Luis Sanchez v. Jefferson Sessions
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 16625
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Luis Sanchez, a Mexican national who entered the U.S. without inspection in 1988, took a short fishing trip from Channel Islands Harbor in California; his boat lost power and the U.S. Coast Guard towed him back to the recreational harbor.
- Upon arrival, ~8 Coast Guard officers met the boat, immediately detained, frisked, and prevented Sanchez and his companions from leaving; they demanded IDs and questioned them briefly.
- Coast Guard could not "establish positive identity or nationality," reported suspicion of "undocumented worker[] aliens," and called U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). CBP later transported Sanchez to a facility, questioned and strip‑searched him, then prepared Form I‑213 documenting his admission of prior unlawful entry.
- DHS served a Notice to Appear nine months later; at removal proceedings the government introduced Form I‑213 and Sanchez’s immigration benefit applications to prove alienage and entry without inspection.
- Sanchez moved to suppress the Form I‑213 (and other documents) as fruits of an egregious Fourth Amendment violation and to terminate proceedings; the IJ and BIA denied relief. The Ninth Circuit granted review.
- The Ninth Circuit held the Coast Guard seized Sanchez within the interior (not at the border), that the seizure was based solely on Latino appearance, that the constitutional violation was egregious, that Form I‑213 was suppressible, and that an immigration‑regulation violation required termination of proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the encounter was a border stop (lower Fourth Amendment standard) | Sanchez: seizure occurred at recreational harbor interior, not a port/border | Gov: Coast Guard encounter was a border stop; lower scrutiny applies | Held: Not a border stop; ordinary Fourth Amendment applies |
| Whether Coast Guard conduct constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure and violation | Sanchez: immediate detention, frisk, orders not to leave showed seizure based solely on Latino appearance | Gov: officers may question vessel occupants; asserted investigatory authority | Held: Sanchez established a prima facie Fourth Amendment violation—seized and detained based on ethnicity |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment violation was egregious (triggering exclusionary rule) | Sanchez: precedent made clear stops based solely on ethnicity unconstitutional; officers should have known | Gov: relied on Coast Guard authority and cases where suspicious circumstances justified boarding | Held: Violation was egregious—case law (Brignoni‑Ponce era) clearly established unlawfulness of ethnicity‑based stops |
| Whether Form I‑213 and proceedings must be suppressed/terminated | Sanchez: I‑213 is fruit of poisonous tree; also regs (8 C.F.R. §287.8(b)(2)) were violated and prejudice requires termination | Gov: I‑213 and preexisting immigration records are admissible; Coast Guard had regulatory authority | Held: Form I‑213 suppressed; regulation violated and prejudice shown—removal proceedings must be terminated |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Flores‑Montano, 541 U.S. 149 (discusses Fourth Amendment and reduced expectations at border)
- United States v. Villamonte‑Marquez, 462 U.S. 579 (distinguishes port‑of‑entry searches and inspections)
- United States v. Brignoni‑Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (holding ethnic appearance alone cannot justify suspicion)
- Orhorhaghe v. INS, 38 F.3d 488 (9th Cir.) (seizure requires reasonable articulable basis)
- Lopez‑Rodriguez v. Mukasey, 536 F.3d 1012 (9th Cir.) (exclusionary rule in civil removal proceedings when egregious violation shown)
- Gonzalez‑Rivera v. INS, 22 F.3d 1441 (9th Cir.) (egregiousness where prior law clearly established unconstitutionality of ethnicity‑based stops)
- Martinez‑Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir.) (distinguishes cases where officers knew legal status before detention)