*1 RAMSEY UNITED STATES et al. June Argued March 1977 Decided 76-167.
No. *2 argued Kenneth S. Geller the cause for the United States. On the Bork, brief were Solicitor Attorney General Assistant Thornburgh, General Jerome M. Feit. M. argued
Allan Palmer the cause and for filed brief a Ramsey. Irving Panzer, respondent R. M. appointment Court, 916, argued 429 U. S. cause and filed a brief for respondent Kelly.* Rehnquist opinion delivered the of the Court.
Me. Justice officials, acting Customs with suspect” “reasonable cause to laws, opened of customs for inspection incoming violation mail without first obtaining letter-class a search A of Appeals divided for the Court of Co- District warrant. Wulf, Gora, L. M. *Mélvin Joel and Jack D. Novik filed a for the brief urging Union as amicus American Civil Liberties curiae affirmance. Appeals every Court contrary other held, Circuit lumbia Amend- Fourth the matter,1 has considered which probable mail without opening of such ment forbade the 538 F. 67,C. App. search warrant. S. D. and a cause certiorari petition Government’s granted 2d 415. We now 815. We Circuit U. to resolve this conflict. reverse.
I
Kelly jointly commenced
Ramsey and James W.
Charles W.
C., area.
Washington, D.
heroin-by-mail
in the
enterprise
was
heroin,
procuring
involved their
process
to various
and sent
Thailand,
Bangkok,
mailed
letters
Two
for collection.
Columbia area
in the District of
locations
*3
who were
Ward,
Sylvia Bailey and William
suppliers,
of their
nar-
in international
engaged
were
in West Germany,
located
early
part of 1973 and
the latter
trafficking during
cotics
to court-
pursuant
German
of 1974. West
part
agents,
trans-
intercepted several
surveillance,
electronic
authorized
during
Bailey
Ramsey
between
conversations
Atlantic
late Jan-
By
discussed.
operation was
their narcotics
Thai
to Thailand.
Bailey
gone
had
and Ward
uary 1974,
1
mail
international
letter-class
Appeals
of
have held
Courts
Several
search,
probable cause and
opened, pursuant
a border
without
Milroy,
(CA4),
F. 2d 1033
cert.
United States
v.
538
a warrant.
without
King,
(CA5
States v.
2d 350
United
(1976);
517 F.
denied,
924
426 U. S.
Barclift,
(CA9),
denied,
423
F. 2d 1073
cert.
United States
1975);
v.
514
Bolin,
(CA7 1975);
(1975); United States v.
F. 2d 554
514
U. S.
Odland,
(CA7),
denied,
States v.
F. 2d 148
cert.
Two after this arrest Bailey Ward, Inspector George Kallnischkies, United States customs officer New York City, knowledge foregoing without events, inspecting a sack incoming international mail from Thai- land, spotted eight envelopes bulky he that were and which might’contain believed envelopes, merchandise.2 all which appeared him typed type- to have been on the same writer, were to four locations in addressed different the Wash- ington, C., Inspector D. area. Kallnischkies, based on fact that Thailand, letters known source narcotics, bulky,” suspected and were “rather the en- velopes might contain merchandise or contraband rather than correspondence. He took examining the letters to an area post in the office, and felt one of the like there letters: “felt something envelope. was there, just It was not plain paper He envelope supposed to contain.” *4 weighed envelopes, weighed grams, one of the and found it some weight three to six times the normal of an airmail letter. Inspector opened envelope: Kallnischkies then
“In I there some between saw cardboard and the card- I bag if there a recall, plastic containing was a board, City, inspected at in The mail was Office New York General Post incoming landing Kennedy Airport where air mail is taken routing inspections. dispute for and There is no this is the customs purposes searches, “border” for border see n. infra. 3 Inspector procedure,” Kallnischkies also testified that his “normal when I based on which, experience, powdered substance, white be heroin. from Thailand would knew sample. a Gave it a field “I ahead and removed went positive I test, field and had a Marquis Reagent a test, App. 32. for heroin.” reaction “in envelopes other seven open the proceeded
He that at revealed ways identical”; examination were lot of heroin. each contained in fact identical: least the contents were Washington a locked then sent to envelopes The were Drug Administration, Enforcement agents where pouch envelopes again opened the obtaining warrant, search after envelopes then The were the heroin.4 removed most of and under surveillance. were delivered and six them resealed, different envelopes from the three Kelly After collected Ramsey a gave and with addressees, Ramsey, rendezvoused The of them. agents arrested both federal paper bag, brown cash, $1,100 envelopes heroin, with the six bag contained day, The next the heroin. “cutting” material and agents residence, Ramsey’s upon warrant executing a search alia, pistols. inter two recovered, Bailey and with along Kelly indicted, and
Ramsey moved Respondents indictment.5 in a 17-count Ward, weight certain which were of a examining envelopes countries from certain moves, I know there is little,” “if it bulkiness, it a and was to “shake I merchandise correspondence. something in there that spe- He was unable App. 48-49. it to cheek it out.” have proce- “normal however, had followed the recall, or not he cifically whether dure” this case. discovery justify original seek to does not Government obviously post-opening warrant this warrant: heroin on the basis of “[A] 2. 4 n. justify original opening.” Brief for United States does not subsequent obtaining significance accordingly accord no We warrant. tried, were not have Bailey Ward, although indicted, remained outside the United States. *5 pistols.6 the heroin and the two The District
suppress Court motions, stipulated denied the and after a bench trial respondents guilty were found and sentenced im to record, prisonment years. for what in effect term of 10 Court of Columbia one Appeals Circuit, the District of holding judge dissenting, convictions, reversed the exception appli “border search to the requirement” warrant apply cable did not baggage, packages and mailed persons, and held opening mail, the routine letter international that the letter requires Constitution “before be made to and a showing probable mail is cause opened, App. U. magistrate.” warrant secured from a neutral F. 2d, at 421.7 C., 73, 538 D.
