Abstract
Considering the difficulty of interdicting smugglers and aliens at the Mexican border, the Ninth Circuit's ready acceptance of founded suspicion to justify searches near the border is not surprising. The United States Supreme Court, however, has consistently held that the mere presence of an important governmental interest does not justify vitiating Fourth Amendment protections. The Fourth Amendment requires courts to scrutinize closely the interests of the individual prior to concluding that the interests of the government, however exigent and compelling, are paramount. This comment, after analyzing the conceptual underpinnings of automobile seizure law and "stop and frisk"--the possible grounds supporting the founded suspicion doctrine--concludes that the doctrine is unconstitutional as presently applied to cases arising near the border.
Recommended Citation
Seattle University Law Review, Founded Suspicion: The Ninth Circuit's Response to Almeida Sanchez, 30 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 7 (2006).
