Opinion — Almeida-Sanchez v. United States

or rua abs che: eievksa erent Pek ine Wawel rics

, 4 Bhan Cut SORES: bs Pe eee

te FORE: eae Logit ae

. oNet as arid pent

ce ‘tienen How thay a te ‘embod Seca sa its mene @ seemnetis

: panlbsrserss: Puntet weal. ede to qhicramesbtbetencs wy cexgendings

SS Veied maxi odt ) Crise watt tie. SS alicicenosab vat & gat

Siepsiioanet diene 4 peer Aden teudicn dhe bre «

res titers, Lapentys} ate eioenon? Pg iret Geass othe dstelve esc eatens:

Bh aad edhe tia teens edt. intl: ot castes “tasmertd oor? 9c

nie; dota jak aaah, bre toiargciaad shh Yo 40) 38S:

Few eraysu sion yedin bye. seicdemanes io apie walneries

ee te euhiwied lures aha ot: ce a wt totb acaunrsieet & ivist lie

A ie betagpant Sl er oohorials WA: Somrdiue. en “ etabs Thu: !

bs sail Hereaets qegteie® wit? Rejaiey) eserotth ods

6k sep eas welien the TEE cette en “apritote abisaueset” assadio’:

eins a Se fae al? jae ad? te -piaboied bporinte

age 3 ae pease Suma toh. ad) to: stone ont seo crank ati be

s para hain lahore Prenton ie oS Liytikwe ial PeMERS Se |

Fe

Sohinds sical a — ¥ tater Tee mies FAGaC.

ae spon 5 ieee 1h ea att tay bate) ef tdoees tous od T

ae eet aig tats ag seca bbeccos it

aeiakinace: sti epalcas So hattiond. ak 4

oe arpgiiod Ok netent ss Teese Be hed eyes:

gts se ettac oa ved 982 et

rae ae aes ak OT pci tiey od Sed ofc ale eek

ee Lagrtivaci ah cc ‘Mioow yee! (4 Jo Rhw Awitse af? 17h)

EMS) ae Sott es lee dt awabayiass

beserenreny o Ot a

‘ wt ‘ f .

x po pre at Poa) te add to coatezee! tneier iets |. maw °

Sgt oh eae P dala Me t we abe sunsitoh he pe? sn sti

peed ae oe Niceulll undigiiyo ep Fh

7

ns in violation of 21 U.8. C. $176 (a). His sole

on on appeal was that the search of his automo-

4 retires tortreerg yh wae a

Ses a aes ro eo

the! border, and at all points it lies north of Inter-

‘state’80, © major east-west highway entirely within the

; Sick hates thinweicntinc Gad SOCULWALK will thx Seock

The petitioner was some 25,air miles north of the

when he was stopped. It is undenied that the

mn Ye es eso

nd Dy avRs ‘

me es ae *

2K;

Shanes and. Williams,

U. 8. 148. we —* _

avagan Te eR

at) Act, 8. YW 8. fe 51007 (a),

io 4

es yl er One OE Ae? FOP eee FT;

: ays pe ay rie Aeeh ab Lae oS ree #3 Ceake his tie

ads: died texictobny x. Fi tae sale AN OOS

joni ite whit tt Rast aid . beh

mpl inpreagenmage

o Sipe al ga ‘& warrant.

spin amntbret ont et

declare a field day for the police in searching

-Mutomobile or no automobile, there must

nee a ene ‘As Mr. Justice

the Court in Chambers v. Maroney, 399

co ‘In enforcing he Fourth Amendment’

aie 0 7 feglor I

i rhe es Bs 388

upeoecniunamuumaneae -

In seeking 8 rationale for vali ty of the'search in

relies heavily inspec-

oor ae a

tionality ‘of pel neiaOS Te" belies

: Soiaed siguuner sore

va ‘com 2 ae in the PS ee gata Sea a = ted the any

br af the are Pat ahead not hae warrant,’

sisted that. the “diasretian of, theofficial in tha fila” be

seeepnens eaeareane ny eertens pela; the in

spection. /d., at 532-583... -

<Saathaadi iealeiaadiaaaanitiahcaien valiehiuye

by the Government are equally inapposite. Colonnade

Catering Corporation v.. United States, 397 U. S. 72,

and United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, both approved

Moy of federal regulation and tation of the manv-

th isa ah Bohl

ae Sao pin ie en Wi Apetiad

Lien ene To

the purposes of the inspector or the limits of

a Re Reveal ARS, Rica

mi de In

he: Lender imesh Tees. that he wen‘ guiley af is

on of an offense.

the ein gd a Wa, nr

patrol, on a California road that lies at all points

C miles north of the Mexican border,’ was of a

ieipthab ‘gutreh ‘vislated:4hie:-pbtitiomer's Mourth

Se

he Cand ek Godllcd Gavel Uae SO: ons,

tet during » paid th our iti wnt the Nation wa

ed with s law enforcement problem of no small

ma \ enforcement of the Prohibition laws.

Ged ek Cocea silased thw drmetas ot clein expisticnce

against the guarantee of the Fourth Amendment. Chief

Justice Taft's opinion for the Court distinguished be-

tween searches at the border and in the interior, and

peerie the sone tong Pepe Byres

a pth ag odytang cul ape naapecban

‘mobile on the chance. of pen mga

_ subje pwr tying hen

ames "Butthooe lawfully within the country, entitled

‘to use the public highways, have a right to free pas-

F

CMAs SI

Lee ‘te. Dasrggeeeters die ds,

3 Sener in

AEE ee

eandinn . ” * nae ro 3 eee

wey ghee,

" ; 1%

“g

7

at,

MFS:

SR

aa

aA ELE

ee

ie

a

se

. building. “ta

i

Bev t Fare Fags

‘aroney, 304

“Sibaert

Cialis, “ee -

i

it

R # Loe te

Ci tag

Be,

iy

Re

PROSITE

OH

Ba

somes

ae

spt Mtg

>

-

€:-—

Aoi os tatmiw & sings

EAE

nd: the search. »"Camara © Mv

387 °U. S,-at533. It would of

nee, but. inconvenience

se Sag i si

& PEt po ? v4

B23 v. UNITED STATES Ya

se a es A a he ?

nitrite amie

established checkpoint.”* Because of that, “it is com-

monly used to evade checkpoints by both maribuans and

of vehicles and persons on that particular highway.”

Pursuant to this practice “they stopped this vehicle for

WG Ger () wha porte

ae ge OE aOR

poten At the point of the stop west of Glamis, the highway is only

approximately 20 miles north of the border, running parallel to it.

‘East of Glamis, the highway proceeds sharply northeast to Blythe

# distance of over 50 miles.

>) SE appa Gib dapipt 28} lak ‘tea’ altdil Weed iabctabed ol

‘these facts before initiating any search for aliens, and hence before

finding any contraband.

Praia i

ee

6 ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ ». UNITED STATES

the liquor traffic authorized warrantless inspections of

licensed premises without probable cause, or reasonable

suspicion, not to check on liquor quality or conditions

under which it was sold, but solely to enforce the col-

lection of the federal excise tax.’ United States v. Bis-

well, 406 U. 311 (1972), involved the Gun Control Act

Ce eee a ee

ad "See aloo Fong’ Yue! Ting. United

14 ego magredresmppag v. Fisher,

8 Tey on t ‘ mutaahictinters i

cement of the immigration laws it is at times de-

Sabie to op and search vehi within resonable

legal right to do's0 should be conferred by law.” “HR.

Rep. No. 186, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 2. ‘The House Com-

mittee on Immigration and Naturalization was “of the

opinion that the legislation is highly desirable,” ibid.,

and its counterpart in the Senate, 8. Rep. No. 632, 79th

Cong., 1st Sess., 2, stated that “[t]here is no question but —

that this is a step in the right direction.” The result was

express statutory authority, Act of August 7, 1946, 60 .

Stat. 865, to conduct searches of vehicles for aliens within

a reasonable distance from the border without warrant

or possible cause. Moreover, in the Immigration and

Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 163, Congress permitted

ountey “rhe: pony of paeoling he bordep %

~

2 _ ALMEIDA-SANCHEZ ». UNITED STATES

"mately 90,000 had entered the United States by illegally

po anemone ane Pe y.

' 2837 308. ares: 1387;

2; 1681/80. F ‘R. $287.1; 19C.F. R

a a yg ig Ba i

Simeesecrecion

EM Men Neng theres 2 Bows 20

3 United. Stanee;-107-F. 24-162, (1982). eigeaiees

av. Bird, 456 F.2d 1023, 1024 (1972); Ramirez v.

» 263 -F.: 2d 386, 387° — and’ Haerr v. United

OF 2d: 533,, 535 (1957), Fe LRH PEERS 2 eet

Solera Fs

"

me

sas

Pia

rsyayiatat

Ht ii ‘i

ah