II authorized postal regulations applicable Congress and 482, § Title 19 U. S. C. undertaken in this case. actions of3§ Rev. and derived a recodification of Stat. explicitly deals with July 18, 1866, the Act of Stat. “envelope”: search an or persons to board “Any officers or authorized of the envelope, may search trunk . . search vessels . a reasonable he have found, wherever imported which was suspect there is merchandise cause .. .” to law contrary . under inspect, officials to authorizes customs provision
This as a weapons found acknowledges that “[t]he The Government discovery ‘fruit’ of the respondents’ and so are arrests result consequently fall with the heroin must stand or The convictions heroin. Id., n. 4. at 5 offenses.” standing Ramsey Kelly had whether considered court below Neither envelopes light of none of the fact that opening object to Government, however, did to them. The addressed envelopes were below, consequently do reach it. United we the issue not raise 38, 41 n. Santana, States v. *6 incoming the therein circumstances international mail.8 stated, The suspect” adopted by “reasonable cause the test statute is, stringent practical imposes we a a think, test which less regulations authority. implemented Postal have CFR See 19 (1976); (1975). regulations promulgated 145.2 39 CFR 61.1 The § 1971; prior regulations implement existing that time not the did statutory authority. The postal fact authorities did not incom ing upon suspect” prior international letter-class mail “reasonable cause to analysis. to 1971 does change not our
Title
(d),
prohibits
opening
39 U.
C.
of
S.
which
the
first-class
§3623
“except
mail of
origin,”
authority
a
“domestic
under
of
search warrant
by
,” has, by
terms,
application
authorized
. .
law .
its
no
to interna-
own
any
amendment,
tional mail of
proposed
class. A
im-
which would have
posed
statutory requirements
mail,
similar
opening
on the
international
of
House,
defeated
Cong.
was
on the floor of the
20482-20483
Rec.
Our dissenting
separate
Brethren find
for refus-
no fewer than
reasons
five
ing
unambiguous
statutory
language
follow the
of
first
the
section. The
the longstanding
is
respect
has
for “the individual’s in-
shown
private
infra,
terest in
Post,
it,
at 626. But as we examine
communication.”
616-619,
at
support may
garnered
history
no
from the
of the Fourth
rely
Amendment
insofar as border searches are concerned.
Insofar as
Amendment,
the
they ignore
imposed
on
First
the
the limitations
on
statute, infra,
by
regulations.
search
the
623-624,
at
Postu-
as well as
the
lating a
dif-
sensitive concern for First
as of 1866 is a
Amendment values
ficult historical
time.
exercise on the basis of
materials from
available
parte
analysis
Cf. Ex
Jackson,
(1878) (Fourth
The dissent the kind only “packages of demonstrating concern with entirety its Post, But this at 628. merchandise.” normally import dutiable used to mer- packages dutiable judges know what size assuming aswe assertion — purpose, the wholly contrary the thrust of usuqlly in—is comes chandise Act is Prevent purpose of the the Act. The “to language, of and the arti- and wherever purpose, however does this Smuggling.” Nowhere employed the container physical the size of culated, a concern with reflect only large any indication that reliable possess smuggling, nor do we the “enve- country As for word in 1866. this smuggled into items were dissenting derive comfort Brethren how our difficult to see lope,” it is dictionary they cite states contemporary source The statute. in the its use “ ‘the in the sense of “envelope” is the word common use the most that ” Post, 630 n. 5. at We document, a letter.’ as of wrapper of a cover word, usage of the common this, the most see how quite unable only definition when a narrow Congress intended the view reinforces restriction. without the word it used over construction” a “consistent relies on also The dissent (CA5 1975); Terry Ohio, cf. 1, 8, 21-22, (1968). Inspector Kallnischkies, opened time he the letters, knew that were from were Thailand, bulky, many times the weight of a normal airmail letter, and “felt like there was something there.” Under these circumstances, we have no doubt that he had reasonable “cause to suspect” there was merchandise or envelopes.9 contraband years by Post, the Executive. at 631. To the extent it relies on a con- things struction that entering by by mail are statute, not covered reliance founders on opinion Acting Attorney of a former General. See Op. Atty. Gen. 457 To the extent it referring only to letter- mail, sized dissent nowhere by demonstrates interpretation actual anyone congressional authority perceived was as an affirmative power limitation on the open Executive to letters at the border when there existed “reasonable cause” suspect a violation of customs laws. evidence marshaled dissenting our Brethren point on this could only called “consistent” generous appraiser most of such material.
The dissent’s final reliance is asking on the assertion that addressee for consent to proved letter had not been unworkable. Presumably the conclusion to be drawn from this is that the Executive’s *8 change reason for a policy in its is weak. point; But this is beside the it reflects not Congress’ at all on words or in intent 1866 or at other time. That the Executive less-than-cogent Branch have relied on a reason in regulatory its 1971 change nothing has interpre- to do with the tation of Congress. an Act of
Underlying all reasons, apparently, of these is fear that the the “[i]f claims, Government is power allowed to exercise the it the door will wholesale, to the incoming secret examination of all Post, by letter mail.” specter simply presented at 632. That is not observe, infra, by case. 623-624, opening As we a the of mail is limited totally requirement, reading “reasonable cause” is while the of letters by regulation. interdicted speculation, and not this unwarranted policy by the Executive, poses followed the the “serious constitutional question” to be avoided. 9 evidently Appeals, noted, The Court of it should be believed that Inspector possessed Kallnischkies sufficient information at the time the envelopes opened “probable requirement; meet the stricter cause”
615
therefore,
plainly
by
was
the statute.10
search,
authorized
by statute,
was
the
this case.
authorized
Since
search
of
question
search,
with the
whether the
simply
left
we are
Cf.
v.
the Constitution.
United States
violated
nevertheless
once,
873,
877
we
Specifically,
S.
Brignoni-P
U.
conceived the statute as
whether
decide
need
or
validity of the search whether
precondition to the
necessary
existing
a limitation
otherwise
viewed,
it
as
instead,
was
and
Having
pursuant
of
acted
authority
the Executive.11
to,
that,
they
pre-
facts in this case are such
had
been
it
the
believed "that
permitting opening
magistrate,
of a search warrant
to a
issuance
sented
App.
67,
envelopes
appropriate.”
176 U.
D. C.
have been
S.
the
would
disposition
case,
of this
we
415,
n.
F. 2d
421 n. 8. Because of our
question.
do not reach that
suspect”
cause to
there existed “reasonable
light
In
conclusionthat
our
not,
not,
do
decide
laws,
need
whether
we
violation
the customs
statutory
by
been
other
nonetheless
authorized
the search would have
alternatively
by
upon us
grants
authority urged
the Government.
search,
“stop,
officials
Title 19 U. S. C.
also authorizes customs
§482
beast,
. .
any vehicle,
person,
.
or
on which or whom .
and examine
. .
duty,
subject
or
suspect
shall
there is merchandise
any manner
the
States in
have
introduced into
United
shall
been
in,
charge,
by,
person
possession
or
contrary
or
law, whether
. .” Title 19
beast,
. .
U. S. C.
upon
such
or
or otherwise
vehicle
Treasury
Secretary
provides,
pertinent part, that
“[t]he
§
baggage
;
.
persons and
. .
may prescribe regulations for the search of
foreign
coming
countries shall
persons
into
United States from
all
agents
officers
authorized
liable to detention
search
regulations.”
Government under
authority
Although
statutory
envelopes
searches of
authorizes
found,”
envelopes
C.
were searched
“wherever
S.
entering
City
mail was
New
Post Office
at the
York
We, therefore,
question, recently
us the
ad
States.
do not have before
contexts,
geographical
dressed
other
limits to border searches.
Brignoni-P once,
(1975);
See United States
U.
Almeida-
*9
States,
Ill
A That long searches to the pursuant made at the border, right standing of sovereign protect by stopping to itself and examining persons property crossing country, into this and simply by they reasonable virtue of the fact that occur the border, require no should, now, extended demonstra The Congress tion. which in proposed the Bill Rights, cluding Fourth legislatures to on Amendment, the state September 25, had, prior Stat. some two months 1789, 97, to proposal, enacted the first statute, customs Act of 1789, July c. Stat. Section 24 of 29. this statute granted power customs officials “full authority” and to enter ship and search or “any in have vessel, they shall reason any suspect goods, to subject duty or wares merchandise to shall concealed . . . .” This acknowledgment plenary power customs wras power differentiated the more limited “any enter and search particular store, dwelling-house, or building, place upon other . . where a .” warrant “cause suspect” was required.12 The importance historical stage process Alabama, an they initial the customs when routed to they process being subject but were still in the delivered, and still inspection”). customs provided, part: 23 of pertinent Section this customs statute collector, customs, shall lawful for the or other “[I]t officer entry any goods, merchandise, after made of suspicion wares or fraud, examine, presence reputable or of two more any merchants, package packages thereof . . . .” provided,
Section 24 of pertinent part: this customs statute “[E]very collector, officer surveyor, naval person or other specially appointed either them purpose, for that have power shall full authority, ship vessel, enter in which shall have *10 by enactment of this statute Congress customs same proposed the Fourth Amendment is, we mani- think, century ago. fest. This Court so concluded almost a In States, Boyd v. U. (1886), this Court observed:
“The goods by seizure stolen authorized the common law; goods the seizure forfeited for a breach laws, payable revenue concealed to avoid the duties by English has been for them, authorized statutes at least two centuries past; and the like seizures have been authorized our revenue from the com- own acts government. passed mencement of the The first statute by Congress regulate the collection of act of duties, the July to this 31, 1789, 29, 43, provisions Stat. contains passed by As this act was the same effect. which proposed adoption original amendments to for Constitution, is clear it members that kind body regard did not searches and seizures this ‘unreasonable,’ they are not embraced within as prohibition (Emphasis amendment.” supplied.) subject border interpretation, searches were not
This of the Fourth Amendment and were provisions to the warrant been meaning Amendment, of that has “reasonable” within the States, Court. Carroll United faithfully adhered to noting after Fourth Amend- 132 (1925), “[t]he any subject duty goods, wares or merchandise shall be suspect reason to for, seize, any goods, to search and secure such concealed; and therein they suspect merchandise; and if shall have cause to a conceal- wares dwelling-house, store, thereof, any particular building, or other ment shall, upon application them on oath or affirmation or either of place, house, peace, to a warrant to enter such any justice be entitled day only) (in time and there to search for such store, place or other found, to seize and secure the same goods, and if shall trial . .” . .
ment does denounce only all searches or but seizures, id., unreasonable,” 147, recognized the distinc- tion between within this requiring probable searches country, *11 id., and cause, border at 153-154: searches, “It would be prohibi and if intolerable unreasonable a tion agent stop every were authorized to automobile finding chance of liquor subject persons and thus all lawfully using highways to the inconvenience and indignity of such a stopped search. Travellers be so in crossing an boundary because national protection reasonably entering requiring one self country in, to identify his as entitled to come and himself belongings as which may brought in. lawfully effects lawfully But country right those within the . have a to . . passage free interruption without unless there search competent search, known authorized to official probable believing carry cause for their vehicles are 13 ing or illegal (Emphasis contraband merchandise.” supplied.)
More recently, history in longstanding we noted this Thirty-seven United 363, States v. Photographs, S. 376 (1971): entry
“But a port right is not a home. His traveler’s to be neither prevents luggage let alone the search of his nor the seizure of unprotected, illegal, but materials when possession during his of them is discovered search. characteristically luggage Customs and inspect officials power questioned case; their so it is do intimately an old practice and is associated with exclud- ing country.” illegal articles from the whether, circumstances, do not decide under what a border We might particularly search deemed because “unreasonable” States, Cf. Kremen United is carried offensive manner which it out. v. Importing States, Co. Go-Bart v. (1957); S. 346 U. 344, (1931) 356-358
In United States Film, 200-Ft. Reels v. 413 U. S. we “Import observed: (1973), restrictions and searches of persons packages at the national borders rest on different considerations and different rules of constitutional law from domestic regulations. The Constitution gives Congress broad, comprehensive powers regulate foreign Commerce with ‘[t]o Art. I, Nations.’ cl. 8, 3. Historically powers such broad have been necessary prevent prevent smuggling prohibited entry.” articles from Finally, citing Carroll Boyd, this Court States, stated in Almeida-Sanchez United U. (1973), that it was “without doubt” power to exclude aliens “can be inspec- effectuated routine tions and searches of conveyances individuals or seeking id., cross our borders.” See also at 288 (White, dissenting). *12 J., Border searches, from then, before adoption the the Fourth Amendment, have been considered to be “reasonable” by single the fact person that the item question had entered into our country from outside. There has never any been requirement additional that reasonableness a border depended search on the probable existence of cause. longstanding This recognition that searches at our borders without probable cause and without a warrant are nonetheless “reasonable” history has a as old as the Fourth Amendment itself.14 We reaffirm it now.
B Respondents us, urge upon position however, mailed letters are somehow different, may whatever and, the normal rule with respect to border different searches, considerations, requiring the full panoply of Fourth Amend-
14The opinion States, in Carroll v. United 267 U. (1925), S. itself reminds us that Fourth Amendment is to be “[t]he construed in the light of what was deemed an unreasonable search and seizure it when was adopted, and in a manner which public will conserve interests as well as rights the interests and of individual citizens.” apply ment The protections, to international mail. Court may the rule be with Appeals agreed, and felt that whatever respect travelers, baggage, pack- their and even mailed exception “extend” the would not border-search ages, it envelopes. App. C., include at mailed letter-size D. F. 421. 2d, agree We do not that this inclusion exception represents the border-search letters within exception. “extension” of that exception recognized
The grounded border-search right subject limita- sovereign control, substantive imposed by tions and what enter Constitution, who country. nothing It is clear there is the rationale suggests exception behind the border-search entry argu- mode of oral will be critical. It was conceded at probable ment without that customs officials could search, envelopes entering cause and without carried an warrant, traveler, person. whether in his on his Tr. Oral luggage 43-44. Arg. no different constitutional standard Surely simply envelopes mailed, because the apply should envelopes fact is that cross the carried. critical brought border and enter this not that country, their transportation one mode of rather than another. It is entry resulting into this it country without that makes a search “reasonable.” century ago rejected
Almost a this Court such a distinction *13 construing protocol Treaty 604, Berne, Stat. con- prohibited importation might which of letters which Nazro, Cotzhausen tain dutiable items. distinction
(1883). Condemning unsoundness entry by entry by means, mail and other Mr. Justice between id., 218: behalf of a at Miller, Court, wrote, unanimous every it be that citizen passenger, “Of what avail would country distinction of or sex, without foreigner, and before either sign landing, a declaration compelled his in hand contain nothing trunks and satchels and even duty, is, liable to if to state what it do, if may examination, person subjected rigid to a con- its sealed unwatched, the mail is to be left and all ad- delivery person to whom tents, even after though laces, exempt seizure, are to be dressed, thus may value great and other dutiable matter of jewels, foreign countries.” be introduced from doctrine, recognized scope of the border-search The historically stemming suggests no distinction constitutional doctrine The our borders. transportation from the mode of across stems, contrary Appeals respondents view of the Court of United of Carroll v. reading we from an think, erroneous Appeals States, the Court of at under which S.,U. excep- the border search reasoned that “the rationale of a war- difficulty obtaining upon tion ... is based . . . car as a subject mobile, when the of the search rant 418.15 2d, at . 538 F. App. . .” 176 U. S. person C., . D. is that difficulty position with this fundamental on the doctrine is not based exception “border search” his longstanding, is a at all. “exigent circumstances” gen Amendent’s Fourth exception to the torically recognized respect in this obtained, that a warrant principle eral exception arrest” incident to lawful the similar “search is like Robinson, 218, 224 States v. U. in United treated States, supra, in Carroll v. language think that the We Court Carroll clear. The abundantly point this makes fully the border-search not, cannot, explain explanation does This doc “exigent circumstances” grounded in the it “exception” if were even it when easily officials be held customs trine. For letter as Too, mail. it crosses as it can when a traveler crosses with the Court treatment explain the different explanation cannot pre packages, which mailed have accorded apparently would Appeals envelopes. easily as letter-size sumably may be detained *14 above-quoted Boyd quoted language verbatim v. States, United the reference to (1886), including 1 customs searches and of the kind authorized seizures Stat. as nor within 29, 43, being neither “unreasonable” “embraced prohibition in the Later [Fourth] [A]mendment.” opinion, having Court “established that commented that transported contraband in an goods concealed and illegally automobile or other vehicle be searched for without warrant, we come now to under what circumstances consider (emphasis sup- such search bemay S., made.” 267 U. at 153 plied). then, passage quoted supra, at distin- among required these which no types searches guished, warrant, required those which cause from probable those not: did border not; searches did vehicular searches inside country Carroll recognized did. thus there was no “probable requirement cause” the border. This determina- at simply nothing “exigent tion has do with circumstances.” Appeals upon The Court of also relied what it described years this Court’s refusal recent twice “to take an expansive exception authority view of the border search or the Brignoni-Ponce, of the Border Patrol. United States See States, . U. S. 873 . . (1975); Almeida-Sanchez v. . . (1973).” App. C., U. S. 266 . at D. F. 420. 2d, language at as the from each of these But, opinions S., suggests, 876, 884; 272-273, U. atS., U. plenary authority implibated by border-search our was uphold stops places refusal searches and made at in the express premise interior each country; holding checkpoint stop was that the in question was not the border equivalent.” its “functional In authority view of the wealth of establishing the border “reasonable” within search as the Fourth Amendment even though probable there be neither cause nor a warrant, we reject Appeals the distinctions made the Court of in its opinion.
623 Nor do agree we that, under the presented circumstances this case, First Amendment considerations dictate full panoply of Fourth Amendment rights prior to the border search of mailed letters. There is, no again, reason to dis- tinguish between letters mailed into the country, and letters carried on the person.16 traveler’s More fundamentally, system however, existing of border searches has not been shown to protected invade First Amendment rights,17 and hence there is no reason to think potential presence of correspondence makes the otherwise constitutionally reasonable search “unreasonable.” in question statute requires that there be “reasonable cause to believe” the being customs laws are prior violated to the opening envelopes. of Applicable postal regulations prohibit, under all flatly circumstances, reading of cor- respondence absent a search 19 warrant, CFR (1976): § 145.3
“No customs or employee officer shall read or authorize any person or allow any correspondence other read origin contained sealed letter foreign mail of unless a search warrant has been obtained in advance an appropriate judge magistrate or U. S. which authorizes such action.” §
Cf. U. S. C. 1702.
agree
are unable to
Court Appeals
We
with the
that the
opening
violations,
of international mail
search of customs
carry
There
no reason to infer that
mailed
somehow
with
letters
greater
privacy
expectation
them a
than do
carried on one’s
letters
(d).
person. Cf.
C. 3623
39 U. S.
§
justifiable
expectations
privacy
incoming
There
are limited
only
crossing
longstand
United States borders. Not
is there the
material
constitutionally
right of
ing,
authorized
customs officials to search incom
goods,
statutorily
there
ing persons
expectation
but
is no
created
King,
(d).
See also United
States v.
privacy.
See 39 U. S.
C.
Odland,
States v.
2d,
354;
(CA7),
F.
at
We in by Inspector Kallnischkies not interdict the actions taken whether, decide in the absence We, accordingly, no occasion to have were, “chilled,” or, if it restrictions, speech regulatory the would panoply of apply the full response would be to appropriate the whether Kentucky, 496, 413 U. requirements. S. Amendment Cf. Roaden v. Fourth Texas, (1968); Terry Ohio, v. (1973); 392 U. S. 502-506 Stanford Court, in (1974), the McDonnell, this 418 U. S. In v. Wolff attorney prisoner-client, noted to a opening of mail from an of the context equivalent inspec to freedom from censorship is not from that “freedom id., Court held: perusal,” at 576. This tion or inmates, presence could ability in the the mail “As to the not read. way censorship; since the mail would constitute in no communications, presence since the inmate’s it chill such Neither could possibility read the mail. The prison officials will insures that not attorneys, letters, apparent enclosed in even those contraband will be Id., opening the at 577. surely prison officials’ letters.” warrants borders, prisons. power of course, Yet the here, with deal We entry stop the of contraband plenary take action customs officials prisons. safeguards The area than no less in the border-search area, think, comparable to those found constitu- the border-search we tionally valid Wolff. eight
opening searching the envelopes. judgment The Appeals the Court of is, therefore,
Reversed. Powell, Justice concurring. Mr. at issue expressly statute authorizes customs officials envelope” . “search . the at border where . there suspect” importation
“reasonable cause to the of contraband. In necessarily 482. view of the power C. enhanced of the Federal Government at enforce customs bor laws I der, no doubt that as a requiring precon have this statute — opening dition to mail “reasonable suspect” cause to adequately protects both and Fourth violation First law— rights.* Amendment On un- join
I of the Court. judgment therefore today’s decision precedential effect of derstanding that border beyond validity of mail searches go does not opinion I join also Court. statute, to the pursuant Brennan Stevens, with whom Mr. Justice Mr. Justice *17 dissenting. join, Marshall Justice and Mr. has Congress in ease is whether question decisive inspect open and the authority officials customs
granted with- from abroad States the United entering letters personal addressee, the sender or consent knowledge out the believe the mail contains probable cause without and merchandise. or dutiable contraband n Office of the Treasury the and Department Post the In 1971 such Congress granted that had asserted Department first enacted 1866. awkwardly drafted statute authority in an flatly regulations prohibit the ante, 623, postal notes, Court the *As foreign letter mail of contained sealed “any correspondence reading of 19 145.3 has been obtained . . . CFR § search warrant origin unless consistently fol- been had practice, Under the earlier were not allowed officials years, customs lowed of consent, with the and except presence, mail foreign by prob- supported warrant of course a addressees,1 unless why five reasons There are been first obtained. cause had able the kind not authorize did Congress I that am convinced here the Executive private mail searches of secret conducted. respected the has history Congress throughout our
First, The notion communication. private individual’s interest without opened inspected could be private letters to the tradi- or the abhorrent notice to the sender addressee by the protected freedom to communicate privacy tion I member of the believe that Rights. cannot Bill its authority considering without grant would implications.2 constitutional by in Cotzhausen procedure the customs officials This was followed For Nazro, 215, upon here. 107 U. S. relied Government incoming inter Regulations allowed
years, Post Office from 1871 only opened presence, in the and with the con mail national letter 12a, (citing 20-21, nn. Brief for United States sent, the addressee. regulations). history the amend of the defeat of is bolstered This conviction requirement imposed specific on the warrant would have ment which mails, ante, at 612 8. The amendment was n. opening of Reorganization on the Postal during the course of House debate offered Adjustment C., Salary Title 39 U. S. which created Act of one more than amendment was but Postal Service. This United States day. 116 floor the Act on the House amendments to offered immediately before the amendment (1970). Speaking Cong. Rec. Congressman said: defeated, Derwinski was the time beyond debate which we do not have
“Going the constitutional adopted, problem of afternoon, were to be if this amendment for this pornography greatly would of narcotics and stopping the flow *18 compounded. just major legislate on such a issue with we want to
“I do believe not Id., at 20483. of debate.” 10 minutes of this amendment cannot be circumstances the
Under such defeat Representatives on the of the House of expression of the will considered an history of the 1866 statute unam- legislative Second, very during concern was voiced discloses that this biguously assured Howe, that he was by Senator debate not bill would authorize legislation of the that the sponsor is too colloquy This of the States mails. United examination plain to be misunderstood: third sections of this HOWE. The second and
“Mr. of all speak search, seizure, bill examination envelopes. It seems to me that trunks, packages, and mails. cover the United States language enough is broad I bill to authorize the suppose purpose is not the of the it of the examination States mails. [sponsor
“Mr. MORRILL Of course not. bill]. I propose HOWE. to offer an “Mr. amendment prevent such a construction.
“Mr. is no of such con- danger EDMUNDS. There placed upon is the being language. struction this language usually employed these bills. If gentlemen perfectly
“Mr. HOWE. confident that it no receive no construction, bear such and will will I press do care construction, it. “The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Wisconsin withdraws his amendment.” issue, emphasize Congress legislate but it does reluctance questions. See, area without careful consideration of the constitutional g., (Omnibus e. 18 U. S. C. Crime Control and Act of Safe Streets 1968) (warrant required electronically intercept wire or oral communi- cations) ; Rep. 88-108, Cong., Sess., 66-76, 161-177, No. 90th 2d 187, 214-218, 182-183, 224-226, (1968). not, course, 23A-239 I do imply is, itself, congressional incident sufficient to demonstrate ante, sensitivity private to the individual interest communication. See believe, however, seriously questions 612 n. 8. I the Court cannot validity my (in today) assumption 1866 as well indeed concerned about such matters. was Cong., Sess., Cong. Globe, 1st After 39th consideration passed day. the bill the same of one more Senate amendment *19 in read Third, language itself, of the statute when its kind plainly to of the entirety, quite packages has reference normally import to is true dutiable merchandise.4 used Act,' Smuggling and three sections of the Further to first Prevent July Purposes, 18,1866, for Other enacted on read as follows: by Representatives “Be it the Senate and the United enacted House of of Congress assembled, in That, purposes of this States America of act, ‘vessel,’ used, the term held whenever hereinafter shall be to include every water-craft, vehicle, description raft, of contrivance used or and capable auxiliary by being of as' a transportation used means or of on or water; ‘vehicle,’ used, and the term hereinafter shall be held whenever every description carriage, wagon, engine, car, sleigh, sled, to include of sledge, hurdle, cart, capable contrivance, and other artificial or used being auxiliary transportation used a means or on land. as enacted, any be it “Sec. 2. And That it be lawful for shall further customs, including inspectors inspectors, (cid:127)officer of the and occasional or cutter, agent Treasury Department, or revenue authorized of the or person by specially appointed purpose collector, other writing for the in surveyor officer, customs, go any vessel, naval or to on board of as district, well inspect, search, without as within his to examine and and same, any trunk, person, envelope board, end, and or to and this to stop way, necessary hail and if under and such vessel to use force to all compel any compliance; appear and if it shall breach or violation of committed, whereby laws of the United States has been or in conse- quence which, vessel, goods, wares, .merchandise, such or the and or any part thereof, by imported vessel, on board of or such or axe hable forfeiture, to same, any seizure of part thereof, to make or either or arrest, escape, attempt in any escape, pursue or case or any person engaged Provided, arrest in such breach or violation: That the original any appointment writing person specially appointed as aforesaid filed appointment shall be in the custom-house where such made. enacted, any “Sec. 3. And be it persons That of the officers or further
authorized the second section of act to board or search vessels stop, search, examine, respective well without as within their districts, any vehicle, beast, person or on which or whom he or shall suspect goods, wares, subject duty or merchandise there which are or shall any have been introduced into the United States in manner contrary law, person possession whether charge, by, in, or or upon beast, or otherwise, vehicle any and to search trunk or buried, deep first long sentence 3 of prevent
Act to smuggling there is an authorization to “search envelope, trunk or I wherever found.” do not believe, *20 however, “envelope” word the as there used was intended to ordinary to Contemporary refer letters. American diction- envelope, found, may in wherever which he have a reasonable to cause suspect goods imported contrary there which were law; any and if person such officer or other any so as authorized aforesaid shall find goods, wares, merchandise, or any on or vehicle, beast, about such or person, any envelope, or in such trunk or shall he have reasonable subject duty, cause to believe are unlawfully or to have been introduced States, by person the United possession into whether the in or charge, or by, in, upon vehicle, beast, or otherwise, such or he shall seize and trial; secure every the same for and beast, such either, vehicle and or together motive-power or other with teams in conveying, drawing, used or propelling vehicle, goods, wares, such merchandise, or and all other appurtenances, including trunks, envelopes, covers, and all means of con- cealment, and equipage, trappings, all the appurtenances and other of such beast, team, subject or be forfeiture; vehicle shall to seizure and if and any person driving be conducting, any who or charge or in such carriage beast, any person or or or travelling, wilfully vehicle shall refuse stop and allow search and examination provided, to be made as herein required by any when so to person, do authorized shall, he or she conviction, any sum, fined in in the discretion of the convicting be court her, exceeding or dollars, fifty him one thousand dollars; nor than less Secretary Treasury may and of the from time prescribe to time regulations persons baggage, for the search of employment for the inspectors of female for the examination persons and search of of their own sex; coming persons and all into foreign the United States countries be hable detention by shall agents search authorized officers or government, regulations Secretary under as the Treasury prescribe: Provided, from time railway shall to time That engine no car or vehicle, by person or other or team used corporation, or as common carriers in of their the transaction business as such common carriers shall subject provisions to forfeiture force of the of this act unless it appear owners, superintendent, agent shall or of the owner in charge importation thereof at time of such unlawful transportation or thereby, consenting party, thereon or was a privy or illegal to such importation transportation.” Stat. 178-179.
