Court Opinion

ID: 9467752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:55:48.225487+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:30.574289
License: Public Domain

R. LANIER ANDERSON, III, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but only because, in my opinion, the patdown search at issue was justified by reasonable suspicion, as that test has evolved in the previous decisions of this court cited and discussed in Judge Hatch-ett’s dissent.
Today’s majority opinion applies the flexible rule of United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977), and United States v. Afanador, 567 F.2d 1325 (5th Cir. 1978) — that the requisite justification for a search varies with the intrusiveness thereof — and merely expands by one notch those searches which require no justification. Our previous cases had held that a routine search of luggage at the border requires no justification, United States v. Himmelwright, supra: Today’s opinion extends that holding to include a “routine patdown” search of the person, but does not address a “more intrusive search.” Majority opinion, at 1169, and also footnote 5. Accordingly, such “more intrusive searches” will remain subject to the reasonable suspicion test developed in our previous cases. For the reasons expressed by Judge Hatchett, I believe that the line between “no justification necessary” and “reasonable suspicion” should be left where our previous cases had drawn it, i. e., no justification for searches of things, and the flexible reasonable suspicion test for searches of persons. I add to Judge Hatchett’s reasons the fact *1170that the present line is considerably brighter than the amorphous line today .drawn between routine searches, on the one hand, and more intrusive or offensive searches on the other hand.