# Petition — Bogle v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2151%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Petition - **Published:** January 1, 1977 - **Citation:** 434 U.S. 854 ## Text *f- .,. Supreme Court, U.S. i FILED a/ | vg | , IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UN) THERAES POPAKSIR. CLERK October Term, 1976 NO. —y7-~ 14 ™ BASCOM BOGLE, Petitioner, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Judgment Affirming Judgment Of The United States District Court For The Central District Of California CHESTER L. BROWN 433 North Camden Drive Suite 1200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 (213) 274-8274 Attorney for Petitioner BROWN & NEWTON Attorneys at Law IN THE TOPICAL INDEX SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES r | Page October Term, 1976 Je No Table of Authorities ii OPINION BE™LOW 2 JURISDICTION 2 BASCOM BOGLE, a QUESTIONS PRESENTED 3 Petitioner, vs. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATEMENT OF THE CASE 5 Respondent. REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT 6 THE SEARCH IN THIS CASE WAS CONDUCTED IN CONTRAVENTION OF STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION 7 Petition For Writ Of Certiorari ’ To The United States Court Of TITLE 19, UNITED STATES CODE, Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, § 482 IS OVERLY BROAD AND Judgment Affirming Judgment Of AUTHORIZES "GENERAL WARRANTS" 8 The United States District Court For The Central District Of TITLE 19, UNITED STATES CODE, California § 1496 DOES NOT AUTHORIZE SEARCHES FOR CONTRABAND 8 CONCLUSION 9 APPENDIX A CHESTER L. BROWN } Memorandum filed March 15, 1977 433 North Camden Drive Suite 1200 APPENDIX B Beverly Hills, CA 90210 4 (213) 274-8274 Order Denying Petition for Rehearing Lh filed May 27, 1977 Attorney for Petitioner ; BROWN & NEWTON Attorneys at Law i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES IN THE ' SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1976 Cases Page Almedia-Sanchez v. United States 413 U.S. 266 (1973) 8 NO. Coolidge v. New Hampshire 403 U.S. 443 (1971) 6 Statutes BASCOM BOGLE, 19 U.S.C. § 482 3, 6, 7, 8 VOCLESORSE : vs. 19 U.S.C. § 1496 3, 5, 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a) (1) 6 Respondent. 21 U.S.C. § 952(a) 6 Ky 21 U.S.C. § 960(a) (1) 6 r Petition For Writ Of Certiorari A 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1) 2 To The United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit, Judgment Affirming Judgment Of The United States District Court For The Central District Of California The Petitioner Bascom Bogle respect- fully prays that a Writ of Certiorari issue to review the judgment and dépinion of the United States Court of Appeals \ for the Ninth Circuit entered in this proceeding on March 15, 1977. The order ii l. denying the Petition for Rehearing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was filed on May 27, 1977. / C OPINION BELOW The opinion of the Court of Appeals, an unreported memorandum opinion, appears as Appendix A hereto. A copy of the Order denying the Petition for Rehearing in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is attached hereto as Appendix B. The District Court's opinion was not reported. JURISDICTION The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was entered on March 15, 1977. A timely Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc was denied on May 27, 1977. This Petition for Certiorari has been filed simultaneously with an Application for Extension of Time for Filing Petition for Certiorari. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1254(1). or DP eye we rapes Ree Or QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether warrantless border searches are authorized solely by statute, or are judicially created "exceptions" to the general warrant requirement. 2. Whether the instant search ex- ceeded the permissible statutory author- ization. 3. Whether the statute authorizing this search is overly broad. 4. Whether § 482 or § 1496 of Title 19, United States Code, governs border searches. STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED Title 19, United States Code, § 482, provides as follows: "Any of the officers or per- sons authorized to board or search vessels may stop, search, and examine, as well without as within their respective districts, any vehicle, beast, or person, on which or whom he or they shall suspect there is merchandise which 3. is subject to duty, or shall have been introduced into the United States in any manner contrary to law, whether by the person in possession or charge, or by, in, Or upon such vehicle or beast, Or otherwise, and to search any trunk or envelope, wherever found, in which he may have a reasonable cause to suspect there is merchandise which was imported contrary to law; and if any such officer or other persons so auth- orized shall find any merchandise on or about any such vehicle, beast, Or person, or in any such trunk or envelope, which he shall have reasonable cause to believe is subject to duty, or to have © been unlawfully introduced into the United States, whether by the person in possession or charge, or by, in, or upon such vehicle, beast, or otherwise, he shall seize and secure the same for ersan.* Title 19, United States Code, § 1496, provides as follows: "The collector may cause an examination to be made of the baggage of any person arriving in the United States in order to ascertain what articles are con- tained therein and whether subject to duty, free of duty, or pro- hibited notwithstanding a declara- tion and entry therefor has been made." STATEMENT OF THE CASE This case arises from a search for contraband conducted by a customs inspec- tor at the Los Angeles International Air- port on July 21, 1976. Inspector Varesi was assigned that day to examine baggage of passengers deplaning Braniff Airlines Flight 922, arriving directly from Lima, Peru. Varesi testified that he decided, prior to the plane's arrival, to search all luggage on boaid for contraband. The Petitioner was a passenger on that flight. 