Court Opinion

ID: 9467753
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:55:48.228252+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:30.577403
License: Public Domain

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
with whom TATE and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, join dissenting:
I dissent. The majority opinion, rather than stating a standard on an issue not previously considered, eliminates a standard that has worked well. The majority offers no compelling justification, either legal or otherwise, for rejecting the long established “reasonable suspicion” standard in favor of a vaguely defined “mere suspicion” standard. Indeed, the majority opinion would lead the uninitiated to believe that the “reasonable suspicion” standard has not long and effectively been applied in this circuit to customs area pat-down searches. The only justification that can be offered is a concern for drug smuggling. In its zeal to combat drug smuggling, a problem that may well vanish in the fullness of time, the majority does damage to the character and spirit of the fourth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. After today’s decision, every international traveler, adult or child, male or female, American citizen or visitor, becomes subject to a search of the person solely upon “the subjective response of a customs official who considers that the circumstances make such a search appropriate.” Majority opinion, at 1169. This new non-standard will result in abuse. New subjected to these “routine” searches will find them “invoking],” as the majority opinion so reassuringly promises, .“little indignity or embarrassment.” Majority opinion, at 1167. Hurriedly considered, emotional responses to complicated problems do not make good law. The majority’s new rule is such an example.* Never before has a federal circuit court, much less the Supreme Court, permitted a capricious, standardless search of the physical person of an American citizen returning home.
The majority confuses the search of things with the search of the person. The rights of human beings are thereby reduced to those of luggage. While law enforcement efficiency is to be lauded, if law enforcement efficiency were an end in itself, officers of the law would be free to ignore the fourth amendment entirely. Law enforcement efficiency must yield to constitutional rights; such yielding constitutes the real difference between a free society and a police state.
Prior to today’s en banc pronouncement, “reasonable suspicion” was the Fifth Circuit’s standard for pat-down searches in a customs area. See United States v. Rice, 635 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Davis, No. 77-5752 (5th Cir. Mar. 17, 1978) (unpublished); United States v. Chiarito, 507 F.2d 1098 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 824, 96 S.Ct. 38, 46 L.Ed.2d 40 (1975). Though the majority opinion maintains that this circuit has never “specifically addressed the standard to be applied in pat-down searches at the border,” majority opinion, at 1167, the briefest of cursory perusals reveals otherwise.
For example, in Chiarito we stated:
After successfully passing through the baggage checkpoint, but before he exited the Customs inspection area, the appellant was stopped by a customs patrol officer escorted to an inspection room and frisked. The patrol officer found a small amount of cocaine wrapped in a dollar bill in the appellant’s vest pocket. Subsequent x-rays of appellant’s personal effects revealed more cocaine hidden in the heels of his shoes.
The searches conducted by customs inspectors and customs patrol officers are, of course, limited by the Fourth Amend*1171ment’s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, in the context of searches conducted pursuant to the customs and immigration laws, the strictures of the Fourth Amendment are ameliorated by considerations attending the regulation of movement across national borders. United States v. McDaniel, 463 F.2d 129 (5th Cir. 1972). Stated differently, customs inspectors may predicate searches on less than the “probable cause” required in different circumstances: “Border searches are governed by the test of reasonable suspicion, rather than that of probable cause.” United States v. Maggard, 451 F.2d 502, 504 (5th Cir. 1971). The question on appeal is, then, whether the activities of the appellant provided the patrol officer with a reasonable basis for conducting the disputed search.
United States v. Chiarito, at 1099 (footnote omitted).
In Klein, a panel of this court, in discussing a pat-down search, reviewed the law of the Fifth Circuit and found:

