|
|
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973)
Almeida-Sanchez v. United States No. 71-6278 Argued March 19 and 28, 1973 Decided June 21, 1973 413 U.S. 266
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
Syllabus
Petitioner, a Mexican citizen and holder of a valid work permit, challenges the constitutionality of the Border Patrol’s warrantless search of his automobile 25 air miles north of the Mexican border. The search, made without probable cause or consent, uncovered marihuana, which was used to convict petitioner of a federal crime. The Government seeks to justify the search on the basis of § 287(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which provides for warrantless searches of automobiles and other conveyances "within a reasonable distance from any external boundary of the United States," as authorized by regulations to be promulgated by the Attorney General. The Attorney General’s regulation defines "reasonable distance" as "within 100 air miles from any external boundary of the United States." The Court of Appeals upheld the search on the basis of the Act and regulation.
Held: The warrantless search of petitioner’s automobile, made without probable cause or consent, violated the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 269-275.
(a) The search cannot be justified on the basis of any special rules applicable to automobile searches, as probable cause was lacking; nor can it be justified by analogy with administrative inspections, as the officers had no warrant or reason to believe that petitioner had crossed the border or committed an offense, and there was no consent by petitioner. Pp. 269-272.
(b) The search was not a border search or the functional equivalent thereof. Pp. 272-275.
452 F.2d 459, reversed.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, and POWELL, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 275. WHITE, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 285.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) in 413 U.S. 266 413 U.S. 267. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ITBD3NSG9EXC97E.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973), in 413 U.S. 266, page 413 U.S. 267. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ITBD3NSG9EXC97E.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973). cited in 1973, 413 U.S. 266, pp.413 U.S. 267. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=ITBD3NSG9EXC97E.
|