Search warrant for an x-ray border search is \u201cnonroutine\u201d and it was issued with reasonable suspicion of smuggling. United States v. Paulino, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60182 (D. Guam June 6, 2011):<\/p>\n
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).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
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).*<\/p>\n
The search of defendant\u2019s vehicle was with probable cause and it was mobile, so the automobile exception applied. United States v. Castellanos<\/a>, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 11439 (11th Cir. June 6, 2011) (unpublished).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading