932 F.3d 98
3rd Cir.2019Background
- Two Guatemalan nationals (Petitioners) were passengers in a van stopped by Pennsylvania State Trooper Luke Macke for speeding; trooper allegedly questioned rear passengers about immigration status, detained them, and called ICE.
- ICE agents arrived ~1.5–2 hours after the initial stop, interviewed and fingerprinted Petitioners, then took them into custody; Petitioners were subsequently placed in removal proceedings.
- Petitioners moved to suppress evidence of alienage (and to terminate proceedings) as fruits of an unconstitutional stop and detention; IJ denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing and BIA affirmed.
- The Third Circuit evaluated (1) whether the trooper’s conduct extended and transformed the traffic stop in violation of the Fourth Amendment and (2) whether the exclusionary rule applies in civil removal proceedings when the alleged violator is a state/local officer.
- Court found Petitioners made a prima facie showing that the trooper unreasonably extended the stop to investigate immigration status; the panel held the exclusionary rule is not generally available against state/local officers in removal hearings but that Lopez‑Mendoza exceptions (egregious or widespread violations) apply.
- Because Petitioners alleged facts that could show an egregious violation (including race/ethnicity‑based stopping and coercive conditions), the court remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine suppression under the Lopez‑Mendoza exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trooper unreasonably extended a traffic stop to investigate immigration status | Trooper prolonged the stop, interrogated Hispanic passengers, prevented leaving or basic needs, then summoned ICE—violating the Fourth Amendment | Stop began lawfully for speeding; questioning was permissible and not prolonged beyond mission | Court: prima facie showing of unreasonable extension and Fourth Amendment violation; facts warrant evidentiary hearing |
| Whether the exclusionary rule generally bars evidence obtained by state/local violations in removal proceedings | Yoc‑Us: exclusionary rule should apply when state/local officers violate Fourth Amendment | Govt: Janis/Lopez‑Mendoza counsel against applying full exclusionary rule intersovereignly; social costs outweigh deterrence | Court: full exclusionary rule not generally available for state/local actors in removal proceedings, but Lopez‑Mendoza exceptions apply |
| Whether suppression is warranted under Lopez‑Mendoza exceptions (egregious or widespread violations) | Petitioners: trooper’s conduct was egregious (race/ethnicity basis, coercion) and may be part of a wider pattern | Govt: no evidence of egregiousness or systemic pattern; Forms I‑213 show admissions by passengers | Court: Petitioners alleged facts that could establish an egregious violation (race‑based stop, coercive treatment); remand for evidentiary hearing to adjudicate suppression claim |
| Whether an evidentiary hearing was required | Petitioners: affidavits/declarations suffice to require a hearing on suppression | IJ/BIA: petitioners’ allegations were uncorroborated and insufficient; no hearing needed | Court: IJ erred in denying a hearing; remand for hearing to allow factfinding on egregious/widespread claim |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (Supreme Court) (exclusionary rule balancing and reluctance to extend rule intersovereignly in civil proceedings)
- INS v. Lopez‑Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (Supreme Court) (exclusionary rule generally not applied in deportation hearings except for egregious or widespread violations)
- Oliva‑Ramos v. Attorney General, 694 F.3d 259 (3d Cir.) (adopts Lopez‑Mendoza exceptions and provides framework/factors for ‘‘egregious’’ violations)
- Rodriguez v. United States, 575 U.S. 348 (Supreme Court) (traffic‑stop mission/duration rule: officers may not prolong stop beyond mission without reasonable suspicion)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (Supreme Court) (limits state/local enforcement of federal immigration law and warns against detaining solely to verify immigration status)
- Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court) (reasonableness standard for seizures less than arrest)