United States v. Montoya De Hernandez, No. 84-755

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtREHNQUIST
Citation87 L.Ed.2d 381,105 S.Ct. 3304,473 U.S. 531
PartiesUNITED STATES, Petitioner v. Rosa Elvira MONTOYA DE HERNANDEZ
Decision Date01 July 1985
Docket NumberNo. 84-755

473 U.S. 531
105 S.Ct. 3304
87 L.Ed.2d 381
UNITED STATES, Petitioner

v.

Rosa Elvira MONTOYA DE HERNANDEZ.

No. 84-755.
Argued April 24, 1985.
Decided July 1, 1985.
Syllabus

Upon her arrival at Los Angeles International Airport on a flight from Bogota, Colombia, respondent was detained by customs officials when, after examination of her passport and the contents of her valise and questioning by the officials, she was suspected of being a "balloon swallower," i.e., one who attempts to smuggle narcotics into this country hidden in her alimentary canal. She was detained incommunicado for almost 16 hours before the officials sought a court order authorizing a pregnancy test (she having claimed to be pregnant), an x ray, and a rectal examination. During those 16 hours she was given the option of returning to Colombia on the next available flight, agreeing to an x ray, or remaining in detention until she produced a monitored bowel movement. She chose the first option, but the officials were unable to place her on the next flight, and she refused to use the toilet facilities. Pursuant to the court order, a pregnancy test was conducted at a hospital and proved negative, and a rectal examination resulted in the obtaining of 88 cocaine-filled balloons that had been smuggled in her alimentary canal. Subsequently, after a suppression hearing, the District Court admitted the cocaine in evidence against respondent, and she was convicted of various federal narcotics offenses. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondent's detention violated the Fourth Amendment because the customs officials did not have a "clear indication" of alimentary canal smuggling at the time respondent was detained.

Held: The detention of a traveler at the border, beyond the scope of a routine customs search and inspection, is justified at its inception if customs agents, considering all the facts surrounding the traveler and her trip, reasonably suspect that the traveler is smuggling contraband in her alimentary canal; here, the facts, and their rational inferences, known to the customs officials clearly supported a reasonable suspicion that respondent was an alimentary canal smuggler. Pp. 536-544.

(a) The Fourth Amendment's emphasis upon reasonableness is not consistent with the creation of a "clear indication" standard to cover a case such as this as an intermediate standard between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause." Pp. 537-541.

(b) The "reasonable suspicion" standard effects a needed balance between private and public interests when law enforcement officials must

Page 532

make a limited intrusion on less than probable cause. It thus fits well into situations involving alimentary canal smuggling at the border: this type of smuggling gives no external signs, and inspectors will rarely possess probable cause to arrest or search, yet governmental interests in stopping smuggling at the border are high. Pp. 541-542.

(c) Under the circumstances, respondent's detention, while long, uncomfortable, and humiliating, was not unreasonably long. Alimentary canal smuggling cannot be detected in the amount of time in which other illegal activity may be investigated through brief stops. When respondent refused an x ray as an alternative to simply awaiting her bowel movement, the customs inspectors were left with only two practical alternatives: detain her for such time as necessary to confirm their suspicions or turn her loose into the interior of the country carrying the reasonably suspected contraband drugs. Moreover, both the length of respondent's detention and its discomfort resulted solely from the method that she chose to smuggle illicit drugs into this country. And in the presence of an articulable suspicion of alimentary canal smuggling, the customs officials were not required by the Fourth Amendment to pass respondent and her cocaine-filled balloons into the interior. Pp. 542-544.

731 F.2d 1369 (9th Cir.1984), reversed.

Andrew Lewis Frey, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.

Peter Marvin Horstman, Los Angeles, Cal., for respondent.

Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Respondent Rosa Elvira Montoya de Hernandez was detained by customs officials upon her arrival at the Los Angeles Airport on a flight from Bogota, Colombia. She was found to be smuggling 88 cocaine-filled balloons in her alimen-

Page 533

tary canal, and was convicted after a bench trial of various federal narcotics offenses. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed her convictions, holding that her detention violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because the customs inspectors did not have a "clear indication" of alimentary canal smuggling at the time she was detained. 731 F.2d 1369 (1984). Because of a conflict in the decisions of the Courts of Appeals on this question and the importance of its resolution to the enforcement of customs laws, we granted certiorari. 469 U.S. 1188, 105 S.Ct. 954, 83 L.Ed.2d 961. We now reverse.

Respondent arrived at Los Angeles International Airport shortly after midnight, March 5, 1983, on Avianca Flight 080, a direct 10-hour flight from Bogota, Colombia. Her visa was in order so she was passed through Immigration and proceeded to the customs desk. At the customs desk she encountered Customs Inspector Talamantes, who reviewed her documents and noticed from her passport that she had made at least eight recent trips to either Miami or Los Angeles. Talamantes referred respondent to a secondary customs desk for further questioning. At this desk Talamantes and another inspector asked respondent general questions concerning herself and the purpose of her trip. Respondent revealed that she spoke no English and had no family or friends in the United States. She explained in Spanish that she had come to the United States to purchase goods for her husband's store in Bogota. The customs inspectors recognized Bogota as a "source city" for narcotics. Respondent possessed $5,000 in cash, mostly $50 bills, but had no billfold. She indicated to the inspectors that she had no appointments with merchandise vendors, but planned to ride around Los Angeles in taxicabs visiting retail stores such as J.C. Penney and K-Mart in order to buy goods for her husband's store with the $5,000.

Respondent admitted that she had no hotel reservations, but stated that she planned to stay at a Holiday Inn. Respondent could not recall how her airline ticket was pur-

Page 534

chased. When the inspectors opened respondent's one small valise they found about four changes of "cold weather" clothing. Respondent had no shoes other than the high-heeled pair she was wearing. Although respondent possessed no checks, waybills, credit cards, or letters of credit, she did produce a Colombian business card and a number of old receipts, waybills, and fabric swatches displayed in a photo album.

At this point Talamantes and the other inspector suspected that respondent was a "balloon swallower," one who attempts to smuggle narcotics into this country hidden in her alimentary canal. Over the years Inspector Talamantes had apprehended dozens of alimentary canal smugglers arriving on Avianca Flight 080. See App. 42; United States v. Mendez-Jimenez, 709 F.2d 1300, 1301 (CA9 1983).

The inspectors requested a female customs inspector to take respondent to a private area and conduct a patdown and strip search. During the search the female inspector felt respondent's abdomen area and noticed a firm fullness, as if respondent were wearing a girdle. The search revealed no contraband, but the inspector noticed that respondent was wearing two pairs of elastic underpants with a paper towel lining the crotch area.

When respondent returned to the customs area and the female inspector reported her discoveries, the inspector in charge told respondent that he suspected she was smuggling drugs in her alimentary canal. Respondent agreed to the inspector's request that she be x-rayed at a hospital but in answer to the inspector's query stated that she was pregnant. She agreed to a pregnancy test before the x ray. Respondent withdrew the consent for an x ray when she learned that she would have to be handcuffed en route to the hospital. The inspector then gave respondent the option of returning to Colombia on the next available flight, agreeing to an x ray, or remaining in detention until she produced a monitored bowel movement that would confirm or rebut the inspectors'

Page 535

suspicions. Respondent chose the first option and was placed in a customs office under observation. She was told that if she went to the toilet she would have to use a wastebasket in the women's restroom, in order that female customs inspectors could inspect her stool for balloons or capsules carrying narcotics. The inspectors refused respondent's request to place a telephone call.

Respondent sat in the customs office, under observation, for the remainder of the night. During the night customs officials attempted to place respondent on a Mexican airline that was flying to Bogota via Mexico City in the morning. The airline refused to transport respondent because she lacked a Mexican visa necessary to land in Mexico City. Respondent was not permitted to leave, and was informed that she would be detained until she agreed to an x ray or her bowels moved. She remained detained in the customs office under observation, for most of the time curled up in a chair leaning to one side. She refused all offers of food and drink, and refused to use the toilet facilities. The Court of Appeals noted that she exhibited symptoms of discomfort consistent with "heroic efforts to resist the usual calls of nature." 731 F.2d, at 1371.

At the shift change at 4 o'clock the next afternoon, almost 16 hours after her flight had landed, respondent still had not defecated or urinated or partaken of food or drink. At that time...

To continue reading

Request your trial
879 practice notes
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 30, 2005
    • November 30, 2005
    ...canal'' smugglers, i.e., persons who smuggle drugs in their intestines by swallowing balloons. In United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), the U.S Supreme Court analogized holding a suspected alimentary canal smuggler to detaining someone for suspected tuberculosis, notin......
  • Quarantine, inspection, and licensing: Communicable diseases control,
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 30, 2005
    • November 30, 2005
    ...canal'' smugglers, i.e., persons who smuggle drugs in their intestines by swallowing balloons. In United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985), the U.S Supreme Court analogized holding a suspected alimentary canal smuggler to detaining someone for suspected tuberculosis, notin......
  • State v. Hamm, No. W2016-01282-SC-R11-CD
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • November 21, 2019
    ...the search ... and the nature of the search ... itself.’ " Turner , 297 S.W.3d at 160 (quoting United States v. Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U.S. 531, 537, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985) ). While a search is presumptively reasonable when conducted on the basis of probable cause and wit......
  • Keith v. Schuh, Civil Action No. 1:96cv39-D-D (N.D. Miss. 4/__/2001), Civil Action No. 1:96cv39-D-D.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi
    • April 1, 2001
    ...Chief among those safeguards is the requirement that . . . custodial detentions occur only on probable cause. United States v. Sharpe, 473 U.S. 531, 565, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 3323, 473 U.S. 531, 566, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 3324 (1985) (Brennan, J., Dissenting) (citations omitted) (emphasis 5. While the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
882 cases
  • United States v. Fowlkes, No. 11–50273.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 28, 2015
    ...to be, per se, a less intrusive or offensive condition in which to place a detainee. See, e.g., Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. at 548, 105 S.Ct. 3304 (Brennan, J., dissenting) (noting individual was able to avoid passing naturally any of the 88 drug-filled balloons secreted in her alimentar......
  • U.S. v. Patrick, No. 507
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • March 27, 1990
    ...border where the government has broader authority to conduct searches than it does elsewhere. See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537-38, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 3308-09, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985); United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 616-19, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1978-80, 52 L.Ed.2d 617...
  • U.S. v. Bute, Nos. 93-4193
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit)
    • December 23, 1994
    ...148 (1990); NTEU v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 665, 109 S.Ct. 1384, 1390, 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989); United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 3308, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985); United States v. Sharpe, 470 U.S. 675, 682, 105 S.Ct. 1568, 1573, 84 L.Ed.2d 605 (1985); Penn......
  • State v. Hamm, No. W2016-01282-SC-R11-CD
    • United States
    • Tennessee Supreme Court
    • November 21, 2019
    ...the search ... and the nature of the search ... itself.’ " Turner , 297 S.W.3d at 160 (quoting United States v. Montoya de Hernandez , 473 U.S. 531, 537, 105 S.Ct. 3304, 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985) ). While a search is presumptively reasonable when conducted on the basis of probable cause and wit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 books & journal articles
  • FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FRAUD
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Nbr. 58-3, July 2021
    • July 1, 2021
    ...person or vehicle entering or departing the United States without obtaining a warrant). 377. See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 537–39 (1985) (holding that warrantless border searches do not violate the Fourth Amendment); United States v. Seljan, 547 F.3d 993, 1000–01 ......
  • Electronic Searches at the Border: Reasonable Suspicion or None at All? The Circuit Split and Potential Impact on Higher Education.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 54 Nbr. 4, September 2021
    • September 22, 2021
    ...the exception. Id. at 153. (49.) Id. at 153-54 (articulating Court's reasoning). (50.) See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 563 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Carroll language); United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 617-18 (1977) (recognizing language in Carro......
  • Electronic Searches at the Border: Reasonable Suspicion or None at All? The Circuit Split and Potential Impact on Higher Education.
    • United States
    • Suffolk University Law Review Vol. 54 Nbr. 3, June 2021
    • June 22, 2021
    ...the exception. Id. at 153. (49.) Id. at 153-54 (articulating Court's reasoning). (50.) See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 563 (1985) (Stevens, J., concurring) (citing Carroll language); United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 617-18 (1977) (recognizing language in Carro......
  • The Roles of the State and Federal Governments in a Pandemic
    • United States
    • Journal of National Security Law & Policy Nbr. 11-1, January 2020
    • January 1, 2020
    ...the quaran-tine itself, screening travelers for symptoms of COVID-19 before they leave or 48. See United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985). 49. See Michigan Dep’t of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) (upholding a drunk driving checkpoint and indicating that a showi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT