Lopez-Gabriel v. Holder, 653 F.3d 683

Lopez-Gabriel, a Guatemalan native, was stopped for a cracked windshield and arrested for lack of proper identification on January 15, 2008.
ICE questioned him after arrest, transferred him to Sioux Falls, and initiated removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i).
Lopez-Gabriel moved to suppress evidence obtained from the stop and from in-custody interrogations, and sought an evidentiary hearing, discovery, and termination of proceedings.
He submitted an affidavit alleging the stop and interrogations violated his Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights, asserting racially motivated treatment and coercive questioning.
The DHS introduced the police report stating the stop was for a cracked windshield and that Lopez-Gabriel lacked proper identification; the report was admitted without objection.
The IJ denied suppression and held removal, and the BIA affirmed, concluding no egregious Fourth Amendment violations and that alienage was established.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence should be suppressed for Fourth Amendment race-based stop	Lopez-Gabriel asserts racial basis for stop and seeks suppression or a hearing.	DHS contends stop was for a cracked windshield with proper identification issues; no prejudice shown.	No suppression or hearing required; no sufficient basis for racially motivated stop.
Whether statements to police were involuntary under the Fifth Amendment	Statements obtained under coercive conditions should be suppressed.	No coercive interrogation or Miranda-triggered coercion established; no involuntariness.	Statements were not involuntary; suppression not required.
Application of the exclusionary rule in civil immigration proceedings	Exclusionary rule should apply to deter unlawful government conduct in immigration.	Exclusionary rule typically does not apply in civil deportation; deterrence is limited across sovereignties.	Exclusionary rule not generally extended to civil immigration matters; here, insufficient grounds for suppression or a hearing.

INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984) (exclusionary rule not extended to civil deportation proceedings)
Pa. Bd. Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357 (1998) (costs of applying exclusionary rule in immigration context)
United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976) (state and federal evidence issues; deterrence across sovereignties)
Elkins v. United States, 364 U.S. 206 (1960) (federal agents vs. state officers and evidence admissibility)
Puc-Ruiz v. Holder, 629 F.3d 771 (8th Cir. 2010) (Miranda warnings not required for immigration proceedings)
United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002) (armed presence alone not coercive per se)
Nyama v. Ashcroft, 357 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 2004) (evidentiary standard for admissibility in civil proceedings)
Wong Chung Che v. INS, 565 F.2d 166 (1st Cir. 1977) (absence of evidence of coercion; hearing not required)
United States v. Janis, 428 U.S. 433 (1976) (dual-sovereign evidence deterrence considerations)