885 F.3d 782
4th Cir.2018Background
- MdTAP officers stopped a car for a traffic violation and suspected the vehicle might be stolen; Jairo Ferino Sanchez arrived in a separate Acura with two passengers to retrieve the car owner's vehicle.
- Officer Acker approached, asked repeatedly whether the occupants were “legal or illegal,” and Sanchez—alleging he felt intimidated—admitted he entered the U.S. without inspection.
- The officers detained Sanchez and others, transported them to the MdTAP station, later took them to ICE custody; Sanchez was in state custody about 3.5 hours in total.
- An ICE agent interviewed Sanchez and completed Form I-213 documenting his admission; ICE initiated removal proceedings under INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i).
- Sanchez moved to suppress statements and the I-213, alleging Fourth Amendment illegal seizure and Fifth Amendment due-process coercion; the IJ and BIA denied suppression, applying an "egregious violation" standard for exclusion.
- The Fourth Circuit denied Sanchez’s petition for review, holding the egregious-violation standard applies to state/local officers and that Sanchez failed to show an egregious Fourth Amendment or due-process violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether full exclusionary rule (not just "egregious" exception) applies to evidence obtained by state/local officers in removal proceedings | Sanchez: full exclusionary rule should apply to state/local officers; narrower rule insufficient to deter unlawful state/local conduct | Government: Lopez-Mendoza and related precedent support only applying exclusionary rule in removal proceedings for egregious violations; applying full rule would impose heavy costs | Court: "Egregious violation" standard applies to state/local officers too; full rule not justified given costs and Santos provides significant deterrence |
| Whether Officer Acker’s actions constituted an "egregious" Fourth Amendment violation justifying suppression | Sanchez: detention and questioning were coercive, lacked reasonable suspicion, and were motivated by ethnicity, making the violation egregious | Government: Officer had articulable suspicions (stolen-car indicators, suspicious conduct), no coercion or racial sole-basis; detention was not unusually long | Court: No egregiousness—IJ’s factual findings (reasonable suspicion, no coercion, nonracial motive) not clearly erroneous; Sanchez failed to meet prima facie burden |
| Whether admission and Form I-213 violated Fifth Amendment due process | Sanchez: statements were coerced or obtained in a fundamentally unfair manner | Government: no coercion shown; admission voluntary under totality of circumstances | Court: Due-process claim fails since no coercion or fundamental unfairness demonstrated; Form I-213 admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (exclusionary rule generally inapplicable in civil deportation hearings except for egregious violations)
- Yanez-Marquez v. Lynch, 789 F.3d 434 (4th Cir. 2015) (adopted "egregious violation" standard for suppression in removal proceedings)
- Santos v. Frederick Cnty. Bd. of Comm’rs, 725 F.3d 451 (4th Cir. 2013) (state/local officers may not detain/arrest solely for civil immigration violations absent federal authorization)
- Herring v. United States, 555 U.S. 135 (2009) (exclusionary rule’s purpose is deterrence; it applies only where appreciable deterrence outweighs costs)
- Davis v. United States, 564 U.S. 229 (2011) (exclusionary rule applies only where it would appreciably deter police misconduct)
- Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952) (egregious police conduct that "transgresses notions of fundamental fairness" justifies exclusion)