Frimmel Management v. United States
897 F.3d 1045
9th Cir.2018Background
- Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO) under Sheriff Arpaio executed raids on two restaurants and the home of Bret Frimmel on July 17, 2013, seizing employment records; state court later found material omissions/distortions in the warrant affidavits and dismissed criminal charges for lack of probable cause.
- The day after the raids MCSO issued press releases and emailed a Shift Summary to ICE auditors identifying persons and details from the raids.
- ICE opened an audit and served a Notice of Inspection and subpoenas for Forms I-9 and related employment records; Frimmel produced I-9s and ICE filed an administrative enforcement action under 8 U.S.C. § 1324a.
- Frimmel sought suppression of ICE’s evidence as fruit of MCSO’s unconstitutional search; the ALJ denied suppression and issued a protective order limiting discovery regarding MCSO–ICE communications.
- The Ninth Circuit granted review, held MCSO’s warrant affidavits contained knowing or reckless material omissions and distortions that violated the Fourth Amendment, and concluded ICE’s investigation was the fruit of that illegal search and not attenuated.
- The court reversed the ALJ, held exclusion in the administrative OCAHO proceeding was appropriate to deter egregious Fourth Amendment violations, vacated the judgment, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCSO’s warrant affidavits violated the Fourth Amendment | MCSO deliberately/recklessly omitted and distorted material facts in affidavits, voiding probable cause | Affidavits were adequate; omissions not material | Court: Omissions/distortions were material and reckless; warrant lacked probable cause; Fourth Amendment violated |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment violation was egregious enough to trigger exclusion in civil OCAHO proceedings | Frimmel: egregious conduct (reckless/knowing falsity) warrants exclusion despite administrative context | Govt: exclusion typically doesn’t apply in administrative proceedings; deterrence minimal | Court: Violation was egregious (reasonable officer should have known); exclusion applies |
| Whether ICE’s subsequent audit/investigation was attenuated from MCSO’s illegal raid | Frimmel: ICE audit was initiated by MCSO press releases/email and therefore is fruit of the poisonous tree | Govt/ALJ: ICE conducted an independent, lawful audit; any connection is too attenuated | Court: ICE investigation was causally connected, closely timed, not an intervening circumstance, and therefore not attenuated |
| Whether suppression would deter future MCSO misconduct (zone of primary interest) | Frimmel: MCSO intended to spur ICE enforcement; sharing info was within MCSO’s enforcement zone so suppression would deter | Govt: MCSO’s primary interest was state criminal prosecution, not federal administrative enforcement | Court: MCSO had immigration enforcement within its predictable/primary zone (policy of sharing info); suppression would deter |
Key Cases Cited
- Camara v. Mun. Court of City & Cty. of S.F., 387 U.S. 523 (establishes administrative search protections under the Fourth Amendment)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (fruit of the poisonous tree principle)
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (exclusionary rule normally not applied in administrative deportation proceedings but leaves open exception for egregious violations)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (material falsehoods/omissions in warrant affidavits may void probable cause)
- Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (attenuation factors: temporal proximity, intervening circumstances, flagrancy)
- United States v. Johns, 891 F.2d 243 (investigation prompted by identification from illegal conduct can be fruit and not attenuated)
- Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488 (egregious violations in administrative context require suppression)
- Ruiz v. United States, 758 F.3d 1144 (materiality and misleading omissions in affidavits can invalidate probable cause)
- United States v. Gorman, 859 F.3d 706 (post-illegal-stop investigation sparked by initial illegality is not an intervening circumstance)
- Del Toro Gudino v. United States, 376 F.3d 997 (identity evidence generally not suppressible; other derivative evidence may be)