## Facts

- Rosa Elvira Montoya de Hernandez, a Colombian national, arrived at Los Angeles International Airport from Bogotá and was suspected of internally smuggling cocaine.
- Customs officials found her travel story and circumstances suspicious: arrival from a narcotics-source city, multiple short U.S. trips, about $5,000 in cash, minimal luggage, no confirmed lodging, no English, and no credible shopping plan or local contacts.
- A female inspector conducted a strip search and observed two pairs of elastic underpants and paper towels in the crotch area, which officers associated with efforts to control bowel movements by internal carriers.
- Officials detained her at the airport under observation for roughly 16 hours and offered options: return on the next flight to Colombia, consent to an x-ray, or remain detained until a monitored bowel movement occurred.
- She declined an x-ray and refused to use toilet facilities; officials could not immediately place her on the next flight.
- The government sought and obtained a court order for a pregnancy test (she claimed pregnancy), an x-ray, and a rectal examination.
- A pregnancy test was negative; a rectal exam recovered a cocaine-filled balloon, and she later passed a total of 88 balloons under medical supervision over several days.
- She was convicted in federal district court after her suppression motion was denied; the Ninth Circuit reversed, requiring a “clear indication” of alimentary-canal smuggling; the Supreme Court granted review.

## Issues

1. Whether customs officials may detain a traveler at the border beyond routine inspection based on reasonable suspicion of alimentary-canal smuggling, or whether a higher “clear indication” standard is required.
2. Whether the length and conditions of the detention, culminating in court-ordered medical procedures, were unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated the conviction.
- The Court held that detention at the border beyond routine customs inspection is justified at its inception when officials reasonably suspect, based on the totality of facts, that the traveler is smuggling contraband in the alimentary canal.
- The Court rejected the “clear indication” standard as an improper intermediate level between reasonable suspicion and probable cause.
- The Court concluded the observed travel patterns, inconsistent explanations, physical indicators, and refusal of diagnostic options supported reasonable suspicion.
- The Court held the approximately 16-hour pre-order detention was not per se unreasonable; duration was assessed case-by-case and was affected by the suspect’s refusal to cooperate with less intrusive means to confirm or dispel suspicion.
- A concurrence would have tied reasonableness more closely to the refusal to consent to an x-ray; a dissent would have required probable cause and stronger judicial constraints for prolonged detention and invasive examinations.

## Legal Principles

- Routine border searches of persons and effects may be conducted without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion.
- Non-routine border detentions of a person to investigate suspected internal drug smuggling require reasonable suspicion based on articulable facts and rational inferences drawn from the totality of circumstances.
- The Fourth Amendment does not require an intermediate “clear indication” standard between reasonable suspicion and probable cause for such detentions.
- The reasonableness of a border detention’s duration and conditions is evaluated case-by-case; there is no fixed time limit, and a suspect’s refusal of available, less intrusive means of confirmation may bear on the reasonableness analysis.
- Judicial authorization for highly intrusive medical procedures supports the reasonableness of proceeding with such examinations in the border-smuggling context.

## Conclusion

The Court held that customs officials may prolong a border detention beyond routine inspection on reasonable suspicion that a traveler is smuggling drugs internally, rejecting a heightened “clear indication” test and applying a fact-specific reasonableness assessment to the detention’s duration and resulting medical examinations.


United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (1985)