The Second Circuit granted a petition for review of a denied motion to suppress, finding that the facts in the record were sufficient to warrant a full hearing on the motion.
"First, the facts set forth in the Form I‐213s and affidavits, if true, show that the troopers and Border Patrol agents went to the house because they were looking for 'known Hispanic migrants.' The forms say as much. Even assuming the suspected presence of a fugitive was a reason for the search, the forms suggest that the presence of 'known Hispanic migrants' was also a purpose. The forms do not, however, identify any specific or articulable facts to believe that anyone in the house ‐‐ other than the suspected fugitive ‐‐ had committed a crime. Moreover, petitionersʹ affidavits establish that they were questioned only after the troopers had determined that the suspected fugitive was not present; the Government has offered no explanation as to why the agents decided at that point to ask petitioners about their country of citizenship and immigration status ‐‐ other than that the agents were looking for 'Hispanic migrants.' Hence, petitioners presented substantial evidence that the search was improperly based on race."
"DHS did not provide a copy of the warrant. The Form I‐213s refer only to a 'felony search warrant,' without specifying where and when it was issued, and without revealing its terms and scope. The Form I‐213s seem to suggest that the warrant was issued in part because of the suspected presence of 'known Hispanic migrants' in the residence. If that is the case, we have serious doubts as to the sufficiency of the application for the warrant. And it is unclear why, if the purpose was to apprehend a fugitive, a 'felony search warrant' was issued rather than an arrest warrant. Petitioners have also raised a fair question as to whether the real purpose of the search was not to locate a fugitive but to apprehend 'known Hispanic migrants.' The state troopers were accompanied by not one, but two Border Patrol agents. While the Form I‐213s state that the agents were present to provide 'translation assistance,' it seems odd that the state troopers did not have their own interpreters and instead imposed on two agents from another, federal, law enforcement agency to provide translation services for one suspected fugitive. These facts support the notion that law enforcement was targeting Hispanic migrant workers from the start."
The full text of Zuniga-Perez and Hernandez-Campo v. Sessions can be found here: