Court Opinion

ID: 9426197
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:04.948384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:59.575360
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
concurring.
I join in the opinion of the Court. I think it quite important to point out, however, that that opinion, which is joined by a somewhat different majority than that which comprised the Almeida-Sanchez Court, is both by its terms and by its reasoning concerned only with the type of stop involved in this case. I think that just as travelers entering the country may be stopped and searched without probable cause and without founded suspicion, because of “national self protection reasonably requiring one entering the country to identify himself as entitled to come in, and his belongings as effects which may be lawfully brought in,” Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 154 (1925), a strong case may be made for those charged with the enforcement of laws conditioning the right of vehicular use of a highway to likewise stop motorists using highways in order to determine whether they have met the qualifications prescribed by applicable law for such use. See Cady v. Dombrowski, 413 U. S. 433, 440-441 (1973); United States v. Biswell, 406 U. S. 311 (1972). I regard these and similar situations, such *888as agricultural inspections and highway roadblocks to apprehend known fugitives, as not in any way constitutionally suspect by reason of today’s decision.