# Opposition Brief — Lee Marshall Harris and Morris Ray Caldwell v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0448%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 400 U.S. 1211 ## Text ~ 6 + he Yn the Supreme Court of the Wnited States Oronnn TERM, 1970 No. 780 LEE MarsHaLL Harris AND Morris Ray CALDWELL, PETITIONERS v. UnivTep States or AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED ATH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION OPINION BELOW The opinion of the court of appeals is reported at 427 F. 2d 1368, JURISDICTION The judgment of the court of appeals was entered on July 27, 1970. A petition for rehearing was denied on August 28, 1970. On September 28, the petition for a writ of certiorari was filed. The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1). QUESTION PRESENTED Whether customs agents had authority to search a vehicle believed to be carrying contraband at a loca- tion approximately five blocks from the place where 408 -209-——-70 a) aa — 2 ; > petitioners and the driver f the truck had been ar- rested on probable. cause to believe they were involved in smuggling. STATEMENT Petitioners are charged with smuggling marijuana into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. 176a and 18 U.S.C, 545. On September 25, 1969, the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted a motion to suppress evidence. On ap- peal by the government, the court of appeals reversed (Pet. App. A), holding that the evidence was ad- missible; a request for rehearing en bane was denied (Pet. App. B).“ The evidence on the motion to suppress showed that the driver of a Ford pickup truck informed a cus- toms agent that on July 28, 1969, he would enter the United States from Mexico carrying contraband, On that day, agents saw the Ford truck enter the San Ysidro, California port of entry, followed closely by one Velasquez in a separate vehicle, After both ve- hicles had crossed the border they proceeded some distance towards Los Angeles; Velasquez then became the driver of the Ford truck (H. 32-35, 37). In Los The government's appeal to the court of appeals was based on 18 U.S.C, 3731, as amended by P. I. 90-351 of June 19, 1968, 82 Stat. 197, 257-238 (18 U.S.C. (Supp. V) 3731); it was not taken under 18 U.S.C, 1404, *A motion for a stay of the mandate of the court of appeals was, on October 10, 1070, granted by Mr. Justice Douglas. „H.“ refers to the transcript of the hearing held on the motion to suppress. We are lodging a copy of this transcript with the Clerk. 3 Angeles, both petitioners, driving a Chevrolet, met - Velasquez and led him to a driveway where the truck was then parked, Velasquez joined petitioners and the three drove away, About a minute later, approxi- mately five blocks from where the Ford truck was parked, customs agents stopped the Chevrolet and arrested petitioners and Velasquez for smuggling marijuana into the United States (II. 10-17, 38). The arresting agents returned immediately to the truck and pried loose a corner of the floor of the vehicle, revealing n concealed plastic-wrapped parcel (H. 17). At the hearing, it was stipulated “ * * that the tr uck came across the border and it was under constant sur- veillance up to the point where it was finally searched” (J. 8-9), The district court found that probable cause for petitioners’ arrests existed (H. 48), but that under Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, the search of the vehicle without a warrant was impermissible (H. 49). In reversing the ruling of the district court, the court of appeals relied upon its prior decision in Castillo-Garcia v. United States, 424 F. 2d 482, which Upheld, as a ‘border search’ not requiring probable cause, the search of a vehicle believed to be carry - Ing marijuana that had been under constant surveil- lance from the time it crossed the border. ARGUMENT The search in this case was valid irrespective of the issue of whether it could be justified as a border search based on less than probable cause, 4 There was here ample probable cause to believe that the vehicle was carrying smuggled marihuana, The original driver had said the truck would be carrying marihuana; the conduct of petitioners and Valasquez after the vehicle crossed the border served to confirm that information and their connection with the smug- gling. The case is thus governed by Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, which holds that a warrant- less search of a vehicle may be made on probable cause to believe that it is carrying contraband, See also Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132. Jongress has long given special authority to cus- tums agents to exumine vehicles in transit in the United States where there is ‘reasonable cause to sus- pect” that the goods have been brought into this coun- try contrary to law (see 19 U.S.C, 482 and 19 U.S.C. 1595(b)). On the facts of this case however, it is not necessary to reach the question whether a vehicle, which has been constantly observed after crossing the border, may be searched, as at the border, on suspicion not amounting to probable cause. 5 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, it is respectfully sub- mitted that the petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied. Erwin N. Giswonn, Solicitor General, Wu, Winsox, Assistant Attorney General, BEATRICE ROSENBERG, Epwarb FENId, Attorneys. Ocronxn, 1970. N j ———— © 5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1970 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0448%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.