional restrictions on search of incoming foreign mail are not greater than restrictions on border search of arriving international travelers. Commonwealth v Aguiar 370 Mass 490, 350 NE2d 436 .

Under the border search doctrine, customs officers are afforded great latitude in conducting a search at an international border crossing, and may conduct routine searches of persons and effects crossing the border even in the absence ofindividualized suspicion.

U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . State v. Sanchez, 2015-NMSC-018, 350 P.3d 1169 (N.M. 2015) .

Border Patrol Agent had sufficiently reasonable suspicion that automobile contained illegal alien to permit search where agent had observed erratic driving in area notorious for transporting aliens, defendants had come from Mexican border, at time of initial stop agent had noticed fresh marks near trunk keyhole as if someone has turned key in keyhole, defendants gave inconsistent responses concerning use of automobile trunk, and where, upon being questioned regarding their citizenship, automobile's occupants answered in evasive manner. State v Franco (1980, App) 94 NM 243, 608 P2d 1125 , cert den (NM) 614 P2d 545 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 46 Custom agents properly searched and seized crates containing marijuana at airport where specially trained dog was allowed to sniff outside of crates and immediately indicated presence of marijuana. People v Bannister (1982) 112 Misc 2d 770, 447 NYS2d 829 .

Search of defendant's automobile at Canadian border checkpoint and seizure of stolen credit card was not proper, and evidence would be suppressed, where customs agent had no reasonable cause to suspect that credit card was stolen and where investigative detention of defendants for one and one–half hours was much longer and more intrusive than necessary, and unjustified by any governmental purpose beyond normal goals of criminal investigation. People v Regnet (1981) 111 Misc 2d 105, 443 NYS2d 642 .

Customs officers were not justified in search of trunk of automobile, where defendant was observed walking near restricted hangar at Kennedy Airport, which hangar contained goods imported under bond, and defendant was further observed to walk to automobile, carrying airline flight bag, and enter automobile; absent any knowledge on part of customs officers that there was any violation of any customs law, border–type search would not be justified beyond searching interior of automobile and flight bag carried by defendant, and would not extend to trunk of vehicle, which defendant did not open while being observed by customs officers; customs officers must act upon reasonable suspicionin conducting search of vehicles. People v Breidenbach, 90 Misc 2d 213, 393 NYS2d 855 .

Customs officer's mere suspicion was not sufficient to justify search of airport employee where officer knew that employee was not coming from foreign country; word "reasonable" must be read into 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 in order to preserve its constitutionality. People v Scaffa, 81 Misc 2d 17, 365 NYS2d 475 .

Border search exception to requirement of probable cause accorded to customs officials by 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 482 , 1496 , and 1582 is limited power with purpose of permitting such officials to search for contraband coming into country without payment of duty or in contravention of statutory prohibitions, and exception does not extend to searches of baggage going out of country upon which no duty is payable and on which no prohibitions are placed; limited exception was granted to customs officials for particular purpose, and it may not be used to circumvent constitutional requirement of probable cause placed upon police officers so that where customs officials acted at instigation of police and as agents of police to search baggage of individual leaving country, full panoply of constitutional provisions and curative measuresapplied. People v Esposito, 37 NY2d 156, 371 NYS2d 681, 332 NE2d 863 .

There was a legitimate basis for pat–down search of defendant, who was selected by a Customs Inspector for a routine luggage inspection after arriving on a flight from Trinidad and who appeared nervous, was sweating, did not look the inspector in the eye, and was evasive in his responses to questioning. People v. Johnson, 752 N.Y.S.2d 700 (App. Div.

2d Dep't 2002) .

Border Patrol checkpoint stops should be brief unless supported by reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . People v. White, 796 N.Y.S.2d 902 (County Ct. 2005) .

Border search is one of several generally recognized exceptions to requirement of valid search warrant prior to search and seizure. State v Matthews (ND) 216 NW2d 90 .

Customs inspector may do a routine border search with no suspicion at all. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . Pena v. State, 61 S.W.3d 745 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2001) . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 47 § 3[b] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Right to search on informer's tip as depending upon reliability of tip [Cumulative Supplement] The view has been taken in a few cases that a trial court's refusal to compel the government to disclose the names of persons who supplied it with advance information that defendant would attempt to smuggle contraband into the country does not work a hardship on defendant, for the reason that border searches may be made on mere suspicion alone and the right to search at the border is not dependent upon the reliability of the informer's tip. Hurst v United States (1965, CA9 Cal) 344 F2d 327, infra ; King v United States (1965, CA9 Cal) 348 F2d 814 , cert den 382 US 926, 15 L Ed 2d 339, 86 S Ct 314 ; Hammond v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 356 F2d 931 ; Valadez v United States (1966, CA5 Tex) 358 F2d 721 ; Thomas v United States (1967, CA5 Tex) 372 F2d 252 ; Lannom v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 381 F2d 858 , cert den 389 US 1041, 19 L Ed 2d 833, 88 S Ct 784 ; Encinas-Sierras v United States (1968, CA9 Ariz) 401 F2d 228 ; Stassi v United States (1969, CA5 Tex) 410 F2d 946 .

See also Jones v United States (1963, CA9 Cal) 326 F2d 124 , cert den 377 US 956, 12 L Ed 2d 499, 84 S Ct 1635, infra § 4[b] .

In Hurst v United States (1965, CA9 Cal) 344 F2d 327 , the court, in affirming a conviction for the illegal importation of marijuana, rejected defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial when the trial court refused to require disclosure of an informant's name, and said that this case had to do with a border search and that the right to search at the borderin no way depended upon the reliability of the tip.

Where defendant was arrested at the Mexican–United States border when the truck that he was driving was searched and two packages of heroin were found, it appearing that the agents had received a tip from an unknown informant, the court in Hammond v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 356 F2d 931 , affirming a conviction, rejected a contention that defendant was never confronted with a witness testifying against him. The court said that this was a border search and that the government need not disclose the name of the informant or prove his trustworthiness, but that it can search anyvehicle at the border with or without cause.

And in Encinas-Sierras v United States (1968, CA9 Ariz) 401 F2d 228 , customs inspectors, acting on a tip from a reliable informer, detained and searched defendant at the border and discovered a packet of heroin concealed in his undershorts.

Affirming a conviction for smuggling, the court held that the trial court correctly refused to require the government to disclose the identity of the informer. In this connection the court observed that a factor stressed in some cases, namely, that refusal to disclose may prevent the arrested or searched person from proving, by calling the informer as a witness, that he had not given reliable information in the past and that therefore the arrest or search was without probable cause, was not present in this case, for the reason that the search herein was a "border search" and in such case no probablecause was required to justify it, or to make admissible the evidence discovered by it. CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Extension of Almeida–Sanchez doctrine to fixed checkpoints by United States v Ortiz, 422 US 891, 45 L Ed 2d 623, 95 S Ct 2585 , amounted to enunication of new constitutional doctrine which had not previously been intimated; court would thus not extend Ortiz constitutional requirements for probable cause justifying search at fixed immigration checkpoints away from border retroactively to good–faith seizure prior to enunciation of doctrine. United States v Juarez-Rodriguez (CA9 Cal) 568 F2d 120 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 48 Search of luggage of in–transit suspects in New York was valid border search even though suspects did not intend to go through customs and were in New York on stopover during international flight. United States v Muench (1982, CA2 NY) 694 F2d 28 , cert den (US) 76 L Ed 2d 811, 103 S Ct 1881 , later proceeding (ED NY) 583 F Supp 1447 .

Reasonable suspicion supported seizure of defendant, who was stopped on jetport after she had already been questioned twice about transporting over $5,000 in currency without filing proper report, where customs agents had information from reliable informant that defendant was carrying $1 million in cash, and agents knew that she had twice denied thisand had refused to fill out reporting form. United States v Rojas (1982, CA5 Fla) 671 F2d 159 .

Strip searches not involving body cavities, may be predicated upon reasonable suspicion; and where authorities have received detailed information, specifying that named individual traveling in specified capacity will be body–carrying particular type of contraband on particular flight and date, and where identifying portion of that information has been verified by authorities on flight's arrival, and where authorities have no reason to believe informant is unreliable and have taken affirmative steps to insure that informant is not being paid for information and has no criminal record, there is sufficient basis for reasonable suspicion upon which to predicate strip search. United States v Afanador (CA5 Fla) 567 F2d 1325 .

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) agents' search of defendant's briefcase and luggage, after his flight had landed in Hawaii, and after they had been informed by INS agents stationed in Guam that defendant might be involved in smuggling aliens, was routine border search, requiring neither warrant nor individualized suspicion. U.S. Const. Amend.

IV . U.S. v. Tsai, 282 F.3d 690 (9th Cir. 2002) .

Founded suspicion justifying stopping and questioning persons on boat arriving in United States waters from Mexico, which boat was ultimately found to be carrying marijuana, was provided in part by tip from assertedly reliable informer that boat with these persons aboard had earlier arrived in same area under suspicious circumstances which tip was corroborated by registration numbers on arriving boat and identification of individuals by motor vehicle and hotel registration data. United States v Hickman (CA9 Cal) 523 F2d 323 , cert den 423 US 1050, 46 L. Ed. 2d 639, 96 S Ct 778 .

Informer's tip, including as it did name of suspected smuggler as well as other information justifying particular scrutiny when individual crossed border, clearly supported "pat–down" search used by border patrol agents checking for weapons or other contraband at border. United States v Rivera-Marquez (CA9 Cal) 519 F2d 1227 , cert den 423 US 949, 46 L.

Ed. 2d 285, 96 S Ct 369 .

Reliability and identity of informant are not crucially important factors when border search is in question. United States v Guzman (CA9 Cal) 482 F2d 272 , cert den 414 US 911, 38 L Ed 2d 150, 94 S Ct 251 .

Customs patrol officers were justified in stopping and boarding defendant's boat based upon reasonable suspicion of illegal activity which was founded upon tip of informant of unproven reliability where (1) tipster's identity was known and he had talked to one of officers in past, (2) tip included facts regarding vessel's future location which normally would be available only to limited number of persons who had personal knowledge of vessel's activities, (3) information contained in tip could be objectively verified and (4) officers' subsequent investigation corroborated every key elementof tip except presence of illegal drugs. United States v Kent (1982, CA11 Fla) 691 F2d 1376 .

Trial court erroneously granted motion to suppress marijuana found in trunk of automobile driven by defendant where information given by anonymous informant, including identities of occupants of car, license number, and arrival time of car, was corroborated by observations of officers prior to stop, and where car was seen in location known for its criminal activity and stop was made by border patrol agents near Mexican border, so that totality of circumstances justified stop,and trained sniffing dog's alert at trunk of car justified search. State v Torres (1985, App) 146 Ariz 202, 704 P2d 1347 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 49 Supreme Court's decision in Almeida–Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L Ed 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , holding that Fourth Amendment prohibits use of roving patrols to search vehicles with neither warrant nor probable cause was not retroactive but decision in United States v Ortiz, 422 US 891, 45 L Ed 2d 623, 95 S Ct 2585 , holding that officers may not search private vehicles without consent or probable cause at traffic checkpoints removed from border and its functional equivalents is retroactive. Tamez v State (Tex Crim) 534 SW2d 686 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 3[c] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Classes of persons subject to search [Cumulative Supplement] It has been held that the class of persons who may be subjected to a border search is not limited to those suspected persons who are searched for contraband upon first entering the United States, but that it also includes: (1) persons working in the border area when leaving the area; (2) persons engaged in suspicious activity near a border area; and (3) in some situations, persons and vehicles after they have cleared an initial checkpoint and have entered the United States.

United States v Glaziou (1968, CA2 NY) 402 F2d 8, 6 ALR Fed 302, infra § 4[b] (holding that an individual who has direct contact with a border area, or whose movements are reasonably related to the border area, is a member of the class of persons that a customs officer may, if his suspicions are aroused, stop and search while the individual is still withinthe border area), cert den 393 US 1121, 22 L Ed 126, 89 S Ct 999 .

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

In–transit passengers are subject to routine searches at nation's borders without showing of suspicion or showing that customs official had reasonable ground for searching baggage; court would decline to immunize international passengers who choose to pass through United States, however briefly. United States v Mateos-Sanchez (1988, CA1 Puerto Rico) 864 F2d 232 .

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) searches and detentions of United States citizens at border while returning from Islamic conference in Canada were consistent with CBP's statutory mandate under Homeland Security Act to prevent entry of terrorists and instruments of terrorism into United States, even though plaintiffs had no criminal records and government had no individualized suspicion that they were associated with terrorism, where CBP had received intelligence that gave them reason to believe that persons with known terrorist ties would be attendingconference.

6 U.S.C.A. §§ 111(b)(1) , 202(1) ; Tariff Act of 1930, §§ 433(e) , 582 , 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 1433(e) , 1582 . Tabbaa v.

Chertoff, 509 F.3d 89 (2d Cir. 2007) .

Employees at international pier are not immune from border search merely because they are not persons entering country; employees working in border area are within class of persons subject to border search for contraband when leaving area. United States v Beck (CA3 Pa) 483 F2d 203 , cert den 414 US 1132, 38 L. Ed. 2d 757, 94 S Ct 873 .

Any individual who has direct contact with border area is member of class of persons of whom search is allowed if customs officials' suspicions are aroused. United States v Henriquez (CA5 Fla) 483 F2d 65 , cert den 414 US 1095, 38 L. Ed. 2d 553, 94 S Ct 728 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 50 Where federal customs officers had seen someone place packages from airplane which had recently arrived from international flight into pickup truck, truck's owner came within class of persons engaged in suspicious activity near aborder area, and search of pickup truck was proper border search. U. S. v Arroyave (CA5 Fla) 477 F2d 157 .

Alien who has been held in physical custody of entry official since moment of entry, without having been allowed 1 moment to move about free of custody, continues to "stand at the border" for border search purposes. U. S. v Cristancho- Puerto (CA5 Fla) 475 F2d 1025 , cert den 414 US 869, 38 L. Ed. 2d 115, 94 S Ct 181 .

Customs officers may x-ray an airline passenger's luggage at the border without reasonable suspicion. U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Lawson, 461 F.3d 697, 2006 FED App. 0315P (6th Cir. 2006) .

See United States v Udofot (1983, CA8 Minn) 711 F2d 831 , cert den (US) 78 L Ed 2d 234, 104 S Ct 245 , § 6[b] .

Even if defendant's detention was an illegal arrest, arrest in no way tainted border search of defendant's vehicle which resulted in discovery of marijuana; "block blitz" in force when defendant approached border mandated inspection of every vehicle, such that, regardless of arrest, inspection would have occurred. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Topete- Urrea, 110 Fed. Appx. 797 (9th Cir. 2004) .

While a customs officer's experience is relevant to the inquiry whether the officer had a reasonable suspicion of illegal activity to permit a nonroutine border search, the officer may not base reasonable suspicion on broad profiles which cast suspicion on entire categories of people without any individualized suspicion of the particular person to be stopped. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Bravo, 295 F.3d 1002 (9th Cir. 2002) .

Motorist's nervousness during border search of his car and his two different stories about his destination did not supply particularized and objective basis for suspecting that he was carrying contraband, and thus did not justify nonroutinesearch of car. U.S. v. Baltazar-Murrieta, 35 Fed. Appx. 478 (9th Cir. 2002) .

Administrative search exception to Fourth Amendment warrant requirement did not apply to Customs Service searches of all departing passengers at domestic terminus of ferry originating in Canada, which were performed whether passengers boarded in Canada or at intermediate domestic port; searches were not narrowly tailored means of advancing goal of interdicting contraband, nor were clearly necessary, since international travelers could be searched before boarding, on board, or at intermediate port. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Graham, 117 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (W.D. Wash.

2000) .

Where private aircraft is shown to have pierced air defense identification zone (outside U.S. border) traveling from southeast toward this country without having filed flight plan or notifying U.S. government officials of its pending arrival as required by federal law, government is entitled to draw inference that its point of origin was foreign and accordingly to conduct search of plane without warrant or any suspicion of criminal activity. United States v Garcia (1982, CA11 Fla) 672 F2d 1349, 10 Fed Rules Evid Serv 359 .

Search of automobile driven by resident alien by immigration officer was invalid, as defendant's nervousness did not give agent probable cause to search car, and defendant's consent, given while officer had possession of defendant's green card, was not voluntary. People v Valenzuela (1994, 4th Dist) 28 Cal App 4th 817, 33 Cal Rptr 2d 802, 94 CDOS 7452, 94 Daily Journal DAR 13603 .

Items seized by border patrol agent while murder and larceny defendant was detained at border while attempting to enter Canada were lawfully seized under border exception to the Fourth Amendment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . State v. Lynch, 771 S.E.2d 346 (S.C. Ct. App. 2015) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 51 [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 3[d] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Types of areas to which search can extend [Cumulative Supplement] CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

United States customs officer's action, at point of entry into United States of certain letters mailed to addressees in United States, of opening such letters without warrant under authority of 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 , which permits customs official to "search any trunk or envelope, wherever found, in which he may have a reasonable cause to suspect there is merchandise which was imported contrary to law," does not violate Fourth Amendment, but falls within border search exception to requirements of Fourth Amendment whereby search at United States border will be considered reasonable under Amendment, notwithstanding absence of probable cause or warrant. United States v Ramsey, 431 US 606, 52 L.

Ed. 2d 617, 97 S Ct 1972 .

Rules concerning border searches permit government to spot–check incoming mail at point of entry, or inspect all such mail, or inspect any such mail which attracts inspector's attention. United States v Emery (CA1 Mass) 541 F2d 887 .

Customs inspectors' searches of defendant's luggage upon his return to United States, comprising initial search and secondary search at Customs office 40 yards from location of initial search, were routine, and thus did not requirereasonable suspicion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Irving, 432 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2005) .

Search of lining of airline passenger's suitcase was valid as routine border search since once customs inspector felt unusual rigidness along sides of suitcase and observed that sides were unusually thick and heavy, he was entitled to find out what accounted for unusual conditions. United States v Caro (1981, CA2 NY) 637 F2d 869 (disagreed with on other grounds Weir v Fletcher (1981, CA6 Ky) 658 F2d 1126 , revd on other grounds Fletcher v Weir (1982) 455 US 603, 71 L Ed 2d 490, 102 S Ct 1309 , on remand Weir v Fletcher (1982, CA6 Ky) 680 F2d 437 ).

Seizure by customs officer of first class air mail envelope from England on suspicion envelope contained obscene material held proper, with court stating that all first class mail from outside the country could be searched by customs officers. U.S. v. Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, Schedule No. 1213, 395 F. Supp. 791 (S.D. N.Y. 1975) , aff'd, 538 F.2d 317 (2d Cir. 1976) .

Each member of Bureau of Customs is empowered by 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 to search any trunk or envelope, wherever found, in which he may have reasonable cause to suspect there is merchandise which was imported contary to law; regulations promulgated by Treasury Department and Postal Service authorize customs agents to examine all foreign mail (39 CFR § 61.6) and to seize envelopes containing prohibited material (19 CFR Part 9); however, to determine when mail may be opened by agents, one must look to statute and Fourth Amendment. United States v Various Articles of Obscene Merchandise, etc. (DC NY) 363 F Supp 165 .

Envelopes coming into country as first–class mail are subject to customs search under 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 without warrant; fact that envelopes were mailed in APO system does not place envelopes in domestic mail, thereby requiring warrant for search; both Fourth Amendment standards and border search standards are met where five envelopes are mailed on same Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 52 day to same person at same address, dog trained to sniff out narcotics indicated envelopes contained narcotics and each envelope felt to investigating officer like it contained more than letter. United States v Milroy (CA4 Va) 538 F2d 1033 .

Bus passenger had no reasonable expectation of privacy in exterior luggage compartment of commercial bus, and therefore no standing to contest the actual inspection of that compartment by Border Patrol agent at immigration checkpoint, to which bus operator consented. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Ventura, 447 F.3d 375 (5th Cir. 2006) .

Stop of vehicle by border patrol agents is justified where articulable acts generate in agents reasonable suspicion that vehicle is stolen and has been transported in interstate commerce. United States v Miranda-Perez (1985, CA5 Tex) 764 F2d 285 .

Warrantless search of mail under extended border search doctrine is reasonable when it is established by preponderance of evidence that mail has crossed border, when it appears with reasonable certainty that mail's contents have not been altered since it entered United States, when search occurs after delivery of mail to addressee, and when government agents who make search have reasonable suspicion of smuggling activity. United States v Richards (1981, CA5 Fla) 638 F2d 765 , reh den (CA5 Fla) 646 F2d 962 and cert den 454 US 1097, 70 L Ed 2d 638, 102 S Ct 669 , post-conviction proceeding (CA11 Fla) 837 F2d 965 .

Government's traditional right to examine merchandise entering country was applicable to search of envelopes which did not take place at port of entry and search was reasonable by Fourth Amendment standards; defendants could have had no reasonable expectation that their letters mailed from abroad would remain uninspected, and searches of this kind are "far less intrusive than searches of individuals or of their immediate effects"; search in Alabama of envelopes which had entered United States at San Francisco was proper under 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 , which provides that customs officer may "search any trunk or envelope, wherever found" and specifically empowers customs officers to make such search "as well without as within their respective districts." United States v King (CA5 Ala) 517 F2d 350 .

Warrantless search of motel room was not valid as border search, because 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 permits warrantless searches of vehicle, beast, or person, but not residence. United States v Steinkoenig (CA5 Tex) 487 F2d 225 .

Since any person or thing coming into United States is subject to search by that fact alone, whether or not there is any suspicion of illegality, and first class letters are not exempt from this rule, search in New York by supervisory customs mail entry aide of letter addressed to defendant and mailed from Columbia was not unconstitutional and could provide officers with information which they could properly use in determining whether they had probable cause toarrest defendant. United States v Bolin (CA7 Ill) 514 F2d 554 .

Scope and manner of Customs border inspection of contents of sealed envelope, enclosed in package to be sent to the Philippines, was constrained and thus reasonable under Fourth Amendment, where inspector was authorized to open package and scan letter to determine whether defendant had violated monetary instrument reporting requirements, and inspector could ascertain by a glance that unmistakable evidence of pedophilia was present in the envelope. U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend. 4 ; 31 U.S.C.A. §§ 5316 , 5317(b) . U.S. v. Seljan, 547 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2008) .

Evidence obtained by drilling a hole through the back of the glove compartment of defendant's vehicle, during a search at an international border, was admissible in prosecution for importation of cocaine and possession with intent to distribute cocaine, despite the lack of any reasonable suspicion. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 ; 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 841(a)(1) , 952 , 960 . U.S.

v. Ayon-Perez, 150 Fed. Appx. 711 (9th Cir. 2005) .

No suspicion was required for a border search of gas tank of defendant's vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Tolentino, 135 Fed. Appx. 36 (9th Cir. 2005) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 53 Customs inspector's authority to conduct suspicionless inspections at border, which included the authority to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle's fuel tank, permitted search of gas tank of defendant's vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.

Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Hernandez, 102 Fed. Appx. 592 (9th Cir. 2004) .

Customs officers had reasonable suspicion to conduct bumper search of vehicle defendant was driving; defendant told customs inspector that he was driving his cousin's vehicle, inspector noticed that defendant's trembling hands and breaking voice indicated nervousness, and when inspector opened trunk of vehicle he noticed that trunk was not as deepas in other vehicles of type. U.S. v. Cruz-Martinez, 87 Fed. Appx. 644 (9th Cir. 2004) .

Term "dwelling," as used in federal statute granting border patrol agents access to private lands close to border, but not to dwellings, had to be construed in accordance with Fourth Amendment as referring to homes, including curtilage; accordingly, border patrol agent's warrantless entry into defendant's enclosed backyard, where they discovered two illegal aliens hiding behind shed, was not authorized by statute. U.S. Const. Amend. IV ; Immigration and Nationality Act, § 287(a)(3), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a)(3) . U.S. v. Romero-Bustamente, 337 F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2003) .

Gas tank searches at border are not "routine," and are therefore subject to reasonable–suspicion standard, rather than any–suspicion standard for routine searches. U.S. v. Cedano-Arellano, 332 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2003) .

Customs enforcement canine's alert to motorist's vehicle, motorist's nervousness, marks on vehicle indicating that gas tank had been removed recently, and customs inspector's relevant experience provided reasonable suspicion to justify dismantling of vehicle's fuel tank to search for contraband, and thus, search was lawful, even though not a routine bordersearch. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Oceguerra-Aguirre, 70 Fed. Appx. 473 (9th Cir. 2003) .

Use of trained dogs to sniff van pack at customs facility did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights, since customs agents were authorized to run dogs through facility because it was area where goods were placed immediatelyupon their removal from ships arriving from foreign ports. United States v Spetz (1983, CA9 Cal) 721 F2d 1457 .

Warrantless search of enclosed driveway area and of van and birdcages, all of which were on private property, was proper and reasonable, as extended border search, where totality of circumstances, including time elapsed after initial border crossing, distance from border, and fact that property to be seized, parrots illegally brought across border, was under surveillance from time of border crossing until time of arrival at enclosed compound, were such as to convince fact finder with reasonable certainty that contraband which might be found in or on vehicle had been unlawfully imported.

United States v Jacobson (1981, CA9 Ariz) 647 F2d 990 , cert den (1981) 454 US 897, 70 L Ed 2d 213, 102 S Ct 398 .

Religious materials and documents entering United States were subject to routine search without need for warrant or suspicion; nature of documents giving rise to customs official's suspicion that materials were not importable justified detention for more thorough search and investigation. Church of Scientology v Simon (CD Cal) 460 F Supp 56 , affd 441 US 938, 60 L. Ed. 2d 1040, 99 S Ct 2153 .

The defendant did not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the truck he had been driving or in any of its contents when he jumped out of the truck and ran away from it as a border patrol agent approached the truck, and thus, the search of the truck by border patrol agents did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment rights. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Quintana-Grijalva, 332 Fed. Appx. 487 (10th Cir. 2009) .

Border patrol agent's brief visual examination of vehicle's undercarriage by crawling under vehicle and using flashlight and mirror during routine checkpoint stop was not "search" within meaning of Fourth Amendment. United States v Rascon-Ortiz (1993, CA10 NM) 994 F2d 749 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 54 Routine, warrantless searches at fixed, permanent border checkpoints are exceptions to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment, and are excused as administrative searches, despite being conducted without reasonable suspicionor probable cause. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Moya-Matute, 559 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (D.N.M. 2008) .

Evidence established sufficient nexus between airplane seen to have crossed border and nearby automobile sufficient to justify search of automobile as valid border search since (1) airplane and automobile were located only few feet away from each other (2) odor of marijuana emanated from both airplane and automobile and (3) both were parked insidehanger which was under exclusive control of defendant. United States v Lueck (1982, CA11 Fla) 678 F2d 895 .

Search of defendant's imported car for narcotics at imported car terminal after customers officer had been alerted by narcotics detector dog of possible presence of narcotics was reasonable, where car terminal was part of customs "border area" over which Customs Service had jurisdiction, where patrol with detector dog was clearly nonintrusive, and where subsequent drilling of two or three one–eighth–inch holes in frame on underside of car by trained narcotics inspector, while intrusive, was minimal and fully justified by circumstances. People v Matthews (1980, 2d Dist) 112 Cal App 3d 11, 169 Cal Rptr 263 .

Also recognizing that customs officials may, without warrant, examine incoming foreign mail. State v Jennings (Conn Supp) 336 A2d 237 ; State v Hogan, 194 Neb 207, 231 NW2d 135 .

Border search doctrine has been applied to examinations of mail coming into this country from abroad, and for such purposes, mail sorting room at port of entry is treated as border crossing; New York customs search of bulk mail package was proper, since New York is port of entry, and customs agents there could reasonably have suspected that package contained merchandise which was subject to duty or matter which was introduced into U.S. in manner contrary to law. Com. v. DeWitt, 226 Pa. Super. 372, 314 A.2d 27 (1973) . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 3[e] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Seizure following unsuccessful search [Cumulative Supplement] CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

After border search of automobile pursuant to 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 has been completed, and no evidence of violation of law has been found, there is no statutory support for customs agents' seizing automobile and holding it for further search. United States v Brodzik (DC NY) 366 F Supp 295 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 3[f] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Use of electronic sensors to detect border traffic [Cumulative Supplement] Also holding electronic sensor indications as sufficient to justify search by border police: Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 55 Fifth Circuit United States v Saenz (CA5 Tex) 578 F2d 643 , cert den (US) 59 L. Ed. 2d 42, 99 S Ct 850 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Monitoring of aircraft in flight by electronic surveillance by means of transponder placed aboard suspect aircraft, is subject to Fourth Amendment protection ( U.S. Const. Amend. 4 ), and probable cause to conduct surveillance must be met; monitoring of aircraft did not violate any reasonable expectations of privacy, as FAA regulations require that planes, such as suspect aircraft, be equipped with transponders and are, in fact, routinely monitored in flight. United States v Tussell (MD Pa) 441 F Supp 1092 .

Border patrol agent properly stopped defendant's truck, after having been alerted by sensor device indicating north bound traffic on road leading only from border, where local and tourist traffic on that highway had stopped for evening, agents did not recognize defendant's truck, and truck was of type often used to transport illegal aliens. United States v Gordon (1983, CA5 Tex) 712 F2d 110 .

Border agents had reasonable suspicion that defendant's car contained persons illegally entering country, thus justifying border stop, where timing of sensor alert and arrival of defendant's car at agents' location were coincident enough to allow reasonable inference that this was car which had hit sensors. United States v Aquirre-Valenzuela (1983, CA5 Tex) 700 F2d 161 .

Border Patrol officers lawfully stopped and searched station wagon upon receipt of information from unmanned sensors which indicated vehicle was coming from uncontrolled area of Texas–Mexico border at rapid rate of speed, where officers knew local residents and vehicles and only stopped those vehicles setting off sensors with which they were unfamiliar, where terrain, availability of unmanned entry points, normal traffic patterns and high instance of illegal alien arrests created strong reason to believe that non–local vehicles could contain illegal aliens, and where upon stopping vehicle officers searched it, having noticed that strong odor or marijuana pervaded vehicle's interior. United States v Rodriguez- Martinez (1980, CA5 Tex) 626 F2d 1232 .

Border Patrol officers lawfully "stopped" parked camper upon receipt of information that electronic sensors indicated northbound vehicle proceeding through sparsely populated area from direction of border, which sensor indication showed that vehicle had stopped or turned off at certain point, and upon arriving at such point, border patrol officers found camper pointed in southbound direction, but without having triggered southbound sensing devices, with engine still warm, and "stop" of vehicle occurred when Border Patrol officers knocked on door of camper and defendant stepped out into presence of officers. United States v Almand (CA5 Tex) 565 F2d 927 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 570 F2d 949 and cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 116, 99 S Ct 92 .

Vehicles detected by remote electronic sensors as proceeding in early hours of morning from unprotected border area were not subject to being stopped by border patrolmen, and subsequently searched, where vehicle movement was in area of national park which attracted large number of tourists, and to permit border patrol to stop vehicles upon dubious "suspicious" circumstances of such slight import would result in possibly subjecting thousands of tourists visiting area to unreasonable detention whenever they traveled at hours when certain routes are less frequented; decision to travel roads at less busy hours should not be, constitutionally speaking, determinative of right of officers to stop vehicles. United States v Frisbie (CA5 Tex) 550 F2d 335 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 554 F2d 1065 .

Metal detection device on road near Mexican border was not permanent checkpoint operation constituting functional equivalent of border, and border patrol agents conducting roving border patrol therefore did not have authority to Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 56 search automobile in absence of reasonable suspicion merely because automobile had triggered metal detection device.

United States v Partner (CA5 Tex) 527 F2d 1337 .

Signal device imbedded in highway 60 miles from border to alert officers to oncoming cars was not a functional equivalent of border, so as to justify stop and search of motorist of Mexican ancestry without reasonable suspicion. United States v Del Bosque (CA5 Tex) 523 F2d 1251 .

Border Patrol agents who were investigating the tripping of a border sensor had reasonable suspicion to stop a driver as he slowly traveled down a dead-end frontage road typically used only by ranchers during daytime in sparsely populated area near the U.S.-Mexico border after midnight; the driver widened his eyes and then sped up when agent shone flashlight on vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Laija-Garcia, 347 F. Supp. 2d 350 (W.D. Tex. 2004) , judgment aff'd, 110 Fed. Appx. 411 (5th Cir. 2004) , cert. denied (U.S. Jan. 24, 2005).

Search of vehicle was not violative of Fourth Amendment [ U.S.C.A. Const, Amend 4 ], where aircraft, which lessor had reasonable basis for believing had been previously used by lessee for transporting marijuana, was fitted with transponder by lessor when lessee sought to rent aircraft again, and aircraft was followed by customs aircraft to abandoned airstrip where leased aircraft landed and unlighted vehicles approached parked aircraft and remained for period of 5 or 10 minutes, and drove off again without lights, customs aircraft then causing ground support to intercept and search vehicles; transponder was installed with consent of true owner of aircraft, prior to time lessee took possession of aircraft, and upon reliable information, based upon articulable facts, in possession of Customs Service agents. United States v Curtis (CA9 Ariz) 562 F2d 1153 , cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 256, 99 S Ct 279 .

Where sensor devices had earlier indicated foot traffic crossing border and customs agent first saw defendant's car accelerate to unusually high rate of speed along bumpy road coming from border and proceed at high speed to residential area, facts constituted founded suspicion justifying stopping the vehicle for limited further inquiry. United States v Rodriguez-Alvarado (CA9 Cal) 510 F2d 1063 .

Since border patrol does not have enough officers to maintain constant line watch at all times and along remote crossing areas, use of electronic sensor devices is relatively new along international border; devices are engineered to ignore small animals, but to record alarm when metal or animal weighing more than 40 pounds passes nearby; alarms are recorded in central station and forwarded by radio to vehicular patrols supplementing line watch; prompt inspection of first automobile to appear on highway after officers receive alarm from sensor is not only well–advised, but is based upon well–founded suspicion. United States v Mora-Chavez (CA9 Cal) 496 F2d 1181 , cert den 419 US 878, 42 L. Ed. 2d 118, 95 S Ct 141 .

Under totality of circumstances, Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to support stop of defendant's vehicle; vehicle was stopped near Mexican border in area that leant itself to illegal border crossings, shortly after a vehicle had triggered a vehicle sensor placed by agents in off-road area where highway on which defendant was driving passed close to border, defendant's vehicle was one of only two seen in area after sensor was triggered, agent who made stop had been border patrol agent in the area for five years and had helped conduct several drug seizures in the area, and defendant's vehicle was a utility truck with potential to hold contraband. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Guillen-Zapata, 157 Fed. Appx. 75 (10th Cir. 2005) .

See United States v Leyba (1980, CA10 NM) 627 F2d 1059 , cert den (US) 66 L Ed 2d 250, 101 S Ct 406 , § 4[a] .

The amount of reasonable suspicion needed for an x–ray the same amount needed for a strip search by Customs agents. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4 . Brent v. Ashley, 247 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2001) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 57 [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 3[g] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Persons authorized to search [Cumulative Supplement] CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Border Patrol agents on roving border patrol had reasonable suspicion to stop defendants' vehicle; although defendants were 200 miles from border, agents testified about prevalence of drug and illegal alien smuggling on highway on which defendants were traveling, vehicle was unusually clean and had dark, tinted windows, driver deliberately attempted to prevent agents' car from following, first by refusing to pass semi and then by slowing considerably after passing semi and leaving too small a space for agents to change lanes, and agents had considerable experience. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.

4 . U.S. v. Rivera-Gonzalez, 413 Fed. Appx. 736 (5th Cir. 2011) .

Border patrol agent's request to search defendant's trunk at checkpoint location did not exceed proper scope of stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment; since checkpoint searches were constitutional where justified by consent, proper scope of stop extended to brief delay that was necessarily involved when agent asked for consent to search. U.S. Const.

Amend. IV . U.S. v. Estrada-Rendon, 40 Fed. Appx. 478 (9th Cir. 2002) .

Fact that under executive reorganization plan, customs officers should not have conducted investigation that led to search and seizure does not justify application of exclusionary rule to suppress evidence seized in search; court should not automatically suppress evidence seized by officer who, for some technical reason, should not have conducted search. United States v Harrington (1982, CA9 Cal) 681 F2d 612 .

FBI agent was not person authorized to conduct warrantless "border search" without probable cause, which authority is limited to customs and immigration officers, and others authorized to "board and search vessels." United States v Soto- Soto (CA9 Cal) 598 F2d 545 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 3[h] Validity of border search and seizure, generally—Canine alert as basis for search [Cumulative Supplement] The following authority examined the sufficiency of a canine alert as a basis for a border search or seizure. CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases: Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 58 Defendant's consent to search his vehicle was not constitutionally necessary after his stop at traffic checkpoint at border, where border patrol already had probable cause to search van based on service canine's "alert" to narcotics in the vehicle.

U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Clayton, 374 Fed. Appx. 497 (5th Cir. 2010) .

Border patrol agents did not exceed scope of permissible checkpoint stop; initial questioning took "no more than one minute," and discrepancy in bill of lading showing defendant was considerably off his travel route, together with canine alerting to rear of truck, provided agents with probable cause to search trailer. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Maldonado, 241 Fed. Appx. 198 (5th Cir. 2007) .

Drug dog's alert to defendant's truck while border patrol officer was making inquiries as to his citizenship provided basis for agent's initial decision to detain defendant and for subsequent search of truck. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Scott, 108 Fed. Appx. 168 (5th Cir. 2004) .

Border agent had reasonable suspicion to briefly detain passenger after he exited bus, where dog alerted to defendant as he exited bus, dog pulled agent to follow the odor, dog again followed passenger after passenger entered bus station, and bus station was two blocks from Mexican border in town that had reputation as gateway for drug smuggling. U.S.

Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Reyes, 349 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2003) .

A separate showing of training was not required before the canine alert could establish probable cause for warrantless search of vehicle at border patrol checkpoint. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Stevenson, 274 F. Supp. 2d 819 (S.D.

Tex. 2002) .

Border patrol agents are free to conduct exterior canine inspections of vehicles so long as the vehicles and their occupants are otherwise lawfully detained at the time of the inspection. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Forbes, 528 F.3d 1273 (10th Cir. 2008) .

Border patrol agents had probable cause to conduct search of defendant's truck at checkpoint, where dog that was brought to sniff outside of truck promptly alerted. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Mendivil, 208 Fed. Appx. 647 (10th Cir. 2006) .

Drug dog's alert to pickup truck's bed supplied probable cause for Border Patrol agent's subsequent search of truck bed. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Badilla, 383 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2004) .

Once a drug dog alerts to the presence of narcotics, border patrol agents have probable cause to search a vehicle for narcotics. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Morales, 489 F. Supp. 2d 1250 (D.N.M. 2007) .

