# Opinion — Almeida-Sanchez v. United States

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0183%3A7

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Opinion
- **Published:** January 1, 1973
- **Citation:** 413 U.S. 266

## Text

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... -

-

€:-—

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386414_0183%3A7. Public record. Not legal advice.