United States v. Miguel MacHuca Jr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that questions that \took no more than a couple of minutes\ were \within the permissible duration of an immigration checkpoint stop\
• holding that “[a]fter Machuca-Barrera consented to a search, Agent Holt needed no justification to prolong the encounter” at an immigration checkpoint stop
• stating that questioning unrelated to the justification for a stop that extends the stop’s duration violates the Fourth Amendment
• emphasizing that agents must be given leeway to formulate questions and that such questions will not be scrutinized by courts as long as they generally relate to determining immigration status
• stating, “Once the purpose justifying the stop has been served, the detained person must be free to leave”
• \[Q]uestioning unrelated to the justification for the stop that extends the duration of the stop violates the Fourth Amendment.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).