United States Border Patrol agents conducting systematic search at checkpoint had reasonable suspicion to detain defendant, who was a passenger on bus operated by commercial bus line; agent inspected cargo area of bus with dog trained to detect odors, dog alerted to black duffel bag with tag number, bag was discovered to contain bundles of marijuana, and defendant's seat number matched ticket stub for bag. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . State v. Munoz, 2008- NMCA-090, 187 P.3d 696 (N.M. Ct. App. 2008) , cert. granted, 2008-NMCERT-006 (N.M. 2008) . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 3.5[a] Effect of Almeida–Sanchez decision—Generally Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 59 [Cumulative Supplement] Also recognizing that routine border search may take place not only at border itself, but at "functional equivalent" as well: Second Circuit United States v Bishop (1982, ND NY) 541 F Supp 1056 United States v Tehrani (1993, DC Vt) 826 F Supp 789 Fourth Circuit United States v Laughman (1980, CA4 SC) 618 F2d 1067 , cert den (US) 65 L. Ed. 2d 1117, 100 S Ct 3018 United States v Gallagher (CA4 Va) 557 F2d 1041 , cert den 434 US 870, 54 L. Ed. 2d 148, 98 S Ct 213 Fifth Circuit United States v. Maskeny (1980, CA5 Ga) 609 F2d 183 , reh den (CA5 Ga) 613 F2d 315 United States v Salinas (1980, CA5 Tex) 611 F2d 128 United States v Flynn (1982, CA5 Fla) 664 F2d 1296 , cert den (1982) 456 US 930, 72 L. Ed. 2d 446, 102 S Ct 1979 United States v Niver (1982, CA5 Tex) 689 F2d 520 United States v Alvarez-Gonzalez (CA5 Tex) 561 F2d 620United States v Strmel (1983, ED La) 574 F Supp 793 , affd (CA5 La) 744 F2d 1086 Ninth Circuit United States v Moore (1980, CA9 Cal) 638 F2d 1171 , cert den 449 US 1113, 66 L. Ed. 2d 842, 101 S Ct 924 Eleventh Circuit United States v Hewitt (1984, CA11 Fla) 724 F2d 117 NC State v Rivard (1982) 57 NC App 672, 292 SE2d 174 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases: Routine border searches may take place not only at border itself, but at its "functional equivalents" as well; government cannot apply per se rule that any warrantless search of automobile within 100 air miles from any external border of country is valid; search by roving U.S. border patrol of automobile on east–west highway which never came closer than 20 miles to Mexican border, where there was no probable cause to search, no search warrant, and no "reasonable suspicion" which might have justified a street stop, violated defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures; such search could not be termed "functional equivalent" of border search, as might, for example, search at established station near border, search at points of confluence of two or more roads extending from border, or searchof persons arriving on overseas flight. Almeida-Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 .

Governing standard for determination whether search falls into border search category is Almeida–Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L Ed 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , holding that search is not exempted from warrant and probable cause requirements of Fourth Amendment simply because it occurs within 100 miles, or any other specific distance, of border; to qualify as border search, search must occur at border or at "functional equivalent" of border; question of what is "functional equivalent" of border is complex and must be developed on case–by–case basis; proximity to border is not only standard for determining whether search is functional equivalent of search at border; there must be some substantial connection with actual or suspected border crossing by person or thing to be searched, that is, searching officers must know or have reasonable suspicion that very individual or thing to be searched has itself just crossed border; judicial notice or even proof of many illegal acts in area in which search takes place is not enough. United States v Lonabaugh (CA5 Tex) 494 F2d 1257 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 60 Decision in Almeida–Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L Ed 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , held that, notwithstanding attempted congressional dispensation in 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a) , searches and seizures by border officials are subject to same Fourth Amendment restrictions as any other police action, unless they are conducted at physical border or its functional equivalent. United States v Rodriguez-Hernandez (CA5 Fla) 493 F2d 168 , cert den 422 US 1056, 45 L. Ed.

2d 708, 95 S Ct 2678 .

Border exception to Fourth Amendment search and seizure requirements is not rendered inapplicable simply because a search initiated at border ultimately is conducted at some physical or temporal remove. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Kolsuz, 890 F.3d 133 (4th Cir. 2018) , as amended, (May 18, 2018).

See United States v Sheikh (1981, CA5 Tex) 654 F2d 1057 , cert den 455 US 991, 71 L Ed 2d 852, 102 S Ct 1617 , § 4[b] .

See United States v Richards (1981, CA5 Fla) 638 F2d 765 , reh den (CA5 Fla) 646 F2d 962 and cert den 454 US 1097, 70 L Ed 2d 638, 102 S Ct 669 , post-conviction proceeding (CA11 Fla) 837 F2d 965 , § 3[d] .

Under Almeida–Sanchez doctrine, border is "zone," not "line," and search without probable cause of defendant at airport after she had passed through customs enclosure did not violate constitutional rights. United States v Walters (CA5 Fla) 591 F2d 1195 , reh den (CA5 Fla) 594 F2d 863 and cert den 442 US 945, 61 L. Ed. 2d 317, 99 S Ct 2892 .

Cases requiring only that searching officers have "reasonable suspicion" that customs laws were being violated and that object of search have "nexus" with border were overruled by Almeida–Sanchez; under that case, search is not valid border search unless it appears by preponderance of evidence, direct or circumstantial, that border crossing has actuallyoccurred. United States v Johnson (CA5 Tex) 588 F2d 147 .

Border checkpoint near Sarita, Texas was "functional equivalent of border" within meaning of Almeida–Sanchez case. United States v Clay (CA5 Tex) 581 F2d 1190 , cert den 440 US 927, 59 L. Ed. 2d 483, 99 S Ct 1261 .

Provisions of 19 U.S.C.A. § 1582 , and regulations promulgated thereunder, authorized opening of mail originating outside United States, and for purposes of such openings, mail sorting rooms at port of entry are border areas. United States v Pringle (CA5 Ga) 576 F2d 1114 .

Search of vehicle at Sarita, Texas border patrol checkpoint, previously determined to be functional equivalent of border, may be conducted without probable cause, as where search is conducted at border or at functional equivalent of border,no probable cause is required. United States v Canales (CA5 Tex) 573 F2d 908 .

In order to determine whether border patrol checkpoint is "functional equivalent of border," so that probable cause is not required to conduct search, court must determine that there is minimal interdiction of domestic traffic, with approximately 63 percent international traffic satisfying such test, checkpoint must be permanent, though it may alternate between two locations, and checkpoint must be necessary practical substitute for border, which reflects tactical necessity for interior checkpoint because of practical inability to police border, and court may consider extent to which access of border is uncontrolled, and necessity of checkpoint to monitor uncontrolled access and degree of success checkpoint was enjoyed; applying such criteria, border checkpoint at Sarita, Texas is functional equivalent of border. United States v Reyna (CA5 Tex) 572 F2d 515 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 575 F2d 881 and cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 183, 99 S Ct 203 .

La Gloria, Texas border patrol checkpoint is permanent and constitutes functional equivalent of border, and neither warrant nor probable cause is required for routine searches conducted there of automobile trunks and other large spaces in which aliens may be concealed. United States v Robinson (CA5 Tex) 567 F2d 637 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 570 F2d 949 and cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 110, 99 S Ct 81 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 61 Reasonable suspicion no longer satisfies requirements for valid warrantless search by roving Border Patrol agents even in area near international border; however, stopping of vehicle and brief interrogation of occupants based on reasonablesuspicion is not violative of Fourth Amendment. United States v Lara (CA5 Tex) 517 F2d 209 .

To justify search at temporary checkpoint between 65 and 75 miles north of Mexican border occurring before decision in Almeida–Sanchez, government has burden to show existence of reasonable suspicion of Customs or Immigration violation, and to demonstrate nexus between border and searched vehicle. United States v Speed (CA5 Tex) 497 F2d 546 .

Stopping a vehicle as it moves away from the border, within 50 miles of it, creates a stand-alone inference that the vehicle's journey originated at the border, for purposes of determining whether a United States Border Patrol agent's suspicion that the occupant of the vehicle is involved in criminal activity is reasonable. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v.

Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944 (S.D. Tex. 2017) .

Decision in Almeida–Sanchez does not stand for proposition that investigatory stops and searches must be made at border's edge when illegal aliens or smugglers arrive there, nor that stops and searches cannot be sustained unless made at regular points of entry or their equivalent.

United States v Conner (DC Tex) 364 F Supp 1168 , affd without op (CA5 Tex) 492 F2d 1241 .

It is not necessary that parcel post package be inspected at first port of entry, and valid border search under 19 U.S.C.A.

§ 482 may be conducted at inland post office. United States v Lowe (CA6 Mich) 575 F2d 1193 , cert den (US) 58 L. Ed.

2d 180, 99 S Ct 198 .

Search of suspect while proceeding up ramp to board plane bound for Colombia was valid as search at functional equivalent of border where, by checking his luggage, passing through airline checkpoint, obtaining boarding pass, and proceeding up ramp, suspect had manifested definite commitment to leave country. United States v Duncan (1982, CA9 Cal) 693 F2d 971 , cert den (US) 77 L Ed 2d 1321, 103 S Ct 2436 .

First United States location at which international flight lands is considered functional equivalent of border and same standards apply as at actual border. United States v Couch (1982, CA9 Cal) 688 F2d 599 , cert den (US) 74 L Ed 2d 110, 103 S Ct 128 .

Decision in Almeida–Sanchez does not apply where border patrol agents had founded suspicion, which may be less than probable cause, for stopping vehicle for purpose of limited inquiry in course of routine investigation. United States v Madueno Astorga (CA9 Cal) 503 F2d 820 , cert den 422 US 1057, 45 L. Ed. 2d 710, 95 S Ct 2681 .

Decision in Almeida–Sanchez, 413 US 266, 37 L Ed 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , requires courts to address question whether searches at checkpoints are " border searches " for immigration purposes as that term is defined in the decision; if search is determined to be border search, court will not be required to determine whether search is justified on basis of legally sufficient warrant, or, if not, whether it is nonetheless proper under one of exceptions to warrant requirement. United States v Baca (DC Cal) 368 F Supp 398 .

Supreme Court's decision in Almeida-Sanchez, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , did not affect right of immigration officials to make routine inquiries as to individual's nationality; while decision refers to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a) generally, it is clear from both reasoning and language of majority opinion that it is § 1357(a)(3) which was under scrutiny, for only that subsection authorizes search and seizure. United States v Bowman (CA10 NM) 487 F2d 1229 .

Where fixed permanent check point, or "temporary" check point which operates similar to permanent check point, is used for purpose of determining citizenship of those who pass through it, and not for general search of those persons or Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 62 vehicles, requirements of "functional equivalents" dictated by Almeida–Sanchez decision do not apply. United States v Gordo-Marin (1980, SD Fla) 497 F Supp 432 , affd United States v Gordo-Marin (1981, CA5 Fla) 659 F2d 58 .

Florida prison entrance was functional equivalent of border because it was official boundary where traffic could be conveniently stopped and inspected; shakedown search of defendant who was prison guard involved only minimalintrusion compared with state's interest in keeping contraband out of prison. Clark v State (1981, Fla) 395 So 2d 525 .

Under the interior fixed-checkpoint doctrine, detention at a border checkpoint is a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, but because the public has a substantial interest in protecting the integrity of national borders, and the intrusion upon one's right to privacy and personal security by a routine border inspection is minimal, a border patrol agent may briefly detain and question an individual without any individualized suspicion, and Fourth Amendment protects an individual's liberty at a border checkpoint by limiting the scope of the detention. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . State v. Sanchez, 2015- NMSC-018, 350 P.3d 1169 (N.M. 2015) .

In view of Supreme Court decision in Almeida–Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L Ed 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 and its progeny, border patrol agent's search of automobile at stationary checkpoint on highway 25 or 30 miles from Mexican border could not be considered border search where, although agent described checkpoint as permanent checkpoint and stated that nearly every day some unit of border patrol was there, there were not permanent facilities at location.

Tamez v State (Tex Crim) 534 SW2d 686 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 3.5[b] Effect of Almeida–Sanchez decision—Retroactivity of decision [Cumulative Supplement] CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Principles of Almeida-Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , that Fourth Amendment prohibits Border Patrol from using roving patrols to search vehicles, without warrant or probable cause, at points removed from border and its functional equivalents, will not be applied retroactively to invalidate searches occurring prior to June 21, 1973, date of that decision, including searches at traffic checkpoints. Bowen v United States, 422 US 916, 45 L. Ed. 2d 641, 95 S Ct 2569 .

United States Supreme Court's decision in Almeida-Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , does not apply retroactively so as to require exclusion, in a federal prosecution, of evidence obtained by Border Patrol search and seizure conducted prior to June 21, 1973, since the Almeida–Sanchez decision need not be retroactively applied. United States v Peltier, 422 US 531, 45 L. Ed. 2d 374, 95 S Ct 2313 , on remand (CA9 Cal) 523 F2d 1382 .

Ruling in Almeida-Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , is to be given prospective application only, and is applicable only to searches and seizures which occurred after June 21, 1973, date of decision. United States v Wilson (CA5 Tex) 492 F2d 1160 , cert den 419 US 858, 42 L. Ed. 2d 92, 95 S Ct 106 ; United States v Byrd (CA5 Tex) 494 F2d 1284 , petition den (CA5 Tex) 520 F2d 1101 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 63 Supreme Court decision in Almeida-Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , announced new rule which invalidates searches conducted without probable cause anywhere but at border or its "functional equivalent," since it interrupted unbroken line of decisions that searches conducted under provisions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1357 and within 100 air miles from any external border were valid border searches ; as such, it established new exclusionary rule which law enforcement officials could not have foreseen; since primary object of exclusionary rule is deterrence, new rule was designed to deter unreasonable searches and seizures in future; therefore, rule shall not be applied to searches which occurred before such decision was rendered. United States v Miller (CA5 Tex) 492 F2d 37 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 499 F2d 1247 , cert den 422 US 1056, 45 L. Ed. 2d 708, 95 S Ct 2679 .

Other cases recognizing that decision in Almeida-Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , is not to be applied to searches which occurred before that decision was rendered include: United States v Soria (CA5 Tex) 519 F2d 1060 ; United States v Morgan (CA9 Cal) 501 F2d 1351 .

Almeida–Sanchez decision is to apply only to searches conducted after date it was rendered, June 21, 1973; where U.S.

Border Patrol searched automobile at permanent checkpoint because it was seen to have tire in back seat, arousing suspicion that it had been removed from trunk to make more room, marijuana which was found in subsequent search of trunk on April 27, 1973 could not be suppressed in reliance on Almeida-Sanchez. United States v McGlynn (CA5 Tex) 496 F2d 1316 .

Decision in United States v Miller (CA5 Tex) 492 F2d 37 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 499 F2d 1247 , cannot be read as approving every stop and search conducted by border patrol agents within 100 miles of external boundary prior to June 21, 1973, date of opinion in Almeida-Sanchez, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 ; even before Almeida, it was recognized that Fourth Amendment considerations would necessarily limit constitutional scope of 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357 and its attendant regulations. United States v Rodriguez-Hernandez (CA5 Fla) 493 F2d 168 , cert den 422 US 1056, 45 L. Ed. 2d 708, 95 S Ct 2678 .

Customs search made at fixed checkpoints prior to decisions of Supreme Court of the United States in Bowen v United States, 422 US 916, 45 L. Ed. 2d 641, 95 S Ct 2569 , and U.S. v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891, 95 S. Ct. 2585, 45 L. Ed. 2d 623 (1975) , will not be invalidated by Ninth Circuit for want of probable cause, where there was no decision which gave to law enforcement agencies adequate notice of unconstitutionality of fixed checkpoint searches conducted without probable cause or consent, and Ninth Circuit will not give retroactive effect to Supreme Court decisions. United States v Barela (CA9 Cal) 571 F2d 1108 , cert den 436 US 963, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1130, 98 S Ct 3083 .

Marijuana discovered when border patrol agent stopped Mexican appearing individual at checkpoint which was not functional equivalent of border in order to check individual's citizenship was not inadmissible as evidence notwithstanding fact that stop was made without founded suspicion since stop took place prior to Supreme Court's decision in Almeida–Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L Ed 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 . United States v Torres-Rios (CA9 Cal) 534 F2d 865 , cert den 429 US 898, 50 L ED 2d 182, 97 S Ct 262 .

Warrantless search of automobile at fixed checkpoint which was not functional equivalent of border prior to date of Almeida–Sanchez decision was valid as of date conducted. United States v Mollet (CA9 Cal) 510 F2d 625 .

Search of vehicle stopped at checkpoint because it was "setting low" in rear prior to Almeida–Sanchez decision, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed. 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 , was proper, since that decision has no retroactive effect to stops and searches at fixed checkpoints. United States v Heiden (CA9 Cal) 508 F2d 898 .

For purposes of retroactivity, stationary checkpoint, even though temporary, is similar to fixed checkpoint.

Consequently, stopping defendant's vehicle at border patrol checkpoint so agents could check citizenship of driver and Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 64 check vehicle for aliens on February 26, 1973, was proper. United States v Quiroz-Reyna (CA9 Cal) 500 F2d 1223 , cert den 422 US 1057, 45 L. Ed. 2d 709, 95 S Ct 2681 .

Although rule announced by Supreme Court in Almeida–Sanchez applies retroactively to all cases involving roving– patrol searches pending on appeal when that decision was announced, the rule will not be applied retroactively to fixed– checkpoint searches conducted prior to date of decision. United States v Brignoni-Ponce (CA9 Cal) 499 F2d 1109 , affd 422 US 873, 45 L. Ed. 2d 607, 95 S Ct 2574 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 4[a] Geographical limitations; time and distance factors as affecting status as border search and seizure—Generally; "totality of circumstances" rule [Cumulative Supplement] Synopsis The legality as a "border search" of a search not made in the immediate vicinity of the border is tested by the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the elapsed time and distance as well as the manner and extent of surveillance.

In an effort to catch smugglers, customs agents have sometimes conducted their operations at a considerable distance from the border. The question whether such searches can be upheld as valid "extended border searches " appears to depend upon all of the surrounding circumstances. Thus, it has been held or recognized in a number of cases that where the search for contraband is not made at or in the immediate vicinity of the border, the legality of the search must be tested by a determination whether the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the time and distance elapsed as well as the manner and extent of surveillance, are such as to convince the fact finder with reasonable certainty that thecondition of the person or thing searched was the same when it was searched as when it crossed the border. Second Circuit United States v Ogberaha (1985, CA2 NY) 771 F2d 655 , cert den (US) 88 L. Ed. 2d 922, 106 S Ct 887 Fifth Circuit United States v Pacheco (1980, CA5 Tex) 617 F2d 84 U. S. v Warner (CA5 Tex) 441 F2d 821 , cert den 404 US 829, 30 L. Ed. 2d 58, 92 S Ct 65 U. S. v Martinez (CA5 Tex) 481 F2d 214, infra § 4[b], reh den (CA5 Tex) 481 F2d 1404 and cert den 415 US 931, 39 L. Ed. 2d 489, 94 S Ct 1444 United States v Nichols (CA5 Tex) 560 F2d 1227United States v Excamilla (CA5 Tex) 560 F2d 1229 United States v Fogelman (CA5 Ga) 586 F2d 337 , reh den (CA5 Ga) 592 F2d 786 and (ovrld on other grounds United States v McBee (CA5 Ga) 659 F2d 1302 ), cert den Mc Bee v United States 456 US 949, 72 L. Ed. 2d 474, 102 S Ct 2020 United States v Rivera (CA5 Tex) 595 F2d 1095 Ninth Circuit United States v Driscoll (1980, CA9 Cal) 632 F2d 737 United States v Cardona (1985, CA9 Cal) 769 F2d 625U. S. v Mejias (CA9 Cal) 452 F2d 1190U. S. v Petersen (CA9 Ariz) 473 F2d 874U. S. v Majourau (CA9 Cal) 474 F2d 766United States v Rodriguez-Alvarado (CA9 Cal) 510 F2d 1063 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 65 Affirming a conviction for the unlawful importation of heroin, the court in Willis v United States (1966, CA5 Tex) 370 F2d 604 , held that the heroin was obtained as a result of a valid border search of defendants' automobile, where it occurred 6 miles from the Mexican border and minutes after their entry into the United States. The court observed that the evidence showed that the customs agent stationed at the border had reasonable cause to suspect that defendants were bringing heroin into the United States in a manner contrary to law, that a customs agent ordered a customs investigator to detain the car and its occupants if it left town, and that the investigator kept defendants under constant surveillance except for a brief time when the car was out of sight. The court said that the requirement of reasonable cause to suspect is satisfied if it is shown that the officer who issues the order for search is possessed of sufficient information to satisfythe test.

A conviction for smuggling amphetamine tablets was affirmed in King v United States (1965, CA9 Cal) 348 F2d 814 , cert den 382 US 926, 15 L Ed 2d 339, 86 S Ct 314 , where the evidence showed that a customs agent had received information that defendant was in Tijuana, Mexico for the purpose of acquiring a vast amount of amphetamine tablets, and that on the same evening defendant, driving a particularly described vehicle, would bring these tablets into the United States from Mexico, probably making three separate trips, that on completion of the first trip the tablets might be concealed in Chula Vista or the South Bay area, that a customs agent, being apprised of these facts, followed the car, keeping it in view at all times, that when he saw that the vehicle had not made a turn off from the highway into Chula Vista and when it appeared that defendant might be going to Los Angeles, he stopped the vehicle, questioned defendant, and thereafter searched the vehicle and found the contraband. Holding that this was a valid border search, the court observed that it appeared from the evidence that there had been no change of condition of the automobile from the time it crossed the border until it was stopped, and that whatever was in the automobile when it was stopped was in it when it crossed the border. The court said that where, as here, duly authorized officers receive information that a person or vehicle is about to cross the border with contraband in violation of the laws of the United States, and where shortly thereafter a person or vehicle conforming substantially to the description thereof given to such officers is seen to cross the border, and where such person or vehicle is followed therefrom by said officers and kept under surveillance until stopped and searched, and where there is no reason to believe that there is any change in the condition of such person or vehicle from that at the border, so that whatever such vehicle contains, or such person possesses, at the time the search is made is the same as it was at the border, and where no unreasonable time elapses between the border crossing and the search and there is no unreasonable distance between the border and the place where the search is made, such search may be held to be a border search. The court then said that no question of whether there is probable cause for search exists when the search is incidental to the crossing of an international border, for there is reason and probable cause to search every person entering the United States from a foreign country, by reason of such entry alone. Sound policy considerations, said the court, support the special treatment accorded border searches , and Congress, as well as the courts, have thus recognized the peculiar and difficult law enforcement problems that necessarily are presented by effective policing of our extensive national boundaries. In conclusion the court held that since this was a valid border search, the defendant consequentlywas not necessarily entitled to knowledge of the identity of the informer.

Affirming a conviction for smuggling narcotics, the court in Leeks v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 356 F2d 470 , said that it would uphold as a border search the search of defendant's automobile about 15 miles north of the border point of entry of San Ysidro, California. The court observed that the enterprise of the officers tailing defendant was continuous from the time defendant crossed the border until he was stopped by the command of customs officers, although the court noted that there was a shift in who pursued defendant, brought about by the intercommunication of officers over their radios. The court said that although there was a period when defendant, as he drove, may have been momentarily out of the sight of all the officers, there was no break in the continuity of the progress of the officers following him. In conclusion the court said that in holding that the search was a border search it necessarily followed that the seizure ofthe narcotics was valid. In Alexander v United States (1966, CA9 Ariz) 362 F2d 379 , cert den 385 US 977, 17 L Ed 2d 439, 87 S Ct 519 , defendant was convicted of the receipt and concealment, and the facilitation of the transportation and concealment, of a quantity Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 66 of heroin. There was evidence that customs officers, acting on a tip from an informant, had placed a certain vehicle under surveillance after it crossed from Mexico into Arizona, that the vehicle was allowed to pass into the city of Nogales and was followed by customs officers, who observed that it made several suspicious movements and eventually picked up defendant, who had previously crossed the border on foot and who likewise had been followed, and that a short time after picking up the defendant the vehicle was stopped and a search disclosed a quantity of heroin hidden inside a toolbox. The evidence further showed that except for possibly a minute or 2 minutes when it was lost from view, the vehicle was kept under constant surveillance by the customs officers. Affirming a conviction, the court rejected defendant's contentions of an unreasonable search of the automobile and seizure of the heroin, made on the ground that the customs officers lacked a warrant of arrest as well as probable cause to believe that the vehicle contained unlawfully imported merchandise. The court observed that by statute customs officers have long been given express authority to stop, search, and examine vehicles which they suspect are carrying merchandise subject to duty. The court observed that in conferring upon customs officers such broad authority, circumscribed only by the constitutional limitations of the Fourth Amendment, the Congress has in effect declared that a search which would be "unreasonable" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment if conducted by police officers in the ordinary sense would be a reasonable search if conducted by customs officials in lawful pursuit of unlawful imports. Judicial recognition of this distinction, said the court, has given rise to the term "border search," in order to distinguish official searches which are reasonable because made solely in the enforcement of customs laws, from other official searches made in connection with general law enforcement. The court said that validity for this distinction is found in the fact that the primordial purpose of a search by customs officers is not to apprehend persons, but to seize contraband property unlawfully imported or brought into the United States, and that accordingly it is well settled that a search by customs officials of the vehicle at the time and place of entering the jurisdiction of the United States need not be based on probable cause, and that "unsupported" or "mere" suspicion alone is sufficient to justify such search for purposes of customs law enforcement. The court recognized, however, that where a search for contraband by customs officers is not made at or in the immediate vicinity of the point of international border crossing, the legality of the search must be tested by a determination whether the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the time and distance elapsed as well as the manner and extent of surveillance, are such as to convince the fact finder with reasonable certainty that any contraband which might be found in or on the vehicle at the time of search was aboard the vehicle at the time of entry into the jurisdiction of the United States. Any search by customs officials which meets this test, said the court, is properly called a "border search." The court observed that in the present case the vehicle was placed under surveillance by customs officers when it crossed the border and except for a period of possibly a minute or 2 minutes when lost from view, was kept under constant watch as it made suspicious movements about the streets of Nogales, Arizona. The court said that since the evidence disclosed no reason to believe that there was any change of condition of the automobile from the time it crossed the border until it was stopped, the fact that the vehicle was lost from view of the customs officers for a brief period of time does not alter the character of the search as a"border search." Consequently, concluded the court, both the search and the seizure were reasonable and hence lawful.

Attention is called to Lee v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 376 F2d 98 , cert den 389 US 837, 19 L Ed 2d 99, 88 S Ct 54 , where a customs agent, acting on a tip from a reliable informant, directed the surveillance of an automobile after it crossed the border from Mexico, received information from other agents concerning its suspicious movements, and then radioed an agent to make an arrest of the car's occupant, a subsequent search disclosing narcotics hidden in the car.

Affirming a conviction for importing narcotics illegally, the court sustained the validity of the search on the ground that it was an incident to a lawful arrest, stating that the arresting agent, on the basis of all of the information in possession of the enforcement agency, had probable cause to make the arrest. However, the court noted that at the trial the Federal District Court, in rejecting a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground of illegal search, held that the search was valid, because, inter alia, since the car was continuously under the surveillance of federal authorities, the search couldbe considered a valid border search.

Where an informant supplied customs officers with three automobile license plate numbers and advised them that a car bearing one of them would soon enter the United States carrying marijuana, and subsequently a car bearing one of these license numbers was allowed to pass across the border into the United States but was followed by customs officers to Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 67 San Diego, California, where it was parked in a public parking lot and the driver and his female companion left it and disappeared, but the next day defendant approached the automobile, looked into it, and departed, but later returned and drove the automobile away from the lot toward Los Angeles but was stopped by customs officers several miles from his starting point on the parking lot and a search of the vehicle disclosed marijuana in the door panels, the court in Rodriguez-Gonzalez v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 378 F2d 256 , affirming a conviction for illegal concealment and transportation of marijuana, held that the search and seizure constituted a valid border search. The court said that a border search is an exception to the general requirement of probable cause which must support a search with or without a warrant, and that thus certain officers of the United States, in this case customs officials, have the authority to stop and search, upon mere suspicion of illegal activity within their jurisdiction, persons and vehicles that cross the international border into the United States. The court rejected defendant's contention that this did not constitute a border search because the car was not stopped at the time it crossed the border, but rather some 15 hours and 20 miles later. In this connection the court observed that where a search for contraband by customs officers is not made at or in the immediate vicinity of the point of international border crossing, the legality of the search must be tested by a determination whether the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the time and distance elapsed as well as the manner and extent of surveillance, are such as to convince the fact finder with reasonable certainty that any contraband which might be found in or on the vehicle at the time of search was aboard the vehicle at the time of entry into the jurisdiction of the United States. In this case, said the court, there can be no doubt that the manner and extent of the surveillance of the car that defendant was driving excluded the possibility that the marijuana found hidden in the rear door was placed there at any time following entry into the United States. The court observed that from the time the car in question crossed the international border until it was stopped a few miles north of San Diego, it was under constant surveillance by a team of officers and that nothing occurred during that period of time which would suggest that the marijuana (hidden behind a door panel secured with screws) might have been placed in the car after it crossed the border. The court also rejected defendant's contention that a change in drivers was in some way significant, stating that the primordial purpose of a search by customs officers is not to apprehend persons, but to seize contraband property unlawfully imported or brought into the United States, and the court could not see that a change of drivers in any way debased the authorityof the customs officers.

Where an unidentified informant advised customs agents that a specifically described automobile carrying marijuana would cross the border from Mexico on the following day, and the customs agents, acting on this advice and being alerted, observed the automobile cross the border from Tijuana the next day, but did not stop or search it at that time, instead following the car, which stopped at a distance of some 11 miles from the border, where one of the occupants got out, and the customs agents approached, identified themselves, searched the automobile, and on discovering marijuana, arrested the car's occupants, the court in Gonzalez-Alonso v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 379 F2d 347 , affirming a conviction for smuggling marijuana, held that the marijuana had been obtained as a result of a valid border search. In this connection, the court said that a border search is an exception to the general requirement of probable cause which must support a search with or without a warrant, and that thus certain officers of the United States, in this case customs officials, have the authority to stop and search, upon mere suspicion of illegal activity within their jurisdiction, persons and vehicles that cross the international border into the United States. The court said that the fact that the automobile was not stopped and searched at the time it crossed the border, but some time later and at some distance from the border, would not help the defendant, the court stating that where a search for contraband by customs officers is not made at or in the immediate vicinity of the point of international border crossing, the legality of the search must be tested by a determination whether the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the time and distance elapsed as well as the manner and extent of surveillance, are such as to convince the fact finder with reasonable certainty that any contraband which might be found in or on the vehicle at the time of search was aboard the vehicle at the time of entry into the jurisdiction of the United States, and that any search by customs officials which meets this test is properly calleda border search.

Where a customs agent received a telephone call from an informant warning that a certain described Oldsmobile carrying marijuana would cross the Mexican border at San Ysidro, California, that afternoon, and subsequently the agent Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 68 observed the Oldsmobile enter the United States and, accompanied by several other agents, followed it to a laundromat in San Ysidro, where it was parked, and shortly after the occupants of the vehicle entered the laundromat the agents observed the defendant approach the car, stop beside it, enter it, and apparently prepare to drive away but at this point the agents interrupted defendant, searched the vehicle, and upon their discovery of marijuana hidden behind the door panel, arrested him, the court in Bloomer v United States (1969, CA9 Cal) 409 F2d 869 , affirming a conviction for unlawfully receiving marijuana, rejected defendant's contention that the search in question was not a border search because it did not take place immediately at the border. The court observed that here the Oldsmobile was under constant surveillance from the time it crossed the border, that it traveled no great distance before it was searched, that the concealed marijuana was discovered behind the panels attached to the car doors, and that from the time the vehicle crossed the border until the time it was searched, no person except defendant entered it, and he was allowed no sufficient time to deposit thecontraband in the place of its discovery.

Affirming a conviction for violation of the Narcotics Laws, the court in Castillo-Garcia v United States (1970, CA9 Cal) 424 F2d 482 , held that a search of defendant's car 7 hours after it crossed the border and 105 miles from the border constituted a valid border search where a customs agent testified that he had received a tip from a reliable informant that a certain described Oldsmobile would cross the border carrying narcotics, that he placed the Oldsmobile under surveillance from the time it crossed the border until the time of the search, except for some periods of time not exceeding a total of 15 minutes, and that he was informed over the radio that other agents had the car under surveillance during the intervals in which he did not. The court said that the distance from the border, whether it is 105 miles or 500 miles, is important only as it relates to the surveillance and to any other circumstance which aids the fact finder in determining with reasonable certainty that any contraband which might be found in the vehicle at the time of the search was aboard the vehicle at the time of entry into the jurisdiction of the United States. The court said that in the instant case there was a change of drivers, but that the fact that the marijuana weighed 165 pounds, coupled with the surveillance, obviatedany possibility that it was placed in the car after it entered the United States.

In at least one case, application of the "totality of circumstances" rule has resulted in a holding that the search in question was not a valid border search. United States v Garcia (1969, CA9 Cal) 415 F2d 1141 , was a prosecution of defendant Garcia for violation of the Narcotics Laws. The evidence showed that after an unproductive search of two codefendants, Hernandez and Segovia, at the border, they were allowed to enter the country but were placed under surveillance by customs agents and were followed to a bus station. Subsequently, Hernandez left the bus station and was followed over a six–block area until he entered a Pontiac sedan less than half a mile from the border, although it appeared that the automobile had never been observed crossing the border. Then Hernandez was stopped, arrested, and the automobile taken back for a border search, which revealed marijuana concealed in special compartments under the fenders. During the time of the surveillance and arrest of Hernandez, the surveillance of Segovia in the bus station continued, and subsequently defendant Garcia, who had previously crossed the border in a Pontiac station wagon, joined defendant Segovia and the two left in defendant Garcia's station wagon, which was not placed under surveillance by customs agents at this time, although its license number was taken. Then three agents in two automobiles chased after the station wagon and 20 minutes later and 20 miles north of the border stopped the station wagon, a search of which disclosed certain evidence incriminating defendant Garcia with defendants Hernandez and Segovia. Reversing a conviction, the court said that in this case the Pontiac sedan in which Hernandez was arrested was never seen to cross the border, so automatically the search of it must be excluded as a border search. The court said that the Pontiac station wagon which Garcia was driving was stopped 2 hours after it crossed the border and 20 miles away and it was never under surveillance for any part of that time and distance, so therefore its search must also fail as a valid border search. In this connection the court said that the legality of a search not made at the immediate vicinity of a border must be tested by a determination whether the totality of the surrounding circumstances, including the time and distance elapsed as well as the manner and extent of surveillance, are such as to convince the fact finder with reasonable certainty that any contraband which might be found in or on the vehicle at thetime of search was aboard the vehicle at the time of entry into the jurisdiction of the United States. Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 69 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Mobility of ocean vessel in many ways exceeds that of car, justifying warrantless intrusion without probable cause for customs inspection far from technical borders of United States. United States v Miller (CA1 Me) 589 F2d 1117 , cert den 440 US 958, 59 L. Ed. 2d 771, 99 S Ct 1499 .

In prosecution for importing cocaine into United States, search of defendant–importer was valid border search, notwithstanding that defendant had already undergone customs inspection and was no longer within customs inspection area at time of detention and search, where defendant was still within International Arrivals Building at time of detention by customs agent, only short time had elapsed since defendant had undergone initial customs inspection, and customs agents had ample grounds to suspect that defendant might be involved in drug smuggling operation. United States v Nieves (1979, CA2 NY) 609 F2d 642 , cert den (US) 62 L Ed 2d 771, 100 S Ct 1044 .

Factors which may be taken into account in determining issue of reasonableness of strip–search at border are excessive nervousness, unusual conduct, informant's tip, computerized information showing pertinent criminal propensities, loose–fitting or bulky clothing, itinerary suggestive of wrongdoing, discovery of incriminating matter during routine searches, lack of employment or claim of self–employment, needle marks or other indications of drug addiction, information derived from search or conduct of traveling companion, inadequate luggage, and evasive or contradictoryanswers. United States v Asbury (CA2 NY) 586 F2d 973 .

Transportation of defendant to hospital and four hour detention for observation while awaiting his first bowel movement was justified as part of border search based on reasonable suspicion and did not constitute arrest. United States v Solimini (1983, ED NY) 560 F Supp 648 .

Entry of aircraft known to be intended for use in future for smuggling operation, by customs officer for purpose of installing transponder device for electronic surveillance purposes, constituted search subject to Fourth Amendment ( U.S.

Const. Amend. 4 ), and pilot–lessee of aircraft, who was government informant, had standing to consent and authorize such search. United States v Tussell (MD Pa) 441 F Supp 1092 .

Warrantless search and seizure of seafood firm and several vehicles is valid as legitimate extended border search exception although 25 to 50 miles from border, where there was continuous surveillance of vessel from time of initial sighting at sea until docked at seafood firm, off–loading of large bales of materials took place, persons from vessel were observed entering and leaving seafood firm, and such facts were sufficient to raise reasonable suspicion that seafood firm had been in contact with persons and/or contraband that had recently crossed border. United States v Ader (1980, ED NC) 520 F Supp 313 .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle; agents encountered vehicles less than one and a half miles from Mexican border, portion of road was notorious smuggling route, two vehicles drove in tandem, using "scout" car and "load" car formation, both agents had substantial experience dealing with narcotics and smuggling in area, vehicles made abrupt, simultaneous U-turn, vehicle had paper license tags, and in weeks before stop, there had been multiple seizures of contraband along that stretch of road, including seizure of 10 or 12 bundles of marijuana at sameturnaround used by two vehicles. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Garcia, 726 Fed. Appx. 975 (5th Cir. 2018) .

When roving border patrol agents stop a vehicle in a border area, rather than at an official checkpoint, the Court of Appeals considers whether several factors collectively contribute to the agents' reasonable suspicion: (1) the area's proximity to the border; (2) the area's characteristics; (3) the usual traffic patterns on the road; (4) the agents' previous Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 70 experience with criminal activity; (5) information about recent illegal trafficking in the area; (6) the appearance of the vehicle; (7) the driver's behavior; and (8) the passengers' number, appearance, and behavior. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Escamilla, 852 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2017) .

Generally, a vehicle that is first observed within 50 miles of the Mexican border is considered to be in proximity to it, for purposes of determining whether reasonable suspicion supports investigatory stop of vehicle by roving Border Patrolagents. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Ramirez, 839 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2016) .

To determine if reasonable suspicion existed to stop a vehicle in a border area courts look to the totality of the circumstances, but consider the following factors: (1) the area's proximity to the border; (2) characteristics of the area; (3) usual traffic patterns; (4) the agents' experience in detecting illegal activity; (5) behavior of the driver; (6) particular aspects or characteristics of the vehicle; (7) information about recent illegal trafficking of aliens or narcotics in the area; and (8) the number of passengers and their appearance and behavior. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cervantes, 797 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2015) .

In determining whether Border Patrol agents on roving patrol had cause to stop vehicle, factors that may be considered include: (1) characteristics of area in which vehicle is encountered, (2) arresting agent's previous experience with criminal activity, (3) area's proximity to border, (4) usual traffic patterns on road, (5) information about recent illegal trafficking in aliens or narcotics in area, (6) appearance of vehicle, (7) driver's behavior, and (8) passengers' number, appearanceand behavior. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Hernandez, 477 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 2007) .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to support truck's stop; when truck was first spotted, it was very close to illegal border crossing and was traveling behind another vehicle which was subject of report and owned by known drug trafficker, truck matched description of truck owned by known drug trafficker, both vehicles had two–way radio antennas attached to roofs, area was known to be used for illegal trafficking and for circumventing checkpoint, driver decelerated and accelerated for no apparent reason and braked and veered onto road's shoulder when he saw marked patrol car, and when helicopter was approximately 50 feet away, driver merely maintained speed without acknowledginghelicopter. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Madrid-Rodriguez, 88 Fed. Appx. 732 (5th Cir. 2004) .

In determining whether suspicionless immigration checkpoint stop of defendant was sufficiently limited in its duration to pass constitutional muster, court's inquiry considered only Border Patrol agent's questioning of defendant up to the point at which defendant consented to a search of his car; after defendant consented, agent needed no justification toprolong the encounter. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Machuca-Barrera, 261 F.3d 425 (5th Cir. 2001) .

Search of vehicle towing sailboat fell within border search exception where vehicle and sailboat had been reported by informant to be approaching border on Mexican side at mouth of Rio Grande River, they were later stopped within 25 miles of border on United States side, trailer and boat had sand and river mud on them and tire and trailer tracks found at border matched vehicle and trailer, and where it was reasonable to conclude that there had not been enough time toload marijuana on United States side. United States v Barbin (1984, CA5 Tex) 743 F2d 256 .

