In United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543 (1976), the Court addressed the constitutionality of such checkpoints. The decision involved permanent immigration checkpoints operated by the border patrol, but located at highway intersections over 65 miles from the international border with Mexico. The sole purpose of these checkpoints was to search for illegal aliens traveling through the country. The location was chosen for its presence along a frequent route for such passage. See id. at 549, 551-53. At the checkpoints, all northbound vehicles were brought to a "virtual, if not a complete, halt." Id. at 546. A "point" officer then made a preliminary determination as to whether further inquiry was required. Vehicles requiring further inquiry were directed to a secondary inspection area. Those vehicles which did not were allowed to proceed. Most motorists were allowed to resume their progress in a matter of seconds without any oral inquiry or visual examination. See id. The decision in Martinez-Fuerte actually addressed two checkpoints, one in California the other in Texas. The details of the Texas checkpoint were not fully elaborated. The Court stated that the second checkpoint generally resembled the first, but differed in that all vehicles were brought to a complete stop. The Court did not indicate the time of the average stop, stating only that it was brief. See Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. at 550. The Court held these checkpoints were constitutional under the Fourth Amendment. Specifically, the Court held that the checkpoints constituted a "seizure," but found them reasonable in advancing the valid governmental interest in detecting illegal aliens. See id. at 556, 562. Border checkpoints had proved inadequate in preventing illegal entries because the nearly 2,000-mile-long border with Mexico allows easy access to millions of illegal aliens each year. See id. at 552, 556. Once within the country, the aliens are often picked up by friends or relatives and transported to other states on interstate highways. See id. at 552. The Court concluded that the government's interest in apprehending illegal aliens justified the use of checkpoints on interstate highways and that the connection between the checkpoint and the governmental need was direct and strong because the highways were the means used to disperse the aliens. See id. at 561-62. The Supreme Court approved for the first time suspicionless seizures of automobiles at "permanent checkpoint" sites to search for illegal aliens. Id. at 556-57. It determined that the government had an important interest in preventing the flow of illegal aliens into this country and that the interest was well served by the checkpoints. Id. The checkpoints were located on important highways, making it more difficult to smuggle aliens into the country because the aliens would either be apprehended at the checkpoints or would try to enter the country by less heavily traveled roadways, slowing their progress and making them more detectable by roving patrols. Id. at 557. The Court also found that the intrusion upon motorists was minimal. There was only a brief detention, during which the occupants of the vehicle were required to answer a few brief questions. Id. at 558. In addition, the Court noted that checkpoint stops are less discretionary than most kinds of law enforcement activities. The location of a fixed stop is chosen by superior officers, which the Court assumes "will be unlikely to locate a checkpoint where it bears arbitrarily or oppressively on motorists as a class." Id. at 559. Also, only those vehicles going through the checkpoint are stopped, making "less room for abusive or harassing stops of individuals." Id. The Court thus held that "stops for brief questioning routinely conducted at permanent checkpoints are consistent with the Fourth Amendment and need not be authorized by warrant." Id. at 566. Fourth Amendment protection at checkpoint stops "lies in appropriate limitations on the scope of the stop." Id. at 567.