II. The Patdown Search

In this Circuit, the initiation of a border search is governed by the test of “reasonable suspicion.” United States v. Himmelwright, 5 Cir., 1977, 551 F.2d 991, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (strip search); United States v. Chiarito, 5 Cir., 1975, 507 F.2d 1098, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 824, 96 S.Ct. 38, 46 L.Ed.2d 40 (frisk search); United States v. Maggard, 5 Cir., 1971, 451 F.2d 502, cert. denied, 1972, 405 U.S. 1045, 92 S.Ct. 1330, 31 L.Ed.2d 587 (car search). Whether the requisite degree of suspicion exists depends upon the totality of the circumstances of the' particular case. United States v. Lilly, 5 Cir., 1978, 576 F.2d 1240, 1245; United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d at 995.
United States v. Klein at 911 (footnotes omitted). The panel then found that “[u]nder the circumstances of this case, the above factors were sufficient to justify a request for a [pat-down] search.” Klein at 912. In a footnote, the court concluded that “[t]he initial pat-down, which triggered the further investigation, is the search upon which the Fourth Amendment issue turns.” Id. at n.6. The panel then ultimately concluded that “[b]ecause we find that there was sufficient ‘reasonable suspicion’ to justify the initial search, and because we find that the conduct of the search was also reasonable, we hold that there was no Fourth Amendment violation in this case.” Id. at 912-13.
Just a few months ago, in United States v. Rice, 635 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1981), we determined that:
The visual inspection of appellant’s leg by customs officer Magonigle at the Miami International Airport was a search of the person conducted at the border. United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909, 911 n.1 (5th Cir. 1979). Such a search may be constitutionally justified on less than probable cause. United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991, 994 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 902, 98 S.Ct. 298, 54 L.Ed.2d 189 (1977). We indicated in United States v. Klein, supra, where a patdown search of appellant at the Miami International Airport was challenged as violative of the Fourth Amendment, that “[i]n this circuit the initiation of a border search is governed by the test of reasonable suspicion. [citations omitted] Whether the requisite degree of suspicion exists depends upon the totality of the circumstances of the particular case, [citations omitted].”
The search at issue here was more intrusive than a routine search of luggage at the border (which requires no articula-ble suspicion under United States v. Him-melwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977)) and less intrusive than a full strip search (with its standard of reasonable suspicion as applied, for example, in United States v. Himmelwright, 551 F.2d 991 (5th Cir. 1977) and United States v. Afanador, 567 F.2d 1325 (5th Cir. 1978)). Although the search in United States v. Klein, supra, with respect to which this court found *1172there was reasonable suspicion, involved a patdown of the armpit area of a male passenger, while the instant search involved the baring and visual inspection of the lower leg area of a female passenger, we think that the intrusiveness of the two searches is somewhat comparable. In Klein, there was tactile contact of an area of the male body which is often exposed; in this case, there was visual inspection only of an area of the female body which is ordinarily exposed.
We conclude, however, that the search involved in the instant case — the visual inspection of appellant’s leg below the knee after a request that she lift her slacks leg — was a minimally intrusive search of appellant’s person. Assuming that the search here requires some articu-lable suspicion that criminal action was afoot, we conclude that such suspicion was present. Customs officer Magonigle observed that appellant’s lower leg between her knee and ankle was unusually bulky. He observed that her traveling companion also had an unusually bulky lower leg. Magonigle’s observations were sufficient to create the requisite reasonable suspicion needed to justify his visual inspection of appellant’s lower leg. Our holding is confined to the circumstances presented by this case.
We hold in addition that the visual inspection of appellant’s lower leg was conducted in a reasonable manner. United States v. Klein, 592 F.2d 909, 912-913 (5th Cir. 1979). We conclude, therefore, that there was no Fourth Amendment violation in this case.
United States v. Rice, at 409-10.
This review of the “reasonable suspicion” standard vis-a-vis pat-down searches is revealing for another reason. It clearly establishes that the dictum, relied on by the majority, from United States v. Skipwith, 482 F.2d at 1276 (5th Cir. 1973), “those who actually present themselves for boarding on an air carrier, like those seeking entrance into the contrary, are subject to a search based on mere or unsupported suspicion,” constituted an incorrect statement of the applicable search standard for those entering the country. See, e. g., United States v. Maggard, 451 F.2d 502 (5th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1045, 92 S.Ct. 1330, 31 L.Ed.2d 587 (1972) (applying reasonable suspicion standard). Accordingly, Skipwith cannot reasonably be used to' justify the majority’s switch from the “reasonable suspicion” standard to the “mere suspicion” standard.
Yet today’s decision replaces the “reasonable suspicion” standard with a “mere suspicion” test without explicitly overruling contrary precedent. Certainly it is the prerogative of the en banc court to reject and adopt applicable standards as it sees fit. But today’s action cannot be justified by suggesting that the question is one of first impression. Demonstrably, such is not the case.