Border patrol did not have sufficient cause to believe vehicle had come from border where vehicle was stopped 60 miles from Mexican border traveling on highway extending from border and passing through two towns before reaching spotwhere vehicle was stopped. United States v Melendez-Gonzalez (1984, CA5 Tex) 727 F2d 407 .

Search of pickup truck with camper, traveling on secondary highway 35 miles from US–Mexico border, was unreasonable under totality of circumstances where officers had no reason to believe that vehicle had come from border and other factors relied upon as forming basis for search, such as avoidance of eye contact of driver, fact that two passengers "hunkered down," fact that driver was startled by officer's light flashed in vehicle, presence of persons who appeared to be of Latin origin in New Mexico where over one–third of population is Hispanic, and fact that three quarter ton Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 71 pickup was apparently heavily loaded and had off road tires were insufficient to warrant suspicion that vehicle contained undocumented aliens, in light of fact that agents were new to area and were not familiar with residents, their vehicles ortraffic patterns. United States v Orona-Sanchez (1981, CA5 Tex) 648 F2d 1039 .

Where border patrol officer's observations provide him with reasonable suspicion that vehicle is involved in illegal border activities, he may detain car briefly to question occupants about activities which aroused his suspicion, but any further search or detention may only be conducted on basis of consent or probable cause. United States v Ballard (CA5 Tex) 600 F2d 1115 .

Although reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify stop by roving border patrol officers, any further detention or search must be based on consent or probable cause. United States v Saenz (CA5 Tex) 578 F2d 643 , cert den 439 US 1075, 59 L. Ed. 2d 42, 99 S Ct 850 .

Perhaps most important criterion for existence of functional equivalence to border search is ratio of international traffic to domestic; if search takes place at location where virtually everyone searched has just come from other side of border, search is functional equivalent of border search; in contrast, if search takes place at location where significant number of those stopped are domestic travelers between points in United States, search is not functional equivalent of bordersearch. United States v Reyna (CA5 Tex) 563 F2d 1169 , later app (CA5 Tex) 572 F2d 515 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 575 F2d 881 and cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 183, 99 S Ct 203 .

At permanent checkpoints, government agents may make stops without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, but they must have probable cause in order to conduct search, and, if upon stopping a vehicle, probable cause to conduct search arises, valid search may be made; but, on "roving patrols", being places other than permanent checkpoints and functional equivalents of border, stop is permissible only when border patrol officer's observations lead him reasonably to suspect that particular vehicle may contain aliens who are illegally in country and officers on roving patrol may search only on basis of probable cause; agents need not have probable cause or reasonable suspicion in order to search at borderor functional equivalent thereof. United States v Arrasmith (CA5 Tex) 557 F2d 1093 .

Before customs agents may legitimately conduct border–type search of aircraft there must be high degree of probability that border crossing took place, or, customs officers must be reasonably certain that object of search has just entered from foreign country; to reach required degree of certitude, it is not necessary that vehicle, aircraft or vessel have been under actual observation from outside United States territory until its arrival and search. United States v Ivey (CA5 Fla) 546 F2d 139 , reh den (CA5 Fla) 550 F2d 243 , cert den 431 US 943, 53 L. Ed. 2d 263, 97 S Ct 2662 .

Reasonable suspicion is insufficient justification for warrantless search by roving border patrols which are not conducted at border or its functional equivalence; but, stopping vehicle and briefly interrogating occupants, when officers on roving patrol are aware of specific, articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that vehicles contained aliens who may be illegally in country, is permissible. United States v Garza (CA5 Tex) 544 F2d 222 .

In determining whether checkpoint is functional equivalent of border at which Border Patrol officials may conduct searches without probable cause, factors to be considered are: whether checkpoint is operated in manner of permanent border checkpoint as opposed to roving patrol or on radically shifting basis; ratio between international and domestic traffic passing through checkpoint; and degree to which, as to international traffic, checkpoint under consideration actually approximates effect of one physically located at border because of uncontrolled access from border to checkpoint, tactical need for such interior location for effective control of crossings of portion of border involved, and apprehension at checkpoint of significant number of illegal aliens. United States v Alverez-Gonzalez (CA5 Tex) 542 F2d 226 , later app (CA5 Tex) 561 F2d 620 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 72 Search of passengers and cargo of airplane arriving in internal United States airport after nonstop flight from United States would clearly be search at functional equivalent of border; search at checkpoint "might be" functional equivalent of border search, if facts and circumstances with respect to location provided necessary degree of certainty that persons and objects passing through that location were entering country unchecked. United States v Brennan (CA5 Fla) 538 F2d 711 , reh den (CA5 Fla) 542 F2d 575 and cert den 429 US 1092, 51 L. Ed. 2d 538, 97 S Ct 1104 , reh den 430 US 960, 51 L. Ed. 2d 812, 97 S Ct 1611 .

Border search standard applied to search of automobile crossing Mexican border where car was never released from immediate border area, search was planned from outset, and contraband was discovered within 75 minutes of car's arrivalat border. United States v Bates (CA5 Tex) 526 F2d 966 .

Applying "totality of circumstances" standard, warrantless, exploratory search of boat by customs officers who were outside bounds of border search when they entered boat, where boat was unoccupied and 1 of its engines was dismantled on dock, where contraband was never placed on boat, where boat did not cross any border, and where customs agents did not possess any reliable information suggesting necessity of immediate search, was not valid as extended border search. U. S. v Caraway (CA5 Fla) 474 F2d 25 , vacated on other grounds (CA5 Fla) 483 F2d 215 .

The critical fact to which a court must look in determining whether the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure applies is whether or not a border crossing has occurred and not the point of origin of the defendant's journey. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Thompson, 53 F. Supp. 3d 919 (W.D.

La. 2014) .

Factors that a court considers in assessing whether a Border Patrol agent has reasonable suspicion to believe that a vehicle is involved in illegal activity, as required to justify a roving stop, include: (1) the characteristics of the area in which the vehicle is encountered; (2) the arresting agent's previous experience with criminal activity; (3) the area's proximity to the border; (4) the usual traffic patterns on the road; (5) information about recent illegal trafficking in aliens or narcotics in the area; (6) the appearance of the vehicle; (7) the driver's behavior; and, (8) the passengers' number, appearance, andbehavior.

U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Canales-Rosales, 67 F. Supp. 3d 791 (S.D. Tex. 2014) .

Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion of illegal immigration activity to make initial stop on defendant's vehicle; stop was made at relatively short distance from Mexican border, Ranch Road 336 was commonly used by alien traffickers to bypass Border Patrol checkpoint, defendant's Ford Explorer was inconsistent with local ranch traffic, defendant's vehicle appeared to ride low in back and not have any ranch equipment attached to it, and defendant drove erraticallyand at high speed when pursued by government agents. U.S. v. Staples, 194 F. Supp. 2d 582 (W.D. Tex. 2002) .

Motion to suppress evidence made by transporter of illegal aliens was denied where totality of circumstances justified reasonable suspicion that car contained illegal alien passengers in that car in question was first seen within few hundred yards of border heading inland, arresting officer was experienced border patrolman aware of many crossings by illegal aliens in specific area, car was headed away from known drophouse, license plate was not of record, owner of drophouse was passenger in car, occupants of car acted startled when they observed patrolman following them and car had turnedinto dirt road leading nowhere. United States v Soto (1981, WD Tex) 518 F Supp 543 .

Totality of the circumstances that may be considered when evaluating the propriety of vehicular stop near the border may include characteristics of the area, proximity to the border, usual patterns of traffic and time of day, previous alien or drug smuggling in the area, behavior of driver, appearance or behavior of passengers, and model and appearance ofvehicle. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2018) .

Officer had reasonable suspicion to justify border stop; officer first encountered defendant approximately 26 miles from border on highway leading from border town which frequently served as location for illegal alien activity and drug Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 73 smuggling, defendant's car was heavily loaded or riding low, defendant was only visible driver, vehicle was traveling in tandem with another vehicle, windows of vehicle were fogged, and defendant fled when officer turned on his overheadlights and siren. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Lopez-Ibarra, 362 Fed. Appx. 677 (9th Cir. 2010) .

Arrests or searches at immigration checkpoints may be justified by consent. Thus, court affirmed conviction under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C.A. § 2 for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, despite defendant's argument that cocaine had been illegally seized because immigration checkpoint had been used to search for narcotics, where evidence reflected that defendant had consented to agent's search of defendant's car; agent had not drawn gun or threatened defendant, had asked permission to "look inside" defendant's car, and had specifically asked permission before examining every new compartment of the car, and defendant had consented to each of agent's requests, fact that defendant did not deny. United States v Preciado-Robles (1992, CA9 Cal) 954 F2d 566, 92 CDOS 591, 92 Daily Journal DAR 890 .

Search at Los Angeles International Airport, six and one half hours after defendant entered country in New Orleans from Columbia, constituted valid extended order seach where officials had attempted to complete investigation of defendant before releasing him in New Orleans for lack of probable cause for arrest warrant, and where further continuous surveillance revealed that defendant had made misrepresentations during initial investigation. United States v Caicedo- Guarnizo (1984, CA9 Cal) 723 F2d 1420 .

Border search was conducted, and probable cause was not required, where defendant, entering United States from foreign country, passed through customs and, 5 to 7 minutes later, customs inspector asked defendant to return from baggage area to customs area for further search.

United States v Palmer (CA9 Cal) 575 F2d 721 , cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 189, 99 S Ct 212 .

Search of aircraft by customs agents may be made without either probable cause or warrant, where search occurs at functional equivalent of border; in order to support conclusion that search occurred at functional equivalent of border, court requires that there be articulable facts to support reasonably certain conclusion that vessel has crossed border andentered our territory. United States v Potter (CA9 Nev) 552 F2d 901 .

Bay adjacent to ocean is functional equivalent of border for vessels which have traveled in foreign waters before entry; for obvious reasons, it is not practical to set up checkpoints at outer perimeters of territorial waters. United States v Stanley (CA9 Cal) 545 F2d 661 .

Car and its passengers are properly subject to border searches away from border in two circumstances: (1) case of deferred search, and (2) case of evasive entry; in context of smuggling and neighborhood of border, where same circumstances that give rise to belief that goods have crossed border without inspection also give rise to belief that they are seizable, minimum requisite of reasonable certainty of entry without inspection is no longer needed; lesser standard of probablecause justifies search. United States v Kessler (CA9 Cal) 497 F2d 277 .

Search of Chilean national's suitcase was border search where he arrived at Los Angeles, his baggage was inspected, and he passed through customs; about an hour later, after other Chilean passenger had been arrested for concealed importation of cocaine, he remained nervously in sight of customs area, and under questioning, denied that suitcase he carried belonged to him; and in search of suitcase, 4.6 pounds of cocaine were found sewn in lining. U. S. v Mejias (CA9 Cal) 452 F2d 1190 .

Border patrol agent did not have particularized and objective basis for suspecting defendant of criminal activity, as required to establish reasonable suspicion to justify investigative stop of defendant's vehicle; fact that defendant was traveling on interstate, which was known to be used by smugglers, that he did not greet agent at gas station, which was known staging area for smugglers, and that his car had barcode sticker indicating it was rental car described very large Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 74 category of presumably innocent travelers, and facts only established that defendant was using very busy gas station, was on main driving route through southwestern United States, and was in vehicle that had no indicia that it had ever been to Mexico, and that agent waited for and pursued defendant at high speed, likely provoking defendant to do what most other drivers would do in similar situation, move to slow lane in order to allow agent to pass. U.S. Const. Amend.

4 . U.S.A. v. Lewis, 295 F. Supp. 3d 1103 (C.D. Cal. 2018) .

A border search need not take place at the physical border to be subject to border search exception to warrant requirement. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Ramos, 190 F. Supp. 3d 992 (S.D. Cal. 2016) .

Driver and passengers in automobile may be detained at secondary inspection area of permanent border patrol checkpoint and questioned about citizenship and immigration status and asked to explain suspicious circumstances. United States v Espinosa (1986, CA10 NM) 782 F2d 888 .

In prosecution for knowingly transporting illegal aliens, arising out of Border Patrol agents having stopped defendants's car approximately 124 miles north of United States–Mexico border, search of car was lawful under totality of particular circumstances where agents were notified of vehicle by electronic sensor, Border Patrol statistics for area indicate extensive alien trafficking in the year prior to stop in question, illegal trafficking was much heavier between 2 a.m. and 7 a.m. and stop in question occurred at 3 a.m., vehicle in question was heavily loaded, vehicle bore out–of–state license plates, and where, when first observing vehicle, agents saw several people in backseat but, upon following car, were unable to detect presence of backseat passengers, justifiably leading agents to conclude occupants were attempting toavoid detection. United States v Leyba (1980, CA10 NM) 627 F2d 1059 , cert den (US) 66 L Ed 2d 250, 101 S Ct 406 .

Searches and seizures occurring at permanent checkpoints "relatively near" border require that Border Patrol agent have probable cause to search car stopped for citizenship inquiries directed to car's occupants. Jasinski v Adams (1986, CA11 Fla) 781 F2d 843 , reh den, en banc (CA11 Fla) 788 F2d 694 .

Totality of circumstances known to customs officers at time of search constituted reasonable suspicion that defendants were involved in drug smuggling, where defendants had entered United States by plane without filing flight plan or otherwise notifying government of their intended arrival, after landing they remained on ground only briefly, and during course of subsequent flight jettisoned several objects from moving plane, package that was ejected struck windshield of customs plane, and officer observed white powder streaming out of it and also saw what he thought were maps, navigation computer and money being ejected from plane, and where defendants' subsequent landing in remote area and their immediate flight into nearby bushes gave customs officials further reason to suspect their involvement in illegalactivities. United States v Garcia (1982, CA11 Fla) 672 F2d 1349, 10 Fed Rules Evid Serv 359 .

See State v Torres (1985, App) 146 Ariz 202, 704 P2d 1347 , § 3[b] .

Search is border search not requiring probable cause if there are articulable facts which make it appear with reasonable certainty from circumstances that vehicle or its occupants have crossed border, and these facts are measured against objective reasonable man standard and are not necessarily dependent upon subjective impression of particular officers. State v Castro, 27 Ariz App 323, 554 P2d 919 .

Although border search may be geographically "extended," it must be shown that defendant's vehicle, vessel, or person, at some recent point of time, crossed border, and, at that time, aroused some suspicion. Earnest v State (Fla App) 293 So 2d 111 .

Among the factors which an officer might reasonably articulate, to warrant suspicion to justify investigatory stop of vehicle close to border of United States would be the proximity of the encounter to the border, the suspect's behavior, Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 75 mode of dress and haircut, and the officer's experience in detecting illegal entry by aliens. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . People v. LaRose, 782 N.Y.S.2d 633 (County Ct. 2004) . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 4[b] Geographical limitations; time and distance factors as affecting status as border search and seizure—Search at checkpoint or other location away from border upheld as valid border search [Cumulative Supplement] In the following cases the fact that defendant was stopped at a checkpoint some distance from the border did not prevent a finding that the ensuing search was a valid border search.

Where immigration border patrol inspectors, who were also authorized to act as customs officers, established a checkpoint 75 miles north of the Rio Grande River in Texas and stopped an automobile containing defendants and questioned them regarding their citizenship, and upon observing that they acted nervously, searched the vehicle and found a quantity of marijuana concealed in the trunk, the court in Ruvalcaba Ramirez v United States (1959, CA5 Tex) 263 F2d 385 , affirming a conviction for illegally importing narcotics, held that the trial court properly denied a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground of illegal search. The court rejected the defendants' contention that when the trunk of the car was opened and the officers could see that there was no alien concealed therein, the right to search further ended and they had no right to search for contraband. In regard to this contention the court said that the immigration officers were also acting as customs inspectors and that the right of customs inspectors to search at points of entry are much broader and in a separate category from searches generally. In addition, said the court, the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that a customs offense was being committed even though the checkpoint was of necessity somewhat removed from the border, the court pointing out that defendants were nervous and evasive and they were reluctant tohave the trunk of the automobile opened at all. In Walker v United States (1968, CA5 Tex) 404 F2d 900 , a prosecution for transporting a stolen vehicle in interstate commerce, there was evidence that a reliable informant had called customs agents and advised them that a certain described automobile probably carrying heroin would cross the border. When the automobile in question arrived at the border it was subjected to a cursory search, but the agents, believing that delivery of heroin might be made to someone in the United States, temporarily discontinued the search and allowed the car to pass, but thereafter placed it under surveillance. However, after some time the agents were unable to maintain contact with the automobile due to its high rate of speed and they thereupon requested the Texas Department of Public Safety to broadcast an all–points lookout and set up a roadblock. Subsequently, the car was stopped at the roadblock and a search disclosed that it was a stolen automobile. While reversing the conviction on other grounds, the court held that the trial court correctly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained at the roadblock that he was driving a stolen vehicle, the court stating that while he was arrested some 8 hours and 45 highway miles away from the border, the search nevertheless qualified as a border search, since the right of border search is broad and the border itself elastic. The court said thatwhile border searches must measure up to a constitutional standard of reasonableness, suspicion that a person is carrying merchandise unlawfully imported into the United States is sufficient, since border searches are in a category distinct from other searches and seizures and neither a search warrant nor probable cause is required. United States v Rodriguez (1960, DC Tex) 195 F Supp 513 , was a prosecution of defendant for entering and leaving the United States without having registered as a convicted narcotics user as was required by statute. There was evidence that on or about September 18, 1959, defendant returned from Mexico and at the border crossing at Laredo, Texas, registered as a previously convicted narcotics violator. He was permitted to proceed but immediately thereafter the customs agents learned of the fact that a "lookout" for defendant had been in effect since June 19, 1959, and they notified a checkpoint Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 76 20 miles away. On reaching that point defendant was detained and a search disclosed a customs declaration made during a previous crossing on August 1, 1959, in which he had not registered as a convicted narcotics user. While the customs agent was attempting to ascertain whether defendant had registered on the previous occasion, the defendant volunteered the information that he had in fact made the trip and had not so registered, whereupon he was placed under arrest and charged with a violation of the statute. Finding the defendant guilty, the court said that the search was not unreasonable and was lawful, and the evidence which it disclosed was not rendered inadmissible. In this connection the court observed that customs officers in the performance of their duties were authorized to search persons and vehicles entering the country without the necessity of securing a warrant and the search thus authorized is of the broadest possible scope. The court said that no authority has been cited to the effect that this right to search is restricted to the immediate vicinity of the international border, nor was it the law that where the suspect may momentarily escape detection and pass safely through the first customs check he is immune from further interrogation or examination by customs officers within a matter of minutes thereafter. Defendant's conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 292 F2d 709 , where the court stated merely that under the facts set forth in the trial court's opinion, it thought that the search of defendant by the customs officers and retention by them of the copy of the form which had been given to him on August 1 at Laredo,Texas, were clearly legal.

Where defendant's automobile was stopped at an immigrations and customs checkpoint 60 to 70 miles north of the Mexican border and a quarter of a mile from the Pacific Ocean, and upon learning that defendant was an alien he was directed over to the side of the road for further questioning, and subsequently a customs officer detected the smell of marijuana and a search disclosed a quantity of it concealed under the hood of the car, the court in Fernandez v United States (1963, CA9 Cal) 321 F2d 283 , affirming a narcotics conviction, held that the marijuana was not obtained as the result of an unlawful search. The court said that an administrative regulation allowing customs checkpoints within 100 miles of any external boundary was neither capricious nor arbitrary, but was a reasonable regulation. The court also held that in this case there clearly was probable cause for making the search, since an officer of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, who was also designated as a customs inspector, smelled a warm odor, which he recognized to be that of marijuana, coming from under the hood of the car, and, having smelled such odor coming from the vehicle indefendant's possession, it was reasonable for the inspector to conclude that a crime was being committed.

Attention is called to Jones v United States (1963, CA9 Cal) 326 F2d 124 , cert den 377 US 956, 12 L Ed 2d 499, 84 S Ct 1635 , where the evidence showed that a reliable informer notified a customs agent that two persons of a certain description would pass over the Mexican–American border on a certain day and that the automobile in which they would be riding, which he described, would contain narcotics. Shortly after learning this information the customs agent realized that such a car had just passed through and he attempted to chase it, but when this proved unsuccessful he dispatched a radio message to the police to stop the vehicle. This was subsequently accomplished within 2 1/2 hours and some 67 miles away from the border. Affirming a conviction the court sustained the legality of the search on the ground that probable cause existed, and held that the defendant was not entitled to disclosure of the informant's name. However, in a concurring opinion Duniway, Circuit Judge, stated that he would prefer to base the legality of the search on the ground that this was a border search, and said that no question of whether there is probable cause for a search exists when the search is incidental to the crossing of an international border, for there is reason and probable cause to search every person entering the United States from a foreign country, by reason of such entry alone. There can be no doubt, he stated, that the right of the officers to stop and search the car at the border did not depend upon whether the tip received by the customs officer in this case was reliable, since he could have searched the car even though he had no informationwhatever indicating that it might contain narcotics. In the following cases time and distance factors were considered in sustaining the validity of the search. Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 77 Where customs agents, while patrolling the Brooklyn waterfront, stopped and searched two French seamen beside an inclosed pier after the officers had observed the seamen proceeding out of the pier's gate, the search disclosing that the seamen had packets of heroin concealed on their persons, the court in United States v Glaziou (1968, CA2 NY) 402 F 2d 8, 6 ALR Fed 302 , cert den 393 US 1121, 22 L Ed 2d 126, 89 S Ct 999 , affirming a conviction for concealing illegally imported heroin, held that the heroin was obtained as the result of a valid border search. The court said that a customs officer has the unique power to stop a person at an international entry point and to conduct a "border search" without having a search warrant or even having a probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime, although border stops and searches are restricted by the requirement that they be reasonable. The term "border area" is elastic, said the court, and for the purposes of this case it need only be said that the "border area" reasonably includes not only actual land border checkpoints, but also the checkpoints at all international ports of entry and a reasonable extended geographical area in the immediate vicinity of any entry point. The court said that customs officials must have the unquestioned authority to conduct border searches not only within the inclosed piers of a seaport, but also upon the public streets near the piers. The court also held that the class of persons who may be subjected to a border search is not limited to those suspected persons who are searched for contraband upon first entering the United States, but also includes persons who work in a border area when leaving the area; persons engaged in suspicious activity near a border area; and in some situations, persons and vehicles after they have cleared an initial customs checkpoint and have entered the United States. In conclusion the court held that the defendants were within the "border area," observing that at the time they were stopped, questioned, and searched they were walking together on the curb beside a pier fence and only200 feet up the street from a pier gatehouse.

Where customs officials suspected that certain longshoremen might be pilfering merchandise from a ship in the harbor and accordingly a customs investigator stopped the defendant, a longshoreman, as he was leaving the pier area in his automobile, and a search of the automobile disclosed two Japanese transistor radios and subsequently a search of another longshoreman's car produced other transistor radios of the type that had been pilfered from the ship, the courtin United States v McGlone (1968, CA4 Va) 394 F2d 75 , affirming a conviction for theft from foreign shipment, held that the searches and seizures were valid. Observing that the validity of searches made by customs agents do not depend simply upon whether they can be termed " border searches ," but rather upon the constitutional test of reasonableness, the court said that the reasonableness of a search conducted by a customs agent generally depends upon such factors as the distance of the search from the point where goods could be introduced by the suspect into the United States, the time that has elapsed since the suspect had an opportunity to bring in the goods, and the circumstances upon which the officers base their suspicions. Contrary to defendant's assertion, said the court, the legality of the search is not dependent upon showing that the custodian of the searched vehicle actually crossed the border, although the court conceded that the customs search and seizure must not be remote either in time or place from the illegal introduction of goods intothe country.

And see Thomas v United States (1967, CA5 Tex) 372 F2d 252, infra § 6[a], a prosecution for smuggling narcotics, where the court, affirming a conviction, noted that defendant had been searched within 1 1/2 hours at most after his return to this country and within a distance of 6 blocks from the border, and said that such time and distance factors suggestedthat this search qualified as a valid border search.

See also Morales v United States (1967, CA5 Tex) 378 F2d 187, infra § 6[a], where it was observed that other courts have held that border searches cannot be restricted to the exact time or place of entry.

Acting on a tip from a reliable informer, customs agents in Stassi v United States (1969, CA5 Tex) 410 F2d 946 , searched a locked suitcase at a bus depot in McAllen, Texas, and discovered that it contained packets of heroin. Subsequently, several people were arrested and charged with violations of the Narcotics Laws. While remanding the case on other grounds, the court held that the search in question was a valid border search and that therefore proof of reliability of the informant and of probable cause was not required to establish its validity. Rather, said the court, it was necessary only that the customs agents had reasonable cause to suspect that the suitcase contained heroin which had been smuggled into Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 78 the country, and that their conduct in connection with the search and seizure was reasonable. Observing that McAllen is only about 10 miles from the Mexican border, the court said that the information that the customs agents had and the common knowledge of daily smuggling of large quantities of narcotics into the United States from Mexico gave them reasonable cause to suspect that the suitcase in question contained heroin which had been brought into the UnitedStates contrary to law.

Where defendant, eluding a search, drove his automobile across the Mexican–American border and parked it 850 feet from the customs gate, but subsequently when his wife and a child began to cross on foot, suspicious circumstances developed and the customs officers searched the parties and then made a search of the car, where they found eight packages of marijuana under the back seat, the court in Taylor v United States (1965, CA9 Cal) 352 F2d 328 , affirming a conviction, held that the marijuana was obtained as the result of a valid border search. The court said that without the special circumstances, it thought that 850 feet away, coupled with a closeness in time, was well within "border search"and the rights of officers in connection therewith. In Blefare v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 362 F2d 870 , defendants were stopped at the border and then taken 12 miles away for an intrusive body search by a physician. Sustaining the validity of the search, the court said that while it occurred 12 miles from the border, the process was a continuing one and the search was not so removed in time anddistance as to cause it to lose its character as a border search.

Where customs agents were notified by a deputy sheriff in Fabens, Texas, that he had received information from a reliable informant that two men of a certain description had earlier been seen in Mexico with marijuana cigarettes in their possession and that they would be passing through Fabens, and, acting on this information, a customs agent placed a car driven by one of these men under surveillance and followed it to a service station, where defendant entered it, and the agent then followed the car to a tavern about 1 mile straight across and about 3 miles by road from the Mexican border and there searched it, finding marijuana in the glove compartment and in defendant's pockets, the court in Guadian v State (1967, Tex Crim) 420 SW2d 949 , affirming a conviction for the unlawful possession of marijuana, held that the search was a valid border search. The court said that the right of border search does not depend upon probable cause and that the right of customs officers to search vehicles and persons does not stop at the border itself, but rather searches occurring some distance inland have been upheld where customs agents had reason to believe that the person or vehiclewas carrying contraband.

Also supporting view that fact that search occurred some distance from border did not prevent finding that it was valid border search: Fourth Circuit United States v Gallagher (CA4 Va) 557 F2d 1041 , cert den 434 US 870, 54 L. Ed. 2d 148, 98 S Ct 213 Fifth Circuit United States v Lockwood (1979, CA5 Tex) 604 F2d 7 United States v Flynn (1982, CA5 Fla) 664 F2d 1296 , cert den (1982) 456 US 930, 72 L. Ed. 2d 446, 102 S Ct 1979 U. S. v Poindexter (CA5 Tex) 429 F2d 510 U. S. v Hill (CA5 Fla) 430 F2d 129United States v Madrid (CA5 Tex) 531 F2d 1329 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 535 F2d 660 United States v Torres (CA5 Tex) 537 F2d 1299 United States v Cosimo Dimas (CA5 Tex) 537 F2d 1301 , cert den 429 US 1047, 50 L. Ed. 2d 762, 97 S Ct 755 United States v Howle (CA5 Tex) 537 F2d 1302 United States v Rojas (CA5 Tex) 538 F2d 670United States v Garza (CA5 Tex) 539 F2d 381United States v Vallejo (CA5 Tex) 541 F2d 1164United States v Diaz (CA5 Tex) 541 F2d 1165 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 79 United States v Brom (CA5 Tex) 542 F2d 281 (ovrld on other grounds United States v Johnson (CA5 Tex) 588 F2d 147 ) (disagreed with on other grounds United States v Garcia (1982, CA11 Fla) 672 F2d 1349 )) United States v Presas (CA5 Tex) 543 F2d 552 United States v Medina (CA5 Tex) 543 F2d 553United States v McCrary (CA5 Tex) 543 F2d 554United States v Andrade (CA5 Tex) 545 F2d 1032United States v Reyna (CA5 Tex) 546 F2d 103United States v Duncan (CA5 Tex) 547 F2d 903United States v Reyna (CA5 Tex) 548 F2d 1154 United States v Moreno (CA5 Tex) 579 F2d 371 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 584 F2d 389 and cert den 440 US 908, 59 L. Ed. 2d 456, 99 S Ct 1217 , reh den 441 US 917, 60 L. Ed. 2d 389, 99 S Ct 2019 United States v Clay (CA5 Tex) 581 F2d 1190 , cert den 440 US 927, 59 L. Ed. 2d 483, 99 S Ct 1261 United States v Olivera (CA5 Tex) 582 F2d 24 United States v Bender (CA5 Tex) 588 F2d 200 United States v Luddington (CA5 Tex) 589 F2d 236 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 591 F2d 1343 and reh den (CA5 Tex) 592 F2d 1190 and cert den 441 US 936, 60 L. Ed. 2d 666, 99 S Ct 2061 and cert den 442 US 910, 61 L. Ed. 2d 276, 99 S Ct 2824 United States v Warren (CA5 Tex) 594 F2d 1046 United States v Martinez (CA5 Tex) 597 F2d 509 , cert den 444 US 979, 62 L. Ed. 2d 405, 100 S Ct 479 United States v Richards (CA5 Tex) 598 F2d 463 United States v Silva-Rios (1982, WD Tex) 551 F Supp 159United States v Villasenor-Medina (WD Tex) 468 F Supp 787 Seventh Circuit United States v Carter (CA7 Ill) 592 F2d 402 , cert den 441 US 908, 60 L. Ed. 2d 378, 99 S Ct 2001 Ninth Circuit United States v Pruitt (1983, CA9 Cal) 719 F2d 975 , cert den (US) 78 L. Ed. 2d 716, 104 S Ct 536 U. S. v Mahoney (CA9 Ariz) 427 F2d 658 , cert den 400 US 849, 27 L. Ed. 2d 87, 91 S Ct 49 U. S. v Weil (CA9 Ariz) 432 F2d 1320 , cert den 401 US 947, 28 L. Ed. 2d 230, 91 S Ct 933 U. S. v Barron (CA9 Cal) 472 F2d 1215 , cert den 413 US 920, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3063 United States v Torres-Rios (CA9 Cal) 534 F2d 865 , cert den (US) 50 L. Ed. 2d 182, 97 S Ct 262 United States v Russell (CA9 Ariz) 546 F2d 839 United States v Vasquez-Cazares (CA9 Cal) 563 F2d 1329 , cert den 434 US 1021, 54 L. Ed. 2d 769, 98 S Ct 746 United States v Odneal (CA9 Cal) 565 F2d 598 , cert den 435 US 952, 55 L. Ed. 2d 803, 98 S Ct 1581 N.C.

State v Rivard (1982) 57 NC App 672, 292 SE2d 174 Also supporting finding of probable cause to justify search by roving border patrol at point other than border crossing: Fifth Circuit United States v Rodriguez (CA5 Tex) 556 F2d 277 United States v Nichols (CA5 Tex) 560 F2d 1227United States v Nichols (CA5 Tex) 560 F2d 1227United States v Gandara-Nunez (CA5 Tex) 564 F2d 693United States v Quiroz-Carrasco (CA5 Tex) 565 F2d 1328United States v Woody (CA5 Tex) 567 F2d 1353 , cert den 436 US 908, 56 L. Ed. 2d 406, 98 S Ct 2241 United States v Marez (CA5 Tex) 569 F2d 275 United States v Ogden (CA5 Tex) 572 F2d 501 , cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 650, 99 S Ct 564 United States v Rankin (CA5 Tex) 572 F2d 503 , cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 650, 99 S Ct 564 United States v Arredondo-Hernandez (CA5 Tex) 574 F2d 1312 United States v Vontecha (CA5 Tex) 576 F2d 601United States v Hosch (CA5 Tex) 577 F2d 963 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 80 United Stats v Saenz (CA5 Tex) 578 F2d 643 , cert den (US) 59 L. Ed. 2d 42, 99 S Ct 850 United States v Carroll (CA5 Tex) 591 F2d 1132 United States v Balderas (CA5 Tex) 597 F2d 67 Sixth Circuit United States v Corp (WD Tenn) 452 F Supp 185 Ninth Circuit United States v Sayer (CA9 Cal) 579 F2d 1169 Tenth Circuit United States v Maestas (1993, CA10 NM) 2 F3d 1485 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Random stops without any articulable suspicion of vehicles away from the border are not permissible under the Fourth Amendment, but stops at fixed checkpoints or at roadblocks are permissible. U.S. v. Villamonte-Marquez, 462 U.S. 579, 103 S. Ct. 2573, 77 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1983) .

Fourth Amendment was not violated by Border Patrol's routine stopping of vehicles at permanent immigration checkpoint operated, without warrant, away from Mexican border. United States v Martinez-Fuerte, 428 US 543, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1116, 96 S Ct 3074 .

Border Patrol had authority to operate checkpoint at which defendant was detained, and thus to search his vehicle and seize contraband, even though checkpoint was over 70 air miles from nearest point of entry on Canadian border; checkpoint was within a reasonable distance of the border. Immigration and Nationality Act, § 287(a)(3), 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a)(3) ; 8 C.F.R. § 287.1(a)(2) . U.S. v. Gabriel, 405 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D. Me. 2005) .

Warrantless search of 6 suitcases at Logan International Airport, consigned from Karachi, Pakistan, and forwarded from New York City, containing hashish in false bottom, was valid although based on information from confidential informant whose identity was undisclosed and whose reliability was not establsihed.

U. S. v Becker (DC Mass) 347 F Supp 1039 .

Officers had probable cause to believe that defendant had intentionally failed to enter the United States at an officially- designated border crossing in violation of federal law, justifying the stop of defendant's vehicle; at the time the officers stopped the vehicle, they were aware that the vehicle had left and reentered the United States in a brief period of time at an unguarded, undesignated border crossing. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 ; Tariff Act of 1930, §§ 433(b)(1) , 436(a)(1), (c) , 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 1433(b)(1) , 1436(a)(1), (c) . U.S. v. Wilson, 699 F.3d 235 (2d Cir. 2012) .

Customs officials' search of defendant's luggage upon his entry into the United States was constitutional; border search exception applied, not only to initial search of defendant's luggage in the sterile area of the airport, but to the secondary search of his luggage in a Customs office 40 yards from the initial inspection. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006) .

Circumstances satisfied criteria for extended border search where customs officials had reasonable suspicion that defendant was smuggling drugs in his alimentary canal, defendant had crossed border when he first was detained by officials, there was no chance that either defendant or his contraband had materially changed since his crossing in light of constant surveillance until containers carrying drugs were removed from defendant's body during emergency surgery, and search occurred as soon as practicable in light of defendant's lack of cooperation with authorities. U.S. Const.

Amend. IV . U.S. v. Hernandez-Mota, 36 Fed. Appx. 38 (3d Cir. 2002). Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 81 Warrantless search at Greater Pittsburgh International Airport was valid as border search where Pittsburgh was functional equivalent of border eventhough package containing cocaine was transported to Pittsburgh by way of New York and Chicago since it was practice of customs officials to search packages at international airport nearest to final destination, where requiring that all imported packages be searched at their first point of entry, even if immediately forwarded under customs bond to final destination, would place unreasonable burdens upon customs officials, and where there was no evidence that package was materially altered subsequent to its arrival in United States; further, search was not "extended border search" requiring "reasonable suspicion" since package was searched while still under customs bond and prior to its delivery to addressee, so that concerns as to unexpected later search or greater intrusion on expectationsof privacy were not implicated. United States v Caminos (1985, CA3 Pa) 770 F2d 361 .

Where customs agents who were watching Philadelphia pier observed defendants carrying large blue canvas bags away from pier, entering automobile, and driving away from pier, search of trunk of car and bags one–half mile from pier after pursuit was valid border search, and agents had reasonable grounds to suspect defendants of illegal activity under these circumstances; Almeida–Sanchez was distinguishable because (1) search here was conducted upon reasonable suspicion, (2) persons subjected to search had just left port area, and (3) search was conducted in close proximity to port area. United States v Beck (CA3 Pa) 483 F2d 203 , cert den 414 US 1132, 38 L. Ed. 2d 757, 94 S Ct 873 .

Airport which was "landing rights airport" with permanent facilities for inspection and clearance, was functional equivalent of border, and customs officials there were empowered to perform border searches . United States v Mirmelli (DC NJ) 421 F Supp 684 , affd without op (CA3 NJ) 556 F2d 569 , cert den (US) 54 L. Ed. 2d 92, 98 S Ct 115 .

Place at which search was conducted, ½ mile past border entry point, was properly within extended border search area. U. S. v Murray (DC Pa) 354 F Supp 604 , revd on other grounds (CA3 Pa) 483 F2d 203 , cert den 414 US 1132, 38 L Ed 2d 757, 94 S Ct 873 .

Search was constitutionally permissible extended border search where delayed search and seizure was made three to four miles from actual border and some 7 hours after observed border crossing, search was delayed primarily by desire to confirm developing suspicion, and search followed practically continuous surveillance in interval. United States v Bilir (CA4 Md) 592 F2d 735 .

Camper, imported from Portugal to Norfolk, Virginia, which was off–loaded from ship at Baltimore, and transported by bonded carrier to Norfolk, was subject to border search at Norfolk, notwithstanding fact that camper was previously physically within territorial confines of United States, as it never left official custody of United States Customs; trailer on which camper was transported from Baltimore to Norfolk was not tampered with and, thus, when camper arrived at Norfolk, it stood at border for purposes of search. United States v Gallagher (CA4 Va) 557 F2d 1041 , cert den (US) 54 L. Ed. 2d 148, 98 S Ct 213 .

Border control agents had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of defendant's vehicle, where defendant's vehicle, a sedan, had passed through border checkpoint at a time when mostly commercial trucks and 18-wheelers passed through, defendant arrived at checkpoint almost contemporaneously with two other sedans that were also driven by women traveling alone, the three sedans arrived during agents' shift change, when smugglers often "made their move," and undocumented aliens were discovered in third sedan's trunk. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Mackey, 734 Fed. Appx. 227 (5th Cir. 2018) , petition for certiorari filed (U.S. Aug. 13, 2018).

Border patrol agents reasonably suspected driver of truck of criminal activity, and therefore lawfully stopped his vehicle; stop occurred on ranch 30 miles from border, ranch was common corridor for smugglers, sensors detected an unfamiliar and atypical-looking oil field vehicle, truck appeared to be leaving ranch at time legitimate ranch traffic usually arrived, truck was registered to a residence rather than business and had temporary "paper tags," and vehicle was driving in Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 82 tandem with another truck, a manner common among smugglers. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Escamilla, 852 F.3d 474 (5th Cir. 2017) .

Roving Border Patrol agent had reasonable suspicion for investigatory stop of defendant's motor vehicle, where agent had six years of experience and had been patrolling highway where stop occurred, reputed to be alien smuggling route, for more than nine months, he spotted vehicle, which was type of vehicle popular among alien smugglers, about 45 miles north of border and south of immigration checkpoint, and he saw defendant and his passengers behaving unusually,suggesting they were nervous.

U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Ramirez, 839 F.3d 437 (5th Cir. 2016) .

