Maria Yanez-Marquez v. Loretta Lynch
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10107
| 4th Cir. | 2015Background
- Yanez-Marquez, a Salvadoran citizen, seeks review of a BIA dismissal after an IJ denied a motion to suppress evidence and terminate removal proceedings stemming from a 2008 ICE search of the Bontempos’ Premises where Yanez resided.
- An accompanying search warrant authorized a daytime search (6:00 a.m.–10:00 p.m.) and described the Premises as a single-family home; the nighttime 5:00 a.m. entry during execution is central to the Fourth Amendment dispute.
- ICE agents detained occupants, conducted a broad search, questioned residents, took fingerprints, and seized documents and personal items, including Form I-213s memorializing Yanez’s statements.
- Yanez moved to suppress, arguing egregious Fourth Amendment violations, coercive questioning under the Fifth Amendment, and violations of five ICE regulations; the IJ denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- The BIA affirmed, adopting the IJ’s reasoning and applying Lopez-Mendoza to hold that suppression in removal proceedings requires egregious Fourth Amendment violations; the government bears the burden to show admissibility after a prima facie case by the alien.
- This court reviews for compliance with the two-pronged standard: (1) a Fourth Amendment violation, and (2) egregiousness under Lopez-Mendoza’s framework, with suppression a rare remedy in removal proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the exclusionary rule applies in civil removal proceedings. | Yanez argues the rule applies under Lopez-Mendoza due to egregious Fourth Amendment violations. | DHS/AG contend Lopez-Mendoza excludes the rule in removal proceedings absent egregious conduct. | Exclusionary rule applies only for egregious Fourth Amendment violations in removal proceedings. |
| Whether nighttime execution of a daytime warrant constitutes an egregious Fourth Amendment violation. | Yanez asserts 5:00 a.m. entry violated the daytime warrant terms and was egregious. | DHS argues no egregiousness given context and other factors. | Nighttime execution violated the Fourth Amendment but was not egregious under the totality of circumstances. |
| Whether the Fourth Amendment violation was egregious enough to warrant suppression under the Lopez-Mendoza framework. | Yanez contends the nighttime entry and other conduct transgressed fundamental fairness and undermined probative value. | Government asserts conduct, while improper, was not egregious when weighed with totality and availability of valid warrant. | Court adopts totality-of-the-circumstances approach; the conduct did not meet the egregious standard. |
| Whether Yanez’s statements were involuntary and thus subject to suppression under the Fifth Amendment. | Yanez argues coercion/duress rendered statements involuntary. | Record shows no coercion; statements were voluntary. | Fifth Amendment claim rejected; statements not involuntary. |
| Whether the ICE’s regulatory claims (8 C.F.R. § 287.8 and § 287.3) support suppressing evidence. | Regulatory violations taint the evidence and require suppression. | Regulations do not create enforceable rights; regulatory violations do not mandate suppression here. | Regulatory claims rejected; no suppression on these grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lopez-Mendoza v. INS, 468 U.S. 1032 (Supreme Court 1984) (exclusionary rule generally in removal proceedings; exemptions for egregious violations)
- Oliva-Ramos v. Att’y Gen., 694 F.3d 259 (3d Cir. 2012) (totality-of-the-circumstances egregiousness framework; supports disjunctive approach)
- Cotzojay v. Holder, 725 F.3d 171 (2d Cir. 2013) (nighttime entry may constitute egregious Fourth Amendment violation under totality standard)
- Maldonado v. Holder, 763 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2014) (egregiousness is stringent; suppression rare; require high evidentiary showing)
- Almeida-Amaral v. Gonzales, 461 F.3d 231 (2d Cir. 2006) (Fourth Amendment violation must be meaningfully severe to be egregious)