## Facts

- Nzelo Chinedu Okafor, a U.S. citizen, traveled internationally from Brazil to Japan on a flight that stopped at Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) to refuel.
- During the stop, Okafor entered an in-transit lounge where a customs inspector reviewed his documents and questioned him.
- The inspector grew suspicious because Okafor bought his ticket one day before departure, gave inconsistent travel explanations, could not identify the school he claimed he would attend in Korea, lacked a visa for that purpose, and planned to stay only a few days.
- Okafor was taken to secondary inspection, where agents searched his carry-on and requested his checked luggage from the aircraft.
- A senior inspector emptied one suitcase and noticed an odor consistent with glue/mothballs, an unusually thick bottom, and unexpected weight.
- Inspectors X-rayed the suitcase, which showed a hidden compartment.
- Inspectors then used a needle-like probe to pierce/cut into the suitcase’s bottom; residue on the probe field-tested positive for cocaine, and cocaine was recovered from the compartment.
- Okafor was detained and made statements later challenged under Miranda; he also challenged his sentence under Apprendi.

## Issues

1. Whether emptying, X-raying, and probing/cutting into a suitcase to access a hidden compartment during an airport stop on an international itinerary is a routine border search permissible without suspicion under the Fourth Amendment.
2. Whether Okafor’s post-detention statements were obtained in violation of Miranda and, if so, whether suppression was required.
3. Whether sentencing fact-finding violated Apprendi by increasing punishment based on facts not found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence.
- The court held the luggage inspection, including X-ray and probing into the suitcase to reach a concealed compartment, was a routine border search at the functional equivalent of the border and required no warrant or suspicion.
- The court rejected the Miranda claim, finding no reversible Miranda error and concluding any arguable error did not warrant suppression or reversal.
- The court rejected the Apprendi claim, concluding Apprendi did not require reversal under the statutory-maximum framework and any potential error was not reversible.

## Legal Principles

- Searches conducted at an international airport associated with international travel may qualify as occurring at the functional equivalent of the border.
- Routine border searches of property (including luggage) generally may be conducted without a warrant, probable cause, or reasonable suspicion.
- A border search becomes non-routine (and may require reasonable suspicion) when it is highly intrusive, particularly as to a person’s bodily integrity or privacy; property-focused inspections are ordinarily treated as routine even if they involve some physical intrusion into containers.
- Miranda claims are assessed under custodial-interrogation standards and may be subject to harmless-error analysis on appeal.
- Apprendi is implicated when judicial fact-finding increases a sentence beyond the statutory maximum authorized by the jury’s verdict; absent that effect, reversal is not required.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld the denial of suppression and affirmed Okafor’s conviction and sentence, holding that customs officers’ X-ray and probe-based examination of a suitcase to reach a hidden compartment at LAX during international transit was a routine border search requiring no individualized suspicion, and finding no reversible Miranda or Apprendi error.


United States v. Okafor, 285 F.3d 842 (9th Cir. 2002)