Court Opinion

ID: 9469127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 02:32:47.16777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:14.231948
License: Public Domain

SCHNACKE, District Judge,
special concurrence.
While I agree that the judgment of the trial court clearly must be affirmed, I cannot agree to the inclusion of the dicta stating “We hold that the stricter standard required for a body cavity search also applies to an X-ray search”. Such a holding is neither required by the opinion, nor supported by any evidence adduced in this case.
The majority agrees that persons may be detained at the border for as long as is reasonably necessary to conduct a valid search, that the detention here was reasonable, and that by any standard (whether “real suspicion” or “clear indication”) it was plain that the defendant and his associate were involved in body cavity smuggling.
Although no warrant was required for an X-ray search, United States v. Aman, 624 F.2d 911 (9th Cir. 1980), the agents obtained from a magistrate, an order authorizing the X-ray procedures. I am aware of no authority which compels the obtaining of such an order, or which explains its nature or effect, or which sets the prerequisites for its issuance, but, as in Aman, supra, at p. 913, the fact that it was issued here adds to the reasonableness of the procedure.
I concede that I have no factual basis, in this case, to conclude, as I believe, that an X-ray examination is less intrusive than a strip search; similarly, the majority has no basis (and no need) to find to the contrary. The resolution of that issue should await an appropriate case.