Opinion ID: 583151
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Detention and X-ray Examinations

Text: 7 Ikeogu and Oshinaike argue that the x-ray examinations and seizure of the heroin violated their Fourth Amendment rights. They argue that the government did not have reasonable suspicion to detain them and that they did not consent voluntarily to the x-ray examination. We disagree. 8 Whether customs officials had reasonable suspicion to detain defendants is a mixed question of fact and law we review de novo. United States v. Mondello, 927 F.2d 1463, 1470 (9th Cir.1991). Whether reasonable suspicion was present depends on the totality of the circumstances. Id. 9 The defendants' passports looked suspicious. They traveled together from a drug source country on sequentially numbered tickets. They answered inconsistently to questions from the Customs Service agents. Oshinaike carried Lomotil in his luggage, a medicine often used by body cavity smugglers to prevent narcotics from passing through their system before they enter the United States. United States v. Chukwubike, 956 F.2d 209, 210 (9th Cir.1992). Further, the Customs Service agents had information about Nigerians smuggling drugs along the West Coast. We hold that these facts created reasonable suspicion for detaining the defendants on the basis that they were smuggling drugs internally. 10 Whether consent to search was given voluntarily is a question of fact we review under the clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Castillo, 866 F.2d 1071, 1082 (9th Cir.1988). Whether consent was voluntary is determined from the totality of the circumstances. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 227 (1973). 11 At the hearing to suppress the heroin, the district court concluded that the defendants voluntarily consented to the x-ray examinations. The court noted that even though Ikeogu initially refused to sign the consent form, his oral consent was sufficient. Because the doctors gave the laxatives to Ikeogu and Oshinaike for medical purposes, the doctors' actions are neither a search nor a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Chukwubike, 956 F.2d at 212. We hold that the district court's decision was not clearly erroneous.