Nor can the majority opinion find justification, or anything more than dicta, from Supreme Court decisions. The majority begins its attempt at justification by stating that the policy behind the principle of “mere suspicion” searches of persons was first articulated in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 45 S.Ct. 280, 69 L.Ed. 543 (1925). Carroll, however, was not a border search case. Carroll involved a non-border vehicle search for illegal alcohol. The language quoted by the majority was mere dictum. Further, the searches, discussed by the Carroll Court were specifically limited to searches of automobiles and belongings. Even the dictum quoted by the majority did not apply to the search of persons. In the Supreme Court’s own words a “narrow exception to the warrant requirement was first established in Carroll v. United States. The Court in Carroll approved a portion of the Volstead Act providing for warrantless searches of automobiles when there was probable cause to believe they contained illegal alcoholic beverages.” Almeida-San-chez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 269, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 2537, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973) (citations omitted).
While it is proper that interests of national self-protection allow border searches to rest on different standards of constitutional *1173law than do domestic searches, the Supreme Court has never intimated, much less explicitly stated, that the fourth amendment has no applicability to border searches. Yet the majority effectively eliminates any fourth amendment concerns by holding that a pat-down search requires “no justification other than the person’s decision to cross our national boundary.” Majority opinion, slip, op. at 1169.
Because no Supreme Court decision justifies the majority’s holding, the majority attempts to buttress its break with Fifth Circuit precedent by reference to dicta in cases involving: the importation of obscene materials, United States v. 12 200-Ft. Reels of Super 8MM. Film, 413 U.S. 123, 93 S.Ct. 2665, 37 L.Ed.2d 500 (1973); a Border Patrol immigration search of a vehicle, Almei-da-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266, 93 S.Ct. 2535, 37 L.Ed.2d 596 (1973); a Border Patrol immigration stop of a vehicle to question, not search, its occupants, United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 95 S.Ct. 2574, 45 L.Ed.2d 607 (1975); and a border search of international mail where the customs inspector had reasonable cause to suspect the mail contained contraband, United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 52 L.Ed.2d 612 (1977).
With reference to one of the majority’s principal cases, the Almeida-Sanchez decision, it is appropriate to remember the distinction articulated by concurring Justice Powell that “these are searches of automobiles rather than searches of persons or buildings. The search of an automobile is far less intrusive on the rights protected by the Fourth Amendment than the search of one’s person .....” 413 U.S. at 279, 93 S.Ct. at 2542. The majority denies any distinction between persons and things, however, and pointedly equates a personal paydown to a luggage search: “we think that [a pat-down] is no worse than having a stranger rummage through one’s luggage, a practice which is clearly acceptable.” Majority opinion, slip op. at 1167. The only limitation that the majority places on such searches is that the customs official may not have the person stripped, beyond the shoes and outer garments, without some suspicion. This search of the person is termed “routine.” That such a conclusion directly contravenes past Fifth Circuit holdings, see, e. g., United States v. Rice, 635 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1981), apparently does not concern the majority, for, as previously stated, nowhere does the majority overrule contrary cases.
The majority also makes uncustomary use of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968), noting that the Supreme Court allows a frisk to be conducted on a public street. While this is true, the frisk in Terry was limited to a search for weapons based on “reasonable suspicion.” Almeida-Sanchez; Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 92 S.Ct. 670, 30 L.Ed.2d 661 (1972); Terry v. Ohio. Additionally, it is straining to imply that because frisks are permitted on public streets their innocuous quality is somehow established. The majority loses sight of the fact that the Terry Court allowed public street frisks, subject to stringent limitations, only to protect police from possible harm by armed criminals.
The majority’s holding can only be explained as acquiescence to the current short-sighted demand for an easy answer to the complicated drug problem. Reducing fourth amendment freedoms, however, to the status of second-class rights is not going to eliminate the drug problem. Aside from the obvious fact that the root causes of the drug problem are not of constitutional origin, it is equally obvious that the overwhelming majority of illegal drugs brought into this country do not arrive via scheduled commercial transportation. Nearly always, drugs arrive in a more surreptitious nature. With today’s decision, one can logically conclude that never before have so many been subjected to so much for so little. Further, the “reasonable suspicion” standard did not constitute an impediment to customs officials. Prior to the panel decision in San-dler, as pointed out in the panel dissent, sufficient “reasonable suspicion” was found to uphold every pat-down search conducted by custom officials in the Fifth Circuit. The “reasonable suspicion” standard thus allowed for efficient law enforcement and *1174preserved the individual’s fourth amendment rights.
Today’s decision not only ignores firmly established precedent; it also gives custom officials the arbitrary authority, justified solely by border location, to search travelers, the majority of whom will be American citizens, based on the custom official’s random, discriminatory, subjective response. This subjective response will not later undergo judicial scrutiny. Henceforth,, the fourth amendment will apply only to the most intrusive strip and body cavity searches. I protest, as did Justice Jackson when he declared:
These [fourth amendment rights], I protest, are not mere second-class rights but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government.
Brinegar v. United States, 338 U.S. 160, 180, 69 S.Ct. 1302, 1313, 93 L.Ed. 1879 (1949) (Jackson, J., dissenting).

 This sweeping change in the established interpretation of both fourth amendment principles and the applicable statute, 19 U.S.C. § 482, should not occur, if at all, without a careful and full canvass of the law of other circuits, and an opportunity for participation by the Attorney General of the United States, the organized criminal defense bar, and other interested entities.