Almeida-Sanchez v. United States
413 U.S. 266 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment prohibits the U.S. Border Patrol from conducting warrantless searches of automobiles via roving patrols, without probable cause or consent, in areas near but not at the international border or its functional equivalent. A federal statute authorizing such searches within 100 miles of the border cannot override this constitutional protection.
Facts:
- Petitioner Almeida-Sanchez, a Mexican citizen holding a valid United States work permit, was driving his automobile on State Highway 78 in California.
- The highway is located entirely within the United States, at some points as close as 20 air miles to the Mexican border, but it does not cross the border.
- A United States Border Patrol unit engaged in a 'roving patrol' stopped Almeida-Sanchez's vehicle.
- The Border Patrol officers had no search warrant, no probable cause, nor even a reasonable suspicion to stop or search the vehicle.
- The officers proceeded to conduct a thorough search of the automobile.
- During the search, the officers discovered a large quantity of marihuana.
- The officers believed their authority for the search came from § 287(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes warrantless vehicle searches within a 'reasonable distance' (defined as 100 air miles) from the border.
Procedural Posture:
- Almeida-Sanchez was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California with knowingly receiving illegally imported marihuana.
- At trial, he moved to suppress the marihuana as evidence, arguing it was the fruit of an unconstitutional search.
- The District Court, a court of first instance, denied the motion to suppress.
- Following the denial of his motion, Almeida-Sanchez was convicted of the offense.
- Almeida-Sanchez (appellant) appealed the conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, upholding the search's validity under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
- The U.S. Supreme Court then granted Almeida-Sanchez's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the warrantless search of an automobile by a roving Border Patrol patrol, conducted without probable cause or consent on a road that is not at the border or its functional equivalent, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Stewart
Yes. The warrantless search of an automobile by a roving Border Patrol patrol, conducted without probable cause on a road near but not at the border or its functional equivalent, violates the Fourth Amendment. This search does not fall under the established exceptions to the warrant requirement. The automobile exception established in Carroll v. United States requires probable cause, which was absent here. The search was not a border search, nor did it occur at a 'functional equivalent' of the border, such as an established checkpoint where several roads from the border converge. Furthermore, the government's reliance on administrative inspection cases like Camara and Biswell is misplaced, as those cases involved regulated industries where individuals have a diminished expectation of privacy, unlike a private citizen using a public highway. An Act of Congress cannot authorize a violation of the Constitution, and thus the Immigration and Nationality Act cannot justify this unreasonable search.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes. While I join the Court's opinion, I write to suggest that a warrant procedure could be tailored to the unique circumstances of border-area searches. The government has a compelling interest in policing the border, but warrantless, suspicionless searches by roving patrols are unconstitutional. However, law enforcement could seek an 'area warrant' from a neutral magistrate, which would authorize roving searches in a specific, limited area for a defined period. To issue such a warrant, a magistrate would balance the government's interest against the intrusion on individuals' rights, considering factors like the frequency of illegal crossings in the area, the area's proximity to the border, and the likely interference with innocent traffic. Because no warrant of any kind was obtained in this case, the search was unconstitutional.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice White
No. The warrantless search conducted by the roving Border Patrol was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment and therefore did not violate the Constitution. The overriding standard of the Fourth Amendment is 'reasonableness,' not the rigid application of the warrant and probable cause requirements. Congress, in passing the Immigration and Nationality Act, made a considered judgment that such searches are a necessary and reasonable tool for enforcing immigration laws. Given the vastness of the nation's borders and the serious problem of illegal immigration, it is reasonable to treat the border not as a line but as a zone where limited, suspicionless searches for aliens in vehicles are permissible. This approach is consistent with the balancing test used in administrative search cases like Camara and Biswell, where significant government interests justified intrusions on privacy without traditional probable cause.
Analysis:
This decision significantly curtails the authority of the Border Patrol to conduct suspicionless searches of vehicles away from the actual border or its functional equivalents. It rejects the government's attempt to create a broad, 100-mile-wide 'border zone' where Fourth Amendment protections are diminished for motorists. The ruling reinforces the primacy of the probable cause standard for vehicle searches in the interior of the country, clarifying that immigration enforcement does not create a blanket exception. Justice Powell's concurrence introduced the novel concept of an 'area warrant,' foreshadowing future legal debates and potential legislative or judicial frameworks for balancing national security needs with individual privacy rights in border regions.
Unlock the full brief for Almeida-Sanchez v. United States