aries emphasize descriptive word usage as of a wrapper package as an ordinary well letter.5 This emphasis with originally consistent the text of the bill as envelope.” introduced, phrase “any which used trunk, or other Moreover, in 1866 when the passed, Act was there 6 expressed was no concern in smuggling about the A merchandise that would envelope.7 legis fit a letter-size lative decision authorize the secret private search of mail would surely expressed plainer language found than statutory long provision quoted margin; in the in the at the very supported least it would be some affirmative evidence legislative history rather than the total disclaimer the colloquy quoted above.
5 wrapper; covering Worcester, “A outward or case.” A an J. Diction *21 ary Language (1860). English envelops, wraps encases, up, surrounds; wrapper;
“That which a a cover; especially, the wrapper document, cover or of of a a letter.” Webster, Dictionary English (Goodrich N. An the Language American of & 1869). Porter eds. primary given “envelope.”
These are the 6 definitions by amendment, Globe, The word deleted Cong. Cong., "other” was 39th (1866). 1st Sess., recognize argue I that one the deletion that of every the word intent “other” evidence of an to kind include of envelope just comparable rather than those to “trunk.” seems a It more infer, however, reasonable the draftsmen the direct considered comparison merely too to a trunk restrictive and had in mind all containers performed the packaging though same kind of function even not as large as a interpret trunk. seems unrealistic to change as intended encompass personal to broaden the statute to mail. object prevent stated of smuggling, especially the 1866 Act was to along from Canada North the and Northwestern frontier: very “It has been during years found frontier our the two difficult last prevent system smuggling going of increasing the which has been on and day by day. The custom-houses are defrauded and the Government is Congressman cheated.” Eliot, Cong. Globe, Remarks of Cong., 39th 1st Sess., id., See of Morrill, 2563; Williams, also remarks Senator of Senator id., at 2567. of
Fourth, statutory the consistent construction the authori of changing span zation a series administrations over a be years great respect.8 must accorded NLRB Bell v. Co., Aerospace Helvering Reynolds S. 267, 274-275; U. Co., 306 If 110, perceives U. 114-115. the Executive S. problems justify enlargement new of the au conditions thority been found then adequate century, that had for over a brought Congress. these should be attention of matters to the NLRB, Cf. Porter 397 U. 109.9 99, H. K. Co. v. S. justification power for the broad Finally, the asserted it is to believe that claimed is so weak that difficult accept searching analysis. it without The fear would the most the practice new is intended to overcome is that addressee consent suspicious item of mail would withhold a of the item to thereby necessitating return foreign mail, delivery dis- accept But refusal to without the sender. suspicious of a itself closing the contents letter would with whatever indicia along which could fact considered — suspicion the item inspector regard with caused no probable-cause There is place first determination. —in probable to believe that alternatives cause reason would the extensive return contraband consent lead Attorney opinion Acting Jenks made reference An 1886 General Nazro, practice a case followed Cotzhausen v. to the consent, opening package with the mail which involved Op. Atty. opinion 458. No presence, of the addressee. See Gen. *22 Attorney the statute more any subsequent has construed General broadly. argument regulations Court that the 1971 are of its in this support In Amendment, meaning Fourth Government within reasonable data obtained after the plethora regulations of statistical assembled has justification cannot, course, post hoc inform us adopted. Such regulations. I adoption mention the actual motivation about only reliance on these data because the tends point Government’s fashioned, if a rule is to be it my judgment new should confirm Congress. by the drafted
632-
would otherwise be confiscated on the basis “reasonable suspect.” cause to
If the power claims, allowed exercise the it Government door bewill to the wholesale, secret examination incoming all letter mail. No notice would be necessary either before or after the search. Until has made policy an unambiguous unprec- decision that such an edented intrusion upon a personal vital method of communi- cation inis the Nation’s interest, this Court should not address the serious question constitutional it today. For it is decides settled that
“when action taken an inferior governmental agency was accomplished procedures which con- raise serious stitutional questions, an initial inquiry will made determine whether or not Congress, ‘the President or respective within their specifically constitutional powers, has decided imposed procedures that the necessary warranted and has authorized their use.’ [Greene McElroy, 474,] Larche, 507.” Hannah v. 430. S.U.
Cf. Ashwander Valley v. Tennessee Authority, 297 347-348 (Brandeis, J., concurring). I Accordingly, would judgment affirm the Court of Appeals.