978 F.3d 942
5th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Emmanuel Angulo, a 71‑year‑old U.S. citizen with hearing and cervical impairments, was stopped at the Gateway Bridge port of entry in Brownsville, TX; CBP Officers Shawn Brown and Jeffery McCrystal interacted with him while video cameras recorded the encounter.
- After a tense primary inspection, Brown directed Angulo to secondary inspection; Angulo briefly stopped on a speed bump, turned off his vehicle, and handed over his keys.
- McCrystal and another officer approached; a physical extraction occurred when Angulo did not exit the vehicle. Video shows officers using a shoulder‑pin technique to remove Angulo, both fell to the ground, Angulo was handcuffed, escorted to an interior interview room, searched, questioned, and then released. The entire incident lasted just over an hour.
- Angulo sued the United States under the FTCA (assault, false arrest/imprisonment, IIED) and sued Brown and McCrystal under Bivens for Fourth Amendment violations (unreasonable seizure, false arrest/imprisonment, excessive force).
- The district court dismissed FTCA claims against the United States under the customs‑duty exception, and granted summary judgment for the officers based on qualified immunity. Angulo appealed; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Angulo was arrested or unreasonably seized when removed from his vehicle, handcuffed, and taken for questioning | Angulo: removal and handcuffing constituted an arrest without probable cause or at least a seizure without reasonable suspicion | Govt: border search doctrine permits routine, suspicionless searches/seizures at the border; temporary restraints and removal to facilitate inspection were lawful | Held: Not an arrest or unreasonable seizure; actions were part of a routine border inspection and reasonable under the circumstances |
| Whether officers used excessive force in extracting and handcuffing Angulo | Angulo: McCrystal grabbed his neck, threw him to the ground, and used excessive force | Officers: used a trained shoulder‑pin technique responding to active resistance; force was measured and removed quickly | Held: No excessive force; force objectively reasonable and officers entitled to qualified immunity |
| Whether § 2680(c) customs‑duty exception bars FTCA claims for intentional torts arising from inspection/detention | Angulo: § 2680(c) should not swallow § 2680(h)'s waiver for law‑enforcement intentional torts; here search hadn’t begun so § 2680(c) inapplicable | Govt: § 2680(c) broadly bars claims arising from detention/inspection of goods, including related intentional torts | Held: § 2680(c) applies because the conduct arose from the ongoing vehicle detention/inspection; FTCA claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether a Bivens remedy is available against CBP officers at the border | Angulo: Bivens permits Bivens damages for constitutional violations | Govt: special factors and border context may preclude extending Bivens | Held: Court assumed without deciding that Bivens might apply for purposes of the immunity analysis, but disposed of individual claims on qualified immunity; concurrence would have declined to reach constitutional merits and stopped at Bivens availability |
Key Cases Cited
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (recognition of implied damages remedy for constitutional violations)
- Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (objective reasonableness test for use of force)
- Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 (video evidence can resolve factual disputes when it plainly contradicts plaintiff’s account)
- United States v. Flores‑Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (suspicionless, routine vehicle searches at the border are reasonable)
- United States v. Montoya de Hernandez, 473 U.S. 531 (plenary government authority for routine border searches and seizures)
- Kosak v. United States, 465 U.S. 848 (broad reading of customs‑duty exception to FTCA waiver)
- Jeanmarie v. United States, 242 F.3d 600 (FTCA § 2680(c) bars intentional tort claims tied to inspection/detention of goods)
- Deville v. Marcantel, 567 F.3d 156 (forceful removal from vehicle may be excessive where unjustified and minimal negotiation occurred)
- Davila v. United States, 713 F.3d 248 (application of § 2680(c) and comparison where tort was unrelated to vehicle detention)
- Poole v. City of Shreveport, 691 F.3d 624 (elements required to overcome qualified immunity on excessive‑force claims)