Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark Allen Dworkin, Marilyn Dworkin, Rhona C. Reiser and Eugene Hamond, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1972-04-26
Citations: 30 N.Y.2d 706
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark Allen Dworkin, Marilyn Dworkin, Rhona C. Reiser and Eugene Hamond, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 30
Pages: 706–708

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Mark Allen Dworkin, Marilyn Dworkin, Rhona C. Reiser and Eugene Hamond, Appellants.
Argued March 21, 1972;
decided April 26, 1972.
William M. Kunstler and Everett M. Barlow for appellants.
Aldo L. DiFlorio, District Attorney (Shavasp Hanesian of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division denying the motion to suppress should be affirmed upon the ground that defendants have failed to demonstrate that the marijuana found in their automobile during the course of a border search must be declared inadmissible as the product of an unconstitutional search.
Border searches need not be based on probable cause and customs officials are privileged to stop and examine any vehicle, person or baggage entering the United States (see, e.g., Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132,154; Alexander v. United States, 362 F. 2d 379, cert. den. 385 U. S. 977; Henderson v. United States, 390 F. 2d 805; United States v. Guadalupe-Garza, 421 F. 2d 876, 878; Deck v. United States, 395 F. 2d 89, 90). The mere crossing of the border is a sufficient basis for a search and, in the absence of a showing that it was unreasonable in the manner conducted, contraband seized is admissible as evidence. Consequently, once the defendants arrived at the check point, they properly came under official scrutiny and were legitimately subjected to questioning and to a search of their vehicle. It is, therefore, of no relevancy that a quantity of antidraft literature had been observed in the car prior to the search or for that matter, that the customs inspector lacked reason to suspect that the defendants might be in possession of marijuana.
Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.