United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975)
United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975)
891
95 S.Ct. 2585.
45 L.Ed.2d 623
Syllabus*
The Fourth Amendment, held to forbid Border Patrol officers, in the
absence of consent or probable cause, to search private vehicles at traffic
checkpoints removed from the border and its functional equivalents, and
for this purpose there is no difference between a checkpoint and a roving
patrol. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37
L.Ed.2d 596, followed. Pp. 892-898.
Affirmed.
Mark L. Evans, Washington, D.C., for the United States.
Charles M. Sevilla, San Diego, Cal., for Luis Antonio Ortiz.
Mr. Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court.
Border Patrol officers stopped respondent's car for a routine immigration search
at the traffic checkpoint on Interstate Highway 5 at San Clemente, Cal., on
November 12, 1973. They found three aliens concealed in the trunk, and
respondent was convicted on three counts of knowingly transporting aliens who
were in the country illegally. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
reversed the conviction in an unreported opinion, relying on dictum in its
opinion in United States v. Bowen, 500 F.2d 960 (CA9 1974), aff'd, 422 U.S.
916, 95 S.Ct. 2569, 45 L.Ed.2d 641, to the effect that our decision in AlmeidaSanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973),
required probable cause for all vehicle searches in the border area, whether
Nothing in this record suggests that the Border Patrol officers had any special
reason to suspect that respondent's car was carrying concealed aliens. Nor does
the Government contend that the San Clemente checkpoint is a functional
equivalent of the border. Brief for United States 16. The only question for
decision is whether vehicle searches at traffic checkpoints, like the rovingpatrol search in Almeida-Sanchez, must be based on probable cause.
These differences are relevant to the constitutional issue, since the central
concern of the Fourth Amendment is to protect liberty and privacy from
arbitrary and oppressive interference by government officials. Camara v.
Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 528, 87
S.Ct. 1727, 1730, 18 L.Ed.2d 930 (1967); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S.
757, 767, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 18331834, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966). The Fourth
Amendment's requirement that searches and seizures be reasonable also may
limit police use of unnecessarily frightening or offensive methods of
surveillance and investigation. See e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 1617, 88
S.Ct. 1868, 18771878, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); Camara, supra, 387 U.S. at
531, 87 S.Ct. at 1732; Schmerber, supra, 384 U.S. at 771772, 86 S.Ct. at
1836. While the differences between a roving patrol and a checkpoint would be
significant in determining the propriety of the stop, which is considerably less
intrusive than a search, Terry v. Ohio, supra, they do not appear to make any
difference in the search itself. The greater regularity attending the stop does not
mitigate the invasion of privacy that a search entails. Nor do checkpoint
procedures significantly reduce the likelihood of embarrassment. Motorists
whose cars are searched, unlike those who are only questioned, may not be
reassured by seeing that the Border Patrol searches other cars as well. Where
only a few are singled out for a search, as at San Clemente, motorists may find
the searches especially offensive. See Note, Border Searches and the Fourth
Amendment, 77 Yale L.J. 1007, 10121013 (1968).
9
Moreover we are not persuaded that the checkpoint limits to any meaningful
extent the officer's discretion to select cars for search. The record in the
consolidated proceeding indicates that only about 3% of the cars that pass the
San Clemente checkpoint are stopped for either questioning or a search, 368
F.Supp., at 411. Throughout the system, fewer than 3% of the vehicles that
passed through checkpoints in 1974 were searched, Brief for United States 29,
and no checkpoint involved in Baca reported a search rate of more than 10% or
15%. 368 F.Supp., at 412415. It is apparent from these figures that
checkpoint officers exercise a substantial degree of discretion in deciding which
cars to search. The Government maintains that they voluntarily exercise that
discretion with restraint and search only vehicles that arouse their suspicion,
and it insists the officers should be free of judicial oversight of any kind.
Viewed realistically, this position would authorize the Border Patrol to search
vehicles at random, for no officer ever would have to justify his decision to
search a particular car.