Border Patrol agents had reasonable suspicion that criminal activity had taken or was currently taking place, as required to justify their stop of defendant's vehicle; stop was made in direct proximity to the border, vehicle had traveled erratically, first moving at an extremely low speed in tandem with another vehicle and later making erratic turns, vehicle was in sparsely traveled area often used as a smuggling route, agents saw individuals on the Mexican side of the border load bundles of suspected narcotics on a raft and sail across the river with them to the private property where the vehicle had traveled, and one of the agents who participated in the stop testified that he had heard all of the relevant information supporting the stop on his radio before the stop. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Ramirez-Mendoza, 657 Fed.

Appx. 298 (5th Cir. 2016) .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle approximately 200 miles from the border between Mexico and Texas, where road on which defendant was stopped was well known for drug and alien smuggling, agents had made more than 100 stops in the area that resulted in discovering undocumented aliens and illegal drugs, vehicle appeared to be sagging in the rear, agents knew smuggling vehicles usually had multiple occupants, as agents' vehicle neared defendant's, defendant quickly switched from left lane to right lane and pulled behind a semi-truck that was traveling 10 to 15 miles under the speed limit, even though no traffic had been in front of defendant or attempting to pass him, agents, while in marked vehicle, honked at defendant six times while driving parallel to him, but he looked forward and kept his hands tightly on his steering wheel, one of five passengers was sitting in the cargo area, which was arrangement consistent with smuggling, passengers wore heavy clothing and jackets and appeared dirty, while front passenger was in short sleeves and appeared clean, it was 8:30 in the morning, making it unlikely passengers had been working outdoors, and immigrants who had been in the brush crossing the border often wore jackets for protection against thorns and for warmth during cool nights. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cervantes, 797 F.3d 326 (5th Cir.

2015) .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion supporting decision to stop defendant's vehicle, and thus warrantless search of vehicle and trailer that yielded over 100 kilograms of marijuana did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, where defendant was driving away from the border in an area known for drug trafficking on a remote road generally used only by government employees that was 40 miles longer than an alternative route but bypassed two immigration checkpoints, and defendant was towing a horse trailer in an area where horses were rarely moved by trailer. U.S.C.A Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Antu, 569 Fed. Appx. 204 (5th Cir. 2014) .

Totality of circumstances provided reasonable suspicion supporting border patrol agent's investigatory stop, approximately eighteen miles from the Rio Grande, of vehicle matching description of that which anonymous tipster reported had picked up load of illegal aliens at well-known rendezvous spot; events played out in area close to Mexican border and notorious alien smuggling route and tip itself was not bare, with tipster call a rifle-shot to the nearest checkpoint facility, out of which the roving patrols were based, suggesting familiarity with the Border Patrol and knowledge and experience with reporting illegal activity, tipster claiming to have seen the smuggling firsthand just moments before the call and tip providing color, number and type of vehicles involved. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S.

v. Hernandez, 477 F.3d 210 (5th Cir. 2007) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 83 Search of cartons in dump truck, stopped by Border Patrol 27 miles from Mexican border, was valid since search had been made as contemporaneous incident of arrest made on probable cause as result of admission that there was marijuanain truck. United States v Alvarado Garcia (1986, CA5 Tex) 781 F2d 422 .

Police officers had probable cause to stop defendant's truck more than 100 miles from border where truck was riding low, driver was having difficult time controlling vehicle due to weight in back and passengers in back seat attempted to conceal themselves when police car pulled alongside. United States v Garcia (1984, CA5 Tex) 732 F2d 1221 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 738 F2d 437 .

Roving patrol had reasonable suspicion justifying stop of defendant's vehicle in border area where defendant's pickup truck was spotted travelling fast in sparsely populated and lightly travelled area close to major contraband crossinglocation near midnight.

United States v Rogers (1983, CA5 Tex) 719 F2d 767 .

Where alien presented himself at functional equivalent of border in order to gain entry into United States, and entry was denied because alien possessed wrong visa, Customs Officers acted within scope of their authority in searching alien for contraband, despite fact that alien elected to leave country rather than submit to detention, where alien was paroled into custody of airline and thus temporarily paroled into United States. United States v Cascante-Bernitta (1983, CA5 La) 711 F2d 36 , cert den (US) 78 L Ed 2d 239, 104 S Ct 252 .

Customs officers were justified in stopping suspect vehicle near border based on reasonable suspicion that vehicle was carrying illegal aliens across border where (1) shortly before stop officers received radio transmission advising them that aliens had been fording Rio Grande River, (2) officers knew that several aliens had been apprehended in same area day before, (3) officers observed that suspect vehicle had progressed mere 3 miles within one–hour time span and (4) particular area was surrounded by dense undergrowth providing ideal place of concealment for aliens awaiting transportation. United States v Head (1982, CA5 Tex) 693 F2d 353 .

Main difference between functional equivalent of border search and extended border search is that latter takes place after first point in time when entity might have been stopped within country, and thus since extended border searches entail greater intrusion on legitimate expectations of privacy, they are permitted only if supported by reasonable suspicion; government demonstrated beyond reasonable certainty that airplane searched was same plane which subsequently crossed international boundary, thus justifying functional equivalent of border search, where (1) area was covered by dense fog and only one unidentified aircraft was reported in vicinity, (2) plane followed as well as plane searched appeared to be having mechanical difficulties and (3) aircraft when first sighted and when eventually stopped bore signsof smuggling activity. United States v Niver (1982, CA5 Tex) 689 F2d 520 .

When airplane has been sighted over foreign land or water and is monitored continuously until it crosses border of this country, its inspection by customs at first point it touches land is valid border search. United States v Flynn (1982, CA5 Fla) 664 F2d 1296 , cert den Flynn v United States (1982) 456 US 930, 72 L Ed 2d 446, 102 S Ct 1979 .

Neither warrant nor any level of suspicion is required to search vehicles, vessels, persons or goods arriving in United States, and border search need not take place at actual border; border search may be conducted at place considered functional equivalent of border, such as port where ship docks in country after entering territorial waters from abroad or airport where international flight lands. Furthermore, particular search may be functional equivalent of search at border if object of search has been kept under constant surveillance from border to point of search. Accordingly, inspection of aircraft at airport constituted valid border search, where aircraft was first sighted over foreign air space after reported near mid–air collision, and aircraft was monitored by government officials as it entered United States air space and touched down on United States soil for first time at international airport; such uninterrupted surveillance permitted its identification according to type of aircraft and tail number, and observation by local police and customs agent at international airport of damaged condition of craft further corroborated its identity as plane reported to have been Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 84 involved in near collision. United States v Stone (1981, CA5 Fla) 659 F2d 569 (disagreed with on other grounds United States v Garcia (1982, CA11 Fla) 672 F2d 1349 ).

In prosecution for conspiracy to import heroin and to possess heroin with intent to distribute, search of package shipped from Iran at Dallas airport was valid where Dallas airport was functional equivalent of border, and package was at all times in international transit or under customs bond until it arrived, notwithstanding its original arrival at Houston airport and transportation by truck to Dallas prior to customs search. United States v Sheikh (1981, CA5 Tex) 654 F2d 1057 , cert den 455 US 991, 71 L Ed 2d 852, 102 S Ct 1617 .

Customs agents had probable cause to search vessel, upon having probable cause to board vessel, and observing bags of type commonly associated with importation of marijuana, and, upon lifting tarpaulin covering bags, odor of marijuana was evident, weather became inclement, there was increasing darkness, and there was likelihood of vessel's escape. United States v Caraballo (CA5 Fla) 571 F2d 975 .

Driver of vehicle consents to search of rear of vehicle when, at permanent border checkpoint, he does not object to direction of border patrol officer to open rear of vehicle for inspection. United States v Mireles (CA5 Tex) 570 F2d 1287 .

Border Patrol agents may, without probable cause, stop vehicle and briefly question occupants if officer reasonably suspects that vehicle contains illegal aliens, and officer has probable cause to conduct search of vehicle, when, upon lawfully stopping vehicle for brief questioning, odor of marijuana is detected emanating from vehicle; reasonable suspicion, providing basis for stop of vehicle, arose where Border Patrol officer observed defendant stopped in rest area near border checkpoint, and defendant was met by driver of another vehicle driving from checkpoint direction, rest area was known to be used for purposes of smugglers meeting with their confederates to learn whether checkpoint was open, and defendant was not from nearby town, and it would be unusual for person from out of the area to arrange meetingat rest area. United States v De Witt (CA5 Tex) 569 F2d 1338 .

Customs officers could conduct border inspection of vehicle without necessity of probable cause or any degree of suspicion, where there was high degree of probability that border crossing took place; in stop of defendant's vehicle in close proximity to Rio Grande River, near access road to river, with truck splashed with fresh mud resembling that found in river bed, there having been no measurable rainfall in preceding 30 days, customs officers established high degree of probability that border crossing took place. United States v Adams (CA5 Tex) 569 F2d 924 , cert den (US) 58 L. Ed.

2d 426, 99 S Ct 457 .

Even at border patrol checkpoints not constituting functional equivalent of border, border patrol agents have right to stop vehicle for routine citizenship checks, and, upon detection of odor of marijuana emanating from vehicle, have probable cause to search vehicle. United States v Robinson (CA5 Tex) 567 F2d 637 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 570 F2d 949 and cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 110, 99 S Ct 81 .

Border Patrol officers had probable cause to search back of pickup truck after lawful stop at permanent border checkpoint where defendant, upon being stopped, exhibited nervousness, contrary to defendant's personality, previously known to Border Patrol officer, was driving pickup truck belonging to another person. Border Patrol officer had 8– month–old information that defendant would be driving marijuana into United States, and defendant was carrying cacti in back of pickup truck arranged in manner in which would cause damage to cacti and black plastic bag protruded from under cacti, bag being of such type as frequently used for transport of marijuana; neither stale information that defendant might transport marijuana, nor defendant's apparent nervousness provided probable cause for search of vehicle, but Border Patrol officers were not required to disregard what they had learned from experience about methods used in marijuana smuggling and what they knew of defendant's personality and conduct from prior personal knowledge ofdefendant. United States v Morris (CA5 Tex) 565 F2d 951 ; United States v Blanford (CA5 Tex) 566 F2d 470 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 85 Even though Border Patrol officers had lawful basis for stop of defendant, when upon questioning, he gave answers inconsistent with facts known to Border Patrol officers, probable cause to search camper did not exist and consent of owner of camper was required, though such consent was manifested by owner taking keys to camper and unlocking back door at request of Border Patrol officers, even though owner did not verbally express consent, and fact that owner did not know he had right to refuse consent is not controlling. United States v Almand (CA5 Tex) 565 F2d 927 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 570 F2d 949 and cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 116, 99 S Ct 92 .

Probable cause to search box carried in back of pickup truck existed where truck was stopped at permanent checkpoint and government agent observed large box in back of truck bed, and, being told that box contained gasoline, further observed box which revealed no filler neck and had unusual seam in structure of box which appeared to be separate compartment, together with appellant's nervousness, and agent's past experience; whether agent has probable cause to conduct search of vehicle initially stopped at fixed checkpoint is determined by totality of circumstances. United States v Nichols (CA5 Tex) 560 F2d 1227 .

Odor of marijuana emanating from vehicle stopped at permanent border checkpoint constitutes probable cause to conduct search of vehicle. United States v Gutierrez (CA5 Tex) 560 F2d 195 .

Upon stopping defendant for citizenship at permanent border checkpoint, border patrol agent had probable cause to conduct search of vehicle where odor of marijuana emanates from vehicle.

United States v Legeza (CA5 Tex) 559 F2d 441 .

Search of automobile, based upon odor of marijuana, was supported by probable cause, where vehicle was stopped at Falfurrias, Texas, checkpoint, at which immigration stops and citizenship checks are permitted. United States v Canales (CA5 Tex) 558 F2d 1201 .

Border patrolmen were justified in stopping vehicle to determine if it contained illegal aliens where camper was observed driving from border area, had no visible occupant other than driver, was riding low, had out–of–county license plates, rear windows were blacked out, camper was erratically moving from side to side across highway, was equipped with air shock absorbers, and handled as though heavily loaded; having stopped camper on reasonable suspicion in proximity of border, border patrolmen were then justified in searching camper and seizing marijuana, after detecting strong odor of marijuana emanating from interior of camper; where vehicle is initially stopped, based on reasonable and articulable suspicion that law is being violated, then subsequent search of vehicle, based upon probable cause, is permissible underFourth Amendment. United States v Payne (CA5 Tex) 555 F2d 475 .

Valid search of vehicle was conducted at permanent checkpoint 7 miles south of Falfurrias Texas, by border patrol agent who lawfully stopped defendant's vehicle to made determination of defendant's citizenship, and detected strong odor ofmarijuana emanating from defendant's vehicle. United States v Garza (CA5 Tex) 554 F2d 257 .

Border patrol checkpoint must function like permanent border checkpoint in order to constitute functional equivalent of border; and, where checkpoint is functional equivalent of border, border search may be conducted of vehicles stopped at checkpoint, and probable cause is not required to conduct such search; it is immaterial to validity of border search that permanent checkpoint was alerted to look out for defendant's vehicle by border patrol oficers who had previously conducted invaild search of defendant's vehicle, even though officers which conducted prior search followed defendant to permanent checkpoint, as defendant was free to choose roadways which would not have led to permanent checkpoint. United States v Wilson (CA5 Tex) 553 F2d 896 .

It is constitutionally permissible for customs officials to initially stop subject, examine her visa, and search her luggage and personal effects for contraband, regardless of whether officials had any articulable suspicion that actual criminal activity was afoot, where subject was searched under circumstances constituting functional equivalent of border, where Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 86 subject had just arrived at Miami International Airport and had disembarked from flight originating in Colombia; proposition that such stops and searches need not be grounded in any particularized and articulable suspicion, ultimately stems from policy considerations, and "reasonableness" in Fourth Amendment sense depends on balance which must be struck between official intrusion and individual privacy, and border search of luggage is example of search which does not requires probable cause. United States v Himmelwright (CA5 Fla) 551 F2d 991 , cert den (US) 54 L. Ed. 2d 189, 98 S Ct 298 .

Where border patrol officer at Sarita checkpoint stopped motor home vehicle to inquire whether occupants were American citizens and asked and received permission from driver to open door of vehicle in order to inquire of person in rear whether he was citizen, strong smell of marijuana detected by officer on opening door gave him probable cause to search vehicle and seize marijuana found therein. United States v Gorthy (CA5 Tex) 550 F2d 1051 , cert den (US) 54 L. Ed. 2d 95, 98 S Ct 121 .

Search of vehicle by customs patrol officer, 5 miles from point of entry and 25 minutes after entry, was justified as extended border search, where driver of vehicle, upon entering United States from Mexico, sped from border checkpointupon being asked by immigration officer to open trunk of automobile. United States v Moya (CA5 Tex) 549 F2d 340 .

Stopping vehicle at permanent border checkpoint, constituting functional equivalent of border, to inquire into occupants' citizenship, does not offend Fourth Amendment. United States v Garza (CA5 Tex) 547 F2d 1234 .

Border patrol checkpoint at Falfurrias, Texas, is permanent checkpoint; stopping vehicle at permanent checkpoint to inquire into occupant's citizenship does not offend Fourth Amendment. United States v Leal (CA5 Tex) 547 F2d 1222 .

Stopping of vehicles at permanent border checkpoints for brief questioning as to citizenship is consistent with Fourth Amendment. United States v Faulkner (CA5 Tex) 547 F2d 870 .

Local police officers, at request of customs officers, properly detained aircraft at functional equivalent of border, where aircraft had previously been observed by customs pilot in British West Indies, and aircraft thereafter entered United States and did not utilize any of accepted methods of entry; test of validity of actions of customs officer taken at functional equivalent of border, is same as though inspection had taken place at regular customs immigration checkpoint located on physical boundary of United States. United States v Ivey (CA5 Fla) 546 F2d 139 , reh den (CA5 Fla) 550 F2d 243 , cert den 431 US 943, 53 L. Ed. 2d 263, 97 S Ct 2662 .

Odor of marijuana emanating from vehicle stopped at border patrol checkpoint is sufficient to establish probable cause for search of vehicle; even if there had been no odor, search in instant case would have been valid, since specific checkpoint had been determined to be functional equivalent of border, at which probable cause is not required for search. United States v Alderete (CA5 Tex) 546 F2d 68 .

At permanent checkpoints, stops may be made in absence of any individual suspicion; and, although stop did not occur physically at checkpoint, where defendants stopped themselves long enough to make U–turn and leave at high speed, in close proximity to checkpoint, stop is reasonably based on factors indicating illegal activity afoot. United States v Macias (CA5 Tex) 546 F2d 58 .

Stop of vehicle was not result of "lucky hunch" but was reasonably based on factors indicating illegal activity afoot, where customs officers observed suspicious behavior by occupants of 2 vehicles at late hour, which vehicles were traveling from direction of border, and appeared to be traveling together, turned onto highway, one from wrong lane, which behavior, together with fact that car appeared to be heavily loaded, indicating possible presence of aliens being smuggled, providedbasis for permissible stop. United States v Garza (CA5 Tex) 544 F2d 222 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 87 Stopping vehicle at permanent border patrol checkpoint to inquire into citizenship of occupants of vehicle does not violate Fourth Amendment [ U.S. Const. Amend. 4 ]. United States v Bazan-Molina (CA5 Tex) 544 F2d 193 .

Search of automobile by agents of border patrol was based on reasonable suspicion and therefore justified where border patrol agent had observed in sparcely inhabited location about 1 mile from Mexican border six men of apparent Mexican origin each of whom was carrying large sack and one of whom was wearing pistol who disappeared into area covered with heavy brush, and agent notified another patrolman who, about 2 miles away and 2 hours later, saw automobile in question on infrequently traveled road leading from area into which sack–carriers had entered, and patrolman afer following car short distance stopped it and observed defendant, six other Mexicans and sack of marijuana through car window and proceeded to search trunk in which additional marijuana was found. United States v Canales (CA5 Tex) 527 F2d 440 .

Sierra Blanca permanent checkpoint was functional equivalent of border so search of vehicle there without probable cause was valid and reasonable border search. United States v Hart (CA5 Tex) 525 F2d 1199 , cert den 428 US 923, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1226, 96 S Ct 3234 .

Where immigration agents acting pursuant to 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357 stopped defendants 70 miles from Mexican border and spotted marijuana debris on back seat floor of automobile and saw back seat abnormally elevated, search underneath seat was lawful under pre–Almeida–Sanchez "border search" doctrine. United States v Cantu (CA5 Tex) 504 F2d 387 .

Search of defendants' rented automobile's locked trunk at regular government checkpoint approximately 3½ to 4 miles from international boundry, during customs "blitz" at time of day when many aliens are brought across border, was valid; once search was begun, it was legitimate for officers to look wherever there was room for alien to hide, and to seize evidence of other crimes if it was in plain view; thus, District Court did not err in denying defendants' motion to suppress marijuana found in trunk of rented car. United States v Phillips (CA5 Tex) 496 F2d 1395 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 503 F2d 1403 , cert den 422 US 1056, 45 L Ed 2d 709, 95 S Ct 2680 , reh den (US) 46 L Ed 2d 116, 96 S Ct 160 .

Holding in Almeida–Sanchez would not be applied to search and seizure occurring 2 months before that decision was issued; therefore, no constitutional infirmity arose from stop of camper truck in Florida by immigration officers on roving patrol which resulted in discovery of several illegal aliens of Mexican descent, since stop was made within geographic boundaries established by regulation and on highway known by immigration officials as primary root for smuggling of aliens into Florida for work during "picking" season. United States v Rodriguez-Hernandez (CA5 Fla) 493 F2d 168 , cert den 422 US 1056, 45 L. Ed. 2d 708, 92 S Ct 2678 .

Search of defendant's taxicab within 300 feet of border, within 5 minutes after taxi had entered dock area and moments after it exited gate marking that area, and which occurred about year before decision in Almeida–Sanchez, was valid border search; under Almeida test, search was also valid, because it was search of persons departing from vessel which had sailed directly from Jamaica to Baton Rouge, and thus it was search at border or its functional equivalent. United States v Prince (CA5 La) 491 F2d 655 .

Where banana boat had history of carrying drugs from Columbia and was being kept under surveillance because of that fact and also because of anonymous tip, search of crewmen on board boat was justifiable as border search. United States v Quintana-Gomez (CA5 Fla) 488 F2d 1246 .

Search of van at motel after agents, acting on tip, had kept van and its occupants under surveillance and had seen it drive to and park at area near Rio Grande River, was valid border search; although vehicle had not crossed border, border crossing is not sine qua non of valid border search; search did not lose its border status simply because it took place 6 miles from river (which forms border between Mexico and Texas), since it occurred 15 minutes after border area Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 88 contact and upon basis of informer's tip and close surveillance; these circumstances created nexus with border which was sufficient to make search a border search. United States v Steinkoenig (CA5 Tex) 487 F2d 225 .

Search of truck was valid as border search, although it occurred 150 miles from border 6 days after truck crossed border, since vehicle was under constant surveillance during such period, and suspicion that it contained marijuana was reasonably based on reliable informant's tip. U. S. v Martinez (CA5 Tex) 481 F2d 214 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 481 F2d 1404 and cert den 415 US 931, 39 L Ed2d 489, 94 S Ct 1444 .

At temporary checkpoint 11 miles north of Mexican border, immigration officers could conduct valid border search of station wagon for concealed aliens upon suspicion aroused by presence of spare tire in luggage compartment; upon subsequent discovery of suspicious packages and smell of marijuana, agents, who were also authorized customs officers, could convert search for aliens into detailed search for contraband. U. S. v Wright (CA5 Tex) 476 F2d 1027 , cert den 414 US 821, 38 L. Ed. 2d 53, 94 S Ct 116 .

Where search by federal officers, acting as border patrol officers, of car at place 55 miles north of Mexican border was justified as border search for aliens, same officers, in their capacity as customs officers, could make valid border search for contraband upon reasonable suspicion aroused after search for aliens was begun, although initial facts that justified stopping car to search for illegal aliens might not have justified stopping car to search for contraband. U. S. v Thompson (CA5 Tex) 475 F2d 1359 .

Search at permanent immigration checkpoint 8 miles from border at 12:30 a.m. was valid where agents asked all drivers to open their car trunks in search for aliens; driver in question was nervous and his passenger was "almost frozen"; agent saw 4 large burlap bags in trunk, partially covered by Guadalajara newspaper; driver incredibly stated that bags contained alfalfa; and when driver opened bags at agent's request, agent felt and smelled marijuana. U. S. v McDaniel (CA5 Tex) 463 F2d 129 , cert den 413 US 919, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1041, 93 S Ct 3046 .

Immigration officers' search of car at checkpoint 10 miles from border was valid where officer asked driver to open trunk for purpose of looking for aliens, trunk had immediately apparent false bottom, punching of small hole in false bottom led to detectable smell of marijuana, and opening false bottom revealed heroin. U. S. v De Leon (CA5 Tex) 462 F2d 170 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 474 F2d 1348 and cert den 414 US 853, 38 L. Ed. 2d 102, 94 S Ct 76 , reh den 414 US 1104, 38 L. Ed. 2d 560, 94 S Ct 739 .

Transfer of 4 suitcases in Brownsville residential area from Mexican truck to car registered in name and address of person on bail on Texas narcotics charge provided reasonable basis for Customs agents' arrest of person who drove truck andof occupants of car, and for seizure of suitcases. U. S. v Valdez (CA5 Tex) 456 F2d 1140 .

At border checkpoint 8 miles north of Laredo, immigration officials could search special compartment, 6 feet by 3 feet by 20 inches; mounted on pickup bed; and once compartment was opened and coffee sacks were discovered therein, officials could inspect sacks. U. S. v Bird (CA5 Tex) 456 F2d 1023 , cert den 413 US 919, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1040, 93 S Ct 3039 .

Where reliable informant advised of marijuana importation by men in gold Ford, New Jersey license LSX 909, and surveillance revealed activity around such car and nearby Chevrolet station wagon, search of Chevrolet 35 miles fromborder was valid search. U. S. v Garcia (CA5 Tex) 452 F2d 419 .

Search qualified as border search based on proximity to border, knowledge of searching officer of recent crossing of border, imminent shipment by transients who fled scene, and marijuana odor emanating from footlocker containingmarijuana. U. S. v Warren (CA5 Tex) 451 F2d 582 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 89 Search was valid border search where border patrol officials at checkpoint 8 miles north of Laredo, Texas, allowed car to pass after cursory examination, but on noticing that rear of car was riding low, followed car for 2 miles and searched trunk, in which they discovered marijuana. U. S. v Maggard (CA5 Tex) 451 F2d 502 , cert den 405 US 1045, 31 L. Ed.

2d 587, 92 S Ct 1330 .

Valid border search was made 60 miles from border, outside Marfa, Texas, which was nearest town from border–crossing point, where defendants' conduct raised reasonable suspicion. U.S. v Reagor (CA5 Tex) 441 F2d 252 .

Proper border search was made of airplane passenger at El Paso, Texas airport, 5 miles from border, after passenger had departed border entry point, even though he was not under constant surveillance until time of search. Davis v U. S.

(CA5 Tex) 431 F2d 693 , cert den 400 US 997, 27 L. Ed. 2d 447, 91 S Ct 473 .

Search of trailer at designated port of exit or destination, New Orleans, was reasonable where trailer had been continuously in custody and control of customs or its bonded carrier from time of actual entry in Houston up to andthrough time of search. United States v Strmel (1983, ED La) 574 F Supp 793 , affd (CA5 La) 744 F2d 1086 .

Proximity of defendants' vehicle to the border between Texas and Mexico weighed in favor of finding that United States Border Patrol agents' suspicion that defendants were engaged in criminal activity was reasonable, so as to support investigatory stop of the vehicle; vehicle was stopped approximately 36 miles from the border, and vehicle was two to three miles from a Border Patrol checkpoint and was traveling toward the checkpoint at the time it was stopped. U.S.

Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Alaniz, 278 F. Supp. 3d 944 (S.D. Tex. 2017) .

Permanent checkpoint was functional equivalent of border and lower, border search standard of reasonableness therefore applied to search of vehicle at checkpoint considering that checkpoint was located beyond confluence of 3 roads which led directly to Rio Grande River and considering variety of evasive techniques employed by illegal aliens to penetrate interior; furthermore, even if checkpoint were not functional equivalent of border, check of citizenship of occupants of vehicle could be made on less than probable cause, and where during check of citizenship, border patrol agent came into knowledge of facts which provided him with probable cause to believe that vehicle contained contraband in trunk, search of trunk revealing marijuana was justified and marijuana was admissible in evidence. United States v Alvarez- Gonzales (SD Tex) 401 F Supp 931 , remanded (CA5 Tex) 542 F2d 226 , later app (CA5 Tex) 561 F2d 620 and (disagreed with on other grounds United States v Garcia (1982, CA11 Fla) 672 F2d 1349 ).

Individual arriving in Houston onboard aircraft that had made no other stop since crossing into United States from Mexico was subject to customs search on lesser, border search standard. United States v Love (DC Tex) 413 F Supp 1122 , affd without op (CA5 Tex) 538 F2d 898 .

Finding defendants' vehicles had been properly stopped and searched by border patrol officers, court noted electronic device permanently embedded in road and monitored throughout hours of darkness 365 days a year was permanent checkpoint, and that its location at or near confluence of number of roads leading directly to Mexican border approximately 30 air miles away constituted searches made by use of device functional equivalent of border searches . United States v Thompson (DC Tex) 390 F Supp 337 , revd without op (CA5 Tex) 517 F2d 1401 .

Stop and search of car at checkpoint 32 miles from border qualified as functional equivalent of border inspection and constituted border search at fixed checkpoint, where checkpoint was strategically located and could be found always in the same area, although it was moved up and down same stretch of highway. United States v Fuentes (DC Tex) 379 F Supp 1145 , affd without op (CA5 Tex) 517 F2d 1401 .

For purposes of customs search, international airport was functional equivalent of border, thus making warrantless customs inspection valid border search, where final destination of defendant's checked luggage was Nigeria, and where Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 90 luggage was to be at all times in international transit or under carrier's custody until it arrived; by checking his luggage through to Nigeria, defendant made it virtual certainty that border crossing would take place and that nothing about object of search would change in course of crossing border. United States v Udofot (1983, CA8 Minn) 711 F2d 831 , cert den (US) 78 L Ed 2d 234, 104 S Ct 245 .

Border patrol agents had reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, of kind required to support investigatory stop of vehicle that they observed 70 miles from border, based on vehicle's history of repeatedly crossing border with no contraband being found, which suggested an attempt to "burn the car" by developing a clean crossing history, based on change in driver of vehicle from when it crossed border earlier that morning, based on driver's behavior in rapidly slowing to a speed well under the posted limit when he noticed border patrol agents, and based on his rigid posture when passing agents and focus on agents as they followed behind him, which resulted in lane drift due to his inattention toroad. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, 902 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2018) .

Border patrol agent's stop of defendant's vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion, when filtered through the lens of the agent's training and experience in smuggling interdiction, and thus, the stop did not violate Fourth Amendment; defendant was driving along known smuggling route while the Border Patrol checkpoint along that route was temporarily closed, defendant was subject of Treasury Enforcement Communication System (TECS) alert due to arrest three months prior for alien smuggling, defendant appeared to be driving in tandem with another vehicle that also had TECS alert for drug smuggling, both vehicles were recently registered, both vehicles were coming from border town, and other vehicle had crossed the border only an hour earlier. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Durazo, 727 Fed. Appx. 916 (9th Cir. 2018) .

Reasonable suspicion justified border patrol officers' traffic stop of vehicle in which defendant was a passenger on a road near the border; road on which stop occurred circumvented a border patrol check point and was known to be a thoroughfare for illegal narcotics, the traffic stop occurred late at night during a border patrol shift change, which was a common time for drug smugglers to try to travel through the area, individuals in the vehicle did not appear to be local ranchers or campers, and vehicle had dirt bikes in the back, even though there were no dirt bike trails near the area and the weather was very cold and not appropriate for dirt-bike riding, and driver rigidly grabbed the steering wheel with both hands when he passed the officers. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . United States v. Saiz, 656 Fed. Appx. 300 (9th Cir. 2016) .

Assuming border patrol agent's encounter with defendant was seizure under Fourth Amendment, agent had particularized and objective basis for believing that defendant might be involved in smuggling activity, and therefore investigatory stop of defendant was justified by reasonable suspicion, given activation of two motion sensors near border, appearance of headlights after second sensor activated, which was followed by headlights' disappearance, agent's encounter with defendant's vehicle immediately after second sensor activated in location that vehicle leaving area after triggering sensor would be expected to be, defendant's travel on routes commonly used by smugglers to exit border area, and defendant's driving conduct once agent began following her, which suggested evasive tactics. U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Dubas, 228 Fed. Appx. 695 (9th Cir. 2007) .

Border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to warrant investigatory stop of defendant's vehicle, when he saw defendant's pickup truck enter highway from a desert wash two miles north of a border patrol check point, and agent knew from experience in the area that a truck entering the highway at that location might very well have been carrying contraband around the nearby check point. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 ; Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, § 401 , 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 . U.S. v. Hess, 218 Fed. Appx. 635 (9th Cir. 2007) .

Search of trunk of defendant's automobile, which uncovered marijuana, was border search requiring no suspicion to support it, even though defendant had passed through primary inspection area to secondary inspection area, and thus had technically already entered United States; search was both temporally and geographically close enough to border to be considered border search. Tariff Act of 1930, § 581 , 19 U.S.C.A. § 1581 . U.S. v. Sutter, 340 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2003) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 91 Two–hour delay before border patrol agents conducted canine search of car did not render search nonroutine prior to development of reasonable suspicion, where, before canine search, agents directed car to secondary inspection site, visually inspected car, drove it to x–ray facility, x–rayed car twice, test drove car to confirm its poor brake functioning, and requested canine search. Tariff Act of 1930, § 581(a) , 19 U.S.C.A. § 1581(a) . U.S. v. Padilla-Noriega, 81 Fed. Appx.

709 (9th Cir. 2003) .

In narcotics prosecution, trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress evidence, despite defendant's argument that Coast Guard had violated Fourth Amendment rights when it boarded his vessel one–quarter mile inside boundary for United States territorial waters, since stop occurred at functional equivalent of border, and was supported by firm belief that vessel had come from international waters. United States v Dobson (1986, CA9 Cal) 78 F2d 1374.

In prosecution for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress testimony of customs agent regarding search of package which did not occur at actual border, but, rather, 3,000 miles from border and twenty–four hours before scheduled border crossing, where, under extended border search doctrine, search satisfied "totality of circumstances" test since when parcel was placed in custody of shipping agents, it was all but certain that parcel's condition would remain unchanged until it crossed United States border, and where fact that case involved exit search, rather than entry search, did not alter analysis. Further, search of parcel was supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity where informant had given agents facts which established reasonable suspicion that parcel contained cashier's checks for purchase of narcotics. United States v Cardona (1985, CA9 Cal) 769 F2d 625 .

Defendant who was stopped by customs officers while he was proceeding up ramp to board airplane bound for foreign country was stopped at "functional equivalent of border," thus authorizing search of defendant without need for probable cause, warrants or suspicion; person about to board airplane for non–stop trip to foreign country is on notice that he orshe is at functional equivalent of international border. United States v Duncan (1982, CA9 Cal) 693 F2d 971 .

Search was made at functional equivalent of border, and no warrant or probable cause was required, where government agents continuously and reliably tracked radar blip that represented defendants' plane crossing from Mexico into United States and subsequently searched plane and defendants' luggage after defendants landed in California. United States v Moore (1980, CA9 Cal) 638 F2d 1171 , cert den 449 US 1113, 66 L Ed 2d 842, 101 S Ct 924 .

Ample evidence existed to support finding of district court that search of airplane had been carried out pursuant to firm belief that border crossing had occurred, where defendants' plane was tracked on radar by experienced radar operator from time of border crossing until it landed in California, and such radar contact was continuously maintained except for two momentary interruptions which occurred at time when no other aircraft were in area. United States v Driscoll (1980, CA9 Cal) 632 F2d 737 .

Extended border search was valid where vehicle was virtually under constant surveillance from time it was first searched at border until time car was stopped, with exception of few minutes during which it was lost from view, subsequent searches occurred within hour and half of time vehicle entered country and were conducted at or near border, and where customs agents were acting at all times on tip of reliable informant that vehicle in question contained contraband; fact that prior search had been conducted at time of initial border crossing is not dispositive of whether later searches areproperly considered extended border searches . United States v Espericueta-Reyes (1980, CA9 Ariz) 631 F2d 616 .

See United States v Smith (1980, CA9 Cal) 629 F2d 1301 , § 6[a] .

In prosecution for conspiracy to transport illegal aliens, Border Patrol Agents lawfully searched defendants' truck at San Clemente checkpoint area located between San Diego and Los Angeles, since search occurred at fixed checkpoint stop at which location all stops of cars and trucks are made pursuant to directions located on highway signs, since stops were Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 92 routine, predictable, and regular, and since no traffic approaching checkpoint could be taken by surprise as to location of checkpoint. United States v Gabriel (1980, CA9 Cal) 625 F2d 830 .

Where checkpoint was determined to be permanent border checkpoint, vehicle could be stopped without reasonable suspicion that it contained illegal aliens and questioning of occupants of vehicle during which they admitted they were illegal aliens did not violate Fourth Amendment. United States v Vasquez-Guerrero (CA9 Cal) 554 F2d 917 , cert den (US) 54 L. Ed. 2d 141, 98 S Ct 200 .

Where aircraft left United States, flew to Mexico and returned to United States, not landing on its return until reaching Las Vegas, such aircraft having been under visual and electronic surveillance during its trip to Mexico and back, Las Vegas airport was functional equivalent of border, and facts available to customs officers justified firm belief that bordercrossing had occurred. United States v Potter (CA9 Nev) 552 F2d 901 .

Warrantless search of automobile at temporary immigration checkpoint six miles north of Mexican border on major East–West Freeway constituted functional equivalent of border search, and search was therefore proper under Fourth Amendment notwithstanding fact that agents conducting search had no reason to believe that law was being broken. United States v Esquer-Rivera (CA9 Cal) 542 F2d 521 .

Heroin was not inadmissible on grounds that customs agents lacked probable cause to search suitcases of air traveler arriving in country from abroad since search was valid border search notwithstanding fact that traveler had originally been passed through customs without incident, and his bags were not searched until after customs officials had searched his traveling companion's bags and found heroin. United States v Golden (CA9 Cal) 532 F2d 1244 , cert den (US) 50 L. Ed. 2d 111, 97 S Ct 118 .

Bay adjacent to ocean is functional equivalent of border for border search purposes provided vessel searched has traveled in foreign waters before entry and where trial judge found that boat had recently sailed from Mexican waters into Mission Bay, San Diego, California search of vessel was border search and broad latitude permitted for border search was applicable; border search need not have taken place at instant vessel arrived at border or its functional equivalent, as long as vessel remained there until searched, and search of vessel was border search when it took place within fewhours of vessel's arrival.

United States v Solmes (CA9 Cal) 527 F2d 1370 .

Stop and search of vehicle about 10 miles from border was based on probable cause where agents observed automobile had large trunk, heavy–duty suspension, and balance characteristics of heavily loaded vehicle. United States v Madueno Astorga (CA9 Cal) 503 F2d 820 , cert den 422 US 1057, 45 L. Ed. 2d 710, 95 S Ct 2681 .

Observation by patrol oficers that vehicle was dusty with scratches on its side, indicating it had passed through brush since highway was well paved; that muffler and tailpipe were dragging close to ground; and that vehicle was wandering from side to side, apparently difficult to control because heavily loaded, constituted suspicion sufficient to stop vehicle for inquiry in course of routine investigation, and marijuana discovered in trunk was properly admitted into evidence. United States v Ojeda-Rodriguez (CA9 Cal) 502 F2d 560 , cert den 420 US 910, 42 L. Ed. 2d 839, 95 S Ct 830 .

Although early morning hour and fact that pickup truck did not appear to be "local" would not justify stopping vehicle, border patrolmen properly stopped truck, where it was observed at 2 a.m. driving west into border area where there was no place to go and promptly returning from that location, since officer's knowledge that such actions often constituted a "pickup" at a "drop." United States v Nunez-Villalobos (CA9 Cal) 500 F2d 1023 , cert den 419 US 1090, 42 L. Ed.

2d 683, 95 S Ct 682 .

There was sufficient reason for border patrol agent to stop automobiles proceeding about 150 yards apart during early morning hours, where first car slowed down at stop sign before entering highway and second car skidded around corner Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 93 and agent saw apparently Mexican passenger in first car and several people crouched in back seat of second vehicle.

United States v Larios-Montes (CA9 Cal) 500 F2d 941 , cert den 422 US 1057, 45 L. Ed. 2d 709, 95 S Ct 2681 .

Since practice of illegal aliens to walk across border or of smugglers to backpack contraband over border in remote desert areas between border checkpoints is well known, prompt inspection by border patrol of first automobile to appear on highway after officers received alarm from electronic sensors which detect human foot traffic across border is not only well–advised, but is based upon well–founded suspicion; 634 pounds of marijuana found in automobile stopped by border patrol officers 660 feet from Mexican border after border sensors had detected passage of someone across border was properly seized by oficers, since it was produced as result of search incident to proper arrest of driver; evidence would not be suppressed. United States v Mora-Chavez (CA9 Cal) 496 F2d 1181 , cert den 419 US 878, 42 L. Ed. 2d 118, 95 S Ct 141 .

Search of car which had been seen entering U.S. at illegal entry point by customs agents was valid, despite fact that search was made about 30 miles from point of entry; even had car not been observed crossing border, search might still have been justified as border search, because close proximity to border has been held not to be required, provided that vehicle searched has been under surveillance; court need not reach issue of probable cause. United States v Lincoln (CA9 Cal) 494 F2d 833 .

