Second Circuit Finds Egregious Fourth Amendment Violations by ICE

The petitioner was arrested during an ICE raid that was perceived to be conducted as retaliation for the city of New Haven, CT issuing IDs to undocumented immigrants. The Immigration Judge relied on the following three conclusions to find that there was no egregious Fourth Amendment violation during the arrest: 1) he arrived at the site of an ongoing law enforcement operation driving a vehicle owned by another individual, (2) he did not have identification on him, and (3) he was unable to speak English. The Second Circuit disagreed, noting that “Rodriguez arrived at 546 Woodward Avenue to provide documentation from the vehicle so that his boss could respond to law enforcement inquiries. He also gave a reasonable explanation as to his lack of identification: He had rushed out of bed and into the car in order to help his boss as quickly as possible. Lastly, while Rodriguez is not proficient in English, this ‘same characteristic applies to a sizable portion of individuals lawfully present in this country.’”

The full text of Rodriguez v. Barr can be found here:

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/791e9ac0-59fe-4e6d-bb0e-99c1d4aafca5/5/doc/15-3728_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/791e9ac0-59fe-4e6d-bb0e-99c1d4aafca5/5/hilite/

Ninth Circuit Denies Petition for Rehearing En Banc in Sanchez v. Barr

The Ninth Circuit has declined to reconsider en banc its decision in Sanchez v. Barr , which applied the exclusionary rule in immigration proceedings to remedy an egregious violation of the Fourth Amendment.

The denial of the petition for en banc rehearing can be found here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2019/04/01/14-71768.pdf

Fourth Circuit Reaffirms that Exclusionary Rule Applies in Immigration Court only to Egregious Violations of the Fourth Amendment

The Fourth Circuit has rejected a request to apply the full scope of the exclusionary rule to evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and used by the government in Immigration Court proceedings.  The court affirmed that the exclusionary rule is only applicable in cases of egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment.  This standard applies when state or local law enforcement violate the Fourth Amendment, as well as when federal officials commit the violation.  "A stop or seizure based solely on an abuse of an officer’s legal authority and without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity will usually be egregious."  

The full text of Sanchez v. Sessions can be found here:

http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/162330.P.pdf

Ninth Circuit Terminates Proceedings Because of Egregious Fourth Amendment Violation

The Ninth Circuit terminated removal proceedings against a petitioner who was seized by Coast Guard officials based solely on his Latino appearance.  Because this was an egregious Fourth Amendment violation and a violation of immigration regulations designed to protected the petitioner from this type of racial profiling, the court determined that termination of proceedings was required.  In light of the regulatory violation, the court declined to determine if the petitioner's previously submitted application for Family Unit benefits was independent evidence of alienage, finding that the violation of the regulation was grounds for termination, regardless of whether there was independent evidence of alienage.

The full text of Sanchez v. Sessions can be found here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2017/08/30/14-71768.pdf

The Ninth Circuit issued an amended decision in this case on September 19, 2018. In it, the Court determined that even though the Coast Guard engaged in egregious violations of the Fourth Amendment, the immigration authorities would have discovered his alienage through his Family Unity benefits application. Nevertheless, the Court held that Mr. Sanchez may be entitled to termination of his removal proceedings without prejudice for egregious regulatory violations. The Court remanded his proceedings to the agency to determine if termination is appropriate. “Applying our test for termination without prejudice, we conclude that Sanchez has made a prima facie showing that the Coast Guard officers’ violation of § 287.8(b)(2) was conscience-shocking and therefore egregious.”

The full text of the amended opinion can be found here:

http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/09/19/14-71768.pdf

Fourth Circuit Finds DC Drug Statutes to be Divisible

In an unpublished decision, the Fourth Circuit determined that Washington DC's drug statutes are divisible.  In so doing, the Court permitted reference to a statute (outside of the statute of conviction) that contained a list of criminalized substances as part of a modified categorical approach.  

The full text of Carcamo v. Lynch can be found here: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Unpublished/151005.U.pdf

First Circuit Addresses an Arrest During a Workplace Raid

Maria Garcia-Aguilar was arrested during a raid by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on her workplace.  She was handcuffed before she was asked any questions, and it was only after being transported to a military base that she was questioned by ICE officers about her identity and nationality.  In the meantime, the Mexican consulate was alerted that Garcia-Aguilar had not returned home from work to pick up her young child, and consular officials faxed a request to ICE to release her.  Along with the request, the consulate faxed Garcia-Aguilar's birth certificate.   

In court, Garcia-Aguilar argued that her arrest, detention, and interrogation violated her constitutional rights (insomuch as she was arrested before ICE had any reason to believe she was in the country unlawfully), and asked that all evidence of her foreign birth, such as statements she made during the interrogation, be suppressed.  She also asked that the birth certificate be suppressed, on the ground that but-for her unlawful arrest, the consulate would never have provided the birth certificate to ICE.  The Immigration Judge denied her motion to suppress and the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed.

The First Circuit agreed, finding that the connection between the raid and the voluntary submission of the birth certificate by the consulate was too attenuated.  Even assuming the workplace raid was an egregious violation of the Constitution, the birth certificate was not tainted by the unlawfulness of the raid and could serve as evidence of Garcia-Aguilar's foreign birth.

The full text of Garcia-Aguilar v. Lynch can be found here: http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/pdf.opinions/14-1185P-01A.pdf