Opinion ID: 2041031
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976).

Text: The Court held that vehicle may be stopped at a permanent immigration checkpoint for brief questioning of the occupants even though there is no reason to believe that any particular vehicle contains illegal aliens. In this case, every car which entered the checkpoint was slowed to a complete, if not virtual, halt. 428 U.S. at 546, 96 S.Ct. at 3078. Those cars which the Border Patrol suspected carried illegal aliens were directed to a secondary stop where the occupants were asked to produce citizenship or immigration documents. Selection for this secondary investigation was completely discretionary and not based upon reasonable suspicion. The Court first examined the context in which the constitutional question of reasonable seizure arose. The national policy to limit immigration into the United States was frustrated by the flux of illegal aliens, 85% of whom came from Mexico. Moreover, the record indicated the effectiveness of the checkpoint based upon the rate of apprehension. [1] Recognizing the necessity and effectiveness of these operations, the Court noted the substantiality of the public interest in the practice of routine stops for inquiry at permanent checkpoints.... 428 U.S. at 556, 96 S.Ct. at 3082. The Court balanced this interest against the limited intrusion (defined as the stop itself, the questioning, and the visual inspection) upon a motorist's right to free passage. The objective intrusion was deemed equivalent to that experienced in Brignoni-Ponce, but checkpoint stops [are viewed] in a different light because the subjective intrusion  the generating of concern or even fright on the part of lawful travelers  is appreciably less in the case of a checkpoint stop. 428 U.S. at 558, 96 S.Ct. at 3083. [2] Moreover, a permanent checkpoint reduced the degree of interference with the legitimate traffic, a distinction which separated this case from Brignoni-Ponce: Motorists using these highways are not taken by surprise as they know, or may obtain knowledge of, the location of the checkpoints and will not be stopped elsewhere. 428 U.S. at 559, 96 S.Ct. at 3083. The Court concluded that the purpose of the stops is legitimate and in the public interest, and the need for this enforcement technique is demonstrated by the records in the cases before us. 428 U.S. at 562, 96 S.Ct. at 3085. However, Justice Powell made clear the limited nature of the decision: Our holding today, approving routine stops for brief questioning ... is confined to permanent checkpoints. We understand, of course, that neither longstanding congressional authorization nor widely prevailing practices justify a constitutional violation. 428 U.S. at 566 n. 19, 96 S.Ct. at 3087 n. 19.