Court Opinion

ID: 9462721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:48:32.846602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:44.717412
License: Public Domain

ELY, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result, and I have no significant quarrel with the majority’s reasoning. Nevertheless, I deem it important to mention that I see no relevance in the majority’s discussion of the break in the surveillance of the airplane. We have issued many opinions holding that a significant break in the surveillance of a vehicle after the vehicle has been seen to enter this country prohibits a subsequent search of the vehicle on the theory that the search is an extended “border search”. I am actually at a loss, however, in perceiving wherein the fact that observing officers have lost sight of a vehicle that has crossed the border can possibly be a factor in determining the existence, vel non, of probable cause for a challenged search. I might be able to discern some relevance if, as was not the case here, the break in surveillance had obviously resulted from evasive maneuvering by the operator of the machine at which *489the attempted continuous observation was directed.