United States v. Flores-Montano
541 U.S. 149 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourth Amendment does not require reasonable suspicion for customs officials to remove, disassemble, and reassemble a vehicle’s fuel tank during a search at the international border. The government's paramount authority to conduct suspicionless searches to protect the border extends to non-destructive searches of vehicle components.
Facts:
- Manuel Flores-Montano drove a 1987 Ford Taurus station wagon to the Otay Mesa Port of Entry in an attempt to enter the United States.
- A customs inspector directed the vehicle to a secondary inspection station.
- At the secondary station, an inspector tapped the gas tank and noted that it sounded solid.
- A mechanic was called and, within 20 to 30 minutes, arrived to work on the vehicle.
- The mechanic raised the car, disconnected the gas tank from the undercarriage, and removed it.
- The inspector then hammered off a putty-like substance (bondo) from the top of the tank, opened an access plate, and found 37 kilograms of marijuana bricks.
- The entire process of removing the tank and finding the contraband took 15 to 25 minutes.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California indicted Flores-Montano on drug importation and possession charges.
- In the District Court, Flores-Montano filed a motion to suppress the marijuana evidence, arguing the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
- The District Court, bound by Ninth Circuit precedent, granted the suppression motion, holding that the search required reasonable suspicion.
- The United States appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court's ruling.
- The United States 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 the Fourth Amendment require customs officials to have reasonable suspicion before removing, disassembling, and reassembling a vehicle's fuel tank at the international border?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
No. The Fourth Amendment does not require reasonable suspicion for the removal, disassembly, and reassembly of a vehicle's fuel tank at the border. The government's interest in preventing the entry of unwanted persons and effects is at its zenith at the international border, and searches conducted there are considered reasonable simply by virtue of their location. The privacy and dignity interests that might require suspicion for highly intrusive searches of a person do not carry over to searches of vehicles. Unlike potentially destructive searches, such as drilling, the removal and reassembly of a gas tank is a non-destructive procedure that is justified by the government's paramount interest in protecting its territorial integrity, which outweighs the motorist's temporary possessory interest.
Concurring - Justice Breyer
No. The Court's opinion is correct. The administrative process by which Customs tracks its border searches, including the reasons for them, should help minimize concerns that such searches might be conducted in an abusive manner.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the broad scope of the border search exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant and suspicion requirements. By rejecting the Ninth Circuit's balancing test for vehicle searches, the Court created a clearer, more categorical rule giving customs officials significant authority. It firmly distinguishes the high expectation of privacy in one's person from the much lower expectation of privacy in a vehicle's components at the border. This precedent strengthens the government's hand in conducting thorough, albeit non-destructive, inspections of vehicles to interdict contraband, and it will likely be cited to justify the disassembly of other vehicle parts without suspicion.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Flores-Montano