United States v. Brignoni-Ponce
422 U.S. 873 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Except at the border or its functional equivalents, the Fourth Amendment permits roving Border Patrol officers to stop a vehicle only if they possess specific, articulable facts that, together with rational inferences from those facts, create a reasonable suspicion that the vehicle contains aliens who may be in the country illegally. Apparent Mexican ancestry is a relevant factor but is insufficient on its own to establish reasonable suspicion.
Facts:
- On March 11, 1973, a fixed Border Patrol checkpoint on Interstate Highway 5 south of San Clemente, California, was closed due to inclement weather.
- Two Border Patrol officers parked their patrol car by the highway to observe northbound traffic in the dark, using their headlights to illuminate passing cars.
- The officers observed a car driven by respondent Brignoni-Ponce with two passengers.
- The officers pursued and stopped the vehicle for the sole reason that its three occupants appeared to be of Mexican descent.
- Upon questioning the occupants, the officers learned that the two passengers were aliens who had entered the country illegally.
- The officers then arrested all three individuals.
Procedural Posture:
- Brignoni-Ponce was charged in a federal trial court with two counts of knowingly transporting illegal immigrants.
- At trial, Brignoni-Ponce filed a motion to suppress the testimony of the passengers, claiming it resulted from an illegal seizure.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- Following a trial, Brignoni-Ponce was convicted on both counts.
- Brignoni-Ponce (as appellant) appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the conviction, holding that the stop violated the Fourth Amendment because it was not supported by a 'founded suspicion.'
- The United States (as petitioner) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
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 a roving Border Patrol stop of a vehicle near the international border, based solely on the occupants' apparent Mexican ancestry, violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable seizures?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes, a roving Border Patrol stop of a vehicle based solely on the occupants' apparent Mexican ancestry violates the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness requirement demands that, except at the border and its functional equivalents, officers on roving patrol may stop vehicles only if they are aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational inferences from those facts, that reasonably warrant suspicion that the vehicles contain aliens who may be illegally in the country. While the government's interest in preventing illegal immigration is substantial, granting Border Patrol unfettered discretion to stop vehicles without suspicion would subject residents of border areas to arbitrary interference. The Court held that while apparent Mexican ancestry can be a relevant factor, it cannot alone furnish reasonable grounds for a stop, as a great number of citizens and legal residents share these physical characteristics. Because the officers in this case relied on this single factor, the seizure was unreasonable.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Rehnquist
Yes, the stop was unconstitutional. This opinion agrees with the Court's judgment but writes separately to emphasize the narrowness of the holding. The reasoning in this case applies specifically to roving patrol stops for immigration enforcement and does not constitutionally suspect other types of vehicle stops, such as those at the border itself, agricultural inspections, or highway roadblocks to enforce traffic laws or apprehend known fugitives.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes, the stop was a patent violation of the Fourth Amendment. This opinion agrees with the judgment but disagrees with the Court's adoption of the 'reasonable suspicion' standard from Terry v. Ohio. The 'probable cause' standard is the only meaningful protection against arbitrary police interference. The weaker 'reasonable suspicion' standard has been abused by law enforcement to justify stops on the 'flimsiest of justifications' and offers little real protection for the personal liberty guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the constitutional floor for roving Border Patrol stops, extending the 'reasonable suspicion' framework from Terry v. Ohio to the immigration context away from the border. By prohibiting stops based solely on apparent ethnicity, the Court placed a crucial limit on the discretion of law enforcement agents in border regions, safeguarding the Fourth Amendment rights of the large populations of citizens and legal residents in those areas. The case creates a balancing act, requiring lower courts to weigh a collection of specific, articulable facts against the minimal requirement for an investigatory stop. It solidifies the principle that while race or ethnicity can be a factor in the totality of circumstances, it cannot be the sole justification for a seizure.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Brignoni-Ponce