This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to United States (Petitioner), customs officials have historically had the power to open containers and conduct thorough searches without a warrant, probable cause, or particularized suspicion.
The government argues that it can search property without suspicion and use whatever force is reasonably necessary.
Approximately 25 % of drug seizures are hidden in vehicle gas tanks, giving customs an essential interest in detecting and deterring such contraband.
Customs may be liable for up to $1,000 under the Small Claims Act for certain actions.
Background and question before the Court
The Court previously disapproved random vehicle stops in Delaware v. Prouse, finding them ineffective and without deterrent effect.
Justice asked whether suspicionless searches of trucks for bombs, anthrax, weapons, or drugs all stand or fall together.
Justice asked, “They can't open it.”
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy clarified that the 25 % figure relates to vehicle drug seizures, not items found in a person's pockets.
What each side argues
United States (Petitioner)
According to United States (Petitioner), customs officials have historically had the power to open containers and conduct thorough searches without a warrant, probable cause, or particularized suspicion.
The government argues that it can search property without suspicion and use whatever force is reasonably necessary.
Manuel Flores-Montano (Respondent)
According to Mr. Hubachek, absolute discretion allows any officer across the United States to make the rules for a particular day, which is problematic.
According to Mr. Hubachek, crates are intended to be opened; it is unreasonable to disassemble valuable property that has safety implications.
What happened at oral argument
Justice asked whether suspicionless searches of trucks for bombs, anthrax, weapons, or drugs all stand or fall together.
Justice asked, “They can't open it.”
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy clarified that the 25 % figure relates to vehicle drug seizures, not items found in a person's pockets.
Mr. Hubachek argued that random disassembly of gas tanks would deter travelers, who would not accept the risk.
According to Mr. Hubachek, mr. Hubachek stated that crates are intended to be opened and it is unreasonable to disassemble valuable property with safety implications.
The Court noted there is no evidence that adopting the rule would improve the effectiveness of border searches.
- [1] 22f16e48ac3c82d8fc95-r1-de105645df7a296c.pdf, p. 41
- [2] 22f16e48ac3c82d8fc95-r1-de105645df7a296c.pdf, p. 44
- [3] 22f16e48ac3c82d8fc95-r1-de105645df7a296c.pdf, p. 53
- [4] 22f16e48ac3c82d8fc95-r1-de105645df7a296c.pdf, p. 35
- [5] 22f16e48ac3c82d8fc95-r1-de105645df7a296c.pdf, p. 47
- [6] 22f16e48ac3c82d8fc95-r1-de105645df7a296c.pdf, p. 51
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 22f16e48ac3c82d8fc95-r1-de105645df7a296c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.