it be assumed that such referrals are made largely on the basis of apparent Mexican ancestry.” United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 563, 96 S.Ct. 3074, 49 L.Ed.2d 1116 (1976). The Court recognized that such a criterion "would not sustain a roving-patrol stop,” id., but concluded that border-control checkpoints were exempt from the usual Fourth Amendment requirement of individualized suspicion. See id. at 562, 96 S.Ct. 3074 ("[W]e hold that the stops and questioning at issue may be made in the absence of any individualized suspicion at reasonably located checkpoints.”). Since there is obviously no contention that a traditional arrest or Terry stop is similarly exempt from that requirement, Martinez-Fuerte cannot support plaintiffs’ detention. 35 . Cf. Jones, 149 F.3d at 369 (<HOLDING>). 36 . The Second Circuit was interpreting and
holding that notwithstanding the officers testimony that he had no suspicion of criminality the officer was aware of facts that would give rise to reasonable suspicion in the mind of a reasonable officer holding that an officer has reasonable suspicion to conduct traffic stop even when his suspicion that a law has been violated is based on a reasonable mistake of law holding that coming from the wrong neighborhood does not give rise to reasonable suspicion holding that even though officer had it on good authority that smugglers  use tourists  to bootleg illegal aliens  the fact that defendant looked like a tourist does not give rise to reasonable suspicion  unless we are willing to say that tourists are involved in illegal activity often enough that just looking like a tourist is cause for suspicion we are not so inclined holding that a suspects actions in fleeing from a law enforcement officer who had reasonable suspicion of illegal activity supplied additional grounds supporting probable cause for seizure