473 U.S. 531 (1985)
Rosa Elvira Montoya de Hernandez arrived at Los Angeles International Airport shortly after midnight on March 5, 1983, aboard Avianca Flight 080, a direct ten-hour flight from Bogota, Colombia.1 Customs Inspector Talamantes reviewed her passport and noted at least eight recent trips to Miami or Los Angeles.2
She spoke no English and had no family or friends in the United States.3 She carried five thousand dollars in cash mostly in fifty-dollar bills without a billfold.4 She gave an implausible account of planning to shop at retail stores such as J.C. Penney and K-Mart using taxis while staying at a Holiday Inn without reservations or vendor appointments.
Inspectors referred her for further questioning and a patdown and strip search by a female inspector.5 The search revealed a firm fullness in the abdomen area and two pairs of elastic underpants with a paper towel lining the crotch area, but no contraband.6 Respondent initially agreed to an x-ray examination at a hospital but withdrew consent when she learned she would be handcuffed for transport.7
Customs officials then detained her in a private office under continuous observation by female inspectors. They offered food, drink, and monitored use of toilet facilities which she refused throughout the night.8 The detention continued for nearly sixteen hours until the next afternoon when officials sought and obtained a court order authorizing a pregnancy test, x-ray, and rectal examination.9 A physician performed a rectal examination that recovered a balloon containing a foreign substance, after which respondent was formally arrested.10 Over the following four days she passed a total of eighty-eight balloons containing five hundred twenty-eight grams of eighty-percent pure cocaine hydrochloride.11 After a suppression hearing the District Court admitted the evidence and convicted her following a bench trial of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute and unlawful importation of cocaine.12 A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the convictions, holding that the evidence should have been suppressed.13 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among the courts of appeals regarding the standard applicable to such border detentions.14
Whether reasonable suspicion rather than probable cause or a warrant justifies the detention of a traveler at the border beyond the scope of a routine customs search when agents suspect alimentary canal smuggling?15
The detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal.16
Yes. The customs officials had reasonable suspicion based on the specific facts including arrival from Bogota on a direct flight, multiple recent trips noted on the passport, no family or friends in the United States, carrying five thousand dollars in cash mostly in fifty-dollar bills without a billfold, implausible account of shopping plans at retail stores using taxis without reservations or vendor appointments, firm fullness in the abdomen, and two pairs of elastic underpants with paper towel lining.17
These facts provided a particularized and objective basis for suspecting alimentary canal smuggling, consistent with the inspectors' experience with many such smugglers on the same flight from a source country.18
Reasonable suspicion justified the detention at its inception under the Fourth Amendment.19
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment.20 He assumed that a significant number of innocent persons will be required to undergo similar procedures if reasonable suspicion suffices for such seizures and searches.21 The Fourth Amendment prohibits only unreasonable detentions at the border.22
The prolonged detention here was reasonable because the respondent withdrew her consent to an x-ray examination.23 That examination would have easily determined whether the reasonable suspicion that she was concealing contraband was justified.24 He believes that customs agents may require a nonpregnant person reasonably suspected of this kind of smuggling to submit to an x-ray examination as an incident to a border search.25
Therefore he concurred in the judgment upholding the detention.26
Joined by Justice Marshall
Justice Brennan dissented and argued that the prolonged detention without a warrant or probable cause violated the Fourth Amendment.27 The reasonable suspicion standard adopted by the Court is too lenient for a sixteen-hour detention.28 Such lengthy detentions require probable cause or a warrant.29
The Court's decision erodes the protections of the Fourth Amendment at the border.30 He would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.31 Brennan emphasized that indefinite involuntary incommunicado detentions for investigation are the hallmark of a police state.32
The border exception does not permit unchecked executive discretion for criminal investigation.33 A neutral magistrate's authorization is required before such severe intrusions on privacy.34
Whether an approximately sixteen-hour detention of a traveler at the border under continuous observation until she produces a monitored bowel movement is reasonable in scope and duration under the Fourth Amendment?35
The detention of a traveler at the border is not unreasonable in its scope and duration if it is no longer than necessary to confirm or dispel the reasonable suspicion of alimentary canal smuggling.36 This holds even if the detention lasts approximately sixteen hours.37 The traveler must not be subjected to discomfort or humiliation beyond that inherent in the detention.38 The method of smuggling requires time for detection.39
Yes. The detention continued for nearly sixteen hours in a private office under continuous observation by female inspectors, with offers of food, drink, and monitored toilet facilities which the respondent refused. The length was necessary because alimentary canal smuggling cannot be detected by usual methods and may take time.40 The respondent alone was responsible for much of the duration and discomfort through her refusal to cooperate or use the facilities.41
The detention occurred at the international border where the Fourth Amendment balance leans heavily to the government.42 It was shorter than many detentions upheld in similar circumstances.43
The approximately sixteen-hour detention was reasonable in scope and duration under the Fourth Amendment.44
Whether the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant issued on probable cause before customs officials may obtain a court order for a rectal examination or x-ray at the border?45
The Fourth Amendment does not require that a body search at the border be supported by a warrant issued on probable cause.46 Such a requirement would be impractical in the context of the real-life situations that arise at the border.47 Events occur with speed and there is no ready opportunity for obtaining a warrant.48
No. Customs officials detained the respondent on reasonable suspicion and later obtained a court order after nearly sixteen hours for the rectal examination and x-ray.49 The Fourth Amendment does not mandate a warrant on probable cause for such border searches.50 The practicalities of border enforcement, including the speed of events and lack of ready warrant opportunities, make a warrant requirement unworkable.51
The officials acted consistently with the reduced expectation of privacy at the border and the government's strong interest in preventing contraband entry.52
The Fourth Amendment does not require a warrant issued on probable cause for the rectal examination or x-ray at the border.53