Search conducted by customs agent, acting on tip, of car shortly after it crossed Mexican border, taking place some 6 miles from port of entry, after car had been under surveillance since it had been in Mexico, where it had been seen entering area notoriously infested with narcotics dealers, was valid border search; heroin found in spare tire of car was properly admitted against defendants at trial. United States v Guzman (CA9 Cal) 482 F2d 272 , cert den 414 US 911, 38 L. Ed. 2d 150, 94 S Ct 251 .

Customs official who had information that large load of marijuana was to be smuggled that evening, who recognized preceding "scout vehicle" as having been involved in earlier smuggling attempt, and who observed following vehicle to be heavily loaded and down on its springs, had justification for searching second vehicle. U. S. v Figueroa-Espinoza (CA9 Ariz) 454 F2d 590 .

Search of large van truck at immigration check station 60 miles north of Mexican border was valid, since, as to searches made within 100 miles of border, 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a) is valid in empowering immigration officer to make warrantless search within reasonable distance from any external boundary of United States. Mienke v U. S. (CA9 Cal) 452 F2d 1076 .

Properly extended border search was made where informant advised that X would drive large shipment of marijuana across border; X crossed border in 1961 Chevrolet, which she left in parking lot in Chula Vista, California; agents kept car under surveillance until Y arrived and drive it toward Los Angeles; and 1961 Chevrolet was searched at San Onofrecheck station, with discovery of 84 pounds of marijuana in trunk. U. S. v Zito (CA9 Cal) 451 F2d 361 .

Border patrol agent patrolling Morelos Dam area, through which substantial amounts of marijuana are smuggled into United States from Mexico, noticed car parked near river and 4 men standing by it; on investigation; agent discovered that 3 of 4 men were illegal aliens, and they were taken into custody; when agent asked fourth person to open car trunk, he ran toward river 50 yards away as truck lock released; agent caught him and brought him back to car, when agent noticed 6 bundles of marijuana in trunk; court held that search was valid border search. U. S. v Vigil (CA9 Ariz) 448 F2d 1250 .

Automobile which crossed border, was searched without finding contraband, was driven back to border, reappeared with lower rear end, was parked in Calexico, California, was locked, and was then driven north, was properly subjectedto border search revealing 330 pounds of marijuana. U. S. v Salazar-Gaeta (CA9 Cal) 447 F2d 468 .

See U. S. v Terry (CA9 Cal) 446 F2d 579 , cert den 404 US 946, 30 L. Ed. 2d 261, 92 S Ct 301 , § 6[a] . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 94 Search at immigration checkpoint, revealing contraband drugs hidden between left and right door panels and under back seat, was proper although same areas had been searched at border 5 hours before, when drugs were hidden beneath carand not discovered. U. S. v Beye (CA9 Cal) 445 F2d 1037 .

Seizure of contraband marijuana was not improper where INS officers stopped and searched car 3 miles north of Mexican–American border to determine whether car contained improperly admitted aliens, and marijuana bricks werein plain view in trunk. U. S. v Marin (CA9 Cal) 444 F2d 86 .

Border patrol inspector properly asked driver to open car trunk, in search for illegal aliens, at highway checkpoint 49 miles north of Mexican border, and properly seized marijuana brick which he smelled and saw. Fumagalli v U. S. (CA9 Cal) 429 F2d 1011 .

Search of vehicle at temporary fixed checkpoint under authority of "Warrant of Inspection" was proper where border officers knew general characterics of type of vehicle used for smuggling aliens into United States, and where officers were empowered to search all northbound vehicles in designated area near US–Mexican border. United States v Lopez- Anaya (DC Ariz) 388 F Supp 455 .

Permanent checkpoints along Mexico–California border are functional equivalents of border, and searches conducted at them are reasonable, since they are either natural corridors along which illegal aliens frequently travel in their migration toward labor markets in north, or are located in relation to all others in such manner as to preclude evasion by use of bypass roads; clearly there is no one spot at which it is constitutionally mandated to fix customs checkpoint; rather, there is constitutionally permissible zone within which Fourth Amendment rights and legitimate needs of law enforcement can coexist; temporary and seasonal checkpoints along border are also constitutional due to their proximity to border and very limited intrusiveness and inconvenience to general public which they entail. United States v Baca (DC Cal) 368 F Supp 398 .

Border patrol agent had probable cause to stop defendant's vehicle, where defendant was driving close to border in a desolate area known as a drug-smuggling corridor, defendant had unusual pattern of making U-turns and covering same stretch of road while driving well below speed limit, and officers were aware that another vehicle in same area had been stopped, searched, and found to contain drugs, and that drug smugglers often used lead vehicles. U.S.C.A Const.Amend.

4 . U.S. v. Arjon, 573 Fed. Appx. 683 (10th Cir. 2014) .

Border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant's vehicle, and thus the traffic stop did not violate defendant's Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, where defendant was 45 miles from the border on a road with no border check points, in an area of high activity for drug smuggling, defendant's out- of-state plates indicated that the route she was taking would add more than 100 miles to her trip, defendant was driving during the time border patrol agents were known to change their shifts, defendant had slowed the vehicle maintaining stiff posture when passing the agent, and had speed up after leaving the agent's field of view such that she was speedingwhen he pulled her over. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Westhoven, 562 Fed. Appx. 726 (10th Cir. 2014) .

Uniformed Border Patrol agent on roving patrol in unmarked vehicle had reasonable suspicion to stop van he observed and question its occupants; van was only 85 miles from the border in an area frequented by smugglers, was on a well known "back door" route typically used by smugglers to avoid Border Patrol checkpoints located on nearby interstates, and displayed a temporary license tag, van's driver and passenger stiffened up, looked straight ahead, and avoided eye contact as it approached agent, and agent observed one person in the back of the van "diving" down.

U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cheromiah, 455 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 2006) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 95 Stop of marijuana smuggling suspect's vehicle by Border Patrol agents was supported by reasonable suspicion; highway where stop occurred was known smuggling route, stop occurred approximately forty miles from Mexican border, agents had significant previous experience with alien traffic, agents had information about recent illegal border crossings in area, and trunk of vehicle was not level and appeared to have been forced shut. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Mendez, 181 Fed. Appx. 754 (10th Cir. 2006) .

Border patrol agent's stop of defendant's vehicle was supported by reasonable suspicion: agent's experience included approximately 110 to 120 narcotics seizures and had taught him that spare tires were commonly used to smuggle narcotics, spare tire on defendant's vehicle did not look to agent as though it fit properly underneath vehicle, agent closely examined spare tire as he followed vehicle, section of highway on which stop occurred was common smuggling route, agent had information that stretch of highway had seen increase in smuggling while border checkpoint was closed, agent checked vehicle's Mexican license plates and learned that vehicle had crossed border on previous day, and agent's personal experience had shown that high percentage of vehicles found to be carrying narcotics had recently crossedborder. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Gandara-Salinas, 327 F.3d 1127 (10th Cir. 2003) .

Where local police officers took drunken Spanish–speaking alien to border patrol office because they were dissatisfied with his identification, and border patrol officers forced open his locked suitcase in search of further identification, finding heroin inside, heroin would not be suppressed despite fact that search was made without warrant, because, under 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a)(1) and (c, border agent was expressly authorized to both interrogate alien and search his suitcase for further identification; officer had probable cause to search suitcase because facts and circumstances were such as to warrant prudent man to believe that offense, illegal entry, had been committed, and therefore warrantless search wasjustified. United States v Nevarez-Alcantar (CA10 NM) 495 F2d 678 , cert den 419 US 878, 42 L. Ed. 2d 117, 95 S Ct 141 .

Van search at Immigration & Naturalization Border Patrol checkpoint 98 air miles from border was valid where experienced inspectors smelled marijuana order, saw expended marijuana cigarette in van's ashtray, and saw black plastic garbage bag sticking out of footlocker, since within 100 miles of border is within reasonable distance for stopping and searching vehicles for aliens, and since black bag is common container for transporting marijuana in area. U. S. v Anderson (CA10 NM) 468 F2d 1280 .

Customs house dock, as initial point of landfall, was functional equivalent of border, authorizing border search of vessel, where vessel and crew had neither touched land nor cleared customs after reentering United States waters. United States v Moreno (1985, CA11 Fla) 778 F2d 719 .

Government's search of suspicious airplane which was monitored and pursued as it made its way from Bahamas into United States and eventually landed on airstrip along Florida's west coast was valid border search where there was reasonable certainty that object of search had just crossed border, search took place at first practical point after border was crossed, and although there was 30 minute interval between plane's landing and search, customs agents maintained constant surveillance of plane from before it crossed border until time of search, so that there had not been time or opportunity for object searched to have changed materially since time of crossing; mere fact that contraband had been transferred from airplane to another vehicle before agents could land and conduct their search did not render aircraftimmune from valid border search. United States v Carter (1985, CA11 Fla) 760 F2d 1568, 18 Fed Rules Evid Serv 108 .

Contiguous zone is functional equivalent of border, and thus searches of vessels in zone are not circumscribed by probable cause requirement of Fourth Amendment. United States v Hidalgo-Gato (1983, CA11 Fla) 703 F2d 1267 .

Fourth Amendment does not prohibit customs officers from stopping boat capable of ocean travel on inland waters and inquiring into boat's port of origin, ownership, and documentation, even without reasonable suspension of illegal activity; cutoms officers who stopped defendant's vessel had reasonable suspicion of illegal activities sufficient to justify boarding of vessel where officers knew there was salt spray on boat, its curtains and cabin doors were closed, it appeared Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 96 to be riding low in water, previous day similar vessel carrying marijuana was stopped in same location, and, in response to question during initial stop, crew members replied that they did not know who owned vessel. United States v Gollwitzer (1983, CA11 Fla) 697 F2d 1357 .

Cargo vessel crew member was properly subjected to border search as he left dock area at second American port of call. U.S. v. Kayser, 322 F. Supp. 52 (S.D. Ga. 1970) .

Search of vehicle near border was justified as border search where search took place at approximately 11 o'clock at night in area not intended for travel by public, location was at international fence approximately 100 yards from port of entry, there was no other traffic, and general area was known to have high incidence of smuggling. State v Castro, 27 Ariz App 323, 554 P2d 919 .

Search of boat lying about 100 yards off Louisiana coast, and seizure of contraband located thereon, properly fell within border search exception to Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasoanble searches and seizures. State v Ordonez (1981, La) 395 So 2d 778 .

Search and seizure by customs officials of suitcase located in trunk of defendant's car as it was parked in parking lot of nightclub was held proper as extended border search where border patrol was notified that border sensor had been tripped, officers observed defendant walking from road frequently traveled by persons entering from Mexico and where officers also observed defendant placing large backpack in trunk of car subsequently searched. State v Gonzales (1981, App) 97 NM 182, 637 P2d 1237 .

Heroin seized from defendants on airport grounds, pursuant to search by United States customs officer after defendant had initially passed through customs following overseas flight, would not be suppressed since it was seized pursuant to valid "border search" for contraband under governing federal statute, which search could lawfully be based on mere suspicion and is of the broadest character and since, even though legality of such warrantless investigative stop depends upon its brevity and relative unintrusiveness, defendant had failed to assert that either of these two criteria was not in fact adhered to by customs agent who detained and searched him. In view of increased drug trafficking at United States borders, it must be considered reasonable that person's decision to cross border into country be coupled with expectation of routine search of his person and property and such expectation should in no way be lessened upon premise that initial customs inspection was passed without incident, while entrant is still on airport grounds. People v Siegfried (1982) 116 Misc 2d 784, 456 NYS2d 323 .

Roving border patrol agent was justified in making investigatory stop of vehicle with Texas license plates near New York- Canada border late on a mid-week night to seek proof of citizenship; vehicle was at odds with agent's observation of usual traffic in area, vehicle made series of improbable turns and appeared evasive to agent, and agent's job was to watch for aliens, smuggling, and contraband. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . People v. LaRose, 782 N.Y.S.2d 633 (County Ct. 2004) .

Post–entry border search by customs officers at Tennessee airport was valid where aircraft, enroute from Haiti, landed heavily laden at Gainesville, Florida, and remained there only long enough to refuel, where defendant had filed false flight plan for Miami, where aircraft was electronically monitored until its arrival in Tennessee, and where there was reasonable certainty that contraband was in aircraft at time of its initial entry. State v Blakely (1983, Tenn Crim) 677 SW2d 12 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 97 § 4[c] Geographical limitations; time and distance factors as affecting status as border search and seizure—Search at checkpoint or other location away from border held not valid border search [Cumulative Supplement] In the following cases, factors of time and distance were held to preclude a finding of a valid border search. Fifth Circuit United States v Fogelman (CA5 Ga) 586 F2d 337 , reh den (CA5 Ga) 592 F2d 786 and (ovrld United States v McBee (CA5 Ga) 659 F2d 1302 ), cert den Mc Bee v United States (1982) 456 US 949, 72 L Ed 2d 474, 102 S Ct 2020 ) United States v Johnson (CA5 Tex) 588 F2d 147 Ninth Circuit United States v One 1967 Cessna Aircraft, etc. (CD Cal) 454 F Supp 1352 District of Columbia Circuit Blackie's House of Beef, Inc. v Castillo (DC Dist Col) 467 F Supp 170 In a narcotics prosecution where a Texas constable testified that he received a telephone call from a customs agent in Loredo to exercise a lookout for defendant, and subsequently the constable checked traffic at an intersection which was 63 miles distant from Loredo, and stopped and searched an automobile in which defendant was riding, the courtin Marsh v United States (1965, CA5 Tex) 344 F2d 317 , reversing a conviction, held that the search was unlawful.

The court said that the right of border search is indeed broad and the border itself is elastic and that judged by Texas standards 63 miles was a small distance, and if the customs agents had any reason, even though not ordinarily measuring up to probable cause, it might, under all the circumstances, suffice to meet the constitutional test of reasonableness and amount to probable cause. The court said, however, that in this case there was simply no proof as to what, if anything, the customs agent on the border knew which caused him to telephone to the constable and ask him to arrest defendant.

The court continued that there was nothing more than the constable's bare conclusion that he had received a phone call from a customs agent in Loredo to exercise a lookout for defendant. The court also said that at the same time the record did show that the regular checkpoint was at the bridge, and there, according to the briefs, defendant was stopped and searched. Under such circumstances, said the court, the government's effort is to stretch the right of border search beyond the breaking point, for if the government seeks to qualify the action as a geographically "extended" border search, it must show at least the circumstances known to the officers at the border which reasonably justified the request relayed to officers in the interior. The court said that any other holding would render travelers who have recently entered this country subject to almost unlimited arrest and search without any cause save the simple request of a border officer to search at an interior point. In concluding, the court said that while a true border search is not regarded as unreasonable even though made without probable cause, border searches are not exempt from the constitutional test of reasonableness.

Attention is called to Cervantes v United States (1959, CA9 Cal) 263 F2d 800 , where a customs inspector had received a tip that defendant was trafficking in narcotics between Mexico and the United States, observed defendant talking to a known narcotics sender in Mexico on a couple of occasions, and issued orders that he be stopped at customs inspection stations upon his return to the United States. There was no evidence that defendant was stopped and searched at the border until some months after the agent had received the tip. On the day in question the defendant was driving between San Diego and Los Angeles when a patrol inspector of the Immigration and Naturalization service, and also an authorized customs inspector, stopped defendant's car at San Clemente, California, solely on the basis of the other agent's previous alert for possible suspects. A search of the car revealed narcotics concealed therein. Reversing a conviction for illegally importing narcotics, the court said that the government in this case did not contend that a showing of probable cause was excused because the search was made in connection with a border entry. In this connection, the court observed that an authorized federal official may upon unsupported suspicion stop and search persons and their vehicles entering this country, but that after the entry has been completed a search and seizure can be made only on a showing of probable cause. The court noted that the record did not reveal the elapsed time between defendant's entry in the United States on the day in question and his arrest at San Clemente. However, it said that it would take judicial notice of the fact that Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 98 San Clemente is more than 70 miles from the nearest port of entry from Mexico, and that there was no indication in the record that defendant had wrongfully eluded federal officials at the border, and he was not stopped at San Clemente in connection with a pursuit. The court said that insofar as the record reveals, therefore, his entry had been completed prior to the time he reached San Clemente, and the government did not contend otherwise. Upon a retrial, in United States v Cervantes (1959, DC Cal) 174 F Supp 398 , the trial court denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, holding that on the basis of all the facts and circumstances the officer had probable cause to stop and search the defendant. Sanchez Plazola v United States (1961, CA9 Cal) 291 F2d 56 (ovrld on other grounds Diaz-Rosendo v United States 357 F2d 124 , cert den 385 US 856, 17 L Ed 83, 87 S Ct 104 ), was a prosecution for unlawfully importing marijuana where the evidence showed that the Customs Service had received information that defendant had been hiring other persons to smuggle marijuana into the United States from Mexico, that he had been under investigation by the customs agency since March, 1959, and that on the day in question, while no new information had come to the attention of the Customs Service with respect to defendant's recent activities in Mexico, the customs agents followed his car after it crossed the border, and at least 2 hours after the crossing searched it some 50 or 60 miles north of the Mexican border. The search disclosed one leaf of marijuana, and the agents claimed that just prior to the search the defendant's car, along with another automobile, had engaged in unusual behavior, such as making two U–turns and other suspicious actions. In reversing a conviction the court held that this was not a "border search" that could lawfully be based on mere suspicion. In Contreras v United States (1961, CA9 Cal) 291 F2d 63 , where the court reversed a conviction of smuggling marijuana, defendants and their codefendant were stopped 72 miles north of the Mexican border by an inspector of the Immigration and Naturalization Service who was merely performing a routine check for illegal aliens. During the questioning of the occupants of the car he became suspicious of the actions of one of them and in the course of further questioning observed a paper sack covered by a leather jacket and bedspread in the car, whereupon he ordered all the occupants out of the car and searched the sack, which he found to contain marijuana. The court said that it could not believe that the search in this case could be sustained as a border search, since it was not made at or near the border, but 72 miles north of it, and there was no history of suspicious behavior at the border followed by surveillance or pursuit. Therefore, said the court,the search could only be sustained by proving that the agent had probable cause and the evidence did not support it. In United States v Selby (1969, CA9 Ariz) 407 F2d 241 , it appeared that defendants, after a cursory inspection of their vehicle, were allowed to pass into the United States, but that subsequently the customs inspector, upon learning that they were narcotics violators who had failed to register, notified the sheriff's office, located 40 miles north on the road taken by the defendants, to stop and return them so they could register, and that between 45 minutes and an hour later the sheriff's deputy stopped the defendants and escorted them back to the border, where a customs inspector detected and discovered marijuana hidden behind the door panel. Affirming the trial court's order suppressing the evidence on the ground that the discovered marijuana was inadmissible evidence since it had been illegally seized, the court observed that the trial court reasoned that since there had been an initial inspection, the successful search failed to qualify as aborder search not requiring probable cause. The court said that it found this analysis persuasive.

Where defendant's vehicle was stopped at an alien checkpoint 48 miles from the Mexican border, after it had been allowed to cross into the United States previously, and a search disclosed marijuana hidden under the panels in the truck, the court in Valenzuela-Garcia v United States (1970, CA9 Cal) 425 F2d 1170 , reversing a conviction for smuggling marijuana, held that under the test of Alexander v United States (1966, CA9 Ariz) 362 F2d 379 , § 4[a] , cert den 385 US 977, 17 L Ed 439, 87 S Ct 519 , the search in question could not qualify as a border search. In this connection the court observed that the defendant was not under constant surveillance from the time he crossed the international border, and that furthermore he had traveled a relatively great distance from the border before being stopped.

And see United States v Hortze (1959, DC Cal) 179 F Supp 913 , where immigration inspectors on duty at a checkpoint 18 miles north of Oceanside in San Diego County, California, on U.S. Highway 101, while checking northbound traffic looking for illegally entered aliens, stopped defendants' automobile and while questioning them regarding their Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 99 immigration status discovered a package labeled Salem cigarettes in the car, an examination of which disclosed that it contained marijuana cigarettes. In a prosecution for illegal importation of marijuana, the court granted defendant's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that it had been obtained as the result of an unlawful search. The court noted that the officers participating in the search were on duty in a dual capacity as immigration officers and as customs officers, and said that they had the right under the statute to search the car "for aliens," but that when the inspectors discovered the Salem cigarette package it was obvious that they did not expect to discover an alien inside of it, and the inspectors, being limited only to searching for aliens, could not lawfully seize the marijuana contained in the package.

The court said, however, that this question would not have arisen had the marijuana tablets been discovered at the border port of entry where the officers have carte blanche power to search for evidence of customs violations. In conclusion the court said that absent a search warrant or probable cause, individuals ought not to be delayed in their travel along the boundaries of our country, nor their effects disturbed to an extent not necessary for the conduct of a bona fide searchfor aliens. CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Absent consent or probable cause, Border Patrol officers may not search private vehicles at traffic checkpoints removed from border and its functional equivalents, and for this purpose there is no difference between checkpoint and rovingpatrol. United States v Oritz, 422 US 891, 45 L. Ed. 2d 623, 95 S Ct 2585 .

Border patrol agent's pursuit of passing car and stopping it north of closed fixed checkpoint was characteristic of roving patrol, and consequently illegal where agent had no fact other than that defendant looked to be Mexican upon which tobase alleged founded suspicion. United States v Brignoni-Ponce, 422 US 873, 45 L. Ed. 2d 607, 95 S Ct 2574 .

Search of automobile by roving border patrol about 25 miles north of Mexican border on east–west highway which lay at all points at least 20 miles from border, where patrol had no search warrant, no probable cause to search, and no reasonable suspicion for stop, was invalid; government argument that search was permissible because analogous with administrative inspections was rejected, because those precedents involved federally licensed and regulated enterprises, while defendant in instant case was not engaged in any regulated or licensed business; government argument that 8 U.S.C.A. § 1357(a) and 8 CFR § 287.1 , which provide for warrantless searches "within a reasonable distance [100 air miles] from any external boundary," was also rejected, since statute could in no way be interpreted in manner consistent with Fourth Amendment; although border searches may take place not only at border itself, but at "functional equivalent" of border, search in this case could not be so characterized. Almeida-Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L. Ed.

2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 .

Although airports where flights first arrived from foreign areas are considered functional equivalents of borders and searches are allowed without warrants on special authority of customs officers, airport in Puerto Rico could not be considered border for search purposes where there was no evidence that flight in question was international flight, extraterritorial origin of flight was never established, no proof was presented to show that international flights arrived at airport, and airport was not listed as international airport of entry for civil aircraft. United States v Ferrone (DC Puerto Rico) 413 F Supp 408 .

Per se reasonableness of searches at borders and their functional equivalents did not apply to border patrol agents' investigatory stop of defendant's vehicle on road extending along international border; stop was conducted by a roving patrol, not at a checkpoint, and was on a road with significant domestic traffic. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Singh, 415 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2005) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 100 Although "border search" exception would not justify searches of homes or business establishments, search of vans and trucks at marina was "border search," and thus reasonable under Fourth Amendment, where lieutenant ordered marina searched while he was searching for contraband that he was reasonably certain had just entered United States from highseas. United States v St. Prix (1982, CA2 NY) 672 F2d 1077 , cert den 456 US 992, 73 L Ed 2d 1287, 102 S Ct 2274 .

Interrogation of alien bus passenger by border patrol agent during "roving patrol" when agent boarded bus 10 miles from border checkpoint was not functional equivalent of border search. Accordingly, alien's motion to suppress evidence ofbus ticket and passport taken from him held properly granted. United States v Barbera (CA2 NY) 514 F2d 294 .

In prosecution for bringing illegal alien across Canadian border, stop of car and roadside questioning was not part of extended border search where car was stopped two hours after initial crossing, stop was several miles inland away from border, defendant had not traveled directly from border to where he was stopped, and extended border search doctrine, which had grown out of special circumstances of Mexican border, did not apply in this case. United States v Weston (1981, WD NY) 519 F Supp 565 .

Border Patrol agents did not have probable cause to stop vehicle 54 miles from nearest border crossing point, and conduct subsequent search thereof upon detecting odor of marijuana, where Border Patrol agents, acting as roving patrol, stopped defendant on sole bases that defendant, while stopped at intersection across from agents, avoided making eye contact with agents, had out–of–county license plates, and defendant's car was riding high in rear and had air shock absorbers; officers on roving patrol may search only on basis of probable cause, and vital element is whether agents had reason to believe that vehicle in question had come from border; because of defendant's location, it was pure speculation to conclude that defendant's journey originated at border, defendant's failure to make eye contact cannot be given any weight, and fact that trunk of defendant's automobile was riding high does not warrant inference that it might haveconcealed aliens. United States v Lopez (CA5 Tex) 564 F2d 710 .

Probable cause to search vehicle did not exist where border patrol agents on roving patrol stopped and searched vehicle, having been alerted to vehicle by electronic sensor and observed that vehicle had out–of–county license plates, traveled in proximity to commercial bus, occupants of vehicle pretended to ignore presence of border patrol vehicle, and hay being carried in back of vehicle was so arranged as to provide air vents for illegal immigrants; probable cause to conduct search depends upon totality of circumstances, and one making search should be aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, which reasonably warrant suspicion that vehicle was engaged in illegal activity. United States v Escamilla (CA5 Tex) 560 F2d 1229 .

No warrant or showing of probable cause is required to support searches which take place at functional equivalent of border; search of passengers and cargo of airplane arriving in internal United States airport after nonstop flight from without United States would clearly be search at functional equivalent of border; search at checkpoint "might be" functional equivalent of border search, if facts and circumstances with respect to location provided necessary degree of certainty that persons and objects passing through that location were entering country unchecked; but search warrant for probable cause was required for search of aircraft where it could be shown that aircraft's flight originated outside ofUnited States. United States v Brennan (CA5 Fla) 538 F2d 711 , reh den (CA5 Fla) 542 F2d 575 .

Checkpoint was not permanent checkpoint serving as functional equivalent of border where most of equipment used at checkpoint was entirely mobile, checkpoint was operated only occasionally, and checkpoint did not function in manner similar to station located at border itself since there was no showing that vehicles passing through were likely to have recently crossed border or that area was natural collecting point for illegal aliens and since checkpoint was located on route between two large metropolitan areas; search of vehicle at checkpoint without probable cause was, therefore,violative of Fourth Amendment. United States v Calvillo (CA5 Tex) 537 F2d 158 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 101 Border Patrol agents conducting mobile traffic check at intersection 70 miles from Mexican border did not have authority to stop vehicle to check for illegal aliens where they were not aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warranted suspicion that vehicles contained aliens who might have been illegally in country, and mere fact that vehicle was believed to have tripped metal detecting device on most direct route from Mexican border was not sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion; search of vehicle prompted by detection of odor of marijuana after vehicle had been stopped in search for illegal alien was therefore wrongful. United States v Shields (CA5 Tex) 534 F2d 605 .

Warrantless search of vehicle was not functional equivalent of border search where, inter alia, search occurred seven hours and approximately 300 miles after truck crossed Mexican border, agents had complete, detailed, and reliable knowledge of itinerary and destination of vehicle, control of vehicle was by cooperating informer, and agents had made thorough surveillance and general preparedness for search at truck's destination. United States v Mitchell (CA5 Tex) 525 F2d 1275 , vacated on other gnds (CA5 Tex) 538 F2d 1230 .

Evidence secured in search of car 56 miles from border was improperly admitted in prosecution under 21 U.S.C.A. § 841 where sole justification offered was extension of Thompson's extended border search rule, pertaining to car licensed out– of–state taking circuitous route, to car licensed out–of–county taking direct route. United States v Newell (CA5 Tex) 506 F2d 401 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 510 F2d 384 .

Search of defendant's vehicle after chase constituted border search, where patrolman had during early morning hours observed defendant's vehicle coming from a known river crossing without lights and had pursued defendant's vehicle through cotton fields at a high rate of speed to a distance of some miles from the border. United States v Rogers (CA5 Tex) 504 F2d 1079 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 509 F2d 576 , and cert den 422 US 1042, 45 L. Ed. 2d 693, 95 S Ct 2655 .

Border search conducted some 16 miles from border under no reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and without consent was invalid. United States v Diemier (CA5 Tex) 498 F2d 1070 (citing annotation).

Search of suitcases by customs agents at airport, following tip that owners of suitcases would be flying between 2 points in Texas and that suitcases contained marijuana, was invalid, and marijuana found in suitcases would be suppressed, because search could not be termed "functional equivalent" of search at border; there was no substantial connection with actual or suspected border crossing by person or thing to be searched, and mere fact that airport was near border in area where many illegal acts take place was not enough to justify warrantless search as "border" search. United States v Lonabaugh (CA5 Tex) 494 F2d 1257 .

Government did not carry its burden of demonstrating that warrantless search fit within perimeters of border search rationale, where search was made of car which had itself neither crossed nor come in direct contact with border on any occasion, car having been under surveillance both because it contained 3 persons who had crossed border some days earlier, 1 of whom, according to customs office computer, had previously crossed border in possession of marijuana seeds, and because of 2 tips to agents indicating that individuals were in U.S. to purchase narcotics at U.S. city; since (1) tips did not contain any reference to or intimation of Mexican transaction or contact, (2) search was effected at point almost 100 miles from border, and (3) border crossing had occurred 4 days before search, there was no substantial connection of any sort with border as of time of search, and search could not be characterized as border search. United States v Bursey (CA5 Tex) 491 F2d 531 .

Search conducted by border patrol agents about 55 miles from Mexican border, where agents testified that they had not noticed anything unusual when they approached automobile to conduct routine investigation for aliens and that they had been assigned to area to make routine immigration inspections of vehicles, was not justifiable as border search, andmarijuana found in search of vehicle was inadmissible. United States v McKin (CA5 Tex) 487 F2d 305 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 102 Search of car by roving border patrol of officers of U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service was invalid where testimony showed that driver had proved he was U.S. citizen and had valid Texas driver's license and there were no other facts to arouse officer's suspicions that driver was transporting illegal alien; fact that road on which automobile was stopped ran directly from border made no constitutional difference, because search was made 45 miles from border and officers did not have any reason to believe that driver had even crossed border or had been in contact with anyone who had. United States v Byrd (CA5 Tex) 483 F2d 1196 , on reh (CA5 Tex) 494 F2d 1284 , petition den (CA5 Tex) 520 F2d 1101 .

Warrantless search of camper–trailer 55 miles from border was invalid, where such search was conducted by customs officials despite state law officers' request to desist, and occurred in absence of any record fact, supported or notsupported, which could justifiably arouse federal officers' suspicions. U. S. v Storm (CA5 Tex) 480 F2d 701 .

Warrantless, exploratory search of boat by customs officers who were outside bounds of border search when they entered boat, and where customs agents did not possess any reliable information suggesting necessity of immediate search, was not valid as extended border search. U. S. v Caraway (CA5 Fla) 474 F2d 25 , vacated on other grounds (CA5 Fla) 483 F2d 215 .

Brignoni factor for determining whether a border patrol agent has reasonable suspicion to justify an investigatory stop of a vehicle, which addresses information about recent border crossings in the area, would not support finding that border patrol agent had reasonable suspicion so as to justify investigatory stop of defendant's vehicle, where there was no information regarding recent smuggling activity in the area or involving defendant's vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend.

4 . U.S. v. Vega, 99 F. Supp. 3d 644 (M.D. La. 2015) .

See U. S. v Cusanelli (DC Ohio) 357 F Supp 678 , affd (CA6 Ohio) 472 F2d 1204 , cert den 412 US 953, 37 L. Ed. 2d 1006, 93 S Ct 3003 , where the court, although upholding search as valid on other grounds, ruled that where customs officers followed aircraft from Bahamas and did not search plane when it landed and refueled at Florida airstrip, but waited to conduct search until after plane had landed in Ohio and its cargo was transferred to truck–mounted campers, validity of search of camper could not be tested under standards applicable to border searches , since search was not made in geographical area within reasonable extension of immediate entry point.

Border patrol stops of automobiles in central part of state of Washington made solely because of Hispanic appearance of occupants, type of automobile, or time of day and year are unreasonable. Nicacio v United States Immigration & Naturalization Service (1985, CA9 Wash) 768 F2d 1133 , rereported, amd (CA9 Wash) 797 F2d 700 .

Where customs agent did not see truck in which heroin was discovered until it was three miles north of border in middle of busy border town, agents could not have reasonably been certain that truck had recently crossed border or that it contained drugs which had recently crossed border, and where there was 90 minute gap in surveillance of truck, customs agents could not have reasonably been certain that any contraband found in truck had crossed border; thus, search could not be justified as extended border search. United States v Perez (1981, CA9 Ariz) 644 F2d 1299 , later app United States v Perez (1982, CA9 Ariz) 689 F2d 1336 .

Checkpoint was not permanent but only temporary where it had been intermittently operated by Border Patrol for 25 years, location of which varied from 3 to 7 miles west of Salton City, equipment being brought to site each time from another checkpoint, checkpoint being used between 6 and 24 hours per month, marked by small "stop ahead" sign 100– 200 yards in advance with battery–operated blinking yellow lights, half a dozen traffic cones, stop sign, and border patrol vehicle facing traffic, and when car approaches, officer in patrol car activates car's flashing red lights, with no electrical connections, buildings, or other indications of permanence were available at checkpoint, and stops without foundedsuspicion at such checkpoint constitutes unlawful seizure. United States v Maxwell (CA9 Cal) 565 F2d 596 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 103 Provisions of 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 do not authorize customs officers to open and search first class letters from abroad without notice or consent of addressees and without any cause to suspect that such letters contain either contraband or dutiable merchandise; customs officers must have reasonable cause to suspect that first class mail contains contraband or dutiable merchandise and, in absence of reasonable cause, opening of mail is not authorized, and court does not needto consider constitutional questions. De Vries v Acree (CA9 Cal) 565 F2d 577 .

Border patrol officers had no basis for reasonable suspicion that illegal activity was afoot where defendant was observed driving 2½ miles from border on highway in notorious smuggling area, defendant's 10 year old car was dust–free, unfamiliar to border patrol officers, had large trunk, and bore out–of–town license plate frame; when law enforcement officer signals motorist to stop by use of sign or red light, there has been seizure which must be justified under Fourth Amendment [ U.S. Const. Amend. 4 ], and seizure occurs when officer first communicates command to halt, so that command must be valid when given, and validity is not conferred by motorist's response to signal to stop. United States v Morrison (CA9 Cal) 546 F2d 319 . 19 U.S.C.A. § 1581(a) , purporting to empower customs officials to go onboard and search at any time any vessel in United States waters or "customs waters" would not be interpreted to authorize customs officials to conduct search of boat after following van and trailer, which was transporting boat, for about 20 miles on highway since although such search might seem to be within literal language of section, literal interpretation would violate Fourth Amendment. United States v Jones (CA9 Cal) 528 F2d 303 , cert den 425 US 960, 48 L. Ed. 2d 206, 96 S Ct 1745 .

Stop and search of pick–up truck was not justified merely because border was a quarter of a mile away and customs officer had observed defendant loading something on truck at 6:20 a.m. United States v Torres-Urena (CA9 Cal) 513 F2d 540 .

Stop and search of defendant's station wagon at San Clemente immigration checkpoint approximately 66 miles from border on September 20, 1973, violated Fourth Amendment rights, and consequently, marijuana found in spare tire wellshould have been suppressed. United States v Juarez-Rodriguez (CA9 Cal) 498 F2d 7 .

Government's claim that search of pickup truck was functional equivalent of border search was frivolous, since vehicle was not searched until 4 hours after its lawful entry from Mexico. United States v Hamilton (CA9 Cal) 490 F2d 598 , cert den 419 US 880, 42 L. Ed. 2d 120, 95 S Ct 145 .

Search of vehicle could not be justified on grounds of probable cause or totality of circumstances where, at time of search, vehicle was remote in both time and space from border and had not recently crossed border, where there was no showing that it contained goods which had just crossed border illegally, and where there had been no continuous surveillance; neither could search be justified as routine investigatory stop, despite seeming impatience of occupants, wet clothes, brown paper bag picked up from another vehicle, and erratic driving, where customs agents were actively seeking contraband and were not, like local or state police, general guardians of public peace. U. S. v Majourau (CA9 Cal) 474 F2d 766 .

Search of vehicle was not valid as border search, where vehicle had been searched upon crossing border, and subsequent surveillance thereof had been broken by 10–minute interval during which vehicle stopped to take on passengers, since itcould also have been loaded during such period. U. S. v Petersen (CA9 Ariz) 473 F2d 874 .

Search of car and driver was not valid border search where car cleared inspection at port of entry with declared bottle of tequila and unreliable unfavorable computer data report on driver, and agents lost sight of car for 3 hours beforesighting it proceeding fast with additional occupant, followed by another car. U. S. v Portillo (CA9 Ariz) 469 F2d 907 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 104 Search at border checkpoint 56 miles north of border, by agents authorized to search vehicles for concealed aliens, was invalid where agents opened two footlockers in car trunk, neither of which was large enough to conceal human being, on pretext that lockers could have concealed alien if opened at ends and joined together, since agents could have pushedlockers apart. U. S. v Lujan-Romero (CA9 Cal) 469 F2d 683 .

Search of pickup truck was unlawful, and evidence obtained therefrom suppressed, where border patrol agent, while in process of establishing portable border checkpoint, stopped approaching pickup truck by turning on red overhead bar lights on patrol vehicle, and did not recognize defendant as one recently arrested for smuggling aliens, until pickup truck proceeded slowly through checkpoint without stopping; seizure under Fourth Amendment [ U.S. Const. Amend. 4 ], must be established at time when law enforcement officer signals motorist to stop by use of siren or red light, and where portable checkpoint has not been fully set up, and traffic volume and other factors do not justify permanent checkpoint, rules requiring stop at permanent checkpoint do not apply, and there must be probable cause to stop vehicle. United States v Sandoval-Ruano (DC Cal) 436 F Supp 734 .

Search by border patrol agent at turnpike gate over 700 miles from Mexican border could not be considered as border search, and validity of search would necessarily be tested by existence of probable cause. United States v Newman (CA10 Okla) 490 F2d 993 .

A warrantless search, without probable cause, of an automobile for illegal aliens at a checkpoint some 98 air miles from the border was violative of Fourth Amendment, and marijuana discovered by such search, should be suppressed, unless the checkpoint search should be deemed the "functional equivalent" of a border search. United States v Maddox (CA10 NM) 485 F2d 361 (disapproved on other grounds Bowen v United States, 422 US 916, 45 L. Ed. 2d 641, 95 S Ct 2569 ) (remanding case for determination as to whether such checkpoint was the functional equivalent of a border search).

A search of an automobile for aliens, without warrant and without probable cause, at fixed checkpoint 98 miles away from external boundary, is unlawful, unless particular fixed checkpoint be in fact functional equivalent of border search. United States v King (CA10 NM) 485 F2d 353 (disapproved on other grounds Bowen v United States, 422 US 916, 45 L.

Ed. 2d 641, 95 S Ct 2569 ) (remanding case to trial court for determination, after hearing and upon notice, as to whether such fixed checkpoint was "functional equivalent" of border search).

Whereas at fixed traffic checkpoints at border or its functional equivalent, vehicles may be routinely stopped, in complete absence of suspicious circumstances, for limited purpose of inquiring about citizenship, before vehicle may be stopped by roving patrol, even for this limited purpose, officers must have sufficient articulable facts to create reasonable suspicion that vehicles occupants are in violation of law; marijuana found when vehicles were stopped by roving border patrol was not admissible where only articulable fact known to officers at time of stop were that two vehicles appeared to be traveling north together on highway, that vehicles appeared to be same ones seen 4 hours earlier traveling south on same road, that both vehicles were large enough to carry illegal aliens, and that second vehicle and trailer appeared to be somewhat heavily loaded; these observations, in and of themselves, were manifestly insufficient to create reasonable suspicion that vehicles contained illegal aliens, and it was apparent that vehicles were stopped not because their conduct created suspicion in minds of veteran border patrolmen, but because officers were acting under orders to stop all vehicles capable of carrying concealed illegal aliens at or proceeding north on particular highway. U. S. v. Himmelwright, 406 F. Supp. 889 (S.D. Fla. 1975) , judgment aff'd, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977) .

