Lunn v. Commonwealth
477 Mass. 517
| Mass. | 2017Background
- Petitioner Sreynuon Lunn was in Suffolk County custody on a Massachusetts criminal charge; a federal civil immigration detainer (Form I-247D) had been issued requesting that State custodians hold him up to 48 hours beyond his release to permit federal authorities to assume custody.
- After bail-related transfers and a dismissal for lack of prosecution at the Boston Municipal Court on Feb. 6, 2017, court officers kept Lunn in a holding cell at the request of the federal detainer; several hours later federal officers took him into custody.
- Lunn filed a G. L. c. 211, § 3 petition arguing Massachusetts court officers lacked authority to detain him solely on a federal civil immigration detainer and that the detention violated federal and state constitutional rights; the single justice found the petition moot and reported the case to the full court.
- The core legal question: whether Massachusetts law (common law or statutes) authorizes State court officers to arrest and detain a person solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer after the person otherwise would be entitled to release.
- The Court analyzed (1) the civil nature of federal removal proceedings and detainers, (2) voluntariness of State compliance with detainers, (3) Massachusetts common-law and statutory arrest authority, and (4) arguments that federal law (including 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10)) grants or implies State authority to effect such arrests.
- Holding: Massachusetts law provides no authority for State court officers to arrest and hold an individual solely on the basis of a federal civil immigration detainer beyond the time the individual would otherwise be entitled to release; the case was remanded for a judgment dismissing Lunn's petition as moot and declaring lack of State authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a detention at a State custodian's request pursuant to a federal civil immigration detainer is an "arrest" under Massachusetts law | Lunn: Such detention is an arrest because it is a nonconsensual physical restraint intended to effect an arrest and understood as such by the detainee | Commonwealth/United States: (conceded) detention pursuant to a detainer constitutes an arrest | Held: Such detention is an arrest under Massachusetts law (citing arrest elements) |
| Whether Massachusetts common law or statutes authorize State court officers to arrest/detain solely on a federal civil immigration detainer | Lunn: No statutory or common-law authority exists to permit civil immigration arrests | United States/Commonwealth: Officers have inherent/implicit authority or may cooperate under federal law (§1357(g)(10)) | Held: No Massachusetts common-law or statutory authority exists; court will not judicially create an "inherent" arrest power absent legislative action |
| Whether federal law (including §1357(g)(10)) independently authorizes or preempts State officers to detain on detainers | United States: §1357(g)(10) permits cooperation and supports State participation; inherent authority exists | Lunn: Federal law does not create State arrest power where State law is absent | Held: §1357(g)(10) does not affirmatively grant State officers independent arrest authority; it permits cooperation only to the extent authorized by State law |
| Whether State compliance with detainers is mandatory | United States: historical/regulatory arguments for detainer enforcement | Lunn/Commonwealth: Detainers are requests; compliance is voluntary and federal government cannot commandeer States | Held: Compliance is voluntary; Tenth Amendment and statutory/regulatory context confirm detainers are requests, not commands |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (federal removal is civil, not criminal)
- Di Re v. People of State of New York, 332 U.S. 581 (state officers' authority to enforce federal crimes is a matter of state law absent federal statute)
- Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d Cir.) (detainers are voluntary requests; federal regulation's use of "shall" does not render detainers mandatory)
- Commonwealth v. Powell, 459 Mass. 572 (Mass.) (elements of arrest under Massachusetts law)
- Commonwealth v. Limone, 460 Mass. 834 (Mass.) (arrest/detention principles)
- Commonwealth v. Gernrich, 476 Mass. 249 (Mass.) (probable-cause felony arrests without warrant)
- Commonwealth v. Jewett, 471 Mass. 624 (Mass.) (warrantless misdemeanor arrest limited to breaches of the peace)
- Morales v. Chadbourne, 793 F.3d 208 (1st Cir.) (detention after entitlement to release constitutes a new seizure for Fourth Amendment purposes)
- Jenkins v. Chief Justice of the Dist. Court Dep't, 416 Mass. 221 (Mass.) (prompt probable-cause determination and related protections following warrantless arrest)