834 F.3d 723
6th Cir.2016Background
- Nineteen-year-old D.E. mistakenly arrived at the Blue Water Bridge border crossing and was given a CBP laminated card allowing him to "turn around without traveling to Canada."
- The toll operator directed D.E. to merge into a lane with motorists arriving from Canada; CBP directed him to primary then secondary inspection.
- CBP officers conducted a canine sniff and a physical search of D.E.’s vehicle and backpack, recovered marijuana and paraphernalia, and detained D.E. for about an hour until local police took custody.
- D.E. pleaded guilty in state court under Michigan’s HYTA to possession of drug paraphernalia while this civil § 1983 suit was pending.
- The district court dismissed his Fourth Amendment and related claims, concluding border-search doctrine permitted suspicionless searches at the border/functional equivalent; it also denied reconsideration and a protective-order request.
- The Sixth Circuit affirmed: routine border searches do not require suspicion or a warrant even for motorists who did not intend to cross; denial of Rule 59(e) and protective-order motions was not an abuse of discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of suspicionless search | Turnaround motorists who did not cross the border (and did not intend to) cannot be subjected to suspicionless border searches | Border-search exception permits routine, suspicionless searches at the border or its functional equivalent regardless of subjective intent or inadvertent arrival | Court held search lawful under border-search exception; subjective intent and failure to cross are irrelevant |
| Requirement of reasonable suspicion for canine sniff/search | Canine sniff/search of a turnaround vehicle required suspicion because the motorist never crossed or was in process of crossing | Canine sniff and subsequent search lawful as part of a routine border search; sniff not a Fourth Amendment intrusion in this context | Court held canine sniff and vehicle search lawful without suspicion at the border/functional equivalent |
| Length and lawfulness of detention | Detention became unlawful after citizenship verification and no federal charges; hour-long detention unreasonable | Short detention (about one hour) at international border is reasonable and consistent with routine border delays, and was to await local law enforcement | Court held detention reasonable and permissible in border-search context |
| Protective order/pseudonym use | HYTA confidentiality and risk to future employment justify sealing or pseudonymous filing | Public right to open judicial records outweighs plaintiff’s asserted interests; plaintiff forfeited secrecy by suing CBP | Court held denial of protective order and denial of reconsideration not an abuse of discretion; panel nonetheless used initials in opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flores-Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (2004) (routine border searches of vehicles need no warrant, probable cause, or suspicion)
- United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606 (1977) (border searches are reasonable by virtue of occurring at the border)
- United States v. Boumelhem, 339 F.3d 414 (6th Cir. 2003) (border-search exception applies to exiting vehicles and affirms statutory authority for searches)
- Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U.S. 266 (1973) (distinguishes searches at the border and functional equivalents from roving stops)
- United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975) (traffic checkpoints away from the border require consent or probable cause; does not control searches at the border)
- Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005) (canine sniff during a lawful stop does not constitute a Fourth Amendment search)