United States v. Christina Marie Chase

The appellant, Christine Chase, was convicted of illegally importing three pounds of cocaine. 1 She contends on appeal that the narcotics were discovered as the result of an unlawful strip search conducted at the border. We affirm.

On December 13, 1972 appellant, upon entering the United States from Mexico, was halted at the Calexico, California point of entry. After preliminary questioning, a search of her car and luggage, and a Customs Bureau computer check all revealed reason to be suspicious of her, she was taken to a secondary inspection room to be personally searched by a matron.

What happened there is the subject of much dispute. Appellant contends that a strip search was conducted for which the requisite “real suspicion,” see, e. g., United States v. Guadalupe-Garza, 421 F.2d 876, 879 (9th Cir. 1970), was lacking. The government counters that contraband was initially discovered in her right sock, before any of her other clothing had been shed, when one of appellant’s boots was removed. This, the government urges, was not a strip search, but merely a conventional border search for which no particular showing of cause is required. 2 The trial court agreed that the first…

(specially concurring):

I concur with my Brother Choy except for the restrictions I believe he places on our language in United States v. Cis-neros, 448 F.2d 298, 305 (9th Cir. 1971). In that case we indicated that the trier of fact’s disbelief of a defendant’s testimony may, in part, provide the basis for a finding contrary to that which the defendant has stated. See opinion of Judge Choy, page 573 and n. 4. I would go no further than to state what was held in United States v. Hood, 493 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1974) :

Whether the testimony of a defendant or any other witness has a ring of genuineness or not often becomes most significant in finding where the truth lies. That this touchstone is difficult to review on appeal does not militate against *575 its fundamental importance in ascertaining what the actual facts are. I would, therefore, not restrict the applicability of Cisneros as I feel Judge Choy has.

As this difference does not affect the outcome of this particular case and as I am in harmony with the remainder of Judge Choy’s opinion, I concur.

(dissenting) :

In the face of confusing and contradictory testimony as to where the contraband was first discovered about the body of appellant, I will agree that the trial court finding that the first batch of cocaine was found in appellant’s sock, prior to her completely undressing is not clearly erroneous. However, irrespective of the sequence of disrobing, I respectfully disagree with the conclusion of the majority that the facts of the search indicate that a mere border search occurred. To the contrary, I would characterize the instant search as a strip search, thus requiring the government to provide a more stringent justification therefor. I do not believe that this has been shown.

The record clearly shows that Chase was ordered to take off all her clothing by a customs inspectress, and that contraband was discovered shortly after she began to carry out the order. This Court has previously held that “the forced disrobing of a person entering the country violated the Fourth Amendment unless there was ‘at least a real suspicion, directed specifically to that person.’ ” United States v. Johnson, 425 F.2d 630, 632 (9th Cir. 1970), cert. dismissed, 404 U.S. 802 , 92 S.Ct. 38 ,…

503 F.2d 571 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christina Marie CHASE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 73-2490. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 3, 1974. Joseph A. Milchen (argued), of McInerney, Milchen & Frank, San Diego, Cal., for defendant-appellant. Thomas M. Coffin, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Harry D. Steward, U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Before CHOY and WALLACE, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, * District judge. CHOY, Circuit Judge: 1 The appellant, Christine Chase, was convicted of illegally importing three pounds of cocaine. 1 She contends on appeal that the narcotics were discovered as the result of an unlawful strip search conducted at the border. We affirm. 2 On December 13, 1972 appellant, upon entering the United States from Mexico, was halted at the Calexico, California point of entry. After preliminary questioning, a search of her car and luggage, and a Customs Bureau computer check all revealed reason to be suspicious of her, she was taken to a secondary inspection room to be personally searched by a matron. 3 What happened there is the subject of much dispute. Appellant contends that a strip search was conducted…