[2] In their argument challenging the constitutionality of these checkpoints on behalf of Ortiz, Mr. Charles M. Sevilla (the court-appointed attorney for Ortiz) argued that "in comparing a roving to a fixed check, we have to look at the nature of the intrusion involved and each case were involved with a search, which takes place because of the unfettered exercise of discretion by Border Patrol officer at a checkpoint who decides without any criteria... that he is going to select a car, refer to secondary and conduct a full search of a car".

In the majority opinion, Justice Powell stated that "nothing in this record suggests that the Border Patrol had any special reason to suspect that the respondent's car was carrying concealed aliens...

[4] In his opinion, Justice Powell makes reference to a prior case, Almeida-Sanchez v. United States that involved the constitutionality of vehicle searches conducted by roving patrols.

[4] Overall, in the majority opinion, Justice Powell and the court ruled that at traffic checkpoints removed from the border and "its functional equivalents", officers may not search private vehicles without consent or probable cause.

Justice Rehnquist put emphasis on the fact that the Court's opinion is confined to full searches, and does not extend to fixed-checkpoint stops that asked about citizenship status.