United States v. Martinez-Fuerte
| United States v. Martinez-Fuerte | |
|---|---|
|
|
| Argued April 26, 1976 Decided July 6, 1976 |
|
| Full case name | United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, et al. |
| Citations | 428 U.S. 543 (more) |
| Holding | |
| The Border Patrol's routine stopping of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint located on a major highway away from the Mexican border for brief questioning of the vehicle's occupants is consistent with the Fourth Amendment, and the stops and questioning may be made at reasonably located checkpoints in the absence of any individualized suspicion that the particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. | |
| Court membership | |
|
|
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Powell, joined by Burger, Stewart, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stevens |
| Dissent | Brennan, joined by Marshall |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. IV | |
United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976) was a decision of the United States Supreme Court that allowed the United States Border Patrol to set up permanent or fixed checkpoints on public highways leading to or away from the Mexican border, and that these checkpoints are not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The defendant, Martinez-Fuerte, had agreed to transport two illegal Mexican aliens who had entered the United States through the Port of San Ysidro in San Diego, California. They traveled north and were stopped at a permanent checkpoint on Interstate 5 between Oceanside and San Clemente, then questioned. The two passengers admitted their status and the defendant was charged with two counts of illegally transporting aliens. He moved to have the evidence suppressed, on the grounds that the checkpoint stop had violated the Fourth Amendment. The motion was denied and he was convicted of both counts.
The court ruled 7 to 2 that the internal checkpoints were not a violation of the Fourth Amendment, but rather were consistent with the amendment. They went on to say that it would be impracticable for the officers to seek warrants for every vehicle searched and that to do so would eliminate any deterrent towards smuggling and illegal immigration. The court felt that any intrusion to motorists was a minimal one and that the government and public interest outweighed the constitutional rights of the individual.
The court also ruled that the stops were Constitutional even if largely based on apparent Mexican ancestry.
The opinion stated:
"As we have noted earlier, one's expectation of privacy in an automobile and of freedom in its operation are significantly different from the traditional expectation of privacy and freedom in one's residence. United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. at 422 U. S. 896 n. 2; see Cardwell v. Lewis,417 U. S. 583, 417 U. S. 590-591 (1974) (plurality opinion)."
...
Wikipedia