# United States v. Brignoni-Ponce > Supreme Court of the United States · June 30, 1975 · 422 U.S. 873 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426197 ## Case - **Full name:** United States v. Brignoni-Ponce - **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States - **Decided:** June 30, 1975 - **Citations:** 422 U.S. 873; 95 S. Ct. 2574; 45 L. Ed. 2d 607; 1975 U.S. LEXIS 10 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Rehnquist - **Judges:** Powell, Rehnquist, Douglas - **Cited by:** 3,094 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426197 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that although roving patrols in which officers stop and question motorists about their resident status may be conducted without probable cause, such stops must, at least, show that the "stopping officer is `aware of specific articulable facts, together with rational in… - holding that when a border patrol officer’s observations lead him or her to reasonably suspect that a vehicle may contain illegal aliens, the officer may stop the vehicle, question its occupants as to citizenship and immigration status, and ask them to explain suspicious circu… - concluding that Border Patrol agents on 25 roving patrols may perform reasonable Terry-stops and “question the driver and passengers 26 about their citizenship and immigration status, and he may ask them to explain suspicious 27 circumstances, but any further detention or sear… - holding that under the Fourth Amendment law enforcement officers may, when based upon reasonable suspicion, “question [an individual] about their citizenship and immigration status, and [] may ask them to explain suspicious circumstances, but any further detention or search mu… - holding that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to stop a vehicle near the international border and question the occupants about their immigration status and citizenship where the only ground for suspicion that the occupants of the vehicle are aliens is the occupants’ a… ## Opinion text Mr. Justice Rehnquist, concurring. I join in the opinion of the Court. I think it quite important to point out, however, that that opinion, which is joined by a somewhat different majority than that which comprised the Almeida-Sanchez Court, is both by its terms and by its reasoning concerned only with the type of stop involved in this case. I think that just as travelers entering the country may be stopped and searched without probable cause and without founded suspicion, because of “national self protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in,” Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925), a strong case may be made for those charged with the enforcement of laws conditioning the right of vehicular use of a highway to likewise stop motorists using highways in order to determine whether they have met the qualifications prescribed by applicable law for such use. See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, 440-441 (1973); United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311 (1972). I regard these and similar situations, such *888 as agricultural inspections and highway roadblocks to apprehend known fugitives, as not in any way constitutionally suspect by reason of today’s decision. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426197. Public record. Not legal advice.