United State v. Martinez-Fuerte, Essay Example

In the case of the United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, the Border Patrol routine stop of a vehicle at a permanent checkpoint which was located on a major highway that leads from the Mexican border. The brief questioning provided by the patrol of the vehicle’s occupants was consistent with the Fourth Amendment. The questioning and stop was made reasonable at the checkpoints void of individualized suspicions that the vehicle may contain illegal aliens. The stop has to be based on reasonable suspicions because the heavy traffic flow, it is impractical to stop every vehicle unless there is a possible carrier of illegal aliens. Such a routine stop would require the officers to eliminate any potential deterrent to conduct an investigation of the operations, and smugglers use this highway regularly. The circumstances of the checkpoint stops do not require all vehicles to be searched, depending upon the public or governmental interest in situations where the constitution protects the private interests of the citizen.

Upon stopping the vehicle a search found that Mederano-Barragan and his wife had smuggled three illegal aliens in their trunk from Tijuana Mexico. They met up with Guillen, a U.S. citizen where they proceeded into the United States. They were charges with four counts of illegal smuggling. Martinez-Fuerte appealed his conviction. The government appealed the grant of motions to suppress the prosecution of Guillen and Mederano-Barragan. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals consolidated all three appeals. They all presented the same question as to whether the Fourth Amendment Rights were violated by the stops and interrogations that were issued at the checkpoints. The Court of Appeal held that these stops violated the Fourth Amendment and that the stops provided by the Border Patrol would only be constitutional if the presence of illegal aliens on the grounds of articulable facts.