opinion: UNITED STATES v. MORRISON
  No. 75-1534.
  Decided October 12, 1976
  Per Curiam.
  On September 27, 1972, a car driven by respondent was stopped by Border Patrol agents at the permanent immigration traffic checkpoint near Truth or Consequences, N. M. An agent detected the odor of marihuana; the car was then searched, disclosing a large quantity of marihuana.
  Respondent was charged with possessing marihuana with intent to distribute in violation of 21 U. S. C. §841 (a)(1). He filed a pretrial motion to suppress the marihuana on the ground that the search of his car violated the Fourth Amendment. He waived his right to a jury trial. The motion to suppress was heard during the trial on the merits, and the District Court denied the motion to suppress and found the respondent guilty as charged.
  Approximately three months later, we held that a warrantless roving patrol search of vehicles for aliens, conducted without probable cause at a point removed from the border or its functional equivalent, violated the Fourth Amendment. Almeida-Sanchez v. United States, 413 U. S. 266 (1973). The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit thereafter held that Almeida-Sanches should be applied retroactively and that its rationale encompasses searches conducted at fixed trafile checkpoints. United States v. King, 485 F. 2d 353 (1973); United States v. Maddox, 485 F. 2d 361 (1973).
  Respondent’s original motion to suppress was then reconsidered by the District Court in the light of King, supra, and Maddox, supra, and the following order was entered:
  “[I]t is hereby
  “ORDERED that the marihuana which is the subject matter of the charge herein shall be and is hereby suppressed.
  “The Court will take appropriate action consistent with this Order if this Order is not appealed by the United States of America or if this Order is affirmed on appeal.”
  Thereupon the Government appealed pursuant to 18 U. S. C. § 3731. While this appeal was pending in the Court of Appeals, we held in Bowen v. United States, 422 U. S. 916 (1975); United States v. Peltier, 422 U. S. 531 (1975), that Almeida-Sanchez was not to be applied retro-, actively to Border Patrol searches conducted prior to June 21, 1973. After the Government moved for summary reversal of the District Court’s suppression order, the Court of Appeals, without benefit of briefing or oral argument, dismissed the Government’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that double jeopardy would bar a retrial. The court, citing United States v. Jenkins, 420 U. S. 358 (1975), felt that double jeopardy would bar because further proceedings involving “the resolution of factual issues going to the elements of the offense charged . . .” would be required.
  We cannot agree. In United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332 (1975), we held:
  “[W]hen a judge rules in favor of the defendant after a verdict of guilty has been entered by the trier of fact, the Government may appeal from that ruling without running afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Id., at 352-353.
  The holding in Wilson applies to the bench trial here, for, as we stated in United States v. Jenkins, supra:
  “Since the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment nowhere distinguishes between bench and jury trials, the principles given expression through that Clause apply to cases tried to a judge....
  “A general finding of guilt by a judge may be analogized to a verdict of 'guilty’ returned by a jury.” 420 U. S., at 365-366.
  Thus the District Court’s general finding of guilt here is for double jeopardy purposes the same as a jury verdict of guilty. The Government is therefore entitled to appeal the order suppressing the evidence, since success on that appeal would result in the reinstatement of the general finding of guilt, rather than in further factual proceedings relating to guilt or innocence. As in Wilson, there would then remain only the imposition of sentence and the entry of a judgment of conviction pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 32.
  We grant the petition for certiorari, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
  It is so ordered.
  At that time, this case was still pending before the court for sentencing.
  The Criminal Appeals Act provides in pertinent part:
  “In a criminal case an appeal by the United States shall lie to a court of appeals from a decision, judgment, or order of a district court dismissing an indictment or information as to any one or more counts, except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.”
instruction: What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.