10
11
The Government lists in its reply brief some of the factors on which officers
have relied in deciding which cars to search. They include the number of
persons in a vehicle, the appearance and behavior of the driver and passengers,
their inability to speak English, the responses they give to officers' questions,
the nature of the vehicle, and indications that it may be heavily loaded. All of
these factors properly may be taken into account in deciding whether there is
probable cause to search a particular vehicle. In addition, as we note today in
United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S., at 884885, 95 S.Ct., at 2582, the
officers are entitled to draw reasonable inferences from these facts in light of
their knowledge of the area and their prior experience with aliens and
smugglers. In this case, however, the officers advanced no special reasons for
believing respondent's vehicle contained aliens. The absence of probable cause
makes the search invalid.
II
12
13
Affirmed.
14
15
16
I wish to stress, however, that the Court's opinion is confined to full searches,
and does not extend to fixed-checkpoint stops for the purpose of inquiring
about citizenship. Such stops involve only a modest intrusion, are not likely to
be frightening or significantly annoying, are regularized by the fixed situs, and
effectively serve the important national interest in controlling illegal entry. I do
not regard such stops as unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, whether or
not accompanied by 'reasonable suspicion' that a particular vehicle is involved
in immigration violations, cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873,
95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607, and I do not understand today's opinion to cast
doubt upon their constitutionality.
17
Mr. Chief Justice BURGER, with whom Mr. Justice BLACKMUN joins,
concurring in the judgment.
18
Like Mr. Justice WHITE I can, at most, do no more than concur in the
judgment. As the Fourth Amendment now has been interpreted by the Court it
seems that the Immigration and Naturalization Service is powerless to stop the
tide of illegal aliensand dangerous drugsthat daily and freely crosses our
2,000-mile southern boundary.1 Perhaps these decisions will be seen in
perspective as but another example of a society seemingly impotent to deal with
massive lawlessness. In that sense history may view us as prisoners of our own
traditional and appropriate concern for individual rights, unableor unwilling
to apply the concept of reasonableness explicit in the Fourth Amendment in
order to develop a rational accommodation between those rights and the literal
safety of the country.
19
Given today's decisions it would appear that, absent legislative action, nothing
less than a massive force of guards could adequately protect our southern
border.2 To establish hundreds of checkpoints with enlarged border forces so as
to stop literally every car and pedestrian at every border checkpoint, however,
would doubtless impede the flow of commerce and travel between this country
and Mexico. Moreover, it is uncertain whether stringent penalties for
employment of illegal aliens, and rigid requirements for proof of legal entry
before employment, would help solve the problems, but those remedies have
not been tried.
20
I would hope that when we next deal with this problem we give greater weight
to the reality that the Fourth Amendment prohibits only 'unreasonable searches
and seizures' and to the frequent admonition that reasonableness must take into
account all the circumstances and balance the rights of the individual with the
needs of society. See, e.g., Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d
889 (1968); Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206, 80 S.Ct. 1437, 4 L.Ed.2d
1669 (1960); United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S. 311, 92 S.Ct. 1593, 32 L.Ed.2d
87 (1972).
21
Excerpt from Judge Turrentine's opinion in United States v. Baca, 368 F.Supp. 398,
22
402408 (SDCal.1973)
THE ILLEGAL ALIEN PROBLEM
23
The United States through legislative action has determined that it is in the best
interest of the nation to limit the number of persons who can legally immigrate
into the country in any given year. These controls reflect in part a
Congressional intent to protect the American labor market from an influx of
foreign labor. Karnuth v. United States, 279 U.S. 231, 49 S.Ct. 274, 73 L.Ed.
677 (1929); 201(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat.
163, as amended by the Act of October 3, 1965, 79 Stat. 911, 8 U.S.C.
1151(a).
24
Under this policy of limited admission, 385,685 new immigrants entered the
United States legally during fiscal year 1972. Since July 1, 1968, the law has
established an annual quota of 120,000 persons for the independent countries of
the Western Hemisphere. Included within this quota are immigrants from the
Republic of Mexico who in fiscal year 1972 totalled 64,040. 1972 Annual
Report, Immigration and Naturalization Service, pp. 2, 28.
25
Currently illegal aliens are in residence within the United States in numbers
which, while not susceptible of exact measurement, are estimated to be in the
vicinity of 800,000 to over one million. Department of Justice, Special Study
Group on Illegal Immigrants from Mexico, A Program for Effective And
Humane Action on Illegal Mexican Immigrants, 6 (1973) (hereinafter cited as
Cramton Rpt.).
26
27
Since 1970, the number of illegal Mexican aliens in the United States who have
been apprehended has been growing at a rate in excess of 20 percent per year.
