Court Opinion

ID: 9426200
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:05.243781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:22:59.581950
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
concurring.
I joined the dissent of my Brother White in Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973), and recognize that the present decision is an extension of the unsound rule announced in that case. I nonetheless join the opinion of the Court, because a majority of the Court still adheres to Almeida-Sanchez and because I agree with the Court’s analysis of the significance of the Government’s proffered distinctions between roving and fixed-checkpoint searches.
I wish to stress, however, that the Court’s opinion is confined to full searches, and does not extend to fixed-checkpoint stops for the purpose of inquiring about citizenship. Such stops involve only a modest intrusion, are not likely to be frightening or significantly annoying, are regularized by the fixed situs, and effectively serve the important national interest in controlling illegal *899entry. I do not regard such stops as unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, whether or not accompanied by “reasonable suspicion” that a particular vehicle is involved in immigration violations, cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, ante, p. 873, and I do not understand today’s opinion to cast doubt upon their constitutionality.