skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 32891 Find in a Library
Title: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Journal: JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINOLOGY  Volume:66  Issue:4  Dated:(DECEMBER 1975)  Pages:436-446
Author(s): F A ALLEN
Corporate Author: Northwestern University
School of Law
Managing Editor
United States of America
Date Published: 1976
Page Count: 11
Sponsoring Agency: Northwestern University
Chicago, IL 60611
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: THIS ARTICLE REVIEWS THE 1975 SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN FOUR FOURTH AMENDMENT CASES DEALING WITH STOPS AND SEARCHES BY IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES NEAR, BUT NOT DIRECTLY AT, THE UNITED STATES BORDER.
Abstract: CONTINUING AN APPROACH TAKEN IN 1973, THE COURT'S DECISIONS IN UNITED STATES V. ORTIZ AND UNITED STATES V. BRIGNONI-PONCE RESTRICTED THE DISCRETION OF THE BORDER PATROL TO STOP AND SEARCH VEHICLES FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS BY REQUIRING THE STANDARD OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR IMMIGRATION SEARCHES AT FIXED CHECKPOINTS, AND THE STANDARD OF AT LEAST REASONABLE SUSPICION OF IMMIGRATION VIOLATIONS FOR ROUTINE BORDER PATROL STOPS OF VEHICLES TO INQUIRE ABOUT CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION STATUS. IN UNITED STATES V. PELTIER AND BOWEN V. UNITED STATES, HOWEVER, THE COURT REFUSED TO GIVE RETROACTIVE APPLICATION TO THESE STRICTER STANDARDS FOR BORDER AREA STOPS AND SEARCHES. THE AUTHOR STATES THAT THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LATTER TWO DECISIONS MAY GO WELL BEYOND THE RETROACTIVITY QUESTION, FOR, IN HIS DISSENT, JUSTICE BRENNAN, JOINED BY JUSTICE MARSHALL, EXPRESSED CONSIDERABLE APPREHENSION THAT THE REASONING OF THE COURT CAST SERIOUS DOUBT ON THE FUTURE OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE AS A MEANS TO ENFORCE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHTS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)
Index Term(s): Constitutional Rights/Civil Liberties; Immigration offenses; Judicial decisions; Police discretion; Police legal limitations; Search and seizure; US Supreme Court
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=32891

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.