Cramton Rpt. at 6.
28
30
In addition, it is estimated that the per capita income of the poorest 40 percent
of the Mexican population, the strata most likely to leave their homeland in
search of employment in the United States, is less than $150 per year.
31
The manpower needs of the United States generated by World War II resulted
in many Mexicans being imported into this country and becoming familiar with
employment opportunities and practices in the United States. See Diaz v. KayDix Ranch, 9 Cal.App.3d 588, 88 Cal.Rptr. 443 (1970).
32
33
34
Other estimates of the impact of illegal aliens in California suggest that in 1971,
when 595,000 Californians were unemployed (7.4 percent of the State's labor
force), there were between 200,000 and 300,000 illegal aliens employed in
California earning approximately $100 million in wages. Hearings on Illegal
Aliens at 150.
35
Since the majority of Mexicans are unskilled or low skilled workers they tend
to compete with Mexican-Americans, blacks, Indians, and other minority
groups who, due to the declining percentage of jobs requiring low or no skills,
are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain gainful employment. Cramton Rpt.
at 12.
36
Illegal aliens compete for jobs with persons legally residing in the United
States who are unskilled and uneducated and who form that very group which
our society is trying to provide with a fair share of America's prosperity.
37
38
Illegal aliens pose a potential health hazard to the community since many seek
work as nursemaids, food handlers, cooks, housekeepers, waiters, dishwashers,
and grocery workers. Immigration and medical officials in Los Angeles, for
example, have discovered that the illegal alien population in Los Angeles'
barrio is infected with a high incidence of typhoid, dysentery, tuberculosis,
tapeworms, veneral disease and hepatitis. L. A. Times, Sept. 16, 1973, pt II, at
1.
39
40
Another aspect of the problem created by illegal aliens is that employed aliens
tend to send a substantial portion of their earnings to relatives or friends in
Mexico. This outflow of United States dollars exacerbates our balance of
payments problem to the extent of $1 billion a year. Hearings on Illegal Aliens,
pt. 3 at 683.
41
The net effect of this silent invasion of illegal aliens from Mexico is suffering
by the aliens who are frequently victims of extortion, violence and sharp
practices, displacement of American citizens and legally residing aliens from
the labor market, and irritation between two neighboring countries.
Given that illegal aliens are a significant problem in American life, especially
for those minority groups who are described as economically deprived, and that
Congress has decreed that all but a relatively few aliens are to be permanently
excluded, then we must analyze what law enforcement problems exist. In this
regard, the following findings of fact are made:
43
The illegal alien problem is one found primarily in the Southwestern Region of
the United States.
44
This problem along the Mexican-American border has existed for some time
with the original responsibility for securing the integrity of the border being
assigned to the U.S. Army, along with the Departments of Treasury and Labor,
who had about 20,000 men assigned to the border between Brownsville, Texas,
and San Diego, California, in 1920. National Geographic Magazine, 'Along Our
Side of the Mexican Border.' (July 1920).
45
Currently the burden of controlling the entry of aliens and stemming the flow of
illegal aliens along the Mexican-American border is assigned to the INS.1
46
The border extends for almost 2,000 miles from the Gulf of Mexico to the
Pacific Coast.
47
Along this border there were over 152 million legal entries at authorized ports
of entry during fiscal 1972, of which over 91 million were made by aliens. Over
39 million of the legal entries were made at the three ports of entry in Southern
California (Calexico, San Ysidro and Tecate) of which over 24 million were
made by aliens. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1972 Annual Report,
25.
48
Of these entries made by aliens, the large portion were made by visitors with
official permission to enter the country who had been issued temporary 'border
passes' such as I186 cards (issued to residents of Mexico), which authorize
the holder to travel within an area no further than 25 miles from the border and
for a period of time not to exceed 72 hours. See 8 C.F.R. 212.6.
49
50
Within the INS, the U.S. Border Patrol, which was first established in 1924, has
the primary function of preventing the illegal entry of aliens and the
apprehension of those who have entered illegally and those who smuggle these
illegal entrants.
52
The Border Patrol has approximately 1,700 agents, who are well-trained law
enforcement officers, and of these about 80 percent are assigned along our
southern border with Mexico.
53
54
55
The Border Patrol agents have the power to apprehend illegal aliens since by
regulation the Attorney General has designated Border Patrol agents to be
immigration officers and authorized them to exercise powers and duties as such
officers (8 C.F.R. 103.1(i)); immigration officers by statute 101(a)(17) of
the Immigartion and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 163; as amended by the
Act of October 3, 1973, 79 Stat. 911, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17), are empowered,
without a warrant, to stop and interrogate any alien or person believed to be an
alien as to his right to remain or to be in the United States. See Au Yi Lau v.
I.N.S., 144 U.S.App.D.C. 147, 445 F.2d 217 (1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 864,
92 S.Ct. 64, 30 L.Ed.2d 108.
56
57
59
60
While the Border Patrol would like to apprehend all deportable aliens right on
the border by agents of the line watch, inspections at regular points of entry are
not infallible and illegal crossings at other than legal ports of entry are
numerous and recurring. The maintenance of continuous patrol over the vast
stretches of the border in Southern California is physically impossible, since
the approximately 145 miles of boundary creates geographic barriers to
effective patrol and man-made devices such as fences and electronic devices
are in large part ineffective.
61
Increased manpower on line watch would not make that activity appreciably
more effective as was demonstrated in 1969 during 'Operation Intercept' when
many more agents were stationed immediately on the border, and yet, the
number of illegal aliens apprehended by agents operating inland was not
significantly different from like periods when such additional manpower was
not located at the boundary.
62
Once the aliens negotiate their way through the port of entry or, as is most
common, walk across the border at a place other than an official port of entry,
they find transportation inland either in public conveyances, or private vehicles
with increasing numbers being transported by professional smugglers. A few
have been known to walk some distance inland and have been apprehended
after having walked as far north as Julian, California, which is over 60 miles
After crossing the line watch some illegal aliens seek employment in the
Southern District, but the vast majority attempt to proceed to Los Angeles
County and points north.
64
Once the illegal alien gets settled in a big city far away from the border it
becomes very difficult to apprehend him, and therefore, the Border Patrol
attempts to contain the illegal entrant within this district. Aliens in California at
7. With this objective in mind, they have (pursuant to their statutory authority
discussed above) established, since at least 1927, strategically located traffic
inspection facilities, commonly referred to as checkpoints, on highways and
roads, for the purpose of questioning vehicle occupants believed to be aliens, as
to their right to be, or to remain, in the United States, and also to search such
vehicles for illegal aliens. Immigration and Naturalization Service Border Patrol
Handbook 91 (1972) (hereinafter cited as Handbook).
65
66
67
68
69
distance for slowing and stopping; parking space off the highway; power
source to illuminate control signs and inspection area, and bypass capability for
vehicles not requiring examination.
70
71
Strategic sites that meet the foregoing enumerated criteria are selected for
'permanent checkpoints.' These are sites equipped to handle a large volume of
traffic on what would be a 24-hour basis except in case of manpower shortage,
poor weather, or where traffic becomes excessive causing a potential safety
hazard. Handbook at 93.
72
73
74
If, after questioning the occupants, the agent then believes that illegal aliens
may be secreted in the vehicle (because of a break in the 'pattern' indicating the
possibility of smuggling) he will inspect the vehicle by giving a cursory visual
inspection of those areas of the vehicle not visible from the outside (i.e. trunk,
interior portion of camper, etc.).
75
At the point of location of the sites now in regular use few aliens have reached
the locale on foot, with 99 percent having entered a vehicle of one type or
In the United States, during fiscal 1973, approximately 55,300 deportable aliens
were apprehended by Border Patrol agents working traffic checking operations.
In the Chula Vista sector the number for that period was 21,232, while in the El
Centro sector the total was 3,825. 2 During fiscal 1973, a total of 4,975 of the
above were visitors apprehended at the checkpoints and a majority of these
were those who were in violation of the terms of temporary border passes
(Form I186).
77
The placement of the checkpoints and their operations are coordinated between
the two sectors located in this district and with Border Patrol activities to the
east in Arizona. In actual operation the checkpoints, be they 'permanent' or
'temporary,' have the same basic accouterments. Typically, about one-half mile
to one mile south of the checkpoint is the first notification that the checkpoint
is ahead. The notice is in the form of a black on yellow sign indicated 'STOP
AHEAD' which has floodlights for nighttime illumination, handbook at 99.
