UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
GEORGE DARRYL HENRIQUEZ, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, V. CAROL ANN BUCHHOLZ AND CHARLES LANE MARTIN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the marihuana seized was admissible because border searches require only reasonable suspicion, not probable cause, and the appellants' other contentions were without merit.
Appellants challenge the admission of marihuana seized during a customs inspection on Dodge Island, Port of Miami. They contend there was no probable …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Almeida-Sanchez V. United States cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellants’ primary point of error on appeal is that the lower court improperly admitted into testimony over their objections marihuana seized during a customs inspection on Dodge Island, Port of Miami, on May 27, 1972. Appellants contend that there was no probable cause for 'search of the car in which they were riding.
This court has repeatedly held that border searches may be made without probable cause on the basis of mere suspicion alone, although they are restricted by the constitutional requirement of reasonableness.1 United States v. Briones, 5 Cir. 1970, 423 F. 2d 742; United States v. Rodriguez, 5 Cir. 1961, 292 F. 2d 709; United States v. Mag-gard, 5 Cir. 1971, 451 F. 2d 502; United States v. Hill, 5 Cir. 1970, 430 F. 2d 129.
Furthermore, any individual who has direct contact with the border area is a member of a class of persons where search is allowed if customs officials’ suspicions are aroused. United States v. Glaziou, 2 Cir. 1968, 402 F. 2d 8, cert. den. 393 U.S. 1121, 89 S.Ct. 999, 22 L. Ed.2d 126 (1969).
This court, upon review of the record below, finds appellants’ other contentions of error to be without merit. The district court in all respects is
Affirmed.
. This court is aware of the recent decision in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596, opinion dated June 21, 1973, and finds that it does not apply to the present case.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Sterling Keith Rogers, 504 F.2d 1079 (5th Cir. 1974)
-
United States v. Smith, 557 F.2d 1206 (5th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Prince, 491 F.2d 655 (5th Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (U.S. 1973)
- United States v. Glaziou, 402 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1968)
- United States v. Hill, 430 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1970)
- United States v. Maggard, 451 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1971)
- Bonicamp v. United States, 393 U.S. 1121 (U.S. 1969)
- White v. Arizona ex rel. Eyman, 393 U.S. 1121 (U.S. 1969)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 292 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1961)
- United States v. Briones, 423 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1970)