Jose Pretzantzin v. Holder
725 F.3d 161
2d Cir.2013Background
- Early-morning, warrantless ICE entry into a Brooklyn apartment; occupants (petitioners) were handcuffed, transported to ICE, interviewed in English, and later served Notices to Appear charging illegal entry.
- Petitioners moved to suppress statements and identity/alienage evidence and to terminate proceedings, alleging egregious Fourth and Fifth Amendment violations from the nighttime raid.
- IJ found arrests unlawful, concluded the government offered no justification, suppressed alienage evidence (birth certificates, Form I-213) and terminated proceedings.
- BIA reversed, relying on INS v. Lopez‑Mendoza to treat identity as non‑suppressible and concluding petitioner birth certificates and an arrest record were obtained independently of the raid.
- Government proffer to BIA/Judge lacked documentary proof of how birth certificates and municipal arrest records were obtained (only a FedEx label); government declined to rely on Form I‑213s before the IJ.
- Second Circuit held Lopez‑Mendoza articulates a jurisdictional rule (person/identity not defeating jurisdiction) not a blanket evidentiary bar to suppression, found the government failed to prove the evidence was independent, vacated and remanded to address whether alienage evidence was seized during an egregious Fourth Amendment violation.
Issues
| Issue | Pretzantzin's Argument | Holder's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lopez‑Mendoza renders identity/alienage evidence categorically non‑suppressible | Lopez‑Mendoza does not create an evidentiary rule; exclusion may apply after egregious violations | Lopez‑Mendoza means identity (and identity‑linked evidence) cannot be suppressed | Court: Lopez‑Mendoza is jurisdictional (personal presence/identity does not defeat jurisdiction) and does not immunize all identity‑related evidence from suppression |
| Whether Petitioners’ Guatemalan birth certificates were an independent source | Birth certificates were obtained only by exploiting information seized in the raid; thus tainted | Birth certificates were obtained using names alone and so independent of the raid | Held: Government failed to meet burden to show independence; BIA erred in treating them as untainted |
| Whether Pacheco‑Lopez’s municipal arrest record was independently obtained | Arrest record was not shown to have been obtained independently and could be fruit of the illegal seizure | Arrest record pre‑existed or was linked by name and thus independent | Held: Record lacks proof of independent procurement; BIA erred in finding it independent |
| Remedy / next step | Remand to BIA to determine whether alienage evidence was seized during an egregious Fourth Amendment violation | Court should affirm BIA’s independence finding and denial of suppression | Held: Vacate BIA decision and remand for the BIA to decide whether the government seized alienage evidence in the course of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation (agency to consider companion opinion on similar facts) |
Key Cases Cited
- INS v. Lopez‑Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (held unlawful arrest alone does not require suppression in civil deportation proceedings; discussed identity/jurisdiction)
- Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 (1963) (test for whether evidence is the fruit of unlawful police conduct)
- Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886) (jurisdictional rule: irregular or forcible return of a defendant does not deprive court of jurisdiction)
- Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U.S. 519 (1952) (reinforced Ker: illegal arrest does not void subsequent trial)
- United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (1980) (exclusionary rule and limits on suppressing evidence not causally linked to illegality)
- Maryland v. King, 569 U.S. 435 (2013) (treats DNA and other booking identification as serving distinct law‑enforcement interests; informs limits of treating identity evidence as categorically non‑suppressible)