3rd Circ. Gives Migrants Stopped For Papers A New Hearing
Law360 (July 31, 2019, 8:01 PM EDT) -- The Third Circuit ruled Wednesday that a Pennsylvania state trooper may have violated the constitutional rights of two unauthorized immigrants by prolonging a traffic stop to ask for their immigration papers, remanding the case for an additional evidentiary hearing.
A three-judge panel determined that the state trooper may have run afoul of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unlawful search and seizure, to obtain information about their immigration status, warranting an additional hearing to determine whether that evidence should be suppressed in their removal proceedings. The evidence could be suppressed under the so-called exclusion rule, which prevents the government from using evidence obtained unconstitutionally, the panel said.
"[Q]uestioning about an individual's immigration status does not violate the Fourth Amendment where the initial seizure of the individual is lawful and the questioning does not prolong the seizure," the decision states. "However, officers may not stop an individual only to inquire about their immigration status, nor may they extend a stop for such an inquiry."
Erick Geovany Yoc-Us and Luis Calel-Espantzay, both unauthorized immigrants from Guatemala, had been sleeping in the backseat of a van with eight other men when state trooper Luke Macke pulled over the vehicle for speeding. Macke requested the driver's license and registration and, rather than going back to his car to check their validity, he approached the passengers and asked them for immigration papers, work permits, visas, passports and ID.
The passengers said that they did not have documents on them and claimed in court documents that they offered no further information. But according to Macke's account of their interaction, the passengers claimed that they were citizens of Guatemala, Mexico, El Salvador and Ecuador.
While waiting for ICE to pick them up, the immigrants claimed that Macke refused to allow them to leave their van to use the bathroom, have food or water, or turn on the air conditioning. ICE agents showed up and claimed that the immigrants "freely stated" that they were noncitizens and did not have immigration papers.
The immigrants were briefly held at an immigration office before being transferred to a local county prison and put in removal proceedings.
Yoc-Us and Calel-Espantzay, however, moved to suppress evidence of their immigration status on the basis that Macke had obtained that information by conducting an unlawful search. They requested an evidentiary hearing and invoked the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule that prevents the government from using evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution. They also petitioned to terminate their removal proceedings.
An immigration judge, however, ordered them deported and rejected their theory that Macke had stopped them on the basis of their Hispanic appearance. That decision was later affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals, which found that the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule "only applies to removal proceedings where 'there are egregious Fourth Amendment violations that transgress Fifth Amendment notions of fundamental fairness, undermining the probative value of the evidence.'"
The Third Circuit found Wednesday that the immigrants had, in fact, described what could be a "potentially egregious" Fourth Amendment violation that would merit an evidentiary hearing.
The panel noted that Macke has extended the traffic stop beyond what would be considered reasonable in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The immigrants' claim that Macke had stopped them because they looked Hispanic, if true, may also constitute an egregious Fourth Amendment violation that would require that evidence of their immigration status excluded, the panel said.
"Because petitioners have identified a possible egregious Fourth Amendment violation, we conclude that the [immigration judge] erred in not granting their motion for a hearing to provide them with an opportunity to put forth evidence in support of their claim," the decision states.
Rosina Stambaugh, counsel for the immigrants, said Wednesday that the case was important in light of recent trends in deportation cases, where suppression of evidence has been an overarching issue.
"This decision will now give immigration judges more guidelines on how to approach these cases in which there is a potential Fourth Amendment violation," she said. "We now look forward to presenting our case in front of the immigration court."
A representative for the DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
Judges Thomas Ambro, Anthony Scirica and Midge Rendell sat on the panel for the Third Circuit.
The government is represented by Jennifer Bowen and Dana Camilleri of the U.S. Department of Justice's Civil Division.
The immigrants are represented by Joanna Cline, Anthony Vale and Andrew Rogoff of Pepper Hamilton LLP, David Fine of K&L Gates, and Rosina Stambaugh.
The cases are Yoc-Us v. U.S. Attorney General, case number 18-1520, and Calel-Espantzay v. U.S. Attorney General, case number 18-1521, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
--Editing by Adam LoBelia.
