969 F.3d 930
9th Cir.2020Background
- At a Montana protection-order hearing a witness testified that Miguel Reynaga Hernandez was "not a legal citizen." The presiding Justice of the Peace (Hernandez) told staff to "call me a deputy" and asked the sheriff to "pick up" two "illegal immigrants."
- Deputy Sheriff Derrek Skinner went to the courthouse, asked Reynaga about his immigration status, received an expired Mexican consular ID, blocked him from entering the courtroom, handcuffed and searched him, and placed him in a patrol car.
- While Reynaga sat handcuffed in the patrol car, Skinner ran a warrants check (none) and contacted ICE; ICE then took custody and Reynaga remained detained for about three months before DHS dismissed the removal proceedings.
- Reynaga sued Hernandez and Skinner under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for Fourth Amendment unlawful seizure (Terry stop and arrest). The district court denied qualified immunity and found Fourth Amendment violations; defendants appealed interlocutorily.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed de novo, accepted the undisputed facts as favoring Reynaga, and affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for both Skinner and Hernandez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Skinner had reasonable suspicion to effect a Terry stop | Reynaga: being suspected of unlawful presence alone is insufficient to support a Terry stop | Skinner: testimony that Reynaga was "not a legal citizen" justified questioning/detention | Held: Stop unlawful — knowledge of mere unlawful presence does not supply reasonable suspicion (Melendres control) |
| Whether Skinner had probable cause to arrest before contacting ICE | Reynaga: no probable cause; arrest occurred when handcuffed and put in patrol car | Skinner: arrest was triggered or justified after consulting ICE | Held: Arrest occurred earlier (handcuffed/placed in car) and thus lacked probable cause → unlawful arrest |
| Whether Judge Hernandez is liable as an "integral participant" | Reynaga: Hernandez ordered deputies to "pick up" witnesses and blocked warning to Reynaga, foreseeably causing the seizure | Hernandez: he only requested an investigation and is not personally liable | Held: Hernandez was an integral participant — his orders and conduct foreseeably caused the unlawful stop and arrest |
| Whether the constitutional right was clearly established (qualified immunity) | Reynaga: Ninth Circuit precedent (Melendres, Martinez‑Medina, Gonzales) clearly precluded stops/arrests based solely on unlawful presence | Defendants: argued uncertainty, claimed officers' limited immigration experience or urged overruling precedent | Held: Right was clearly established by at least 2012; qualified immunity denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990 (9th Cir. 2012) (detaining persons solely for unlawful presence does not give rise to reasonable suspicion)
- Martinez‑Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (admission of unlawful presence, without more, does not provide probable cause of illegal entry)
- Gonzales v. City of Peoria, 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983) (lack of documentation or admission of unlawful presence alone insufficient for probable cause)
- United States v. Brignoni‑Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975) (race or appearance alone cannot justify stops; officers may question about immigration status during a justified stop)