Brignoni-Ponce
On 11th March 1973, on interstate highway 5, the US-Mexico border was closed. However, traffic officer parked at the checkpoint chased a car driven Felix Brignoni-Ponce, who was a united states citizen but with roots from Puerto Rico. The officers later admitted that the sole reason of pursing and stopping the the vehicle was that the individual that were in the automobile “appeared to be of Mexican descent”(Johnson, 2009, p.8).
Two of the passengers did not have the required united states immigration documents and therefore all the three were consequently arrested. Brignoni-Ponce was later charged with ferrying illegal immigrants in contravention of federal law. On 11/3 the in the Southern District of California, Brignoni-Ponce was charged on willfully ferrying undocumented immigrant in contravention of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2). The case was under Judge Howard Turrentine. In his testimony, Brignoni-Ponce argued that the evident against him resulted from a stop and seizure against the Fourth Amendment. The judge rejected the motion to suppress. The patrol officer, Brady Terrance claimed that on the 11/3 he intercepted an automobile and wanted to inspect it. He found out that the occupants spoke Spanish and thus asked for their documents but they failed to produce any. The agent produced Brignoni-Ponce as the perpetrator of the offence. The judge in his determination found Brignoni-Ponce guilty as charged and consequently sentenced to four years in prison.
The Court Of Appeals
As Brignoni-Ponce ‘a appeal was paused another case Almeida-Sanchez v. United States was being determined. In this case, the defense claimed that it was in contravention of the Fourth Amendment to take advantage of patrols to carry out unjustified searches without offering concrete reason for automobiles that were with the vicinity of the border but not on the actual border. In this case the counts rejected the State’s arguments that the agent were justified to stop and search any vehicle on the belief that they were carrying illegal immigrants even if there was no probable cause to do so.
The court of appeals employed the verdict on Almeida-Sanchez and stated that Mexican appearance cannot be used as the sole reason to stop and therefore the district should have accepted the motion to suppress. The appeals courts rejects the claim that Brignoni-Ponce’s case was different from Almeida-Sanchez as it entailed only a stop, as opposed to an extended search.
The appeals court borrowed ideas from a Supreme Court’s determination Carroll v. United States that and asserted that is not acceptable and unfair if a law enforcement agent will be allowed to stop every vehicle with the intention of finding illicit drugs. The appeals cort therefore determined that the patrol agents were in violation of the Forth Amendment and reversed the lower court’s decision.
THE SUPREME COURT
Robert Bork filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in United States v. Brignoni-Ponce on behalf of the U.S. that claimed
This case presents an important issue concerning the Border Patrol’s authority, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, to employ a law enforcement method that has a significant role in the Border Patrol’s program of deterring and detecting the unlawful entry and transportation of aliens in this country.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari was granted and in their arguments the US was seeking enhanced authority to stop, search and seize within the vicinity of the entire border . the sate further argued that race affects immigration inspection at the boards as it does in the interior of US.
the contentions issues of the case was the Forth Amendment’s requirement that law enforcement officers must have a probable cause to stop and automobile within the border while Brignoni -Ponce’ claimed that being of Mexican descent alone cannot be a probable cause for stop.
The sate further attested that the consideration of the roots of the occupants of the ct invidious discrimination but was applicable for low enforcing along the border.
On 30th June 1975, the judgment on United States v. Brignoni-Ponce was delivered. The Supreme Corthel that border agents may stop individual only when they have reliable information that would cause them to suspect a given automobile or individual. Therefore the court found that patrol agents contravened the Forth Amendment.
Defeat in disguise
Alcourth determined that the fourth amendment was contravened and Brignoni-Ponce’s criminal conviction was reversed, bringing hope to millions of immigrants in the united sates. However the usprome court dismissed the required that a stop can be mane on the account of probable cause
which was being propagated by Brignoni-Ponce but focused on a “number of factors may be taken into account in determining whether there is reasonable suspension to stop an automobile along the border”.
In this case, the court gave patrol officers extended criteria on which they can stop a vehicle. Some of the factors suggested by the court include:
The features of the area where they intercepted the vehicle.
The proximity of the border
The typical characteristics of traffic on a given highway
The previous encounter with the alien automobiles
History of aliens crossing the border
The behavior of the driver in moving the automobile
The characteristics off the automobile such as if it has compartments or heavily loaded.
The discretion of the agent in suspecting illegal entry or possession of drugs.
In according the wider spectrum of featured under the discretion of the agents for a stop, the Supreme court in this case, appeared to be influenced by the united states allege desire for broader scope in border inspection on the ground that illegal immigrants impose huge economic and social constraints to the united states community.
Besides the social and economic costs, the courts in effect allowed stops by mere appearance that encouraged consideration on ethnical stereotypes by immigrants officers. This stereotyping seems to ignore the fact that many native-born and naturalized American citizens would have similar features as those of Mexican roots as illegal immigrants.
the implications
for many decades afterwards lower courts refer to the Brignoni-Ponce in deciding whether immigrant officers stop was informed by reasonable suspicion. They apply several characteristics sometimes referred to as “Brignoni-Ponce factors” suggested by the supreme court to so an automobile.