Search of defendant's 25–foot pleasure boat while it was docked at pier, by customs port inspector acting on call from dock master, who had told customs agent that several persons had been visiting defendant's boat every night and that it was suspected that occupants might be selling narcotics or that narcotics might be aboard, was not justifiable as border search where there was no evidence of border crossing by defendant or his vessel, no evidence that defendant had been in contact with those who had crossed border, and no evidence that defendant's vessel contained unauthorized aliens or contraband; drugs found on boat during search should have been suppressed. Earnest v State (Fla App) 293 So 2d 111 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 105 Stop and search of vehicle 25 to 30 miles from Mexican border without warrant or probable cause at checkpoint which was not permanent violated Supreme Court's decision in United States v Ortiz, 422 US 891, 45 L Ed 2d 623, 95 S Ct 2585 , which extended Court's decision in Almeida-Sanchez v United States, 413 US 266, 37 L Ed 2d 596, 93 S Ct 2535 and held that at traffic checkpoints removed from border and its functional equivalents officers may not search private vehicles without consent or probable cause. Tamez v State (Tex Crim) 534 SW2d 686 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 5[a] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Generally [Cumulative Supplement] As previously noted in § 3[a] , supra, the right to make a search at the border does not depend upon a showing of probable cause, but may be made on the basis of mere suspicion alone. The nature and extent of the search, however, are governed by the constitutional test of reasonableness. Thus, it seems that while the merest suspicion may reasonably warrant a search of a person's clothing, luggage, vehicle, or the like, something more is required to justify an intrusive search of the body. 18 This distinction has been recognized in a number of recent cases wherein the courts expressed the view that mere suspicion alone is not sufficient to justify an intrusive body search, but rather there must be a "clear indication" or "plain suggestion" that the suspect is attempting to smuggle contraband goods into the country: Rivas v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 368 F2d 703 , cert den 386 US 945, 17 L Ed 875, 87 S Ct 980, infra § 5[b] ; Henderson v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 390 F2d 805, infra § 5[d] ; Huguez v United States (1968, CA9 Cal) 406 F2d 366, infra § 5[b] ; Morales v United States (1969, CA9 Cal) 406 F2d 1298, infra § 5[d] ; United States v Castle (1969, CA9 Ariz) 409 F2d 1347 , cert den 396 US 975, 24 L Ed 443, 90 S Ct 443 , reh den 396 US 1063, 24 L Ed 757, 90 S Ct 760, infra § 5[b] ; Thompson v United States (1969, CA9 Cal) 411 F2d 946, infra § 5[b] ; United States v Briones (1970, CA5 Tex) 423 F2d 742, infra § 5[c] ; United States v Johnson (1970, CA9 Cal) 425 F2d 631, infra § 5[e] . See also United States v Cortez (1968, DC Cal) 281 F Supp 888, infra § 5[d] .

Also holding body search not unconstitutional under circumstances shown: Fifth Circuit United States v Carter (CA5 Fla) 590 F2d 138 , cert den 441 US 908, 60 L. Ed. 2d 378, 99 S Ct 2001 United States v Klein (CA5 Fla) 592 F2d 909 The cases dealing with such body searches are hereinafter treated according to the particular type of physical search involved. CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Detention of traveler at international border, beyond scope of routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception when customs agents, considering all facts surrounding traveler and traveler's trip, reasonably suspect that traveler is smuggling contraband in alimentary canal; under this standard, border officials must have particularized and objective basis for suspecting particular person of alimentary canal smuggling; under circumstances, detention for almost 16 hours is not unreasonably long. U.S. v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 105 S. Ct. 3304, 87 L. Ed. 2d 381 (1985) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 106 Even if customs officer's warrantless inspection and copying of defendant's notebook, which contained travel information, business contacts, and bank and trading data, at international airport upon defendant's return from trip abroad was not routine, such search was justified under the Fourth Amendment, as it was supported by reasonable suspicion; officer was aware, based on information provided by Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) task force, that defendant was the target of an ongoing federal securities fraud investigation. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Levy, 803 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2015) .

In cocaine importing prosecution, search of defendant–importer was routine border search, notwithstanding that customs agents told defendant to remove his shoes for close inspection, since not every request that person remove article of clothing will result in automatic transformation of routine search of belongings into strip search requiring "reasonable suspicion" standard in that request to remove shoes is not likely to result in degree of embarrassment or indignity to person to warrant imposition of "reasonable suspicion" requirement as precondition to such request. United States v Nieves (1979, CA2 NY) 609 F2d 642 , cert den (US) 62 L Ed 2d 771, 100 S Ct 1044 .

Pat–down conducted by customs inspector on female airline passenger at airport customs checkpoint was routine border search, and thus, did not violate passenger's Fourth Amendment rights, even without reasonable suspicion by customs inspector of criminal activity and even if customs inspector pushed on passenger's breasts and her external genitalia, where female customs inspector conducted pat–down, in the presence of another officer, over passenger's clothing, andwithout touching passenger's skin. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . Bradley v. U.S., 299 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2002) .

For a non-routine search at the border, such as cavity searches, strip searches, and x-ray examinations, officials must reasonably suspect the traveler is smuggling contraband. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . Bustillos v. El Paso County Hospital District, 891 F.3d 214 (5th Cir. 2018) .

Border agent did not exceed bounds of permissible Terry stop in asking suspect to empty his pockets and raise his shirt, so that agent could check for weapons, where agent did not touch suspect. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Reyes, 349 F.3d 219 (5th Cir. 2003) .

Search by customs officer that involved visual inspection of defendant's leg below knee after request that she lift her slacks was minimally intrusive search of her person; officer's observation that defendant's lower leg between her knee and ankle was unusually bulky provided reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. United States v Rice (1981, CA5 Fla) 635 F2d 409 .

Alien who has been held in physical custody of entry official since moment of entry, without having been allowed 1 moment to move about free of custody, continues to "stand at the border" for border search purposes; body search, 1 week after entry, of alien continuously so held in custody was valid border search. U. S. v Cristancho-Puerto (CA5 Fla) 475 F2d 1025 , cert den 414 US 869, 38 L. Ed. 2d 115, 94 S Ct 181 .

Border patrol agents were justified in patting down defendant for officer safety; search of trunk revealed signs of possible narcotics trafficking, including neat arrangement of luggage and plastic wrapping protruding from one of open bags. U.S. v. Long, 196 F. Supp. 2d 461 (W.D. Tex. 2002) .

X-rays of defendant's bag at airport was part of routine border security permissibly conducted without any suspicion, under border search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement; defendant suffered no personal indignity nor health risk by x-ray exam of her bag.

U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Lawson, 374 F. Supp. 2d 513 (E.D. Ky. 2005) .

Strip–search principles requiring "reasonable" or "real" suspicion are inapplicable to pat–down searches; however, pat– down search at border requires some level of suspicion and what is required is balancing in particular case of level of Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 107 suspicion of agent against level of indignity perpetrated upon traveler. United States v Dorsey (1981, CA7 Ill) 641 F2d 1213 .

Customs officials had reasonable suspicion that contraband was secreted under clothing, permitting strip search consistent with Fourth Amendment, of African–American woman at airport upon her return from Jamaica; agent conducting pat–down search felt something between complainant's legs, not having characteristics of sanitary pad, and search was discontinued as soon as agent saw object was improvised sanitary pad. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . Anderson v. Cornejo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2003) .

Although the government's inherent authority to conduct border searches may be limited to searches that are not unreasonably destructive, the search of a vehicle's spare tire, which neither damages the vehicle nor decreases the safety or operation of the vehicle, is not so destructive as to be unreasonable. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cortez-Rocha, 383 F.3d 1093 (9th Cir. 2004) .

Order permitting x–ray of defendant was not based on clear indication that defendant was carrying contraband in body cavity where, although circumstances at time of search indicated some wrongdoing, these circumstances did not adequately focus suspicion on body cavity smuggling. United States v Quintero-Castro (1983, CA9 Cal) 705 F2d 1099 (disagreed with United States v Vega-Barvo (CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1341 , cert den (US) 83 L Ed 2d 706, 105 S Ct 597 ) and (disapproved United States v Montoya De Hernandez (US) 87 L. Ed. 2d 381, 105 S Ct 3304 ).

While skin search, sometimes called strip search, requires real suspicion directed specifically to person being searched, body cavity search requires more in that there must be clear indication or plain suggestion that contraband may be located in a body cavity; however, inspection of surface of body in anal area in permissible in skin search. U. S. v Sosa (CA9 Cal) 469 F2d 271 , cert den 410 US 945, 35 L. Ed. 2d 612, 93 S Ct 1399 .

Mere suspicion does not justify skin search or body cavity search; there must be real suspicion supported by objective and articulable facts. Shorter v U. S. (CA9 Hawaii) 469 F2d 61 , cert den 411 US 918, 36 L. Ed. 2d 310, 93 S Ct 1555 .

Validity of body search depends on existence of real suspicion, directed specifically at person to be searched, that he was carrying contraband; existence of real suspicion turns on showing of objective, articulable facts that would lead experienced, prudent customs official to suspect that contraband is concealed on body of person to be searched.

U. S.

v Williams (CA9 Cal) 459 F2d 44 .

Accused's detention in customs office room while his car was subjected to border search did not invalidate search even though he could not see what was going on. U. S. v Rodriguez-Lopez (CA9 Ariz) 441 F2d 731 .

Strip search requires real suspicion directed specifically to person to be searched; real suspicion is subjective suspicion supported by objective, articulable facts which would reasonably lead experienced, prudent customs official to suspect that a particular person seeking to cross border is concealing something on his body for purpose of transporting it illegallyinto United States. U. S. v Espinoza (DC Cal) 338 F Supp 1304 .

Only minimal suspicion is necessary in order to require defendant to remove boots in search of person, and such search does not constitute "strip search" for which higher degree of suspicion is required. United States v Fitzgibbon (CA10 Colo) 576 F2d 279 , cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 256, 99 S Ct 279 .

Once the reasonable suspicion standard has been met to justify a detention at the border, the government may detain a suspected internal smuggler for the time needed to conduct an x-ray examination. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Roberts, 357 Fed. Appx. 226 (11th Cir. 2009) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 108 Conviction for importing cocaine would be affirmed, despite defendant's contention, among others, that trial court erred in denying motion to suppress evidence of cocaine discovered during search by customs inspectors of defendant's artificial leg, since degree of suspicion was sufficient to justify uncoerced body–cavity search, and search of defendant's artificial leg, not involving physical contact between customs inspectors and defendant, not being accomplished by force, and not requiring exposure of intimate body parts, was less intrusive than justifiable uncoerced body–cavity search. United States v McMurray (1984, CA11 Fla) 747 F2d 1417 .

Custom inspectors need not seek search warrant to perform either x–ray search of person or any other type of border search. United States v Vega-Barvo (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1341 , cert den 469 US 1088, 83 L Ed 2d 706, 105 S Ct 597 .

Reasonable suspicion is required for a strip search at border. U.S. Const. Amend. IV ; 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 ; Tariff Act of 1930, § 582 , 19 U.S.C.A. § 1582 . State v. Green, 346 N.J. Super. 87, 787 A.2d 186 (App. Div. 2001) .

Under the border search doctrine, routine searches at checkpoint at international border include patdowns, frisks, luggage searches, and automobile searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . State v. Sanchez, 2015-NMSC-018, 350 P.3d 1169 (N.M. 2015) . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 5[b] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Rectal searches [Cumulative Supplement] The fact that smugglers frequently make use of body cavities to conceal narcotics has been judicially recognized. 19 In an effort to prevent the importation of illicit drugs by such means, customs agents sometimes find it necessary to conduct a physical search of the rectal areas of suspected smugglers. In the following cases such searches were upheld as valid border searches .

A conviction for unlawfully importing narcotics into the United States was affirmed in Denton v United States (1962, CA9 Ariz) 310 F2d 129 , where the court held that an intrusive body search of defendant's rectal area in which he had secreted a packet of marijuana constituted a valid border search. In that case the evidence showed that a Treasury Department investigator was advised by a reliable informant that a person answering the description of defendant, as to physical characteristics and clothing worn, had been seen talking to a known narcotics peddler in Mexico and negotiating for the purchase of a quantity of heroin. The agent immediately placed lookouts at inspection stations on the border, and later when defendant approached one of these stations on foot another customs agent recognized him from the Treasury agent's description, and the Treasury agent, who was also at the station, asked the defendant to disrobe. An examination of defendant's person was made by the Treasury agent, who saw a shiny clear substance similar to vaseline in and around defendant's rectal area. The agent then asked defendant if he would submit to a physical examination and when he agreed to do so he was taken to an inspection station where another customs agent recognized defendant as a suspected smuggler whom the agent had searched 5 months previously. Defendant was then taken to a doctor's office where he objected to the examination, and while the doctor, using accepted medical techniques, attempted several times to make an examination of the rectum and anal canal, he was not able to do so because of defendant's struggling. This doctor then called in another doctor who also unsuccessfully attempted to examine defendant. The second doctor then inserted a suppository in an effort to produce a bowel movement and when this also was unsuccessful he requested permission to give defendant some nembutal intravenously in hopes that this would make the defendant sleepy and thereby enable an examination to be made. Defendant agreed to the injection but while it was going on he verbally objected and physically resisted. After defendant became quiet and settled the second doctor attempted another rectal examination and at this Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 109 time he felt a foreign object. After all these attempted examinations defendant was told to put on his clothes and was taken to jail. A clean can or bucket was procured and defendant was placed in a private inclosure and about an hour after he arrived at the jail he used the can for a bowel movement. At this time another customs agent at the jail also recognized defendant as being a smuggler. When defendant completed his bowel movement the agent went to the can and removed a rubber contraceptive which contained heroin. Stating that the test for admissibility of evidence seized during a search of a person entering the United States from a foreign country is whether the search was reasonable under the circumstances, the court said that in applying this test in the instant case it found that the officers had information which they considered reliable to the effect that the defendant had negotiated for narcotics in Mexico, that there was evidence that within a short time after his arrival he was recognized by a customs agent as having been searched some 5 months previously, and that again, later the same evening, he was recognized by another customs agent as being one of two men who had previously been searched as suspected narcotics smugglers. The court said that the officers knew that it was common procedure or practice to bring narcotics across the border in body cavities, and that when the Treasury Department agent saw the clear shiny substance similar to vaseline around the defendant's rectal area, there was indeed ample evidence to warrant the search as made in the accepted and customary manner, under sanitary conditions. In conclusion the court said that nowhere during the entire search and examination, to and including the recovery of theevidence, did it find anything unreasonable under the circumstances, or shocking to the conscience.

Attention is called to Ng Pui Yu v United States (1965, CA9 Cal) 352 F2d 626 , where the evidence showed that a customs agent received a tip from an informant that certain Chinese crewmen from a Norwegian merchant ship would smuggle opium into the country; that, having no prior knowledge that this information was reliable, the agent made an investigation and discovered the names of several of the crewmen in his files; that he then placed them under surveillance and several were followed to the defendant's apartment on a number of occasions; that on the second day of the surveillance three crewmen left the ship and were stopped by customs officers who notified them of their intentions and took them to nearby unoccupied premises where they were searched and delivered containers of suspected opium which each had concealed in his rectal cavity. The defendant was subsequently arrested at his apartment and was found in possession of opium. Although the opium obtained from the defendant was not obtained as the result of a border search, the court, in affirming the conviction of defendant, pointed out that the search of the three crewmen was a border searchand that the right of border search does not depend upon probable cause.

A forcible search of defendant's rectum which disclosed a packet of narcotics was held to have constituted a valid border search in Rivas v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 368 F2d 703 , cert den 386 US 945, 17 L Ed 2d 875, 87 S Ct 980 , where the court affirmed a conviction for the illegal importation of narcotics. In that case the evidence showed that when defendant, a convicted narcotics addict, crossed the border from Mexico he turned in a registration document, as he was required to do pursuant to law; that a customs inspector observed that defendant was extremely nervous, that his eyes were glary, and that defendant appeared to have fresh needle marks on his arm; that this inspector then conducted a search but defendant refused to allow any rectal examination, whereupon he was taken 10 or 12 miles to a physician's office, where the examining physician observed him and determined that defendant was under the influence of narcotics; that defendant, upon being advised that a rectal examination would be made, stated that he would refuse to allow it, whereupon customs officers forcibly restrained him; and that the physician then performed the rectal examination in a medically approved manner, using a single gloved, lubricated finger, and found a rubber–inclosed packet containing narcotics. Upon the trial the examining physician testified that the removal of the object would involve less discomfort to defendant than the original act of inserting it. Observing that this was a border search, the court said that mere suspicion is enough and that probable cause is not required. However, it was said, an honest plain indication that a search involving an intrusion beyond the body surface is justified cannot rest on the mere chance that desired evidence may be obtained, but there must exist facts creating a clear indication or plain suggestion of smuggling. The court also said that these facts need not reach the dignity of, nor be the equivalent of, probable cause necessary for an arrest and search at a place other than the border. The court said that where, as in this case, a previously convicted and registered user of narcotics comes across the border while under the influence of narcotics, as is readily apparent by the condition of his eyes and numerous needle marks on his arms, and he acts in an extremely nervous manner, he may be searched as one reasonably portraying Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 110 a clear indication that he may be smuggling contraband. With respect to the extent of such a search the court said that it was required as a fact of life to recognize that many people crossing the border, desiring to smuggle goods, and more particularly narcotics, do, and unless stopped will continue to, utilize body cavities, including any of an adequate size that will make such smuggling economically profitable. The court observed that while the evidence in this case showed a technical physical assault, no degrading nor shameful assault was inflicted on the defendant, since the gentle probing of the rectum was not as pronounced an assault medically as the puncture of the skin. The use of the evidence in this case, said the court, did not involve evidence of a testimonial nature, nor require defendant to testify against himself, nor did it constitute a denial of due process. The court also said that the extent of a border search must be governed by the practical knowledge of the extent to which smugglers are willing to degrade their bodies in order to obtain the drugs that they crave or the money that they desire. In conclusion the court held that in view of all the circumstancesthe search in this case constituted a valid border search.

Where a customs agent received information from a reliable informant that defendant would attempt to smuggle narcotics into the country, and subsequently defendant was stopped at the border and subjected to a strip search during which he was required to remove his clothing, and the customs agent took a paper towel and wiped the area of defendant's rectum and discovered an oily substance which resembled vaseline, whereupon the defendant was taken to the emergency room of the hospital, where a qualified physician, using an accepted technique, first made a finger probe and then a proctoscope and discovered a rubber contraceptive in defendant's rectal sigmoid area which upon recovery disclosed that it contained heroin, the court in United States v Castle (1969, CA9 Ariz) 409 F2d 1347 , cert den 396 US 975, 24 L Ed 2d 443, 90 S Ct 443 , reh den 396 US 1063, 24 L Ed 2d 757, 90 S Ct 760 , affirmed a conviction for smuggling and held that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence. The court said that it does not treat a border search of a body cavity as it treats a search of one's purse, luggage, clothes, or automobile In the latter case, it was said, no probable cause is required to justify the search, but in the body cavity situation a clear indication that contraband is concealed in the body cavity is necessary. The court said that in the instant case the reliable information which the customs agents had, plus what they learned from the strip search of defendant, constituted the necessary "clearindication" required by this court's decisions so as to justify the rectal probe.

And see Thompson v United States (1969, CA9 Cal) 411 F2d 946 , where the court affirmed the conviction of defendant for a narcotics violation in a border–crossing case where a medically conducted search of defendant's rectum disclosed a package of heroin. The court, in a per curiam decision, said only: "As in Arciniaga v. United States, 409 F.2d 513 (9th Circuit, decided April 3, 1969) , the facts and the trial court's findings in this case more closely resemble Rivas v.

United States, 368 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1966) , cert. den. 386 U.S. 945, 87 S.Ct. 980, 17 L.Ed. 2d 875 (1967) , [supra], than they do other 'alimentary canal cases' involving narcotics. Evidence was sufficient to establish a 'clear indication' of the possession of narcotics by appellants." 20 In the following cases where an arrest was made as the result of a valid border search, an ensuing examination of defendant's rectal area was upheld on the ground that it was incident to a lawful arrest.

Blackford v United States (1957, CA9 Cal) 247 F2d 745 , cert den 356 US 914, 2 L Ed 2d 586, 78 S Ct 672 , was a prosecution for illegally importing narcotics in to the United States. There was evidence that on the day in question defendant walked across the international border at San Ysidro, California, and was stopped by a customs officer who directed him to a nearby shed for a personal search. When defendant removed his coat, the officer noticed that he had several puncture marks in the veins of his arms, and learned that he was a narcotics user. Defendant was then directed to disrobe entirely and he did so willingly. No contraband was discovered in his clothing or on his person at this time, but the customs officer, joined by an associate, noticed a substantial quantity of a foreign substance of a greasy nature outside defendant's rectum. The customs officers testified that defendant admitted that he had narcotics up his rectum, that pursuant to the officer's suggestion, defendant sought to remove it himself by forcing a bowel movement Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 111 but was unsuccessful, and that defendant was then placed under arrest and handcuffed. Defendant, however, testified that he never admitted at the border that he was carrying narcotics and he denied that he had endeavored to remove the narcotics. Following defendant's unsuccessful attempts at self–help, the officers took him to the county jail, where a qualified physician informed defendant that he planned to make a rectal examination. Defendant was told that he could protest but that the examination was going to be made anyway. Defendant undressed without assistance and the physician attempted manual removal of the object but was unsuccessful because of defendant's refusal to co–operate.

However, the physician was able to determine the presence of some foreign object in the anal cavity. The customs agent then took defendant to a naval hospital in San Diego, California, where two hospital corpsmen were required to exert force to undress him and to hold his arms and to force him to bend his body to permit another physician to make a manual examination. Unable to reach the cache manually, this physician undertook to remove the object with the aid of an anoscope and forceps, and during this examination a portion of the outer condom surrounding the narcotics tore apart, gravely alarming defendant, and he henceforth co–operated fully. After a number of enemas were administered, the object, namely, heroin, with an inner and outer rubber sheath, was finally recovered. Affirming a conviction, the court rejected defendant's contention that the evidence had been obtained as the result of an unlawful search. In this connection the court held that the customs officer did not exceed his authority in detaining defendant nor by asking him to remove his coat, and that the telltale needle marks and defendant's admission that he had been convicted of using narcotics furnished sufficient cause for requiring a further and more complete physical examination. That more detailed examination, said the court, revealing the greasy and alien substance around the rectal opening, and defendant's admission that he was carrying narcotics, left no doubt as to the legality of the ensuing arrest. The court said that, having arrested defendant, the officers were entitled to search his person and to retain incriminating evidence uncovered by the search, subject only to the requirement that the search be reasonable. The court said that there is nothing in the Bill of Rights which makes body cavities a legally protected sanctuary for carrying narcotics, and it is not per se violative of the Constitution to remove foreign matter from body cavities any more than it is to force a person with narcotics in a clenched fist to open up his hand. The court said that it was necessary to inquire into the particular circumstances to determine whether in the precise case before the court the search and subsequent seizure were unlawful, but in the instant case, it was said, the facts not only did not require reversal, but encouraged affirmance of the conviction. The court observed that the precise knowledge of what and how much was where, the use of only slight force, the handling of the examinations by qualified doctors, with the use of scientific procedures, and under sanitary conditions, all militated against finding the search and seizure to be unreasonable. In conclusion the court said that, the search and seizure not being unreasonable, it followed that there was no violation of the prohibitions of the due process clause of the FifthAmendment.

A conviction for conspiracy to import heroin and the illegal importation of narcotics was affirmed in Garcia Murgia v United States (1960, CA9 Cal) 285 F2d 14 , cert den 366 US 977, 6 L Ed 2d 1265, 81 S Ct 1946 , where the evidence showed that customs agents at Calexico, California, had received information that large quantities of narcotics were being imported into the United States concealed in body cavities, and they also knew that defendant was a narcotics addict who had registered as such upon frequent crossings of the border. On the day in question a customs agent saw defendant enter the United States from Mexico on foot after having registered as a narcotics addict. Defendant was not searched at the border but the agent followed him and saw him enter an automobile containing three other occupants, the agent recognizing one of them as a convicted narcotics violator. The agent then followed in another car and about a mile or a mile and a half out of Calexico, sounded the siren on the government vehicle, but before he caught up with the defendants' vehicle he noticed that an object later found to be a narcotic addict's kit was thrown from their car. All of the occupants of the car were interrogated and one of them confessed and told agents that defendant then had narcotics concealed in his rectum. A search of defendant disclosed heroin contained in a red balloon stuffed up his rectum. Sustaining the validity of the search, the court held that the right of border search does not depend on probable cause, and that the statutes give customs agents the right to search at any place in the United States "any vehicle.… as well without as within their respective districts" and all persons coming into the United States from foreign countries. The court said that while it agreed with defendant's contention that an arrest cannot be justified by what a later search discloses, the court noted that in this case the defendants were stopped as part of a lawful border search, arrested as a result of, and only after, Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 112 evidence which they had attempted to discard had been found without a search, and which evidence created probable cause for their arrest, and they were convicted because of the foregoing and because of evidence found in a subsequent lawful search. The court also held that the border search and subsequent arrest were not governed by California law in this case, but rather federal law was applicable, the court stating that this was a search of a person entering the UnitedStates from a foreign country and it therefore need not reach the question of probable cause under California law. On the other hand, a search of defendant's rectum at a border inspection station was held to have exceeded the constitutional limitations of the Fourth Amendment in Huguez v United States (1968, CA9 Cal) 406 F2d 366 . In that case there was evidence that defendant and a companion had been subjected to a routine interrogation at the Mexican border and that the customs inspector became suspicious when he observed that their eyes appeared to be glassy and pinpointed, and directed them to a secondary area which contained windowless search rooms where they were subjected to a clothing and skin search. This strip and skin search failed to produce narcotics or other contraband, but did reveal what a second customs inspector said was the presence of needle marks on their arms, as well as what the first customs inspector said was a greasy substance on defendant's buttocks. They were subsequently turned over to the assistant customs agent in charge and another agent, but these latter two agents were informed only of the needle marks on the suspects' arms and for some reason not apparent were not informed of the greasy substance observed on the defendant's buttocks nor of the glassy and pinpointed eyes, nor did either of the first two customs agents or anyone else suggest to this agent in charge that a doctor examine the defendant. Nevertheless, subsequently the defendant and his companion were taken to a room in the baggage area, which was not a medical room nor even a room equipped with any of the usual hygienic and sterilized equipment, and there turned over to a doctor. The doctor was not told of the glassy and pinpointed eyes which made the first inspector suspicious, nor of the needle marks which the second inspector noticed, nor of the alleged greasy substance that the first inspector claimed that he saw on defendant's buttocks. After a cursory examination, which did not include either a Nalline or a urine test, the doctor concluded on the basis of their appearance that they were drug addicts. Defendant and his companion were then forcibly subjected to a digital rectal probe which disclosed packets of heroin concealed in the rectum. It appeared that there was no emergency necessitating or justifying the brutal force process to which defendant was subjected. Reversing the narcotics conviction, the court said that it accepted the principle that the reasonableness of the search is in the first instance a substantive determination to be made by the trial court from the facts and circumstances of the case, but noted that when the trial court herein made its determination, the caseof Blackford v United States (1957, CA9 Cal) 247 F2d 745, supra , cert den 356 US 914, 2 L Ed 586, 78 S Ct 672 , was the only effectively determinative decisional authority, but that since that date several cases had laid down additional guidelines unavailable to the District Court at the time of the defendant's trial herein but now controlling and imperative.

The court said that these later cases had established the rule that in the case of a search of the body cavities there must be a clear indication of the possession of narcotics, or a plain suggestion of the smuggling, which must be over and beyond a mere suspicion. The court, continuing, said that it would take judicial notice that many thousands of men and women crossed the California–Mexico border during the same year's period during which, the record disclosed, there were 20 reported instances of recovery of narcotics from rectums or vaginas. The vast majority, it was observed, were obviously not carrying narcotics in their body cavities or elsewhere. The court said that there was no disclosure in the record as to how many men and women crossing the border in that period were subjected to similar searches as a result of which nothing was found, and that these men and women were certainly entitled to their dignity and privacy. The court observed that in this case any "mere suspicion" that the first inspector had, on the basis of observation that the defendant's eyes appeared glassy and pinpointed, was never in any way communicated to the assistant agent in charge, and when the latter and another agent took defendant and his companion from the windowless search room to the baggage area across the street where the brutal and painful intrusive rectal cavity invasion was conducted, these agents did not have, and could not have had, even the mere suspicion that the first agent had, let alone any clear indication or plain suggestion of any cache of narcotics in defendant's rectum. The court said that without a search warrant, or without any clear indication or plain suggestion that the defendant carried nar cotics in his rectal cavity, and in fa ct without the slightest real suspicion of any such rectal cavity cache, the doctor proceeded to conduct the examination on his own Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 113 initiative without any request or suggestion that he do so, but with the aid of the three customs agents, and he followed up with his digital rectal probing without having observed any greasy substance, and then defendant was handcuffed, thrown on the table, pressured to lie down, and pulled by the handcuffs until the metal bit into his flesh and his skin was peeled, resulting in cuts on the wrist. Under these circumstances, said the court, the medical examination degenerated into a force process which cannot be condoned, justified, or upheld as a constitutional border search. Rather, it was said, it was a brutal invasion of privacy, an illegal and frightening example of unlawful law enforcement. The evidence so gained, said the court, should have been suppressed and excluded. The court further held that the force process exerted on the defendant exceeded the constitutional limitations of the Fifth Amendment, on the ground that defendant was deprived of his due process rights. In this connection the court said that instead of fair, humane, and civil treatment by federal law encorcement officers, and a medical examination in a hospital under sanitary conditions by a qualified physician with the use of scientifically and medically approved procedures, defendant was subjected to a brutal, painful,and degrading force process in the nonantiseptic, nonhygienic surroundings of a bare baggage room. Also upholding rectal search as valid border search:Ninth Circuit U. S. v Brown (CA9 Ariz) 421 F2d 181 U. S. v Summerfield (CA9) 421 F2d 684 Ariz State v Smith 121 Ariz 345, 590 P2d 461 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

In prosecution for importing, possessing and conspiring to import, possess and distribute controlled substances, strip searches and medical examinations, in which controlled substances were found after rectal probe, X–rays and administration of laxatives, were valid where reasonable suspicion existed that defendants were attempting to smuggle contraband into country based on airplane reservations made at same time as other individuals caught two days earlier attempting to smuggle narcotics, return from trip to country known as source of narcotics, number of trips to Middle East, prior arrest for attempted smuggling and suspicion of lying to customs officials. United States v Clymore (1981, ED NY) 515 F Supp 1361 .

See Re Flagstaff Foodservice Corp. (1982, BC SD NY) 25 BR 856 , § 10[h].

Standards of "clear indication" and "plain suggestion" that suspect is concealing contraband in his body cavity, required for x–ray search, have both been met where defendant's disorientation, his restricted body movements, his uncertain responses to questions regarding his employment, 2 computer entries regarding his drug smuggling activities, and 2 types of lubricant and 6 prophylatics in addition to quantity of marijuana found in his luggage, clearly indicate that he was engaged in smuggling and that smuggled narcotics might be concealed in his rectal cavity. United States v Aman (1980, CA9 Cal) 624 F2d 911 .

Initiation of rectal search of individual crossing border was justified where visual scan of suspect's body was prompted by (1) identification of suspect's car by customs bureau's computer as one requiring special attention and (2) by suspect's symptoms of narcotic influence such as "pinpointed" eyes, slurred speech, and recent needle marks, and where such visual scan led to discovery of grease or lubricant in suspect's rectal area; however, method of search violated Fourth Amendment requiring suppression of discovered narcotics where suspect was subjected to two forced digital probes and two enemas, and was forced to drink liquid laxative and where these medical procedures were initiated without consideration of suspect's claim that he was under medical supervision for stomach and rectal problems. United States v Cameron (CA9 Cal) 538 F2d 254 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 114 Doctor should have been summoned to remove condom from anus of defendant which became visible after defendant disrobed at border in searching room; since customs officer merely took hold of end of condom and pulled it out, and defense produced doctor who testified that anus should have been dilated using instruments, heroin found inside condommust be suppressed. United States v Carpenter (CA9 Cal) 496 F2d 855 .

Physician's rectal probe was lawful where pedestrian at border at 2:30 a.m. appeared to be in stupor, his head was nodding, his pupils were constricted, there was no alcohol smell on his breath, his heart beat rapidly, his carotid artery pulsated strongly, he perspired, his hands were wet and clammy, he had numerous needle marks and track marks on both arms, in elbow area, and on biceps of both arms, and he declared that he had gone to Mexico to kick heroin habit; on basis of above, personal search was conducted during which he was reluctant to spread buttocks, there was greasy substance on his buttocks, and his tongue was coated with white substance; and doctor observed track marks, found pupils to be of pinpoint quality, and formed opinion that he was under influence of narcotics. U. S. v Sosa (CA9 Cal) 469 F2d 271 , cert den 410 US 945, 35 L. Ed. 2d 612, 93 S Ct 1399 .

In prosecution for promoting harmful drugs in third degree, border search of defendant's anal cavity constituted unreasonable search and seizure where officials failed to follow court order requiring them to first take x–ray, and to proceed only if they observed foreign matter in defendant's body and where there was no voluntary waiver of x–ray requirement in that defendant was kept in brightly lit, supervised room for more than 20 hours with no comfortable place to sleep, then held at hospital for several more hours, and it was known to officers that he was on medication whichmade him drowsy. State v Merjil (1982) 65 Hawaii 601, 655 P2d 864 .

In prosecution for possession of controlled substance, court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence seized during strip search by custom officials at airport where strip search revealed white object protruding from defendant's anus and where search was conducted after custom officials determined that defendant had prior record of narcotics arrests, defendant fit profile developed by customs intelligence of narcotics smuggler, and where defendant hadlied concerning whether he had traveled alone. People v Warren (1983, 2d Dept) 91 App Div 2d 1007, 457 NYS2d 873 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 5[c] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Use of laxatives, emetics, or the like [Cumulative Supplement] In a few cases where defendants were suspected of having swallowed contraband (usually drugs), customs agents have found it necessary either to induce vomiting by the use of emetics or to administer laxatives in an effort to obtain thearticles. Searches involving the use of such methods have been sustained as valid border searches in the following cases.

Where defendant was apprehended as he entered the United States at the Juarez International Bridge, by customs agents who were informed that it was his purpose to import heroin from Mexico, and after his apprehension the agents saw him swallow an envelope, whereupon they took him to a hospital where he was administered an emetic resulting in the regurgitation of a packet of heroin which was seized and held as evidence against him, the court in Barrera v United States (1960, CA5 Tex) 276 F2d 654 , affirming a conviction for illegally importing drugs, held that the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence on the ground of illegal search, the court stating merely that the facts of this case brought it squarely under the holdings in King v United States (1958, CA5 Tex) 258 F2d 754, supra , cert den 359 US 939, 3 L Ed 639, 79 S Ct 652, and Ruvalcaba Ramirez v United States (1959, CA5 Tex) 263 F2d 385, supra § 4[b] . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 115 Although a search was sustained on the ground that customs agents had probable cause to make it, the court not specifically stating that a border search was involved, attention is called to Lane v United States (1963, CA5 Tex) 321 F2d 573 , cert den 377 US 936, 12 L Ed 2d 299, 84 S Ct 1340 , where defendant was prosecuted for violating the Narcotics Laws. In that case a reliable informer told the customs officers that defendant had purchased heroin in Juarez, Mexico.

Customs agents then placed defendant's automobile under surveillance and observed him cross the border from Mexico and drive, by a devious route, through El Paso, Texas. Sometime during the journey he stopped at a drugstore and attempted to purchase something that would make him throw up, as testified to by the druggist, but left without making the purchase. Later on, defendant purchased some castor oil and proceeded, with a companion, on his journey and was subsequently stopped by customs agents. After halting the car the customs agents took the defendants to the custom house near the bridge, where defendant had crossed into the country. The agents observed needle marks on the body of defendant and his companion, but no contraband was found, and they then were taken to El Paso County Hospital and were administered an emetic. Defendant was reluctant to take the emetic, but eventually took it by himself and the agents used no force. Defendant and his companion both regurgitated a few times but the agents found nothing in the waste and defendant and his companion were then allowed to go. While customs agents were driving the defendant and his companion back to the defendant's car near the bridge, defendant vomited and the agent driving stopped the car and went off to get a damp rag. While he was gone one of the agents discovered a small package in the vomit on the floor in the back seat and it proved to be a bindle of heroin. Affirming a conviction, the court rejected defendant's contention that the evidence was obtained as the result of an unlawful search, the court stating that defendant's actions after originally entering his car, especially his attempt to purchase something to make him throw up and the actual purchase of the castor oil, gave the agents reasonable cause to believe that the Narcotics Laws had been or were being violated. Administering emetics to cause vomiting in order to recover narcotics is not an unreasonable search of the person, the court continued, pointing out that in this case no force was used in the search, and that defendant, while hesitant to take the emetic, did take it himself without any violence from the agents. The court conceded that while lack of force is not controlling, it is a factor indicative of reasonableness, and said that another point going to the reasonableness of the search was the latitude allowed customs agents in the extent of their search when in quest of contraband that they suspect is being imported,and that this latitude extends beyond the border.

Where a reliable informer told a customs agent that defendant and a companion were in Mexico, had purchased heroin, and would smuggle it into the United States in their stomachs, and the customs agent knew that defendant was a narcotics agent, and subsequently when the two attmepted to cross the border, agents searched them without success but then sent them to a doctor who administered an emetic to defendant's companion, whereupon he regurgitated a container of heroin, and after talking by telephone with a lawyer defendant tried unsuccessfully to regurgitate on his own, but after being given an emetic regurgitated two containers of heroin, the court in United States v Briones (1970, CA5 Tex) 423 F2d 742 , affirming a conviction for illegally importing narcotics, held that the warrantless border search of defendant's stomach was constitutional. Observing that ordinarily border searches do not require probable cause but that mere suspicion alone is sufficient, the court nevertheless pointed out that where intrusive body searches are involved such as in the present case, the Ninth Circuit had raised its standard from that of mere suspicion to a clear indication of the possession of the narcotics or a plain suggestion of the smuggling which must be over and above a mere suspicion.

