in "united states v. montoya de hernandez", , the court had said, "routine searches of the persons and effects of entrants are not subject to any requirement of reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or warrant." the ninth circuit interpreted this language to mean that reasonable suspicion was required when government agents sought to conduct an "intrusive" search at the border, including searches involving the removal and dismantling of gas tanks. the supreme court rejected this reasoning because "the reasons that might support a requirement of some level of suspicion in the case of highly intrusive searches of the person — dignity and privacy interests of the person being searched — simply do not carry over to vehicles." accordingly, the supreme court found the ninth circuit's rule to be inconsistent with the meaning of "reasonableness" under the fourth amendment.