D.Guam: Border x-ray search warrant was based on RS

Search warrant for an x-ray border search is “nonroutine” and it was issued with reasonable suspicion of smuggling. United States v. Paulino, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60182 (D. Guam June 6, 2011):

Although neither a warrant nor probable cause is required to conduct a border x-ray search, in the Ninth Circuit, there is a strong preference that customs officers obtain a warrant prior to conducting such an intrusive search. See United States v. Ek, 676 F.2d 379, 382 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing United States v. Cameron, 538 F.2d 254, 258-59 (9th Cir. 1976)). Accordingly, an affidavit supporting a border x-ray search need only establish a reasonable suspicion of body cavity smuggling to be upheld; probable cause is not required. See id. at 383 (finding that a magistrate need only find a clear indication of body cavity smuggling to support a border x-ray warrant); see also Camacho, 368 F.3d at 1186 n.1 (citing Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. at 540-41) (recognizing the Supreme Court’s disapproval of the clear indication standard and adopting the reasonable suspicion standard for nonroutine border searches).

Probable cause to search a house for a gun existed where defendant ran into the house with a gun and came back out without it. United States v. Bennett, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60285 (N.D. Ind. June 6, 2011).*

The search of defendant’s vehicle was with probable cause and it was mobile, so the automobile exception applied. United States v. Castellanos, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11439 (11th Cir. June 6, 2011) (unpublished).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.