NCJ Number
14987
Journal
Albany Law Review Volume: 38 Issue: 4 Dated: (SUPP) (1974) Pages: 962-975
Date Published
1974
Length
14 pages
Annotation
THE AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT WARRANTLESS SEARCHES OF PERSONS AND VEHICLES IN AND NEAR BORDER AREAS IS DISCUSSED WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF A 1973 SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Abstract
IN THAT CASE AN ALIEN LEGALLY WITHIN THE COUNTRY WAS STOPPED 20 MILES FROM THE BORDER. HIS VEHICLE WAS SEARCHED AND MARIJUANA FOUND. THE MAJORITY IN 'SANCHEZ' FOUND THE HOLDING IN 'CARROLL V. UNITED STATES' TO BE CONTROLLING. CARROLL HELD THAT A WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF AN AUTOMOBILE, WHERE SUCH A SEARCH WAS NOT A BORDER SEARCH, MAY BE MADE ONLY IF THE SEARCHING OFFICERS HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE CAR CONTAINS CONTRABAND. PROBABLE CAUSE WAS DETERMINED TO BE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ACTUALLY KNOWN BY THE SEARCHING OFFICERS PRIOR TO THE SEARCH WHICH WOULD LEAD A REASONABLE MAN TO BELIEVE THAT THE AUTOMOBILE SEARCHED CONTAINED CONTRABAND. IN SANCHEZ, THE GOVERNMENT ADMITTED THAT THE SEARCH AT ISSUE WAS MADE WITHOUT PROBABLE CAUSE. THIS ADMISSION DISPOSED OF THE CASE FOR FOUR JUDGES ON THE COURT. THE FIFTH MEMBER OF THE MAJORITY WROTE A CONCURRING OPINION IN WHICH HE SUGGESTED THAT IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS SEARCHES COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF A WARRANT TO SEARCH ALL VEHICLES ON A PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE ROAD. THIS WARRANT COULD BE BASED ON THE DOCTRINE OF CAMARA V. MUNICIPAL COURT AND SEE V. CITY OF SEATTLE. THE COURT IN THOSE CASES FACED A VERY SIMILAR PROBLEM IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO ALLOW SEARCHES OF BUILDINGS WHEN THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE ANY PARTICULAR BUILDING CONTAINED A VIOLATION. IN ALLOWING SUCH SEARCHES THE COURT FOUND THREE FACTORS DETERMINATIVE: SUCH SEARCHES HAD BEEN LONG APPROVED BY LOWER COURTS, NO REASONABLY WORKABLE ALTERNATIVE COULD BE FOUND, AND THE SEARCH OF A BUILDING FOR HOUSING CODE VIOLATIONS WAS A NOMINAL INVASION OF PRIVACY NECESSARY FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. JUSTICE POWELL FOUND THESE SAME CRITERIA APPLICABLE TO SANCHEZ. LOWER COURTS HAD LONG APPROVED IMMIGRATION SEARCHES CONDUCTED BY ROVING PATROLS. DUE TO THE EXTENSIVENESS OF OUR BORDERS WITH CANADA AND MEXICO, THERE SEEMS TO BE NO OTHER WORKABLE SOLUTION. IN ADDITION, THE LIMITED SEARCH AUTHORIZED BY THE STATUTE IS NOT A GREAT INTRUSION ON A PERSON'S PRIVACY. UNDER THESE CONSIDERATIONS HE FOUND THAT SUCH SEARCHES SHOULD BE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE SAME RATIONALE AS USED IN CAMARA AND SEE. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)