Ortiz-Partida

United States v. Ortiz-Partida

Good Law
44 F. App'x 239
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 14, 2002No. 01-50664; D.C. No. CR 01-1455 JNKCalifornia646 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Francisco Javier Ortiz-Partida appeals his conviction and the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to importation of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742 (a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

Routine searches at the border do not require objective justification, probable cause, or a warrant. United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531, 538 , 105 S.Ct. 3304 , 87 L.Ed.2d 381 (1985). “The ‘critical factor’ in determining whether a border search is ‘routine’ is the ‘degree of intrusiveness it poses.’ ” United States v. Tsai, 282 F.3d 690, 694 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting United States v. Molinar-Tarazon, 279 F.3d 709, 713 (9th Cir.2002)).

The parties dispute the level of suspicion required to justify the search conducted by Customs agents here. 1 We need not reach this issue, however, because, whatever standard of suspicion is required, the search in the instant case was minimally intrusive and was based on observations by customs officers sufficient to justify the search. See United States v. Duncan, 693 F.2d 971, 978 (9th Cir.1982) (holding that a border search was reasonable in scope and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.