The court said, however, that it considered it unnecessary to resolve this question as to the instant case, since it foundthat the search in this case was reasonable under either standard. In United States v Michel (1957, DC Tex) 158 F Supp 34 , a prosecution for smuggling heroin, the court denied defendants' motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that it had been obtained as the result of an unlawful seizure. In that case the evidence showed that both defendants were users of heroin, that they had proceeded from Laredo, Texas, to Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, and after a brief stay to purchase heroin, had returned across the international bridge. Customs officers on duty at the bridge had advance information concerning the purpose of their trip and were alerted for their return, and when the defendants presented themselves at the customs inspection station they were taken to an examining room where a search was made of their clothing. When this revealed nothing, the customs officers took defendants to a physician who examined each of them and found needle marks on their arms, dilation of their pupils, and other symptoms indicating Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 116 that both were then under the influence of narcotics. The physician then manually examined each of their bodies and anal cavities. When this examination likewise disclosed nothing a fluoroscopic examination was made by means of an X– ray and a foreign object was seen in the abdomen of the defendant King. Defendants were then taken to a customs shed where the physician and the customs officers interrogated them further, the doctor explaining that fatal consequences might result from an overdose of heroin and telling them of the dangers of a package becoming ruptured within one's stomach or alimentary canal. The defendant Michel admitted that he had swallowed a rubber container of heroin, and a substantial quantity of castor oil was then administered to each defendant. However, no rubber container was produced from either of them. After some 2 hours were spent in this fashion, the doctor prescribed a dose of epsom salts and shortly after swallowing this the defendant Michel vomited up a rubber packet containing 2 grams of heroin. Epsom salts were then continually administered to defendant King, and several hours later the packet of heroin which he had swallowed passed completely through his alimentary canal and was recovered. Defendants conceded that the officers were justified in making a search of their persons and they made no complaint of the manual or fluoroscopic examination performed by the physician at his office, but contended that when it was determined that the medicine should be administered, the need for a warrant arose, and in the absence thereof the further search exceeded constitutional limitations. Rejecting this contention, the court said that the search which customs officers are authorized to conduct upon the entry of one into the country is of the broadest possible scope, and that where a smuggler so degrades himself as to secrete the contraband in the fashion in which it was done in this case, the law is not powerless to cope with such tactics. The court said that the Fourth Amendment does not prevent the recovery of contraband because the hiding place is difficult of access or because its recovery causes some discomfort to him who placed it there, and that it was inconsistent for the defendants here to complain that their dosage violated their constitutional rights where it was perfectly obvious that they would have administered exactly the same treatment to themselves in making their retrieve had they again succeeded in avoiding detection. In rejecting the claim that their rights under the Fifth Amendment were violated, the court observed that no force was employed by the officers, and said that while the entire episode was not to the liking of the defendants, they made no complaint or protest except King's temporary objection to the taking of a second dose. On appeal, in King v United States (1958, CA5 Tex) 258 F2d 754 , cert den 359 US 939, 3 L Ed 2d 639, 79 S Ct 652 , the court, affirming, said that detention and search are of the very essence of the enforcement of the laws governing the entry of persons into this country, and that everything done by the officers and the doctor in this case was so clearly reasonable and within the letter and spirit of the law governing search and seizure of contraband that it was not necessary that this opinion should be lengthened by discussing which recent cases of the Supreme Court developing the "brutal and offensive" doctrineapplied most nearly to the facts involved here. Blefare v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 362 F2d 870 , was a prosecution for smuggling heroin into the United States.

There was evidence that prior to the search in question customs agents had received information that defendant had crossed the border 5 weeks earlier and had been searched without results, but that he had stated at that time that he had heroin in his stomach. The customs agents also knew that defendant and his codefendant were addicts and that defendant Blefare was suspected of smuggling dope into Canada and selling it. On the day in question customs agents had been alerted that defendants would attempt to smuggle narcotics into the United States, and they were on the lookout for an automobile bearing the license plates which an informer had given them. The car was stopped by a customs inspector at the San Ysidro, California, crossing and defendants were taken to a search room and disrobed, but a search of their clothing was negative. However, the arms of both defendants were heavily marked with needle marks, some of which appeared of recent origin, and they were next taken to the office of a physician about 12 miles from the border and were administered a rectal probe, the defendants consenting. When this proved unsucessful they were given a saline solution to produce vomiting. They did not drink it as directed but sipped it without objection, and when defendant Blefare was seen to have regurgitated an object and reswallowed it, the physician suggested the use of a tube procedure to recover it. This procedure involved the passing of a soft polyethylene tube, 4 millimeters in diameter, through the nose, down the throat, and into the stomach. Fluid would be allowed to flow by gravity into the stomach and vomiting would be induced. At this point defendant Blefare told one of the agents that he had nothing in his stomach but that the codefendant Michel had three bundles of heroin in his, and when asked about his reswallowing he said he was only faking to allow Michel to regurgitate and stash the substance when the officers' backs were turned. Defendant Blefare did not consent to the Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 117 use of the tube and so three agents held him while the doctor inserted the tube, which was passed into his stomach and the solution passed through it. In a few seconds he expelled two packets containing the evidence in question. The same procedure was used on Michel, who did not object or resist, and resulted in the recovery of three packets containing the evidence here objected to. Affirming a conviction, the court rejected defendant's contention that the evidence was obtained as the result of an unlawful search, the court pointing out that the search that resulted in the recovery of the questioned evidence was a border search, and that while it occurred at a place removed by 12 miles from the border the process was a continuing one and the search was not so removed in time and distance as to cause it to lose its character as a border search. The court said that the use of body cavities to transport narcotics had become an accepted practice by experienced smugglers, and that this was evidenced by the frequency with which the cases have reached the courts, the court observing that the federal courts have upheld a number of searches of the person in which rubber or cellophane bags of narcotics were taken from the anus of the arrested person and used in evidence against him. The smuggler who swallows narcotics, said the court, has not been so frequently prosecuted and this may be due in part to the difficulty of detection. The court said that some knowledge of the presence of the narcotics in the stomach of the suspect is necessary, but that here the circumstances gave rise to a strong presumption that narcotics were present. The court also said that no question of whether there is a probable cause for a search exists when the search is incidental to a crossing of an international border, for there is reason and probable cause to search every person entering the United States from a foreign country, by reason of such entry alone, and the mere fact that customs authorities do not search every person crossing the border does not mean that they have waived their right to do so when they see fit. In conclusion the court observed that the medical testimony, which was undisputed, led to the conclusion that the method used to recover the narcotics from the defendants caused no more pain or discomfort than a rectal probe and was therefore not unreasonable.

A conviction for unlawfully importing narcotics was affirmed in Arciniaga v United States (1969, CA9 Cal) 409 F2d 513 , cert den 397 US 928, 25 L Ed 2d 108, 90 S Ct 937 , a border–crossing case where a rubber contraceptive containing narcotics had been swallowed by the defendant, lodging in his stomach, the package being retrieved by giving him an emetic. The court said only that it had had a number of alimentary canal cases involving narcotics, but that the present case came closest to the decision in Rivas v United States (1966, CA9 Cal) 368 F2d 703, supra § 5[b] , cert den 386 US 945, 17 L Ed 875, 87 S Ct 980 .

CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases: See United States v Clymore (1981, ED NY) 515 F Supp 1361 , § 5[b] .

Customs officials had sufficient reasonable suspicion to warrant X–ray search of defendant where defendant matched ten of eleven points on drug courier profile, his ticket did not match his declared itinerary, his appearance did not comportwith his stated occupation, and he was abnormally calm. United States v Mejia (1983, CA5 La) 720 F2d 1378 .

Customs officials could not justify conducting nonconsensual X–ray examination of suspected drug smuggler merely on grounds that suspect spoke only Spanish, gave vague responses to agent's questions, had no US ties, and carried large amount of US currency; finding of clear indication that suspect is carrying contraband in his body requires more specific,articuable facts. United States v Castrillon (1983, CA9 Cal) 716 F2d 1279 .

Administration of emetic following rectal probe was valid where reliable informant had clearly identified suspect as one attempting to smuggle narcotics into United States within his body, where his arms were "well–tracked" and he was nervous, and where he admitted being addict and to have been "fixed" 2 weeks before. U. S. v Espinoza (DC Cal) 338 F Supp 1304 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 118 Reasonable suspicion standard governs Fourth Amendment constitutionality of x–ray tests used to determine whether persons entering United States are carrying narcotics in their bodies. United States v Saldarriaga-Marin (1984, CA11 Fla) 734 F2d 1425 .

Observation by customs inspector that there was discrepancy between social status suspect claimed and her appearance and personal effects, and fact that suspect lied about conversations she had had with another suspected internal carrier, constituted suspicious behavior needed to satisfy reasonable suspicion test for X–ray or detention until bowel movement. United States v De Montoya (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1369 .

At border, customs inspector must have suspicion, reasonable under circumstances, that person may be carrying drugs internally before person's stomach may be searched by X–ray; where defendant arriving in Miami from Colombia had only cheap clothing in his suitcase, claimed to be on business trip but had no checks or credit cards, falsely claimed to have reservations in local hotel, and told wildly implausible story as to nature of trip, decision of three customs officialsto take defendant to hospital for X–ray was reasonable. United States v Padilla (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1367 .

Detention of suspect, shackled to wheelchair, for four hours awaiting bowel movement was reasonable where customs agents had observed that, upon his arrival in Miami from Colombia, suspect was poorly educated, carried one inexpensive suitcase containing small amount of poor quality clothing, did not know details of how or where his ticket was purchased, and failed to demonstrate even rudimentary knowledge of business he professed to be conducting inMiami. United States v Henao-Castano (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1364 , cert den (US) 87 L Ed 2d 674, 105 S Ct 3552 .

At border, customs inspector must have suspicion, reasonable under circumstances, that person may be carrying drugs internally before person's stomach may be searched by X–ray; reasonable suspicion standard requires showing of articulable facts which are particularized as to person and as to place that is to be searched. United States v Castaneda- Castaneda (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1360 , cert den (US) 84 L Ed 2d 345, 105 S Ct 1202 .

Detention of suspect, who had arrived at Miami airport on flight from Colombia, for 12 hours to await bowel movement was reasonable where he behaved suspiciously and refused to consent to X–ray search. United States v Mosquera- Ramirez (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1352 .

Luggage search and frisk at border may be carried out with no more than generalized "mere suspicion" or "subjective response" of customs inspector; strip search requires particularized "reasonable suspicion"; X–ray searches are no more intrusive than strip searches and are subject to reasonable suspicion test since X–rays do not require physical contact and do not expose intimate body parts and since X–ray is one of more "dignified" ways of searching intestinal cavity; it is improper to impose stringent constraints on use of X–rays in border searches in absence of generalized showing that routine abdominal X–rays performed in hospitals pose significant health risk; customs inspectors need not seek search warrant to perform X–ray or other type of border search. United States v Vega-Barvo (1984, CA11 Fla) 729 F2d 1341 , cert den 469 US 1088, 83 L Ed 2d 706, 105 S Ct 597 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 5[d] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Vaginal searches [Cumulative Supplement] The validity of a border search which involved an inspection of a female's vagina has been variously determined in a few cases. Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 119 A search of a female's vagina which disclosed two packets of heroin concealed therein was held unlawful in Henderson v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 390 F2d 805 , where the court reversed a conviction for smuggling. In that case the evidence showed that when defendant crossed the border, customs agents had not been alerted to the possibility that she might be carrying narcotics; that she was not a known user of drugs nor required to register as a convicted drug user; that she was not under the influence of narcotics, did not have needle marks on her arms, and did not say or do anything to arouse suspicion; that a customs agent believed that defendant was a person that he had previously searched and found in possession of narcotics and for this reason directed an inspectress to search defendant; that defendant was taken to a windowless room, required to strip, and examined by the inspectress, who concluded that she was concealing something in her vagina even though there were no marks on her body, nor anything, such as vaseline, around her vagina; and that defendant was then taken to a doctor where a search, after a struggle, resulted in discovery of the heroin. It further appeared that the customs agent's recollection of having previously searched defendant was in error and that there was at hand a means whereby such error could easily have been found. Recognizing that a border search can be made without probable cause although the officers must act reasonably, the court said, however, that in case of a search of body cavities there must be a "clear indication" of the possession of narcotics or a "plain suggestion" of the smuggling which must be over and beyond mere suspicion. In this connection the court said that where, as here, a search such as the inspectress carried out is to be made, where suspicion on the part of the agent is based solely upon recollection of a prior event, somewhat removed in time, to which the woman to be searched is connected solely by recollection of physical appearance, where the means of verification is readily at hand but not used, and where the incident recalled did not involve use of a body cavity, there does not exist the "clear indication," or "plain suggestion," that is required, andat most there is mere suspicion, which is not enough.

And in Morales v United States (1969, CA9 Cal) 406 F2d 1298 , a conviction for illegally importing narcotics was reversed.

In that case a preliminary search of defendant's person was made by a woman customs clerk and defendant was then made to disrobe and bend over and expose her vaginal area. Something "sort of like a bubble" was observed protruding from the vagina and she was then taken to a physician, who from examination of her eyes and limbs found no indication that she was under the influence of narcotics or had been a user. However, the vaginal search followed, revealing three packets of heroin and one of cocaine. The court said that to justify a border search of body cavities there must be a clear indication or a plain suggestion that narcotics are being smuggled, and that Henderson v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 390 F2d 805, supra, makes it clear that when the cavity to be searched is a vagina, the search commences with the visual inspection and the clear indication must exist at that time. In this case, it was said, the doctor's probing of the vagina could not be justified on the basis of what was disclosed by the vaginal inspection unless prior to the inspection there was a clear indication that defendant was in possession of narcotics, which indication was lacking in this case. In this connection the court observed that the physical examination of defendant had revealed no indication that she was a narcotics user or was then under the influence of narcotics, and customs agents had no information relating defendant herself to narcotics or narcotics dealers. Rather, it was said, the sole information on the basis of which the border agents acted was the fact, disclosed by an informer, that the car in which defendant rode across the border as a passenger had been observed earlier in the day parked in the driveway of the home of a known dealer in narcotics, and the informer testified that he never before had seen the car in that driveway and no one was observed operating the car or entering or leaving either the house or the car. From these facts, said the court, one might suspect that the car's presence in the driveway related to narcotics and not to legitimate social or commercial intercourse, and one might suspect that anyone later found riding in the car was the unseen person engaged in the suspected activity. The facts, however, said the court,give rise to no "clear indication" as to any transaction or any person.

On the other hand, in United States v Cortez (1968, DC Cal) 281 F Supp 888 , the court, denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, held that a border search of a female's vagina was reasonable and valid under the circumstances. In that case there was evidence that on stopping at a Mexican border inspection station defendant appeared very nervous, that the arms of her male companion bore needle marks, that a customs agent discovered that her companion was a convicted drug offender but had not registered as such, and he thereupon ordered a search of defendant by a female Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 120 inspectress who discovered two packets of heroin concealed in defendant's vagina. No force was used, there was no evidence of any threats, and the inspectress did not invade the vagina. The court held that the search here was lawful even though it had trouble applying the "clear indication," "plain suggestion" test set forth in Henderson v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 390 F2d 805, supra. Observing that the Henderson Case recognized the need for searches in the enforcement of law, but required that against that need there be balanced the need to protect human dignity, the court said that in this case it would look at the person whose dignity was to be preserved. The court observed that defendant here was in the company of a narcotics user who was required to, but did not, register at the border, and that she was his companion in a border town notorious for its traffic in narcotics. The court concluded that if defendant knew these things, then she should expect that her dignity might be ruffled on her entry into this country, and that if she did not know who hercompanion was and what his habits were, then she was careless of her dignity. CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

In prosecution of two Nigerian female nationals on heroin–related charges, trial court properly refused to suppress evidence obtained from body–cavity search revealing heroin–filled condoms concealed in each defendant's vagina, where each defendant had traveled from country that was drug source and planned short stay in United States, each defendant carried insufficient luggage for international travel, each defendant appeared nervous and disoriented or behaved in strange manner, each defendant purchased ticket shortly before departure, no challenge was made concerning basic facts surrounding each body–cavity examination which was conducted by female inspector who had no physical contact with either defendant, but, rather, each defendant complied with her request to remove condoms from her vagina, decisions to conduct personal searches were made by other customs officers with extensive experience in detecting contraband, and where there was no evidence to suggest that government agents engaged in any discriminatory or arbitrary behavior such as subjecting Nigerian women to greater scrutiny simply because they were Nigerian citizens. United States v Ogberaha (1985, CA2 NY) 771 F2d 655 , cert den (US) 88 L Ed 2d 922, 106 S Ct 887 .

While penetration of a woman's internal genitalia, during a border search at airport customs checkpoint, absent reasonable suspicion, would in all likelihood constitute an unreasonable search, in violation of the Fourth Amendment, customs officials as a matter of standard procedure are permitted to feel over clothing for bulges in a woman's outer genitalia, which is an area known as a common place for hiding contraband. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . Bradley v. U.S., 299 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2002) .

Body cavity search by customs officials did not exceed Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard on ground that subject's attorney was not allowed to be present during examination where agents took steps to minimize intrusivenessof search. United States v Erwin (1980, CA9 Cal) 625 F2d 838 .

Warrant is not required for search by physician of female's bodily cavities, even though time permits obtaining of warrant, where, under applicable tests of Ninth Circuit, border officers were justified in causing such search to be made. U. S. v Mason (CA9 Ariz) 480 F2d 563 , and cert den 414 US 941, 38 L. Ed. 2d 167, 94 S Ct 246 .

Facts that female defendant and her 2 male companions were nervous at border search, one of the men was known associate of heroin dealer in New Mexico, that they were in New Mexico car without luggage, that fresh needle marks were found on arms of the men and that a strip search of the men revealed no contraband, established real suspicion justifying strip search of female defendant; action of custom inspectress in requiring such defendant to take off her clothes, bend over and spread her buttocks, disclosing prophylactic hanging down from her vaginal area, was not invalid as a body cavity search but constituted a valid strip search justified by real suspicion. United States v Holtz (CA9 Ariz) 479 F2d 89 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 121 Search of female's vagina was lawful at border where her hands trembled so badly she could not remove I. D. from her purse; she had old and new "tracks" on her arms, drowsy appearance, pinpointed pupils, and glassy eyes; and sheconstantly pushed her fingers into crotch area of her pants. U. S. v Johnson (CA9 Cal) 469 F2d 281 .

Strip search was justified by woman's nervousness (evidenced by uncomfortable, rigid posture, high–pitched and strained voice, avoidance of inspector's eyes, and exaggerated emphasis on plaster–of–paris souvenirs purchased across border), needle marks on her arms (including 1 or 2 which were seeping and hence only 1–4 hours old), similar marks on her companion's arms, and shortness of their visit (1–1½ hours); and when she complied with inspectress' request to turn around and bend over, and condom was seen protruding from vagina, vaginal search was proper.

U. S. v Shields (CA9 Cal) 453 F2d 1235 , cert den 406 US 910, 31 L. Ed. 2d 821, 92 S Ct 1615 , reh den 409 US 901, 34 L. Ed. 2d 162, 93 S Ct 183 .

While strip search at border can be conducted if customs official has real suspicion directed specifically to person to be searched, stricter standard of clear indication or plain suggestion that contraband is concealed in body cavity is required for more intrusive body cavity search; reasonable suspicion to justify strip search was presented where individual was single young woman who arrived from Columbia, her trip had lasted only 7 days, she was young and traveling alone, she was unusually calm, and she was extremely evasive about her occupation; where during course of strip search, female customs inspector observed ¼ inch tab extending from defendant's vagina and defendant had first claimed object was tampon and then tissue, whereas customs inspector in her experience had reason to believe it was neither, clear indication test required for vagina search was satisfied. United States v Himmelwright (DC Fla) 406 F Supp 889 , affd 434 US 902, 54 L. Ed. 2d 189, 98 S Ct 298 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 5[e] Nature of search as affecting validity; body searches—Requiring person to disrobe [Cumulative Supplement] Merely requiring defendant to partially disrobe so that customs agents could determine whether he was carrying contraband concealed on his person has been held not an unreasonable request nor one that would invalidate a bordersearch.

Where defendant, by his appearance and actions after arriving at Boston Airport, aroused the suspicion of a customs agent who took him to a search room where defendant removed his outer garments at the agent's request and it was revealed that he was carrying plastic bags and envelopes (later found to contain heroin) suspended from surgical tape around his upper torso, the court in United States v Roussel (1968, DC Mass) 278 F Supp 908 , denying defendant's motion to suppress the evidence, held that it was obtained as the result of a valid border search, the court noting that border searches may be made on mere suspicion alone and that probable cause is not required. The court said that the fact that defendant was required to disrobe partially so that the customs officials could determine whether he was carrying property concealed on his person was not an unreasonable request, and did not invalidate the search.

A search of a female's body has been sustained as a lawful border search in at least one case where the court observed that female inspectors had been employed for such purpose.

Where a precise description of the automobile in which defendant rode across the Mexican border had been passed to border guards as one being a possible bearer of heroin, and search of the defendant, in which she was required to take off all her clothing, disclosed a quantity of heroin on her person, the court in Witt v United States (1961, CA9 Cal) 287 F2d 389 , cert den 366 US 950, 6 L Ed 2d 1242, 81 S Ct 1904 , affirmed a conviction of illegally importing heroin from Mexico, Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 122 and held that the heroin was not obtained as the result of an illegal search. Observing that this was a border search, the court said that while it, as well as any other, must be lawfully conducted, different rules of law are applicable, and for over 100 years have been applicable with respect to the plenary power to search at the border and the more circumscribed search power existing anywhere else within the country's boundaries. The court continued that no question of whether there is probable cause for search exists when the search is incidental to the crossing of an international border, for there is reason and probable cause to search every person entering the United States from a foreign country, by reason of such entry alone, and the fact that the customs authorities do not search every person crossing the border does not mean that they have waived their right to do so when they see fit. With respect to defendant's being required to strip herself of all her clothing at the time she was searched, the court said that such a search is frequently necessary, and observed that Congress had seen fit to authorize the employment of female customs inspectors who have the specialized duty of searching females crossing the borders. In this connection the court said that no force was used against defendant and none was charged, no indignities to the defendant were charged against the customs inspectors, and the search wasreasonable and the resulting seizure lawful. On the other hand, in the following cases, strip searches were held to be unconstitutional under the circumstances.

Where a customs agent in Burlington, Vermont, received a phone call from a Canadian customs inspector whom he did not know, who told him that two individuals whom he described as being dressed as hippies should be searched upon their arrival at Burlington Airport, and subsequently upon their arrival at the airport they were subjected to a strip search which disclosed that they were carrying marijuana, the court in United States v Pedersen (1969, DC Vt) 300 F Supp 669 , in granting motions for suppression of evidence in a smuggling prosecution, held that the search in question, under the circumstances, was unconstitutional. In this connection the court said that a review of the facts showed that only two circumstances presented to the customs inspector could have possibly raised any inference of illegal activity (1) the way in which defendants were dressed, and (2) the phone call from the Canadian inspector directing him to conduct a search.

The court said that the first of the circumstances could be given no weight in this case, since the evidence showed that the Canadian inspector identified the mode of dress of defendants for the sole purpose of aiding the American customs agent in identifying them, and there was no evidence that the mode of dress created any suspicion in the customs agent's mind, and certainly the fact that defendants were dressed in an unusual manner was not sufficient to raise any inference that they were engage in illegal activities. With respect to the phone call, the court continued, if reasonable suspicion may be created by a phone from a customs officer in another country simply directing an examination, then it would be possible to search an individual in any case, and if the Canadian inspector had a reasonable suspicion that defendants were engaged in illegal activities, then it was incumbent upon the government to produce him as a witness to show the facts creating that suspicion. If, said the court, the Canadian inspector did not have a reasonable suspicion when he called the American customs agent from Montreal, then he could not manufacture one by directing that the search be conducted at the Burlington Airport. In conclusion the court said that since the customs agent had no reasonable suspicion that the defendants were engaged in illegal activities, the search he conducted was illegal and the evidencegained from that search must be suppressed.

Where a defendant, apparently on the basis of mere suspicion by a customs agent, was subjected to a strip search which disclosed a packet of heroin concealed in her panties, the court in United States v Johnson (1970, CA9 Cal) 425 F2d 631, reversing a conviction for smuggling narcotics, held that the forced disrobing of a person entering the country violates the Fourth Amendment unless there is at least a "real suspicion" directed specifically to that person. In this connection the court said that the objective, articulable facts must bear some reasonable relationship to the suspicion that something is concealed on the body of the person to be searched; otherwise, the scope of the search is not related to the justification for its initiation, as it must be to meet the reasonableness standard of the Fourth Amendment. The court continued that there are no objective, articulable facts in the record to support the customs agent's suspicion, and that if such facts existed it was incumbent upon the government to prove them. In conclusion the court said that of course a discovery ofcontraband in defendant's underclothing did not validate the search. Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 123 Also holding strip search by customs agents illegal: Ninth Circuit U. S. v Guadalupe-Garza (CA9 Cal) 421 F2d 876 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

To conduct body search under 19 U.S.C.A. § 1582 , government must demonstrate some objective, articulable facts that justify intrusion as to particular person and place searched, and quantum of facts necessary to justify search is related to degree of intrusion; custom officer was justified in requiring tense woman, wearing raincoat on dry day, with observable bulge around waistline, in disrobing, and was further justified in conducting similar search of person'straveling companion who was also dressed in raincoat. United States v Wardlaw (CA1 Puerto Rico) 576 F2d 932 .

There were more than enough objective, articulable facts to support customs officers' subjective suspicion that individual crossing border was carrying drugs to satisfy "real suspicion standard" for strip search where traveler was preceived to be nervous, she was unusally dressed, she had been observed to make number of short visits to countries known to be sources of drugs, she was separated from her traveling companion, and she was known through computer check to have been suspect in case involving receipt of marijuana by mail; because higher real suspicion standard was met, it was unnecessary for court to decide whether lesser standard of "mere suspicion" would justify strip search by customs officials at border; certainly, border search that is less intrusive than strip search requires no level of suspicion on partof customs officials. United States v Kallevig (CA1 Puerto Rico) 534 F2d 411 .

Where initial search of defendant's pockets was justified because of objective signs of nervousness, and such search disclosed possession of several hundred undeclared emerald–like stones, further strip search was well within minimum showing of "subjective suspicion supported by objective, articulable facts," and seizure of cocaine disclosed upon stripsearch was valid. U. S. v Flores (CA1 Puerto Rico) 477 F2d 608 , cert den 414 US 841, 38 L. Ed. 2d 77, 94 S Ct 96 .

Reasonable suspicion is required to justify non-routine border searches , i.e. invasive searches such as strip searches. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Irving, 432 F.3d 401 (2d Cir. 2005) .

U.S. citizen disembarking from Caracas, Venezuela was lawfully compelled to remove his artificial leg to facilitate customs search, which led to discovery of pound of cocaine; search was warranted by computerized information indicating prior suspicion, itinerary suggesting wrongdoing and contradictory answers. United States v Sanders (1981, CA2 NY) 663 F2d 1 .

Search of woman arriving at Kennedy Airport on flight from Brussels Belgium was reasonable where custom officer's suspicions were aroused by observing that woman appeared nervous while on line and officer noticed bulky appearance around woman's midriff and that hiplines did not conform to otherwise skinny body, and where, after removing woman to secondary search area, patdown search revealed hard object in back between buttocks that was ultimately determinedto be plastic bag containing heroin. United States v Moody (1981, CA2 NY) 649 F2d 124 .

Custom inspector's request that woman, who had arrived at airport on flight from Bolivia, disrobe was reasonable where she made several statements which could have alluded to contraband, she seemed nervous and appeared bulky on her lower backside, and her name had appeared on list of possible smugglers; lower court would not have suppressed cocaine found inside two feminine napkins which woman had removed and given to inspector immediately upon request todisrobe. United States v Aulet (1980, CA2 NY) 618 F2d 182 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 124 Inspectors were justified in conducting strip search of defendant where, from travel documents and answers to routine questioning, they had found that he had traveled alone to country well known as source of cocaine, that he had been unemployed for three years yet had purchased airline ticket for $764 cash, had obtained passport shortly before trip, hadtaken only one piece of luggage, and was manifestly nervous. United States v Solimini (1983, ED NY) 560 F Supp 648 .

Customs Service inspector had sufficiently particularized and objective basis for suspecting female airline passenger of smuggling drugs to justify strip search of passenger at airport customs checkpoint, and thus search did not violate Fourth Amendment, where passenger was traveling from known drug source country alone and without passport, was suspect in credit card fraud investigation, had taken repeated prior trips to country, paid for part of her ticket in cash, and was apparently nervous and wearing loose fitting clothing. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . Hurn v. U.S., 221 F. Supp. 2d 493 (D.N.J. 2002) .

"Reasonable suspicion" existed to justify strip search of female airline passenger arriving at Miami International Airport from Santa Cruz, Bolivia where passenger fit drug courier profile, she attempted to conceal her lower abdomen from view during routine questioning by customs inspector, and she demonstrated reluctance in answering inspector's questions. United States v De Gutierrez (1982, CA5 Fla) 667 F2d 16 .

Sufficient degree of suspicion existed to require male defendant to strip to waist, thus revealing vest containing cocaine, where defendant was returning from Columbia, looked somewhat uncomfortable, and was bulky around coat and body area; customs officer's observance of bulkiness is such articulable fact giving rise to such suspicion as would justify partialstrip search. United States v Barger (CA5 Fla) 574 F2d 1283 .

Only where reasonable suspicion is specifically directed to individual to be searched, may intrusive strip search be conducted since Fourth Amendment does not permit any automatic or casual transferance of suspicion. United States v Afanador (CA5 Fla) 567 F2d 1325 .

"Reasonable suspicion" standard in conducting strip search affords sufficient Fourth Amendment protection and standards applied by Ninth Circuit in requiring "real suspicion" are not applicable in Fifth Circuit; thus, where defendant arrived in Miami from Bogota, Columbia, traveling alone, with but one suitcase, stated that he had been in Columbia on short vacation, and that he was unemployed truckdriver with wife and child, acted "very, very nervous" and was pale and appeared to be sick, and defendant fit "smuggling profile", reasonable suspicion existed to authorize valid strip search; defendant's conformance to "smuggling profile" can be important consideration in determining whether reasonable suspicion exists, but such resemblance alone will not be sufficient. United States v Smith (CA5 Fla) 557 F2d 1206 , reh den (CA5 Fla) 561 F2d 831 and cert den (US) 55 L. Ed. 2d 777, 98 S Ct 1259 .

Exterior body search of female subject by female customs officers was justified where subject fit known pattern of characteristics which experience had associated with smuggling activity: subject was woman, traveling alone, wearing platform shoes, and recently returning from short stay in Columbia, and subject gave evasive and contradictory answers when questioned about her employment. United States v Himmelwright (CA5 Fla) 551 F2d 991 , cert den (US) 54 L.

Ed. 2d 189, 98 S Ct 298 .

Probable cause is not necessary to justify strip search at border crossing, and real or reasonable suspicion is proper standard to be applied; thus, where customs officers had computer printout indicating that one subject was suspected of smuggling drugs and other subject was his associate, customs officers acted reasonably in relying upon computerprintout and conducting strip search. Perel v Vanderford (CA5 Tex) 547 F2d 278 .

Strip search by customs agent of individual arriving at Houston Airport onboard aircraft that had made no other stop since crossing into United States from Mexico was justified border search where agent was given specific information by his supervisor concerning incoming passenger, information was corroborated in every respect except that no contraband Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 125 was found in his luggage, his pockets, or his billfold, and individual was then taken to private room where he disrobed and contraband was found secreted in his underwear. United States v Love (DC Tex) 413 F Supp 1122 , affd without op (CA5 Tex) 538 F2d 898 .

Partial strip search of traveler was supported by reasonable suspicion; in addition to the sufficient evidence introduced to support a pat–down search, the Customs inspector testified that she thought that she felt something hard in traveler's crotch during the pat–down search, and traveler indicated that she was neither menstruating nor wearing a sanitary pad. Kaniff v. U.S., 351 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 2003) .

Search, at Chicago, of passenger on nonstop flight from Mexico was properly conducted as border search pursuant to 19 U.S.C.A. § 482 , since unusual–fitting garments and abnormal abdominal bulge of petitioner created reasonable suspicion in mind of customs inspector that justified search of petitioner's body. United States v Brown (CA7 Ill) 499 F2d 829 , cert den 419 US 1047, 42 L. Ed. 2d 640, 95 S Ct 619 .

Under Fourth Amendment, intrusive pat–downs and whole or partial strip searches of incoming persons, at border, require reasonable suspicion that contraband is secreted under clothing or internally. U.S. Const. Amend. IV . Anderson v. Cornejo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 1008 (N.D. Ill. 2003) .

Strip search by Customs agents was valid where suspect was returning from source country, was self–employed and overly friendly and helpful, and where subsequent investigation revealed restricted movements, inability to substantiate employment, association with drug suspects, chilling, drowsiness, and unusual travel arrangements. United States v Faherty (1982, CA9 Cal) 692 F2d 1258 .

"Real suspicion" standard justifying strip search was justified by suspicious items in defendant's baggage and defendant's inadequate explanation thereof, as well as by defendant's evasive and unconvincing answers to agents' questions. United States v Rodriguez (CA9 Wash) 592 F2d 553 .

Degree of suspicion required to be directed toward particular defendant is directly related to extent of intrusiveness of body search, and degree of suspicion needed to require defendant to lift her skirts and reveal girdle would not be same as required for body cavity search; thus, where customs inspector observed defendant walking in peculiar manner and determined that such peculiarity was due to defendant wearing girdle, defendant was not wearing other foundation garments, and defendant was slender, young woman, there was sufficient degree of suspicion to require defendant to raise skirts for examination of girdle. United States v Palmer (CA9 Cal) 575 F2d 721 , cert den (US) 58 L. Ed. 2d 189, 99 S Ct 212 .

Assuming, without deciding, requiring removal of artificial leg of defendant while crossing border constituted body search, such search was justified where, during "pat–down" search, such search revealed vial and coke spoon attached to artificial leg; removal of artificial leg does not constitute functional equivalent of body cavity search, as it does notinvolve same embarrassment and intrusion. United States v Carter (CA9 Cal) 563 F2d 1360 .

Real suspicion, justifying strip search, existed when defendant entered United States, coming within customs profile, which consisted of number of characteristics found by customs agents to be frequent among narcotics smugglers, e.g., young couple traveling together, from out of town, having had only short stay in Mexico, and other factors, and, upon weapons search by customs officer, defendant resisted "pat–down" search, and object was detected in defendant's groinarea. United States v Wilmot (CA9 Cal) 563 F2d 1298 .

Claim by individual convicted of smuggling cocaine across border that pat–down search conducted by border patrol agents at border should be examined by "strip search" standards was frivolous. United States v Rivera-Marquez (CA9 Cal) 519 F2d 1227 , cert den 423 US 949, 46 L. Ed. 2d 285, 96 S Ct 369 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 126 Since strip search involves embarassing imposition upon victim, it is unreasonable to conduct such searches without real suspicion, but strip search was properly made where initial removal of defendant's boot revealed packets of cocaine inher socks. United States v Chase (CA9 Cal) 503 F2d 571 , cert den 420 US 948, 43 L. Ed. 2d 427, 95 S Ct 1332 .

Strip search at border is justified by reasonable suspicion to satisfy Fourth Amendment standards where defendant and driver of car appear "nervous" and "restless," customs inspector observes open chocolate milk cartons in car, all occupants of car have needle marks on their arms, inspector finds balloons in defendant's purse, and companions ofdefendant are strip–searched and no contraband is found. United States v Mastberg (CA9 Wash) 503 F2d 465 .

Strip search at border is reasonable under Fourth Amendment, and customs official has requisite "real suspicion" to justify strip search, where defendant crosses Mexican border alone, early in morning, carrying purse containing airplane tickets made out to married couple of different surname, and refuses to give reason for carrying them, where man of same name as on tickets crosses shortly thereafter and claims to be from same city as defendant but denies knowing her, and where similar method of smuggling narcotics into U.S. has been recently employed. United States v Leverette (CA9 Ariz) 503 F2d 269 .

It is reasonable under Fourth Amendment for border inspectors to require persons entering United States to roll up their sleeves to inspect arms for needle marks even though inspectors do not have real suspicion of smuggling of drugs directedto individual. United States v Murphree (CA9 Cal) 497 F2d 395 , cert den 419 US 863, 42 L. Ed. 2d 99, 95 S Ct 116 .

Where there was abundance of objective facts on which customs officials based decision to have female inspector strip– search female, presence of male officers in search room during part of search, made necessary by female's resistence to search, was not violation of Fifth Amendment right to due process or alleged right of privacy. U. S. v Carter (CA9 Cal) 480 F2d 981 .

Action of custom inspectress, in border search of female defendant, in requiring such defendant to take off her clothes, bend over and spread her buttocks, disclosing prophylactic hanging down from her vaginal area, was not invalid as a body cavity search but constituted a valid strip search justified by real suspicion. United States v Holtz (CA9 Ariz) 479 F2d 89 .

Complete strip search by customs officials was unauthorized where officers had no prior information about defendant as possible narcotics smuggler and did not observe signs of narcotic use, but relied on her nervousness during questioning and presence of "suspicious bulge" around her waist, which proved during examination to be body fat. U. S. v Price (CA9 Cal) 472 F2d 573 .

Foreign arrival at Honolulu International Airport who was nervous and perspiring heavily, and despite warm, humid weather wore turtle neck sweater, suit coat, and overcoat, could be asked to remove overcoat and empty pockets on table; and when he exclaimed "You got me," upon being asked whether he had failed to declare anything, and pulled out heroin bags from waist girdle, he could be subjected to strip search which revealed heroin concealed in his boots. Shorter v U. S. (CA9 Hawaii) 469 F2d 61 , cert den 411 US 918, 36 L. Ed. 2d 310, 93 S Ct 1555 .

Strip search of woman automobile passenger at port of entry was valid where her 3 companions were extremely nervous, one of her male companions had needle marks on his arm, and she made uncontrolled expressions of apprehension. U.

S. v Gil de Avila (CA9 Cal) 468 F2d 184 , cert den 410 US 958, 35 L. Ed. 2d 692, 93 S Ct 1428 .

Strip search of car passenger was invalid notwithstanding computer–supplied information of suspicion concerning vehicle and its occupants, where computer report was based on information supplied by forgotten informant of unknownreliability. U. S. v Williams (CA9 Cal) 459 F2d 44 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 127 Man and woman were properly subjected to strip search at border, revealing narcotics in man's jockey strap and in woman's panties, where customs agent's subjective suspicion was supported by objective, articulable facts that would lead experienced, prudent customs official to suspect that each was concealing something on his body for purpose of transporting it into U. S. contrary to law. U. S. v Saville (CA9 Cal) 435 F2d 871 , cert den 403 US 955, 29 L. Ed. 2d 865, 91 S Ct 2276 , reh den 404 US 906, 30 L. Ed. 2d 179, 92 S Ct 195 .

Customs authorities held to have "real suspicion" warranting strip search where defendant appeared to be under influence of narcotics, had fresh needle mark on both arms, and had in his wallet rolled up cotton balls of kind frequently usedby narcotic users. U. S. v Summerfield (CA9) 421 F2d 684 .

Strip search of pedestrian seeking to cross border was valid where he had been identified by reliable informant as attempting to smuggle narcotics within his body, his arms were "well–tracked," and he appeared nervous. U. S. v Espinoza (DC Cal) 338 F Supp 1304 .

