# Jurisdictional Statement — Reimer v. California > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1427%3A1 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Jurisdictional Statement - **Published:** January 1, 1984 - **Citation:** 467 U.S. 1201 ## Text 88 3 1356 Office - Supreme Court, U.S FILED JAN 25 1984 ALEXANDER L. STEVAS. CLERK No. ..-.... IN THE Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1984 HENNING REIMER, Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellee. ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT. Kim H. PEARMAN, A Law Corporation, 7080 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 307, Hollywood, Calif. 90028, (213) 466-4525, Counsel for Appellant, Henning Reimer. Parker & Son, inc.. Law Printers, Los Angeles. Phone 724-6622 Pay, Question Presented. Probable cause or at least a reasonable suspicion under 19 U.S.C. § 482 is required by customs officials to search a person or his personal belongings at an international border or its functional equivalent. Oo ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page NED dete. ol shh cbbcntes chiugcsceucesibebuaces i id, DRaake, sadancilhvibsevaksscovsatvcesesbit 1 eM. ccichcucckeunskacssincoescuevscutk 2 Constitutional Provisions and Rules ...................... 2 Raising the Federal Question .......................0cc0008 2 Oe. bcc sepensccsccvccshesivodeates 3 The Question Is Substantial ........................20c00008 4 GEE alas es. See RIUM OT REA TON ot. Gt, BN De APPENDIX A. Opinion. In the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division One. The People, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert Carlton Enright and Henning Reimer, Defendants and Respondents. 2 CRIM. NO. 43532. (Super. Ct. No. A-900448). Filed: September 28, 1983. APPEALS from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Edward A. Hinz, Jr., Judge. Reversed. Robert H. Philibosian, District Attorney (Los Angeles County), Donald J. Kaplan and George M. Palmer, Deputy District Attorneys, for Plaintiff and Appellant. John P. Kenosian under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Respondent Robert Carlton Enright. Kim H. Pearman, for Defendant and Respondent Henning Reimer. The People appeal the order dismissing an information which charged respondents with the illegal importation of cocaine entered after the court granted respondents’ motion to suppress evidence. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352; Pen. Code, § 1538.5.) Appellant contends: ‘The trial court erred in suppressing the evidence. Customs officers at an inter- national border (or its functional equivalent) may search a person and the person's effects without any cause whatso- ever, solely on the basis that the person is entering the United States from a foreign country. Moreover, the evidence shows there was ‘reasonable cause’ to search defendants and their personal effects.’’ The motion to suppress was submitted upon the prelim- inary examination transcript. The record establishes that on foliions December 31, 1981, respondents Robert Enright and Hen- ning Reimer arrived at Los Angeles International Airport by means of an international flight from Lima, Peru. As they proceeded through Customs, the Treasury Enforcement Computer System (TECS) revealed that respondents were each suspected to be in possession of cocaine. An inspection of the contents of respondent Reimer’s handluggage un- covered 807 grams of cocaine contained within the covers of an ‘‘extremely heavy’’ photograph album that smelled of fresh glue, and 1.34 grams of the substance within En- right’s handluggage. The trial court granted the motion to suppress the evidence because the computer information was insufficient to warrant the search of the luggage. Appellant's contention that the trial court erred in granting the motion to suppress is well taken. It is settled that rea- sonable grounds to search a person or inspect his personal effects at an international port of entry is established solely by reason of the entry into the United States from a foreign country. (United States v. Ramsey (1977) 431 U.S. 606, 616-617; United States v. Sandler (Sth Cir. 1981) 644 F.2d 1163; People v. Duncan (1974).40 Cal.App.3d 940, 945; see, 19 U.S.C. §§ 482, 1582.) The justification for inspection of respondents’ handlug- gage was not dependent upon the information obtained by the customs inspectors from the Treasury Enforcement Computer System. (Cf. United States v. Gallagher (4th Cir. 1977) 557 F.2d 1041, 1043, cert. den. Gallagher v. United States (1977) 434 U.S. 870.) The reasonableness of the inspection of the contents of respondents’ handluggage was established solely by the undisputed evidence that respon- dents had arrived in the United States from a foreign country at an established port of entry, and were subjected to a permissible, reasonable search of the luggage. (United States v. Sandler, supra, 644 F.2d at 1165-1168; of. People v. et, OM otis Leyba (1981) 29 Cal.3d 591, 597.)' The order granting the motion to suppress evidence is reversed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. HANSON (Thaxton), J. We concur: SPENCER, P.J. LILLIE, J. oe APPENDIX B. Notice of App»al to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District. Henning Reimer, Appellant v. State of California, Ap- pellee. 2 Crim. No. 43532. Notice is hereby given that HENNING REIMER, the Appellant above-named, hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States from the final order of the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate Dis- trict dated November 23, 1983. This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(1). [Stamp] KIM H. PEARMAN KIM H. PEARMAN, Attorney for Appellant tel APPENDIX C. Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the Supreme Court of the State of California. Henning Reimer, Appellant v. State of California, Ap- pellee. No. 2 Crim #43532. Notice is hereby given that HENNING REIMER, the Appellant above-named, hereby appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States from the final order of the Su- preme Court of California, denying a hearing in this case on November 23, 1983 and affirming the judgment of con- viction entered herein on September 28, 1983 by the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District. This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1257(1). [Stamp] KIM H. PEARMAN KIM H. PEARMAN, Attorney for Appellant --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385011_1427%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.