5. As he passed through customs, Inspector Varesi searched a suitcase belonging to the Petitioner. Varesi cut through the bottom of the suitcase and discovered approximately 1,700 grams of cocaine. The Petitioner was tried and convicted for importation of cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 952(a), § 960(a)(1)) and possession with intent to distribute cocaine (21 U.S.C. § 84l(a)(1)). REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT Border Searches Are Governed By Title 19, United States Code, § 482. At trial and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Petitioner urged the Court to adopt the ruling that war- rantless border searches are governed by Title 19, United States Code, § 482. No reported case has ever held that such searches fall within any well-recognized "exception" to the requirement that searches must be conducted pursuant to warrant. In Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 443 (1971), this Court articu- lated the exceptions and justifications for allowing searches without a warrant. 6. No mention was made of "border searches". The holding of the Ninth Circuit in this case now expands on these "exceptions" and includes border searches. The Petitioner urged the Circuit Court that the search had to be governed by . Title 19, United States Code, § 482. Every reported case discussing border searches in the Courts of Appeal have used this statute as justification for the search. Yet the Ninth Circuit in its opinion intimates that no statutory auth- orization is required. THE SEARCH IN THIS CASE WAS CON- DUCTED IN CONTRAVENTION OF STATU- TORY AUTHORIZATION The Petitioner further argued at trial and in the Circuit Court that Title 19, United States Code, § 482, only authorized searches upon a demonstrable showing of "reasonable cause” to quote the statute. Here, the customs Inspector stated that he decided to search all luggage in ad- vance of its arrival. No attempt was made to justify his decision, nor was any evidence admitted in the record establish- ing what "reasonable cause" existed at Ve the time this decision was made. TITLE 19, UNITED STATES CODE, § 482 IS OVERLY BROAD AND AUTH- ORIZES “GENERAL WARRANTS" The Petitioner argued at trial and before the Circuit Court that § 482 was overly broad in that it authorized searches of luggage "wherever found", again to quote the statute. Thus, this ancient statute (1866) suffers from the same infirmity as the statute this Court ruled infirm in a similar situation in Almedia-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973). TITLE 19, UNITED STATES CODE, § 1496 DOES NOT AUTHORIZE SEARCHES FOR CONTRABAND The Circuit Court stated that this search was authorized by § 1496 of Title 19, United States Code. No other Court has ever applied this section to border searches. The Petitioner argued that this section dealt with examination for dutiable items, not searches for contra- band. The Circuit Court's ruling is unsupported by any reported decision, 8. BRE: and is clearly an immense extension of statutorily authorized border searches. It is furthermore clearly erroneous, since that statute by its very language does not deal with searches for criminal violations. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Peti- tion for a Writ of Certiorari should be granted. Respectfully submitted, CHESTER L. BROWN Attorney for Petitioner BROWN & NEWTON Attorneys at Law a da’ APPENDIX A . PRR 6s sy UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FILED Mar 15 1977 Emil E. Melfi, Jr. Clerk U.S. Court of Appeals UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, No. 76-3388 Ve BASCOM BOGLE, Defendant-Appellant. ) ) ) ) ) MEMORANDUM ) ) Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Be.ore: HUFSTEDLER, GOODWIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. Bogle appeals from his conviction for He contends that his motion to suppress unlawfully importing 1700 grams .. cocaine. the cocaine should have been granted be- cause it was the product of an illegal search in violation of his rights secured by the Fourth Amendment. The contraband was found during the course of a search of his suitcase by customs officials when he arrived from Lima, Peru, in Los Angeles. A-1l. We reject his contentions. The examination of Bogle's luggage by customs authorities was authorized by 19 U.S.C. §§ 482 and 1496. Bogle claims that the statutes are overbroad in that the statutes authorize search of trunks or suitcases "wherever found." Bogle's Suitcase was found at the border pursuant to an ordinary customs se rch. He is in no position to contend that the applica- tion of the statute to him is in any re- spect overbroad. Of greater moment, how- ever, Bogle does not have any Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in the contents of his suitcase when he enters the country from abroad and presents him- self for customs inspection. "Neither history nor contemporary concepts of dig- nity suggests to anyone that he will be free from official scrutiny on crossing an international boundary. He must antic- ipate that he will be detained temporar- ily at the border. He will be interro- gated. His vehicle, if any, and his personal effects will be examined. Such routine detention has never been equated with an arrest, however that term is A-2. defined in other context, and such routine inspections are not deemed unreasonable searches. (E.g., Carroll v. United States (1925) 267 U.S. 132, 154, ...7 Boyd v. United States (1886) 116 U.S. 616, 623-624 . . -)" #£=(United States v. Guadalupe-Garza, 421 F.2d 876, 878 (1970)). This was plainly a border search as that term has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973). Bogle has no expectation of privacy in the exten- sive search that was conducted of his suit- case that led to the discovery of the con- traband. Accordingly, the search that revealed the contraband was not in viola- tion of his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seiz-~- ures and denial of the motion to suppress based upon the Fourth Amendment was cor- rect. AFFIRMED. ‘ UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THe NINTH CIRCUIT FILED May 27, 1977 Emil E. Melfi, Jr. Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Vv No. 76-3388 , ye Cr 76-967 BASCOM BOGLE, ) TH | Defendant-Appellant. } ORDER [ sgdiesuapeeane BEFORE: HUFSTEDLER, GOODWIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. i. The panel as constituted in the above case has voted to deny the petition for rehearing and to reject the suggestion for a rehearing en banc. The full court has been advised of the suggestion for anen banc hearing, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35(b). The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for a rehearing en banc is rejected. t A TRUE COPY ATTEST 5/27/77 Emil E. Melfi, Jr. Clerk of Court - by: Pat Naeushawe, Deputy Clerk B-1. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385004_2151%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.