Home › Case briefs › Criminal Procedure

United States v. Montoya de Hernandez

Supreme Court of the United States · 1985 · Criminal Procedure

Criminal ProcedureFourth AmendmentBorder Searchesreasonable suspicionborder detentioninternational bordercustoms searchalimentary canal smuggling

Facts

Respondent arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on a direct flight from Bogota, Colombia, and customs inspectors found her travel pattern, cash, luggage, and explanation for her trip implausible. After further questioning, a patdown, and a strip search revealed a firm fullness in her abdomen and unusual layered undergarments, inspectors suspected she was an alimentary canal smuggler. She declined to proceed with an x ray after initially agreeing, and customs officials detained her under observation until she would either submit to an x ray or produce a monitored bowel movement. About 16 hours after arrival, officials obtained a court order for further examination, and a rectal examination revealed a balloon of cocaine; respondent later passed 88 cocaine-filled balloons.

Issue

Whether customs officials at the international border may detain a traveler beyond the scope of a routine customs search on reasonable suspicion that she is smuggling narcotics in her alimentary canal, or whether a higher 'clear indication' standard is required. Also, whether the length and manner of respondent's detention were reasonably related in scope to the circumstances that justified it.

Rule

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. Reasonable suspicion requires a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person, and the Fourth Amendment does not recognize a separate intermediate 'clear indication' standard between reasonable suspicion and probable cause in this context.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At Miami International Airport, customs inspectors questioned Elena Ruiz after she arrived on a nonstop flight from Lima. She had made six short trips to the United States in three months, carried $7,200 in cash, had no hotel reservation, and gave an implausible explanation that she planned to buy inventory for a shop in Peru by taking taxis to random discount stores despite carrying only a tiny bag with one change of clothes. A patdown and strip search revealed no contraband, but a female inspector noted a rigidly distended abdomen and multiple tight undergarments lined with paper towels.

If inspectors detain Elena under observation beyond a routine customs inspection to determine whether she is internally smuggling narcotics, what is the best statement of the Fourth Amendment standard governing the legality of the detention at its inception?

Explanation. At the international border, detention beyond a routine customs search is justified at its inception when customs agents reasonably suspect the traveler is smuggling contraband in the alimentary canal. The majority rejected any separate intermediate 'clear indication' standard and did not require probable cause for this initial detention. The facts here provide a particularized, objective basis for suspicion.