Reasonable standard in border searches requires flexible test which adjusts strength of suspicion required for particular search to intrusiveness of search, and as intrusiveness increases amount of suspicion necessary to justify search correspondingly increases; mere suspicion is all that is necessary to justify minimally intrusive searches such as frisks or luggage inspections; strip search requires particularized reasonable suspicion and is met by showing of articulate facts which are particularized as to person and as to places to be searched; highly intrusive searches such as body cavityexaminations require greater degree of suspicion. United States v McMurray (1984, CA11 Fla) 747 F2d 1417 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 5.5. Search of computer equipment This section has been superseded by the following article(s): Superseded by 45 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1 § 6[a] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Prior search or opportunity therefor [Cumulative Supplement] Various other factors which were claimed to affect the validity of border searches have been considered by the courts in a few cases. Thus, it has been held that a suspect is not immune from further examination by customs agents merely because he may momentarily escape detection and pass safely through one customs check, and therefore the validity ofa border search is not affected by the fact that defendant may have been subjected to a prior search. Thomas v United States (1967, CA5 Tex) 372 F2d 252 , was a prosecution for the importation and concealment of heroin and marijuana, where the evidence showed that a customs agent received a tip from a reliable informer that a certain person was attempting to purchase narcotics in Mexico, that the description fit the defendant and the customs agent placed him under surveillance, that the next morning the agent followed defendant into Mexico but when he departed from the streetcar and crossed in front of the agent's automobile the agent feared that he had been seen and recognized and abruptly discontinued surveillance and returned to Texas, leaving defendant behind in Juarez, Mexico. Upon re– entering the United States the agent did not inform customs authorities at several border inspection stations of any suspicions that he had concerning defendant. Upon subsequently re–entering the United States by streetcar defendant Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 128 passed without incident through an inspection station, but on the way to his hotel he was stopped and searched by agents within visual distance of the border, six blocks away. Affirming a conviction, the court rejected a contention that the search was illegal, stating that customs agents are authorized to stop and search any person that they suspect of carrying merchandise unlawfully imported into the United States and to seize any merchandise which they have reasonable cause to suspect has been unlawfully introduced into the United States. Such a search, said the court, known as a border search, is in a separate category from searches generally, because it may be predicated upon suspicion, and neither a search warrant nor probable cause to believe that the person has committed a crime is required. The court observed that in this case when the defendant re–entered the United States he presumably was examined as casually as any other tourist, since the customs officers had not been alerted that defendant was suspected of importing narcotics. However, it was said, the defendant was searched within a period of 1 1/2 hours at most after his return to the United States and within a distance of six blocks from the border, and such time and distance factors suggest that this search qualified as a border search. The court said also that the search was not invalid merely because defendant had been examined in some fashion at the inspection station and because the customs agents who had placed him under surveillance chose not to attempt to search him thoroughly as he passed through the inspection station but waited until he approached his hotel. The court said that while it was true that defendant did not flee or act in any other unusual manner which would provide probable cause for the search, a suspect is not always immune from further examination by customs agents merely because he may momentarily escape detection and pass safely through the first customs check. Under the circumstances of this case, held the court, the examination at the border line did not in and of itself preclude further use of a border search. In conclusion the court observed that since the validity of the border search did not depend upon the reliability of the informer's tip,the identity of the informer need not have been disclosed at the trial.

A conviction for the smuggling and wilful transportation and concealment of marijuana was affirmed in Morales v United States (1967, CA5 Tex) 378 F2d 187 , where the court rejected a contention that the marijuana had been obtained as the result of an illegal search. There was evidence that an automobile driven by an accomplice of defendant crossed the border from Mexico, was stopped and given a cursory search, and was then allowed to proceed. The car was not followed at this time although the searching agent testified that his suspicions had been aroused. Shortly thereafter, the defendant crossed the border on foot, and was questioned by the same customs agent. The defendant was allowed to proceed but was followed by another customs agent who observed that he took a circuitous route and then was picked up by two persons in the automobile that the accomplice had previously driven across the bridge. After the car traveled a short distance the agent stopped it and a search revealed 13 pounds of marijuana hidden in a spare tire in the trunk.

The court said that customs agents of the United States are given broad statutory power to search for goods illegally introduced into this country, and that searches made pursuant to these statutes constitute a classification separate and distinct from ordinary searches and their validity is measured by different criteria. They are not, said the court, exempt from the constitutional test of reasonableness, but probable cause is not required and mere suspicion alone is sufficient to meet the constitutional standard. The court said that in this case the defendant's claim that this was not a valid border search because of the prior examination of the car that took place when the accomplice originally crossed the border was without merit. In this connection the court said that it would be contrary to the policies that justify border search laws to hold that once a person or vehicle has been examined any further search must be based upon probable cause, even where, as here, facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion come to light subsequently to the initial search. Such a holding, said the court, would throw an impediment in the path of customs officers similar to those that the courts have rejected in holding that border searches cannot be restricted to the exact time or place of entry. In conclusion the court held that in the factual situation before it neither the initial examination of the automobile at the border, nor any other attendant circumstances, removed the official conduct from classification as a valid border search, and that the facts upon which the agents acted gave rise to a reasonable cause to suspect that defendants might be in possession of goods which wereintroduced into the United States in a manner contrary to law.

See also United States v Rodriguez (1960, DC Tex) 195 F Supp 513, supra § 4[b], affd (CA5) 292 F2d 709 , where defendant was convicted of failing to register as a convicted narcotics user while crossing the border, and where the court said that Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 129 it was not the law that where a suspect may momentarily escape detection and pass safely through one customs check he is immune from further interrogation or examination by customs officers within a matter of minutes thereafter. The mere fact that a traveler has already passed through the immigrations inclosure at an airport has been held not to prevent a subsequent lawful search by customs officials.

Affirming a conviction for the unlawful importation of a narcotic, the court in Rivera v United States (1964, CA1 Puerto Rico) 327 F2d 791 , rejected defendant's contention that as a citizen returning from abroad he could not, in the absence of reasonable grounds for suspicion, be searched by customs inspectors at the airport after he had passed immigration, although he conceded that he could have been if the order of procedure were reversed and the customs inclosure had been located so as to be encountered before immigration. Observing that no authority could be found for such an arbitrary requirement, the court said that passengers are subject to several examinations before being permitted to enter the country, and that no reason has been suggested why, assuming that all are accomplished with reasonablepromptness, they must be done in any particular order, and that therefore there was nothing to this point.

Also recognizing that border search is not rendered invalid merely because defendant had been subjected to prior search:Fifth Circuit U. S. v Warner (CA5 Tex) 441 F2d 821 , cert den 404 US 829, 30 L. Ed. 2d 58, 92 S Ct 65 U. S. v Maggard (CA5 Tex) 451 F2d 502 , cert den 405 US 1045, 31 L. Ed. 2d 587, 92 S Ct 1330 Ninth Circuit U. S. v Beye (CA9 Cal) 445 F2d 1037 U. S. v Terry (CA9 Cal) 446 F2d 579 , cert den 404 US 946, 30 L. Ed. 2d 261, 92 S Ct 301 U. S. v Salazar-Gaeta (CA9 Cal) 447 F2d 468 U. S. v Mejias (CA9 Cal) 452 F2d 1190 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Drug enforcement agent who had hit–and–run accident with bicyclist at 9 p.m., driving government–issued vehicle on way home from work, was acting within course and scope of his employment where, after drinking at bar, he went back to office to perform more work before driving home, agency approved of agents driving their cars to and from work because of unusual hours they had to work, and mere existence of employer prohibitions against tortious conduct on part of employee could not absolve employer of liability when employee, in serving employer's interests, violated prohibitions.

Essig v United States (1987, ED NY) 675 F Supp 84 .

See United States v Sheikh (1981, CA5 Tex) 654 F2d 1057 , cert den 455 US 991, 71 L Ed 2d 852, 102 S Ct 1617 , § 4[b] .

Second search of van, conducted upon arrest of defendant and resulting in discovery of substantial quantity of cocaine, was still valid border search where customs criminal investigator found plastic vial containing small quantity of cocaine during initial search and replaced vial and placed van under 24 hour surveillance since vehicle was in continuous possession of customs agent and was never moved more than 2 miles from border. Government of Canal Zone v Eulberg (CA5 Canal Zone) 581 F2d 1216 .

Although defendant had successfully negotiated baggage checkpoint at international airport, subsequent search by customs officer was properly made before defendant left inspection area where search was based upon defendant's Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 130 nervous appearance and bulky vest. United States v Chiarito (CA5 Fla) 507 F2d 1098 , cert den 423 US 824, 46 L. Ed.

2d 40, 96 S Ct 38 .

Customs agents' second, more thorough search of defendant's baggage upheld as continuing border search. U. S. v Kurfess (CA7 Ill) 426 F2d 1017 , cert den 400 US 830, 27 L. Ed. 2d 60, 91 S Ct 60 .

Customs agents properly conducted extended border search of defendant at Los Angeles airport, after defendant entered country at New Orleans airport, where (1) defendant was suspected of being internal ingestion drug smuggler, (2) facts amply support conclusion that defendant had contraband on his person at time he entered country and (3) customs agents were justified in continued surveillance of defendant. United States v Caicedo-Guarnizo (1984, CA9 Cal) 723 F2d 1420 .

See United States v Espericueta-Reyes (1980, CA9 Ariz) 631 F2d 616 , § 4[b] .

In prosecution for importation of controlled substance, search of defendant's shoulder bag after flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco was proper where customs agents, upon searching airplane in Los Angeles after its arrival from Peru discovered three–and–a–half pounds of cocaine hidden in lavatory ceiling, customs agent kept lavatory under surveillance during flight's continuation to San Francisco, agent observed only three people use plane's rear lavatories and only defendant carried luggage into lavatory, and where defendant had been personally searched when processed through customs upon arrival in Los Angeles; person is not immune from further examination and search by customs agent merely because he may momentarily escape detection and pass safely through the Customs check. Additionally, distance between search and border crossing was not factor since air transportation was involved, appellant had not mingled in normal stream of commerce so as to lessen sufficiency that contraband had come directly across border, and customs agent had complete certainty that both appellant and contraband crossed border; agent's continual surveillanceof plane and of appellant justified second search. United States v Smith (1980, CA9 Cal) 629 F2d 1301 .

Fact that suspect had been interrogated by United States Customs inspector in Vancouver, Canada prior to his boarding flight to Los Angeles, where search revealed contraband, did not constitute prior search, since search in Los Angeles was merely secondary examination which was continuation of preliminary inspection begun in Vancouver.

United States v Sayer (CA9 Cal) 579 F2d 1169 .

White 1957 Ford was properly searched where it crossed border, trunk was searched without discovery of contraband, and driver headed toward Mexico, but stopped, and after he acted suspiciously car was searched again and 2 kilos of marijuana were found in engine compartment. U. S. v Terry (CA9 Cal) 446 F2d 579 , cert den 404 US 946, 30 L. Ed.

2d 261, 92 S Ct 301 .

Secondary inspection of defendant's vehicle by customs inspector at inspection station on border with Canada was reasonably related to purpose of the border stop–the enforcement of customs and immigration law; although inspection lasted over one hour, and inspector stated that, after the primary inspection and questioning, he had found no evidence of smuggling "at that point," duration of inspection was a function of guard's need to inspect other vehicles arriving from Canada at the primary inspection lane, and inspector directed defendant to the secondary inspection area to completeproper baggage declarations in order to conclude his customs inspection. State v. Lawrence, 834 A.2d 10 (Vt. 2003) . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 6[b] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Lack of actual border crossing Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 131 [Cumulative Supplement] It seems that a person may be subjected to a valid border search even though he never crossed the border. Thus, it has been held that the fact that defendant did not drive a vehicle containing contraband goods across the border but only entered and operated it after another had delivered it to this country does not preclude a finding that a subsequent searchof the vehicle while being driven by defendant was a valid border search.

See also United States v McGlone (1968, CA4 Va) 394 F2d 75, supra § 4[b], where the court said that the legality of a search by customs officers is not dependent upon showing that the custodian of the searched vehicle actually crossed the border. In Lannom v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 381 F2d 858 , cert den 389 US 1041, 19 L Ed 2d 833, 88 S Ct 78, a prosecution for smuggling marijuana, the evidence showed that on the day before the arrest a customs agent was advised by a reliable informant that a specifically described automobile containing marijuana would enter the United States the next day, would be driven into San Ysidro, parked at a laundromat, and picked up when the driver had returned to Mexico.

Acting on this information the customs agent advised another agent to stand by for surveillance and the next day the described automobile was observed as it crossed into the United States, proceeded to San Ysidro, and parked behind the laundromat. Subsequently, two men approached the car and looked it over, one of them entering it and driving away. When informed of this by radio the agent standing by for surveillance gave an order to arrest the driver and 20 minutes later, at a point 1 1/2 miles from the border, the automobile was stopped by another customs agent and a search revealed that it contained marijuana. Affirming a conviction, the court rejected defendant's contention that the search in this case was not a border search because the defendant had not driven the automobile into the United States. The court observed that after the appeal and briefs were filed in this case, the case of Rodriguez-Gonzales v United States (1967, CA9 Cal) 378 F2d 256, supra § 4[a], was decided, and said that the facts there were almost identical with those in this case. In both cases, said the court, the defendants were not present when the automobiles were driven across the border, but drove them away after they had been parked in the United States. In conclusion the court observed that in Rodriguez–Gonzales, this court held that the search was a valid border search, and said that the trial court in this casewas also correct in so finding.

On the other hand, see United States v Garcia (1969, CA9 Cal) 415 F2d 1141, supra § 4[a], where the court observed that a search of an automobile which apparently had not crossed the border must automatically be excluded as a border search.

And see People v De Loach (1969) 58 Misc 2d 896, 297 NYS2d 220 , where the court, in denying a motion to suppress the evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained, held that it was obtained as the result of a valid border search in view of evidence showing that on the day in question defendants attempted to enter Canada from the United States but were refused admission because one of them allegedly refused to pay duty on some personal publications, and upon such refusal the Canadian customs permitted them to turn around and recross the boundary line into the United States, whereupon they once again paid a toll and subsequently stopped at a primary inspection station where a search of the vehicle disclosed marijuana concealed therein. The court cited the Lannom and McGlone Cases in support of its holding. Also holding that validity of border search does not depend on showing of border crossing:Fifth Circuit U. S. v Hill (CA5 Fla) 430 F2d 129 U. S. v Salinas (CA5 Tex) 439 F2d 376 United States v Rogers (CA5 Tex) 504 F2d 1079 , reh den (CA5 Tex) 509 F2d 576 , and cert den 422 US 1042, 45 L. Ed.

2d 693, 95 S Ct 2655 Ninth Circuit U. S. v Weil (CA9 Ariz) 432 F2d 1320 , cert den 401 US 947, 28 L. Ed. 2d 230, 91 S Ct 933 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 132 U. S. v Markham (CA9 Ariz) 440 F2d 1119 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

The search by Puerto Rico police of the luggage of a person arriving in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico from the United States—the police acting without a warrant and without probable cause for a belief that incriminating evidence will be found, in accord with a Puerto Rico statute authorizing such searches of the luggage of any person arriving in Puerto Rico from the United States—does not satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment, there being no exception from the Fourth Amendment warrant and probable cause requirements for the statute on the basis of an analogy to customs searches at a functional equivalent to the international border of the United States, or an analogy to state inspections designed to implement health and safety legislation. Torres v Puerto Rico, 442 US 465, 61 L. Ed.

2d 1, 99 S Ct 2425 .

See United States v Ajlouny (1979, ED NY) 476 F Supp 995 , affd (CA2 NY) 629 F2d 830 , cert den 449 US 1111, 66 L Ed 2d 840, 101 S Ct 920 , § 3[a] .

Probable cause was not required to stop vehicle in which defendant was hiding and to search the trunk of the vehicle, where the vehicle was stopped at a port of entry on its way to Canada, which was three-quarters of one mile from the official border to Canada and the road into Canada was bordered by swampland. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 ; 31 U.S.C.A. § 5317 . U.S. v. Maigar, 568 F. Supp. 2d 245 (N.D. N.Y. 2008) .

Warrantless search of aircraft cannot be sustained based upon functional equivalent of border doctrine based upon mere suspicion that aircraft has crossed border; proof that aircraft has opportunity to cross border is insufficient to satisfy reasonable certainty requirement required for application of doctrine.

United States v Amuny (1985, CA5 Tex) 767 F2d 1113 , reh den, en banc (CA5 Tex) 775 F2d 301 .

Government demonstrated beyond reasonable certainty that defendants' plane had crossed international border prior to search of functional equivalent of border even though there had been numerous gaps in radar tracking of aircraft, where only one unidentified aircraft had been reported in vicinity, there was light air traffic caused by poor weather conditions, and plane being followed as well as plane searched seem to be having mechanical difficulties. United States v Niver (1982, CA5 Tex) 689 F2d 520 .

Search of aircraft is valid upon showing that border crossing has occurred, and there is no need to demonstrate further that entering craft has left foreign land.

United States v Stone (1981, CA5 Fla) 659 F2d 569 (disagreed on other grounds with United States v Garcia (1982, CA11 Fla) 672 F2d 1349 ).

See United States v Cimino (1980, CA5 Tex) 631 F2d 57 , cert den (US) 68 L Ed 2d 209, 101 S Ct 1718 , § 3[a] .

Search of Cadillac was justified as extended border search notwithstanding fact that Cadillac was not known to have crossed border where Cadillac had rendezvoused in town near Mexican border with Ford which was known to have crossed border and in which traces of marijuana had been found in previous border search, and spare tire was transferredfrom Cadillac to Ford. U.S. v. Flores, 531 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1976) .

Border crossing is not sine qua non of valid border search; when individual has direct contact with border area, or individual's movements are reasonably related to border area, that individual is member of class of persons that customs officer may, if his suspicions are aroused, stop and search while individual is still within border area. United States v Steinkoenig (CA5 Tex) 487 F2d 225 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 133 Applying "totality of circumstances" standard, warrantless, exploratory search of boat by customs officers who were outside bounds of border search when they entered boat, where boat was unoccupied and 1 of its engines was dismantled on dock, where contraband was never placed on boat, where boat did not cross any border, and where customs agents did not possess any reliable information suggesting necessity of immediate search, was not valid as extended border search.

U. S. v Caraway (CA5 Fla) 474 F2d 25 , vacated on other grounds (CA5 Fla) 483 F2d 215 .

Customs and Border Protection officers' search of motorist's vehicle was lawful under border-search exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements, even though motorist arrived at border area inadvertently, had not intended to cross border, and sought only to turn around, where officers were entitled to conduct suspicionless searches on outbound persons and effects that had not yet crossed border, there was no reliable way for officers to differentiate between someone who had just crossed border or intended to cross border and motorist seeking only to turn around, and there was no reason for officers to take motorist's word that he was there by mistake, especially when his vehicle was in same lane as vehicles arriving from Canada. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . D.E. v. John Doe, 2016 WL 4473236 (6th Cir. 2016) .

Customs and Border Protection officers' search of motorist's vehicle was lawful under border-search exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant and probable cause requirements, even though motorist arrived at border area inadvertently, had not intended to cross border, and sought only to turn around, where officers were entitled to conduct suspicionless searches on outbound persons and effects that had not yet crossed border, there was no reliable way for officers to differentiate between someone who had just crossed border or intended to cross border and motorist seeking only to turn around, and there was no reason for officers to take motorist's word that he was there by mistake, especially when his vehicle was in same lane as vehicles arriving from Canada. U.S. Const. Amend. 4 . D.E. v. John Doe, 834 F.3d 723 (6th Cir. 2016) .

Border search exception applies to persons and items leaving as well as entering country; thus, search of luggage of defendant leaving from international airport on international trip was proper. United States v Udofot (1983, CA8 Minn) 711 F2d 831 , cert den (US) 78 L Ed 2d 234, 104 S Ct 245 .

Forensic analysis of defendant's laptop computer fell under border search exception to warrant requirement, which allowed government to conduct routine searches of persons entering United States without probable cause, reasonable suspicion, or warrant; although defendant had not legally crossed border because he did not obtain legal entry at his destination, defendant could be searched just like any other person crossing border. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Romm, 455 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2006) .

Border patrol agent did not have a particularized suspicion of criminal activity on the part of defendants and, thus, warrantless search of defendants' vehicles was not justified; agent only knew that defendants were traveling on a road near the U.S.-Canadian border in the early morning hours, road was located in a relatively remote area, and defendants happened to be in the general area where border patrol agents apprehended two other individuals attempting to smugglemarijuana. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Hanson, 138 Fed. Appx. 39 (9th Cir. 2005) .

See United States v Duncan (1982, CA9 Cal) 693 F2d 971 , cert den (US) 77 L Ed 2d 1321, 103 S Ct 2436 , § 3.5 .

Automobile search was valid border search, whether or not customs agent knew that car had crossed border, where it was observed in vacant area near boarder, in which there had been heavy traffic in narcotics and illegal aliens, after having picked up 5 passengers, and it appeared even more heavily laden than number of occupants would indicate. U.

S. v Markham (CA9 Ariz) 440 F2d 1119 .

Fact that defendant's flight had actually originated within United States and not from foreign location did not affect validity of border search, conducted where defendant's plane was first detected off coast of Florida, outside territorial Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 134 limits of United States, and was searched when it landed at functional equivalent of border. United States v Haley (1984, CA11 Ga) 743 F2d 862 , reh den, en banc (CA11 Ga) 748 F2d 690 .

In action for forfeiture of money seized from woman in United States Customs area located in Bahamas airport, woman's entry into Customs area constituted "border crossing" into United States where ratification of treaty between United States and Commonwealth of Bahamas was grant to United States of "special" territorial jurisdiction in carrying out purpose of federal statute providing that any one who knowingly brings more than specified sum into United States at one time must file report, and under second federal statute granting "special" territorial jurisdiction in criminal matterswhen site of crime is outside United States. Witten v Pitman (1985, SD Fla) 613 F Supp 63 .

Although border search need not be predicated upon known border crossing or functional equivalent and customs agents may conduct border search whether motor vehicle itself crosses border or merely drives to border area to make pickup, search of vehicle could not be justified as border search where site of search was removed in both time and place from border, and, in addition, neither vehicle nor person involved had actually crossed border.

State v Sardo, 112 Ariz 509, 543 P2d 1138 .

"Border search doctrine" under which customs agents conducted lawful controlled delivery of heroin-laced containers and warrantless stop and search of codefendant's vehicle did not apply to defendant and his vehicle, rendering defendant's post-arrest statements and items seized from his person inadmissible as fruits of an illegal stop; although both defendant and codefendant, along with their vehicles, had entered the same warehouse, unlike codefendant, neither defendant nor his car had crossed the border, and there was no actual evidence to show that defendant was ever in possession of any of the boxes containing heroin, or that he had any contact with the tainted shipment. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . Dominguez-Reyes v. State, 913 So. 2d 732 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 2005) . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 6[c] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Search of person departing United States [Cumulative Supplement] CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

The border search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, traditionally applied to searches of incoming cargo and baggage, applied with equal force to search of outgoing baggage. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S.

v. Odutayo, 406 F.3d 386 (5th Cir. 2005) .

The border search doctrine applies equally to searches of persons and property exiting the United States as to those entering the country. U.S. v. Abbouchi, 502 F.3d 850 (9th Cir. 2007) .

Border search standard applies equally to searches of persons or property leaving the United States as to those entering the country. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Seljan, 497 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2007) .

Fourth Amendment border exception does not relieve customs service of warrant requirement of 31 U.S.C.A. § 1105 (currency reporting requirements). United States v Bacca-Beltran (1984, CA11 Fla) 741 F2d 1361 , on reconsideration, reinstated, en banc (CA11 Fla) 764 F2d 747 . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 135 Border exception to Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement, applicable to incoming passengers, is not applicable to passengers departing United States for purposes of 31 U.S.C.A. § 1101 (criminalizing exportation of over $5,000 in currency without filing required report). United States v Chemaly (1984, CA11 Fla) 741 F2d 1346 , on reconsideration, reinstated, en banc (CA11 Fla) 764 F2d 747 . [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 6[d] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Permanent or temporary nature of checkpoint [Cumulative Supplement] It has been held that a checkpoint consisting of traffic cones and warning signs that was not manned on a daily basis was nevertheless "permanent" such that a stop of the defendant's vehicle did not violate his constitutional rights. CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Border Patrol operations along inland routes, including permanent checkpoints, temporary checkpoints, and roving patrols are held to a higher standard than operations at the border or its functional equivalent. U.S. v. Singh, 415 F.3d 288 (2d Cir. 2005) .

Initial stop of bus at permanent border checkpoint did not violate passenger's Fourth Amendment rights. U.S.C.A.

Const. Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Outlaw, 134 F. Supp. 2d 807 (W.D. Tex. 2001) .

Border Patrol officer who was traveling along single-lane dirt road approximately 12 to 15 miles from border in area in which large marijuana seizure had been made one week earlier had reasonable suspicion to stop pickup truck, whose driver he did not recognize despite officer's familiarity with local residents and their vehicles, when driver, instead of driving past officer, who had pulled patrol vehicle off road, started driving backwards in erratic manner and continued for 100 yards; ordinarily there was only ranch traffic on road at that hour, officer had been told workers from nearest ranch would not be on road that day, and officer had previously experienced alien traffic and illegal border crossings inarea. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Carrizales-Toledo, 454 F.3d 1142 (10th Cir. 2006) .

A roving border patrol stop must be reasonably related in scope to the justification for its initiation. U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend. 4 . People v. LaRose, 782 N.Y.S.2d 633 (County Ct. 2004) .

Border patrol checkpoint was permanent, such that stop of defendant's vehicle did not violate his constitutional rights, although checkpoint consisted of traffic cones and several warning signs, there was no permanent structure, and checkpoint was not manned on a daily basis, where location was one of several checkpoint locations designated by Chief Patrol Agent for use in the area, all northbound vehicles were stopped for questioning, a procedure followed on every checkpoint, and agents in the field did not participate in choosing location of checkpoint or procedures to be followed. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 4 ; Vernon's Ann. Texas Const. Art. 1, § 9 . Gutierrez v. State, 22 S.W.3d 75 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 2000) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 136 [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] § 6[e] Other factors as affecting validity of search—Unreasonable destruction of property searched [Cumulative Supplement] The following authority considered, as a factor in determining the validity of a border search, whether the search conducted was unreasonably destructive to the property searched. CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT Cases:

Cutting of skin of defendant's bag at airport and drilling of the suitcase rails was not so intrusive and destructive as to be beyond routine border inspection, and, thus, search was permissible under border search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement; inspectors used least intrusive means to access suitcase rails in order to inspect its contents, and cut and holes drilled did not interfere with function of the luggage. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v.

Lawson, 374 F. Supp. 2d 513 (E.D. Ky. 2005) .

Reasonable suspicion was not required for search of drug defendant's vehicle during border crossing, where defendant did not allege that search of vehicle was so destructive as to affect operability of vehicle. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S.

v. Cruz-Murillo, 256 Fed. Appx. 174 (9th Cir. 2007) .

Defendant failed to carry his burden of proving that damage caused to his vehicle's interior rear quarter panel by customs officer's border search of vehicle affected vehicle's operability, and thus, reasonable suspicion was not required for thesearch. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Cortez-Rivera, 454 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2006) .

Customs inspector's initial search of defendant's vehicle at United States border, which involved removal of the interior door panels using a screwdriver in "an easy way," so that doors could be put back together without damage, caused no significant damage to or destruction of the vehicle, and did not undermine the safety of the vehicle or present any potentially harmful effects to health of motorist, and thus, reasonable suspicion was not required prior to conductingthe search. U.S. v. Hernandez, 424 F.3d 1056 (9th Cir. 2005) .

Border search of defendant's pickup truck, which included a border investigator drilling a single 5/16-inch hole in bed of truck, did not require reasonable suspicion; drilling of single hole did not result in significant damage to the truck, or undermine the truck's operation or safety. U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Chaudhry, 424 F.3d 1051 (9th Cir. 2005) .

Although the government's inherent authority to conduct border searches may be limited to searches that are not unreasonably destructive, the search of a vehicle's spare tire, which neither damages the vehicle nor decreases the safety or operation of the vehicle, is not so destructive as to be unreasonable. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. IV . U.S. v. Cortez- Rocha, 394 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2005) , petition for cert. filed (U.S. May 25, 2005).

Drilling a small hole into an externally-mounted box, located in bed of truck that was partially taken up with a fuel storage tank, was not unreasonably destructive, and thus, was a "routine border search" that did not require reasonable suspicion, where the drilling did not damage the vehicle, decrease its safety, or affect its operation. U.S.C.A.

Const.Amend. 4 . U.S. v. Myers, 127 Fed. Appx. 251 (9th Cir. 2005) . Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 137 [Top of Section] [END OF SUPPLEMENT] RESEARCH REFERENCES A.L.R. Library • A.L.R. Quick Index, Duties • A.L.R. Quick Index, Search and Seizure • A.L.R. Federal Quick Index, Customs Duties • A.L.R. Federal Quick Index, Search and Seizure• Use of License Plate Readers, 32 A.L.R.7th Art. 8 • Construction and Application of Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419, 124 S. Ct. 885, 157 L. Ed. 2d 843 (2004) , Governing Validity of Police Roadblock, Checkpoint, or Other Detention of Vehicle for Gathering of Information, 78 A.L.R.6th 213 • Validity of Search of Cruise Ship Cabin, 43 A.L.R.6th 355 • Fourth Amendment Protections, and Equivalent State Constitutional Protections, as Applied to the Use of GPS Technology, Transponder, or the Like, to Monitor Location and Movement of Motor Vehicle, Aircraft, orWatercraft, 5 A.L.R.6th 385 • Delay in setting hearing date or in holding hearing as affecting forfeitability under Uniform Controlled Substances Act or similar statute, 6 A.L.R.5th 711 • Application of forfeiture provisions of Uniform Controlled Substances Act of similar statute where drugs were possessed for personal use, 1 A.L.R.5th 375 • Forfeitability of property, under Uniform Controlled Substances Act or similar statute, where property of evidence supporting forgeiture was illegally seized, 1 A.L.R.5th 346 • Timeliness of institution of proceedings for forfeiture under Uniform Controlled Substances Act or similar statute, 90 A.L.R.4th 493 • Validity of roadblocks by state or local officials for purpose of enforcing fish or game laws, 87 A.L.R.4th 981 • Real property as subject of forfeiture under Uniform Controlled Substances Act or similar statutes, 86 A.L.R.4th 995 • Validity and construction of provisions of Uniform Controlled Substances Act providing for forfeiture hearing before law enforcement officer, 84 A.L.R.4th 637 • Forfeitability of property held in marital estate under Uniform Controlled Substances Act or similar statute, 84 A.L.R.4th 620 • Searches and seizures: validity of searches conducted as condition of entering public premises—state cases, 28 A.L.R.4th 1250 • Conviction of possession illicit drugs found in automobile of which defendant was not sole occupant, 57 A.L.R.3d 1319 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 138 • Conviction of possession of illicit drugs found in premises of which defendant was in non–exclusive possession, 56 A.L.R.3d 948 • Admissibility, in criminal case, of evidence obtained by search conducted by school official or teacher, 49 A.L.R.3d 978 • Search and seizure: "furtive" movement or gesture as justifying police search, 45 A.L.R.3d 581 • Violation of federal constitutional rule (Mapp v Ohio) excluding evidence obtained through unreasonable search or seizure, as constituting reversible or harmless error, 30 A.L.R.3d 128 • Plea of guilty as waiver of claim of unlawful search and seizure, 20 A.L.R.3d 724 • Lawfulness of nonconsensual search and seizure without warrant, prior to arrest, 89 A.L.R.2d 715 • Comment Note—Federal Constitution as affecting admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure, 84 A.L.R.2d 959 • Search incident to one offense as justifying seizure of instruments of or articles connected with another offense, 169 A.L.R. 1419 • Admissibility of evidence obtained by unlawful search and seizure, 150 A.L.R. 566 • Admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure, 134 A.L.R. 819 • Admissibility of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure, 88 A.L.R. 348 • Right of search and seizure incident to lawful arrest without a search warrant, 82 A.L.R. 782 • Right to search or seize vehicle containing contraband as affected by the fact that it was stationary at the time, 61 A.L.R. 1002 • Search of automobile without a warrant by officers relying on description of persons suspected of a crime, 60 A.L.R. 299 • Right of search and seizure incident to lawful arrest, without a search warrant, 51 A.L.R. 424 • Construction and Application of Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule—Supreme Court Cases, 68 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 303 • Border Search or Seizure of Traveler's Laptop Computer, or Other Personal Electronic or Digital Storage Device, 45 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1 • Unconstitutional Search or Seizure as Warranting Suppression of Evidence in Removal Proceeding, 40 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 489 • Validity, Construction, and Application of North American Free Trade Agreement and Implementing Statutes and Regulations—Cases and Materials from Canada, Mexico, and the United States, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 1 • Validity, Construction, and Application of North American Free Trade Agreement and Implementing Statutes and Regulations, 183 A.L.R. Fed. 1 • What Constitutes Obscene Material Subject to Forfeiture Under § 305 of Tariff Act of 1930, 172 A.L.R. Fed. 239 • What Constitutes Establishment of Prima Facie Case for Forfeiture of Real Property Traceable to Proceeds from Sale of Controlled Substances Under § 511(a)(6) of Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and ControlAct of 1970 (21 U.S.C.A. § 881(a)(6)), 146 A.L.R. Fed. 597 • Construction and application of United States Sentencing Guideline § 2L1.1 (18 U.S.S.G. § 2L1.1), involving sentences for smuggling, transporting, or harboring unlawful aliens, 136 A.L.R. Fed. 613 • Who is exempt from forfeiture of conveyances under "innocent owner" provision of 21 U.S.C.A. § 881(a)(4), 112 A.L.R. Fed. 589 • Who is exempt from forfeiture of real property under "innocent owner" provision of 21 U.S.C.A. § 881(a)(7), 110 A.L.R. Fed. 569 • Who is exempt from forfeiture of drug proceeds under "innocent owner" provision of 21 U.S.C.A. § 881(a)(6), 109 A.L.R. Fed. 322 • Validity of warrantless search under extended border doctrine, 102 A.L.R. Fed. 269 • What constitutes functional equivalent of border for purpose of border exception to requirements of Fourth Amendment, 94 A.L.R. Fed. 372 • Application and effect of Daisy–Heddon "substantially complete" standard to classification of imported articles under Tariff Schedules of the United States (19 U.S.C.A. § 1202), 81 A.L.R. Fed. 933 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 139 • Fourth Amendment as prohibiting strip searches of arrestees or pretrial detainees, 78 A.L.R. Fed. 201 • What constitutes unlawful conduct subject to federal statutes prohibiting drug–related activities aboard United States vessels (21 U.S.C.A. §§ 955 et seq.), 73 A.L.R. Fed. 586 • Who may conduct border search pursuant to 19 U.S.C.A. §§ 482, 1401(i), 1581(a, b), and 1582, 61 A.L.R. Fed. 290 • Forfeiture of personal property used in illegal manufacture, processing, or sale of controlled substances under § 511 of Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C.A. § 881), 59 A.L.R. Fed. 765 • Construction and application of 18 U.S.C.A. § 542 prohibiting entry of goods into commerce of United States by means of false statements, 58 A.L.R. Fed. 850 • Validity, under Fourth Amendment, of "mail cover", 57 A.L.R. Fed. 742 • Validity, under Federal Constitution, of search conducted as condition of entering public building, 53 A.L.R. Fed. 888 • Admissibility, in deportation hearing, of evidence obtained by illegal search and seizure, 44 A.L.R. Fed. 933 • Authority of United States officials to conduct inspection or search of American vessel located outside territorial waters of United States, 40 A.L.R. Fed. 402 • Customs inspection by opening international letter mail as within border search exception to Fourth Amendment requirement for search warrant, 36 A.L.R. Fed. 864 • Application of Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to evidence obtained through search conducted by official of foreign government, 33 A.L.R. Fed. 342 • Use of trained dog to detect narcotics or drugs as unreasonable search in violation of Fourth Amendment, 31 A.L.R. Fed. 931 • Right of parties as to contested venue requests in United States Customs Court under §§ 105 and 109 of Customs Courts Act of 1970 (28 U.S.C.A. §§ 253, 256) and rules of Customs Court, 30 A.L.R. Fed. 781 • Validity, construction, and application of § 274(a) of Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (8 U.S.C.A. § 1324(a)) making it unlawful to bring to United States any alien not duly admitted or entitled to enter or residuetherein, or to conceal, harbor or shield such alien or encourage or induce his entry, 21 A.L.R. Fed. 254 • Validity, construction, and application of federal statutory provision (under similar predecessor statutes) making it offense to smuggle or clandestinely introduce into United States merchandise which would have been invoiced,20 A.L.R. Fed. 410 • Administrative inspection and warrants under § 510 of Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 U.S.C.A. § 880), 19 A.L.R. Fed. 736 • Validity, under Federal Constitution, of preflight procedures used at airports to prevent hijacking of aircraft, 14 A.L.R. Fed. 286 • What constitutes "reasonable grounds" justifying arrest of narcotics suspect without warrant under § 104 (a) of Narcotics Control Act of 1956 (26 U.S.C.A. § 7607), 6 A.L.R. Fed. 724 • Validity and construction of federal statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 1407) requiring registration, on crossing border, of narcotics addict, user, or violator, 4 A.L.R. Fed. 616 Legal Encyclopedias • Am. Jur. 2d, Customs Duties and Import Regulations §§ 112 , 113 Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 140 Trial Strategy • Criminal Drug Addiction and Possession, 13 Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 391 • Defense of Narcotics Cases, 8 Am. Jur. Trials 573 • Excluding Illegally Obtained Evidence, 5 Am. Jur. Trials 331 Forms • 11 Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Federal Criminal Procedure, Forms 112 , 114 Law Reviews and Other Periodicals • From Bags to Body Cavities: The Law of Border Search. 74 Columbia L Rev 53 • McKay, Administrative Searches and the Fourth Amendment's Warrant Requirement. 32 Arkansas L Rev 755(1979) • Note, At the Border of Reasonableness: Searches and Customs Officials. 53 Cornell L Rev 871 (May 1968) • Note, Border Searches and the Fourth Amendment. 77 Yale LJ 1007 (April 1968) • Note, Search and Seizure at the Border. 21 Rutgers L Rev 513 (Spring 1967) • Procedural aspects of illegal search and seizure in deportation cases. 14 San Diego L Rev 151 • Search and seizure on the highway for illegal alien. 13 San Diego L Rev 69 • Searching for illegal aliens. 13 San Diego L Rev 82 Westlaw. © 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works.

Footnotes 1 Generally, as to searches and seizures with respect to vessels, see Am. Jur. 2d, Customs Duties and Import Regulations § 113 2 § 3[a] , infra. 3 See generally the cases throughout this annotation. 4§ 3[b] , infra. 5§ 3[c] , infra. 6§ 4 , infra. 7§ 4[a] , infra. 8§ 4[b] , infra. 9§ 4[c] , infra. 10§ 5[a] , infra. Validity of border searches and seizures by customs officers, 6 A.L.R. Fed. 317... © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 141 11§ 5[b] , infra. 12§ 5[c] , infra. 13§ 5[d] , infra. 14§ 5[e] , infra. 15§ 6[a] , infra. 16§ 6[b] , infra. 17 See Am. Jur. 2d, Customs Duties and Import Regulations §§ 112 , 113 For the text of federal statutes relating specifically to the subject of this annotation, see § 1[c] , supra. 18 Generally, as to the validity of searches for illegally possessed articles, usually narcotics, concealed in body cavities, through such agencies as rectal examinations, laxatives, emetics, and the like, see § 5 ofthe annotations in 16 L Ed 1332, 22 L Ed 909. 19 See Blackford v United States (1957, CA9 Cal) 247 F2d 745 , cert den 356 US 914, 2 L Ed 586, 78 S Ct 672, infra, where the court took judicial notice that the Mexico–California border was one of the major centers for the importation of narcotic drugs into the United States, and pointed out that according to the record between 18 percent and 20 percent of the international traffic in narcotics inthe area was conducted by smuggling the drugs in various body cavities. 20 In a dissenting opinion Ely, Circuit Judge, observed that the court had information that 80 to 85 percent, at least four–fifths, of all border transients whose bodily cavities are invaded by the border police are innocent of the suspected wrongdoing, and expressed the view that body searches shouldnot be conducted by border police without judicial authorization and supervision. End of Document © 2018 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Have a similar question?

Continue to edit or attach image(s).

  • Fast and convenient

    Fast and convenient

    Simply post your question and get it answered by professional tutor within 30 minutes. It's as simple as that!

  • Any topic, any difficulty

    Any topic, any difficulty

    We've got thousands of tutors in different areas of study who are willing to help you with any kind of academic assignment, be it a math homework or an article.

  • 100% Satisfied Students

    100% Satisfied Students

    Join 3,4 million+ members who are already getting homework help from StudyDaddy!