Next, about 200 yards from the checkpoint is another sign cautioning the traffic
to slow down or to be careful; this sign usually has flashing yellow lights
attached. For the fifty yards directly south of the checkpoint there are placed
traffic cones evenly spaced along each side of the highway. The actual
checkpoint has a sign indicating to the traffic to stop, with official Border Patrol
vehicles parked on each side of the stop zone showing the official Border Patrol
emblem and/or the designation U.S. OFFICERS. At this point the agents
assigned at the 'point,' in their official uniform, conduct checking and
inspection operations. Beyond the checkpoint is usually a sign indicating
'THANK YOU.'
78
While a large number of apprehensions are made at the checkpoints each year,
as related above, the primary reason for their operation is that they effectively
deter large numbers of aliens from illegally entering the country or violating the
terms of any temporary crossing card they may have, because they form an
effective obstacle and are located on all major routes north out of the border
region.
79
80
80
81
1. Contact is made between the smuggler and the alien prior to the latter's
leaving Mexico.
82
2. The aliens then make entry on foot, with possibly the aid of a 'guide,' or by
use of temporary border passes. Then they enter vehicles approximately 2 or 20
miles inland after having passed through the Border Patrol's line watch
activities.
83
3. To get through the traffic checkpoint they might use a 'drop house,' which
acts as a staging area to keep the aliens awaiting inclement weather, or any
event that might cause the checkpoint to close down temporarily. Or, they may
use a 'decoy' vehicle, which is a vehicle loaded with illegal aliens which it is
anticipated will be stopped at the checkpoint and would therefore occupy the
agents so that other vehicles could pass through without inspection. They even
use 'scout cars' to probe those roads where temporary checkpoints are
maintained, so as to advise other vehicles whether it is safe to proceed.
84
4. The 'load' vehicles themselves can be of any type of conveyance and the
methods used to secrete aliens inside them are varied and often show some
originality. Unfortunately, sometimes these are very dangerous to the aliens
themselves. It has been reported, for example, that it is not at all unusual for an
alien to die from asphyxiation while concealed in an automobile trunk or a tank
car.
85
86
The deterrent impact of these checkpoints has been noted on several occasions
when they resumed operation unexpectedly and a great number of aliens were
apprehended.
87
The evidence presented before this court clearly established that there is no
89
This district has only 3 percent of the total length of land borders, and yet fully
30 percent of all apprehensions of deportable aliens made in the United States
are made within this district.
90
Mr. Justice WHITE, with whom Mr. Justice BLACKMUN joins, concurring in
the judgment.
91
92
93
The syllabus consitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See
United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct.
282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.
1
Such places typically include the trunk, under the hood, and beneath the
chassis. If the vehicle is a truck, a camper, or the like, the officer inspects the
enclosed portion as well. But an immigration inspection is not always so
confined. In Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37
L.Ed.2d 596 (1973), the officer removed the back seat cushion because there
were reports that aliens had been found seated upright behind seats from which
the springs had been removed. Id., at 286, 93 S.Ct., at 2546 (White, J.,
dissenting).
The degree of the invasion of privacy in an automobile search may vary with
the circumstances, as there are significant differences between 'an automobile
and a home or office.' Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U.S. 42, 48, 90 S.Ct. 1975,
1979, 26 L.Ed.2d 419 (1970); Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S., at
279, 93 S.Ct., at 2542 (Powell, J., concurring).
The Court today recognizes that as many as 12 million illegal aliens are now
present in this country. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S., at 878, and
n. 4, 95 S.Ct., at 2578 2579. See also U.S. News and World Report, July 22,
1974, p. 27; id., Dec. 9, 1974, p. 77. By all indications the problem will
increase in the future, not abate. United States v. Baca, 368 F.Supp. 398, 402
403 (SD Cal.1973). In the Baca case Judge Turrentine conducted a thorough
review of the entire problem and the present Government response. Appended
to this opinion is an excerpt from Judge Turrentine's Baca opinion describing
the illegal alien problem and the law enforcement response.
2
The notation 'INS' when used herein has reference to the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
Apparently apprehensions other than those actually made at the checkpoint are
included in these figures, but they are a representation of the total activity at
these checkpoints and the majority of apprehensions included therein are made
at the checkpoints (R.T. 274, 396).