Writing for the Court, Justice William Rehnquist asserted that at international borders, the Fourth Amendment’s balance of reasonableness is “qualitatively different” than in the interior of the country. Rehnquist explained that since our Nation’s founding, Congress has granted the Executive the authority to conduct routine searches and seizures at the border to prevent contraband from entering the country. Rehnquist rejected the Court of Appeals’ use of the “clear indication standard, stating, “we do not think that the Fourth Amendment’s emphasis upon reasonableness is consistent with the creation of a third verbal standard in addition to ‘reasonable suspicion’ and ‘probable cause.’” Instead, the Court held that the detention of an individual at the border is justified if customs agents have a reasonable suspicion that they are smuggling illegal drugs in their alimentary canal. In examining the facts of the case, Rehnquist gave great deference to law enforcement’s decision-making, stating that “we have cautioned that courts should not indulge in unrealistic second-guessing, and we have noted that creative judges, engaged in after the fact evaluations of police conduct can almost always imagine some alternative means by which the objectives of the police might have been accomplished.” Rehnquist pointed out that the customs agents offered Hernandez several options, including an X-Ray or monitored bowel movements, either of which would have shortened the time of her detention. He also noted that it was reasonable for the agents to expect Hernandez to use the restroom soon after her 10-hour flight from Bogota, but her decision not to cannot be attributed to law enforcement. Ultimately, Rehnquist concluded that Hernandez’s detention was long, uncomfortable, and humiliating, “but both its length and its discomfort resulted solely from the method by which she chose to smuggle illicit drugs into this country.”